The Holy Spirit in its wisdom has given us the reign of Benedict XVI to guide us through this difficult period in the Church's history. As usual, the Holy Spirit has demonstrated great wisdom, and the reign of Benedict XVI has brought many blessings for the future direction of the Church. Let me count some of the ways.
The previous Pope, John Paul II was by all accounts a rock star. His bigger than life image was known around the world and he was loved by many. Although he steered the Church in an unfortunate conservative direction, he had a commanding presence and no one doubted that he was in charge. It was almost as if the position of Pope had been created just for him.
No one, conservative or liberal would ever confuse Benedict XVI with a rock star. He has stumbled almost from the beginning. He initially described himself as a humble servant which is an appropriate role for a Pope. Yet he immediately began speaking harshly about the dangers of outdated issues such as modernism and relativism. In the beginning he appeared to reach out to both conservative and liberal wings of the Church, yet it seemed to be only conservatives who saw things move in their direction, though perhaps not as much as they would have liked.
Then, on his first trip to Germany he appeared completely befuddled when his academic treatise on Islam caused a huge stir. He seemed unable to comprehend how his words would stir up such a firestorm of criticism. A pattern quickly began to emerge which highlighted a certain ambivalence in his actions, and frankly, he showed himself to be a very human Pope. An early example was when he suggested to the bishops that maybe something should be done about making it possible for divorced Catholics to be more fully reconciled to the Church - maybe even considering the possibility of allowing them to return to the sacraments. When the conservative heirarchy created by the appointments of John Paul II showed no apparent interest in easing such restrictions he backed off. This new Pope was clearly not the same leader that was John Paul II.
He has continued to manifest a sense of contradiction in many of his actions. One of his more interesting moves has been his outreach to Anglicans to allow disaffected Anglicans to enter the Church as a separate ordinariate. On the one hand this manifests an exrtraordinaty step backward in ecumenism and public relations. It shows a continuing lack of sensitivity to pretty much everyone outside his small band of followers within the Church. Yet at the same time the ordinariate would provide this unique group of Anglicans with a trememndous amount of autonomy to operate according to their traditions within Roman Catholicism. Such a move, therefore, demonstrates that there is nothing sacred about the liturgy as it is currently celebrated. There is room for significant diversity. It also demonstrates that even celibacy can be optional under the right circumstances, opening the way for changes in that area.
The reintroduction of the old Latin or Tridentine Mass is also an example of the reality that different forms of worship can exist side by side. I have attended two Tridentine Requiem Masses for family friends recently, and it shows that it is not likely to replace the normal rite of today for the majority of folks. Many fairly conservative Catholics indicated to me that they would not want to go back to a service that cuts the people out of participation. But once again it shows that the two rites can coexist for those who prefer the traditional Mass - which is a good thing. It also illustrates that newer and more progressive rites are also possible since there can now be more than one way of worshipping within Roman Catholicism.
Primarily Benedict XVI has demonstrated all to well the humanness and fallibility of the papacy even if that may not have been his intent. He has fumbled as a leader in dealing with the sex abuse crisis in Ireland. Details now surfacing about what happened in Germany and Wisconsin show that even his own hands have not been completely clean. He serves as an enormously effective argument for moving away from a triumphalist, monarchical, authoritarian papacy. He and the current conservative heirarchy have highlighted how badly the Church's abuse of authority has eroded its ability to lead. Just recently he decided to refuse to accept the resignations of three Irish bishops following their part in the sexual abuse debacle in Ireland. He thereby confirmed,if there were any doubt remaining that it is business as usual at the Vatican and in the heirarchy over all. They will control the agenda and will remain non responsive to criticism from any quarter. They will continue to brook no dissent. The 'good old boys network' wiil prevail.
Some will point out that an infallible papacy does not preclude the kinds of weaknesses and failings highlighted here. Point well taken, but the point here is that too often the Church has operated as if it were above the law and can either not make a mistake or should never be brought to task if perchance it does make a mistake. That is why Benedict XVI serves as an important reminder of the qualilties that are desperately needed to build a better Church for the future. Those qualities must include genuine humility, a willingness to utilize all church resources from the lowliest parishoner to the the Chair of Peter itself, collegial exercise of authority, and a sincere ability to listen not only to Catholics but to all those of good will from other faiths and from no faith.
What kind of successor to Benedict XVI can we expect. I don't think it matters too much whether he be liberal or conservative. If he is bright, sensitive and able to understand the dynamics within the church he will find ways to move the church into the future. First on the agenda will be a change in the way the Church exercises authority. Lay persons will need to be consulted in all matters of importance. Bishops and pastors will not be appointed without meaningful input from the people involved. Transparency and accountability will be the order of the day. The ability to honestly admit mistakes and take meaningful steps to correct them utilizing all available resources will be critical. Admitting mistakes as they occur and not bringing up old mistakes from 400 years ago is what will be needed. The role of womern in the church needs to be dramatically enhanced, especially since they have been the glue that has held this Church together for so many centuries.
Thank you Benedict XVI for heading us in the right direction. Your obvious humanity has enabled you to be a blessing for all of us regardless of your intent.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Sunday, July 11, 2010
In Media Stat Virtus
Aristotle for the most part was right. Virtue, truth, wisdom, does indeed generally occupy the middle ground. Government, especially a democratic government, is one area where this can be seen. Add to that the polarization this country continues to exhibit and moderation becomes even more critical if the business of this country is to move forward. The truth is that given our widely disparate philosophies and political viewpoints the possibility of forming consensus will necessitate compromise. I believe our current president exemplifies that middle position. Let's look at some important examples.
The debate that was part of the recent General Petraeus hearings is a case in point. Democrats by and large do not support the president's policy. They believe the war is a bad idea and it is time to bring the troops home. Republicans believe the troops should remain until the job is done and if more are necessary they should be sent. The deadline to begin withdrawal gives aid and comfort to the enemy. On the one hand the government should just say Afghanistan is too difficult and go home. On the other hand, whatever resources are needed should be applied to win the war. These seemingly irreconcilable positions need to be forged into a coherent policy.
I believe the president has done that. Do I agree with every facet of it. No. Yet, he has shown a steady hand and proved he was in charge by his decision to fire General McCrystal. He has made clear that we will not stay in Afghanistan forever. A year from now we need to begin a transition. We need to stand up the Afghans. But notice he does not say we are leaving. We will honor our commitment, but maybe not with combat troops into the forseeable future. Will it work? Is it possible it will have to be retooled at some point? We will have to see. But to the Democrats he is saying definitively this is not forever, and to the Republicans he is saying we are committed to the surge and he has sent additional troops and given the generals pretty much free rein in the conduct of the war. He is standing in the middle. Nobody likes the position. It is not popular. But I would contend it is precisely the right position for a serious, determined president to take.
How about another example - health care reform. Republicans of course said no. Liberals were unhappy that the president didn't push for a public option or even a single payer system. Some even threatened to vote no because the reform package wasn't forward looking enough. Yet, once again, the goal was to accomplish something worthwhile, even if it might not be perfect. Those standing on principle would insure that nothing gets done. The middle is where something can and must be accomplished.
Financial reform is perhaps an even better example. It is an area where both parties actually want to be able to say they voted for some kind of reform package, even though what each side wants may differ in many respects. Democrats and Republicans were actually able to come together and craft a bill in this area, because they were willing to compromise. Republicans accepted a few things they didn't like, and Democrats gave up some things they really wanted. There is no other way to move forward.
The solution on other issues whether it be immigration reform, middle east peace, energy reform legislation, or many other issues can only be achieved through compromise. Yet, it is at the extremes where Americans seem to have settled. Cable television is one force that pushes us there. It is by exaggerating differences that news channels generate viewers. A look at the congress shows that there are almost no senators or congressman left who can be called moderate. Even the scriptures somehow seem to suggest that the Daniel Webster way is not acceptable. Jesus in very harsh language says that I wish you were either hot or cold, but since you are lukewarm I would vomit you out of my mouth. That's enough to make a moderate run and hide.
A word or two about the scripture quote seems necessary. Jesus was not talking about extreme views, be they political, economic, or even religious. He was talking about passion, intensity of feeling, determination. Although we seem to have forgotten this point, moderates can be passionate too. In fact I believe the passion and dedication of the moderate and the compromiser may be of a higher quality. Their passion is directed at getting things done, making things happen, moving the ball forward. Often at the extremes passion is directed at preventing the other guy from getting something done. It cultivates gridlock.
Hopefully we can agree that we've had enough of doing nothing. It is time to return to moderation in our politics. It is time to make progress in this country again, even if it be slow and plodding. Those who filibuster, stand in the way of the extension of unemployment benefits, etc. may not be so passionate. Maybe they are just afraid of change. The challenges of this generation are too great to stand still. Much needs to be done. Americans have always found a way to do what needs to be done. There has never been a more important time for us to put aside differences and angry rhetoric and find solutions to the many seemingly intractable problems on our plate. The goal should be not to win, or destroy the other guy, but to build a better future for all Americans.
The debate that was part of the recent General Petraeus hearings is a case in point. Democrats by and large do not support the president's policy. They believe the war is a bad idea and it is time to bring the troops home. Republicans believe the troops should remain until the job is done and if more are necessary they should be sent. The deadline to begin withdrawal gives aid and comfort to the enemy. On the one hand the government should just say Afghanistan is too difficult and go home. On the other hand, whatever resources are needed should be applied to win the war. These seemingly irreconcilable positions need to be forged into a coherent policy.
I believe the president has done that. Do I agree with every facet of it. No. Yet, he has shown a steady hand and proved he was in charge by his decision to fire General McCrystal. He has made clear that we will not stay in Afghanistan forever. A year from now we need to begin a transition. We need to stand up the Afghans. But notice he does not say we are leaving. We will honor our commitment, but maybe not with combat troops into the forseeable future. Will it work? Is it possible it will have to be retooled at some point? We will have to see. But to the Democrats he is saying definitively this is not forever, and to the Republicans he is saying we are committed to the surge and he has sent additional troops and given the generals pretty much free rein in the conduct of the war. He is standing in the middle. Nobody likes the position. It is not popular. But I would contend it is precisely the right position for a serious, determined president to take.
How about another example - health care reform. Republicans of course said no. Liberals were unhappy that the president didn't push for a public option or even a single payer system. Some even threatened to vote no because the reform package wasn't forward looking enough. Yet, once again, the goal was to accomplish something worthwhile, even if it might not be perfect. Those standing on principle would insure that nothing gets done. The middle is where something can and must be accomplished.
Financial reform is perhaps an even better example. It is an area where both parties actually want to be able to say they voted for some kind of reform package, even though what each side wants may differ in many respects. Democrats and Republicans were actually able to come together and craft a bill in this area, because they were willing to compromise. Republicans accepted a few things they didn't like, and Democrats gave up some things they really wanted. There is no other way to move forward.
The solution on other issues whether it be immigration reform, middle east peace, energy reform legislation, or many other issues can only be achieved through compromise. Yet, it is at the extremes where Americans seem to have settled. Cable television is one force that pushes us there. It is by exaggerating differences that news channels generate viewers. A look at the congress shows that there are almost no senators or congressman left who can be called moderate. Even the scriptures somehow seem to suggest that the Daniel Webster way is not acceptable. Jesus in very harsh language says that I wish you were either hot or cold, but since you are lukewarm I would vomit you out of my mouth. That's enough to make a moderate run and hide.
A word or two about the scripture quote seems necessary. Jesus was not talking about extreme views, be they political, economic, or even religious. He was talking about passion, intensity of feeling, determination. Although we seem to have forgotten this point, moderates can be passionate too. In fact I believe the passion and dedication of the moderate and the compromiser may be of a higher quality. Their passion is directed at getting things done, making things happen, moving the ball forward. Often at the extremes passion is directed at preventing the other guy from getting something done. It cultivates gridlock.
Hopefully we can agree that we've had enough of doing nothing. It is time to return to moderation in our politics. It is time to make progress in this country again, even if it be slow and plodding. Those who filibuster, stand in the way of the extension of unemployment benefits, etc. may not be so passionate. Maybe they are just afraid of change. The challenges of this generation are too great to stand still. Much needs to be done. Americans have always found a way to do what needs to be done. There has never been a more important time for us to put aside differences and angry rhetoric and find solutions to the many seemingly intractable problems on our plate. The goal should be not to win, or destroy the other guy, but to build a better future for all Americans.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Why Are Republicans So Mean?
Why are Republicans, especially right wing Republicans so mean? I am of course using the word 'mean' in its most technical sense, that is, 'not nice'. Let me start this discussion with my old friend Barry Goldwater, since he can be credited with initiating the current conservative movement in America. Whether he actually said it or not I'm not sure, but he certainly was considered to belong to the crowd who believed that 'The poor have a helluva nerve being poor'. That's a pretty mean statement but of course as a fan of Goldwater I never really believed he meant it the way it sounded. I certainly didn't consider myself mean, so I'm sure today's Republicans may consider themselves righteous, correct, just, patriots, or many other things, but definitely not mean.
Yet let's look at some of the basic positions being espoused by Republicans today. Let the banks fail - no bailouts. Let the auto companies fail. Send all illegal immigrants home. Stop awarding citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born here, even though that would be unconstitutional. The twenty billion dollar fund provided by BP is a shake down that we should apologize for. Don't provide extended unemployment benefits to out of work Americans. Don't regulate coal companies, oil companies, corporations or banks. Discontinue extended Cobra health benefit subsidies. Most of all, lower taxes on corporations and the wealthy. The list could easily go on and on.
Of course there are many legitimate arguments for these positions that don't involve being mean. The free market system will fix everything. Interference, especially by the government will distort the realities of what is going on and make things worse rather than better. If you want to help the 'small people', as BP does, you need to focus on advancing the interests of big business so benefits will at some point trickle down to these small people.
These arguments, however, tend to promote a culture of corporate welfare. We need to provide businesses with subsidies, tax breaks, free reign to operate in the market place, but we have no money to try to make things better for those in need. The deficit is a problem if we want to provide health care, unemployment benefits, or job training. Yet the deficit is not a concern if we need billions to fight wars overseas or to provide subsidies to small businesses. We want to tighten our belts because of the deficit, but if we need tanks and missiles somehow the money is there. The answer to every policy question is to reduce taxes and then reduce them again. It doesn't matter how many or what kind of services need to be cut as long as they don't include weapons for war or support for wall street. Recent data indicate that as many as 115 million widows in the United States are currently living in poverty, but this is not an issue that would create a blip on the radar screens of Republicans.
The question goes deeper than just a difference of opinion about ideology or philosophy. It too often reflects self interest. I have health care so I have no interest in making sure that others have it. I have a job so others must not want to work or they would have jobs too. I'll be fine in retirement without social security so don't ask me to support it with my money. Also, the idea seems to be that he who has the power makes the rules. I'm a powerful CEO and therefore government needs to do my bidding. Even the Supreme Court sees no problem with giving these powerful giants of finance and industry unfettered power to spend as much as they choose to control and ulimately dictate how government should operate.
Yet many Republicans, especially religious conservatives do tend to have a social consience and can even be quite generous in making contributions to help the poor. Their problem is with government, and they tend to feel that helping those in need is a job for the Churches and individuals. These conservative Republican policies, however, are hurting real people. In one of my recent blogs, "Accountability is Not for the Powerful", it was pointed out that we have the lowest record of distribution of wealth of any western country in the world. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Do these Republicans care about that? Is the goal to create a better world where everyone can earn a decent living for their family, or is it to make life more comfortable for those who already have more than they need?
It is true that government programs don't always accomplish what they are intended to, but maybe that's why we need Republican ideas to make programs better. I believe this president has genuinely been seeking that kind of cooperation. What we need to get away from, however, is Republicans designing programs only designed to help business. We need to agree that a balance is needed. Of course we need to support the success of business because the success of business is necessary if the 'small' people are to succeed. This was the real reason for the bailout of the banks. But we also need to design programs that will not make life harder for the people on Main Street but will instead actually assist them in being more successful too.
So Republicans, if you are not really 'mean', and do care about what happens to all our citizens, let's work together to craft policies that will further the interests of big business, but will also ensure that the rest of us get a fair shake as well. We could start by acknowledging the value and necessity of social security and medicare, and further recognize that even if the new health care bill is not all that it should be, reform is needed and working together it can be made better so that all our citizens can have affordable and beneficial health care.
Yet let's look at some of the basic positions being espoused by Republicans today. Let the banks fail - no bailouts. Let the auto companies fail. Send all illegal immigrants home. Stop awarding citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born here, even though that would be unconstitutional. The twenty billion dollar fund provided by BP is a shake down that we should apologize for. Don't provide extended unemployment benefits to out of work Americans. Don't regulate coal companies, oil companies, corporations or banks. Discontinue extended Cobra health benefit subsidies. Most of all, lower taxes on corporations and the wealthy. The list could easily go on and on.
Of course there are many legitimate arguments for these positions that don't involve being mean. The free market system will fix everything. Interference, especially by the government will distort the realities of what is going on and make things worse rather than better. If you want to help the 'small people', as BP does, you need to focus on advancing the interests of big business so benefits will at some point trickle down to these small people.
These arguments, however, tend to promote a culture of corporate welfare. We need to provide businesses with subsidies, tax breaks, free reign to operate in the market place, but we have no money to try to make things better for those in need. The deficit is a problem if we want to provide health care, unemployment benefits, or job training. Yet the deficit is not a concern if we need billions to fight wars overseas or to provide subsidies to small businesses. We want to tighten our belts because of the deficit, but if we need tanks and missiles somehow the money is there. The answer to every policy question is to reduce taxes and then reduce them again. It doesn't matter how many or what kind of services need to be cut as long as they don't include weapons for war or support for wall street. Recent data indicate that as many as 115 million widows in the United States are currently living in poverty, but this is not an issue that would create a blip on the radar screens of Republicans.
The question goes deeper than just a difference of opinion about ideology or philosophy. It too often reflects self interest. I have health care so I have no interest in making sure that others have it. I have a job so others must not want to work or they would have jobs too. I'll be fine in retirement without social security so don't ask me to support it with my money. Also, the idea seems to be that he who has the power makes the rules. I'm a powerful CEO and therefore government needs to do my bidding. Even the Supreme Court sees no problem with giving these powerful giants of finance and industry unfettered power to spend as much as they choose to control and ulimately dictate how government should operate.
Yet many Republicans, especially religious conservatives do tend to have a social consience and can even be quite generous in making contributions to help the poor. Their problem is with government, and they tend to feel that helping those in need is a job for the Churches and individuals. These conservative Republican policies, however, are hurting real people. In one of my recent blogs, "Accountability is Not for the Powerful", it was pointed out that we have the lowest record of distribution of wealth of any western country in the world. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Do these Republicans care about that? Is the goal to create a better world where everyone can earn a decent living for their family, or is it to make life more comfortable for those who already have more than they need?
It is true that government programs don't always accomplish what they are intended to, but maybe that's why we need Republican ideas to make programs better. I believe this president has genuinely been seeking that kind of cooperation. What we need to get away from, however, is Republicans designing programs only designed to help business. We need to agree that a balance is needed. Of course we need to support the success of business because the success of business is necessary if the 'small' people are to succeed. This was the real reason for the bailout of the banks. But we also need to design programs that will not make life harder for the people on Main Street but will instead actually assist them in being more successful too.
So Republicans, if you are not really 'mean', and do care about what happens to all our citizens, let's work together to craft policies that will further the interests of big business, but will also ensure that the rest of us get a fair shake as well. We could start by acknowledging the value and necessity of social security and medicare, and further recognize that even if the new health care bill is not all that it should be, reform is needed and working together it can be made better so that all our citizens can have affordable and beneficial health care.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Immigration Revisited
Clearly if there was ever an issue that cried out for more light than heat it is the issue of immigration. I recently heard a comment from someone on the radio that might perhaps shed a little of that light we need. This person pointed out that illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America are not coming to this country to walk on the beach or live the good life. They are coming to eke out a slightly better living for themselves and their families under very difficult circumstances, but circumstances that are still a little better than what they currently have. This individual, however, went on to say that the solution is to pass legislation that would discourage immigrants from sneaking into the country for this purpose. In other words he advocates tougher and more punitive restrictions such as those that are part of Arizona's new immigration law.
The person mentioned is clearly right in his analysis of what is going on. Immigrants, many desperate to feed their families believe that despite the dangers, the United States offers the promise of a better life. They have no illusions. They know it will be tough, and they know it won't be a land flowing with milk and honey for them. Their desperation however, propels them to try the only solution available. What should we do to 'discourage' their coming as this commentator recommends? Well, maybe North Korea provides an example. Their border is truly closed. Anyone approaching the border will be shot. That's pretty effective discouragement. We have seen what hapens when unsuspecting travelers wander across their border accidentally. They have been quite effective in securing their border.
It's good that we have a dose of reality. Knowing why these people are coming is useful. Assuming we are not interested in the draconian solution I mentioned above, how about another dose of reality? The vast majority of these people who are coming to our country are not bad people. They are not out to do us harm. They are part of the same human family to which we belong. No law can change the fact that they are entitled to the same human rights as the rest of us. And the reality is that they are here. At least 12 million are currently in our country. Again, for the most part they are working hard, and providing services to the rest of us.
As far as being illegal, illegal covers a lot of ground. We break laws every time we drive 50 in a 35 mile per hour zone. Underage drinking is a phenomenon that is rampant on college campuses - and it is illegal. Some of the rhetoric portrays many of these hard working immigrants as hardened criminals, which is not exactly accurate. Those who have come here and are committing criminal or violent acts should of course be prosecuted and returned to their country. But there are also plenty of legal citizens who are committing criminal acts and need to be prosecuted as well. The issuse of illegal immigration needs to be dealt with, but all people need to be treated with respect and dignity and not lumped in with terrorists or other dangerous criminals. Whatever our political leanings I doubt that there are many of us who don't find something wrong with the separation of parents and their children because of their immigration status.
One notion that is also mentioned by those opposed to immigration reform is that these new immigrants are not interested in learning English. This notion makes no sense. Of course they want to learn English. How could it be that they don't want to look out for their own interests, be able to understand what's going on, or even be able to order a hamburger at a local restaurant. Those of us who have studied a language other that our own know this is not the easiest thing to do - especially for older people. I think, however, what is galling to some Americans is that these new immigrants may not want to be fully assimilated. They may not want to completly abandon their own culture. As an Italian American I went through the famous melting pot, and I melted. I can't speak Italian, I have no Italian culture to speak of other that eating Pizza and Spaghetti which is part of American culture. That is not a good thing. We should welcome the Hispanic culture and incorporate it into our own. Maybe more of us would actually be able to speak another language. What a great benefit that would be.
We are told that we must secure the border first. Some are disillusioned that when reform was tried many years ago the government failed to secure the border. All the more reason to work together to implement comprehensive reform that will be effective. Hopefully lessons have been learned and pitfalls can be avoided this time around. The missing link remains a willingness to work cooperatively to solve the problem. Too many want to use the problem to attack others, perhaps win elections, and maybe further their dislike of people different from themselves. The loudest voices seem to be winning the argument. They are winning so well that reasonable people, particularly those in the congress are afraid to even approach this hot potato issue.
Yet, these loudest voices are not voices of solution. They are only voices of anger, hatred, frustration, and distrust of any government solution. Some of their feelings may be justified. Their refusal to be willing to craft a compromise is not justified. Their way produces only more opportunity for continued heated rhetoric. It extends the time period for inflamed passions. It happened prior to the last election when they were able to shoot down the comprehensive plan proposed by President Bush and Senator McCain. They won. But we are no closer to a solution. The anger continues. Can that really be the goal? It is time to solve the problem. It is in fact the soluion of comprehensive reform that will help us identify and monitor those who are in our country, and this will provide greater protection for all of us. Let's take away one reason for the anger and destructive rhetoric in our midst. Let's craft comprehensive immigration reform that will work and that will remove one of the sources of disunity in our country. Opponents are correct that the federal government has failed to act. Yet many of these same opponents have worked hard to prevent the federal government from acting. You can't have it both ways. Congress, it's time. Step up to your responsibilities and solve this immigration crisis.
The person mentioned is clearly right in his analysis of what is going on. Immigrants, many desperate to feed their families believe that despite the dangers, the United States offers the promise of a better life. They have no illusions. They know it will be tough, and they know it won't be a land flowing with milk and honey for them. Their desperation however, propels them to try the only solution available. What should we do to 'discourage' their coming as this commentator recommends? Well, maybe North Korea provides an example. Their border is truly closed. Anyone approaching the border will be shot. That's pretty effective discouragement. We have seen what hapens when unsuspecting travelers wander across their border accidentally. They have been quite effective in securing their border.
It's good that we have a dose of reality. Knowing why these people are coming is useful. Assuming we are not interested in the draconian solution I mentioned above, how about another dose of reality? The vast majority of these people who are coming to our country are not bad people. They are not out to do us harm. They are part of the same human family to which we belong. No law can change the fact that they are entitled to the same human rights as the rest of us. And the reality is that they are here. At least 12 million are currently in our country. Again, for the most part they are working hard, and providing services to the rest of us.
As far as being illegal, illegal covers a lot of ground. We break laws every time we drive 50 in a 35 mile per hour zone. Underage drinking is a phenomenon that is rampant on college campuses - and it is illegal. Some of the rhetoric portrays many of these hard working immigrants as hardened criminals, which is not exactly accurate. Those who have come here and are committing criminal or violent acts should of course be prosecuted and returned to their country. But there are also plenty of legal citizens who are committing criminal acts and need to be prosecuted as well. The issuse of illegal immigration needs to be dealt with, but all people need to be treated with respect and dignity and not lumped in with terrorists or other dangerous criminals. Whatever our political leanings I doubt that there are many of us who don't find something wrong with the separation of parents and their children because of their immigration status.
One notion that is also mentioned by those opposed to immigration reform is that these new immigrants are not interested in learning English. This notion makes no sense. Of course they want to learn English. How could it be that they don't want to look out for their own interests, be able to understand what's going on, or even be able to order a hamburger at a local restaurant. Those of us who have studied a language other that our own know this is not the easiest thing to do - especially for older people. I think, however, what is galling to some Americans is that these new immigrants may not want to be fully assimilated. They may not want to completly abandon their own culture. As an Italian American I went through the famous melting pot, and I melted. I can't speak Italian, I have no Italian culture to speak of other that eating Pizza and Spaghetti which is part of American culture. That is not a good thing. We should welcome the Hispanic culture and incorporate it into our own. Maybe more of us would actually be able to speak another language. What a great benefit that would be.
We are told that we must secure the border first. Some are disillusioned that when reform was tried many years ago the government failed to secure the border. All the more reason to work together to implement comprehensive reform that will be effective. Hopefully lessons have been learned and pitfalls can be avoided this time around. The missing link remains a willingness to work cooperatively to solve the problem. Too many want to use the problem to attack others, perhaps win elections, and maybe further their dislike of people different from themselves. The loudest voices seem to be winning the argument. They are winning so well that reasonable people, particularly those in the congress are afraid to even approach this hot potato issue.
Yet, these loudest voices are not voices of solution. They are only voices of anger, hatred, frustration, and distrust of any government solution. Some of their feelings may be justified. Their refusal to be willing to craft a compromise is not justified. Their way produces only more opportunity for continued heated rhetoric. It extends the time period for inflamed passions. It happened prior to the last election when they were able to shoot down the comprehensive plan proposed by President Bush and Senator McCain. They won. But we are no closer to a solution. The anger continues. Can that really be the goal? It is time to solve the problem. It is in fact the soluion of comprehensive reform that will help us identify and monitor those who are in our country, and this will provide greater protection for all of us. Let's take away one reason for the anger and destructive rhetoric in our midst. Let's craft comprehensive immigration reform that will work and that will remove one of the sources of disunity in our country. Opponents are correct that the federal government has failed to act. Yet many of these same opponents have worked hard to prevent the federal government from acting. You can't have it both ways. Congress, it's time. Step up to your responsibilities and solve this immigration crisis.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Accountability Is Not For The Powerful
Why is it so difficult to hold anyone accountable these days? Oh, if you or I break the law we will find ourselves being held accountable very quickly. Yet those who are really making the decisions in our world today do not seem to be playing by the same rules as the rest of us. If we have no claim on authority that is either divine, hereditary, or somehow comes with the position one holds we most assuredly will be held accountable. But for the real power brokers all around us, not only are they not being held to account, the notion that they should be held to account is simply not acceptable. Consider some of the examples mentioned below.
Let's start with the Roman Catholic Bishops who have been circling the wagons around Pope Benedict as continuing sex abuse accusations are revealed. Not only is there a lack of accountability, but there appears to be no sense that any accountability is required or even appropriate. Donald Cozzens in a recent National Catholic Reporter article says not to expect accountability from the last feudal system in the West. Accountablility offends the dignity of divinely appointed teachers of the Church. Calls for accountability are seen as attacks on the Church. Also, as princes in a feudal caste system they are answerable only to their sovereign, in this case the Pope. Cozzens further mentions that a well known Protestant theologian, Paul Tillich, pointed out many years ago that those who see fit to judge the world and its standards need to be subject to judgement in the same manner. Yet, because of its adherence to an antiquated feudal structure, it will be very difficult for the Church to allow itself to be held accountable.
Corporate bigwigs on Wall Street have never gotten the message. They are worth billions and don't need to answer to anyone. If you saw them as they sat in front of Congressional oversight Committees, their faces were just dripping with arrogance and disdain as they made no attempt to answer any questions or even suggest that they understood why people were angry. These corporations represent the source of tea party anger as well as anger throughout the electorate. They continue their lack of sensitivity by strongly opposing the financial regulation bill. They seem to firmly believe that the government should give them everything they want even though they have failed to be good stewards of the largesse they have received from all of us in the past.
Oil company executives in the Gulf are another group that don't get it. BP CEO Tony Hayward said the size of the oil spill is irrelevent. His style is arrogant and confrontational. He noted that the Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean and the spill is tiny in comparison. Apparently BP doesn't need to follow safety regulations. The reports coming out of the Gulf are increasingly disturbing, but it seems to be business as usual for the company. Can people still believe with Calvin Coolidge that what is good for business is good for the country?
The only place I don't see this sense of entitlement is in government. Yet, everyone is angry at government. Is it possible that some of this anger may be misdirected? Of course it is easy to criticize government. They make many mistakes and do many things wrong. Excessive partisanship has made getting things done nearly impossible. There are often unintended consequences even when they try to do something good. But I don't think government comes close to being the problem that the other culprits I've mentioned are.
Let's take a quick look at 'big government' that is so often cited as the problem. I recommend that you read Tom Schaller's article in the Baltimore Sun, dated May 18th and entitled "A Far Cry Indeed from Socialism". Data he points to indicates that of the 31 first world countries, taxes in the United States make up the lowest percentage of GDP. Of these same countries U.S. policies have the least distributive effect on income. Interestingly, those real socialist countries like Denmark, Norway and Finland seem to best espouse American values of hard work, effort and personal ingenuity. It is in the U.S. where who your Dad is counts more than what you personally bring to the table. Of 25 industrialized countries we are actually the least socialist. We have the lowest level of taxation, the lowest degree of distribution of wealth, and the highest level of poverty.
So, I would contend that our government is accountable to us, whereas Wall Street and major corporations are not. In fact our governemnt has the greatest accountability of all - democratic elections. It likely represents our best hope of bringing some accountability to the corporations and Wall Street tycoons who see themselves as above the normal rules of living in an interdependent world. I don't know what hope there is for bringing accountability to the Church, although that is also going to have to come from people in the pews demanding it and even withholding their contributions. As for government it might be helpful to tone down the continuing tirades against it. Destroying government is not the answer. The small government of the Libertarians will not get us where we need to be in the 21st century. The result will only be to give more power to Wall Street, the oil companies, the coal companies, chemical companies and others. That is why these companies spend so much money to prevent serious financial and other kinds of regulations from being enacted. We need to work to make government better so that it can effectively advocate for the little guy instead of the giants of corporate America.
Let's start with the Roman Catholic Bishops who have been circling the wagons around Pope Benedict as continuing sex abuse accusations are revealed. Not only is there a lack of accountability, but there appears to be no sense that any accountability is required or even appropriate. Donald Cozzens in a recent National Catholic Reporter article says not to expect accountability from the last feudal system in the West. Accountablility offends the dignity of divinely appointed teachers of the Church. Calls for accountability are seen as attacks on the Church. Also, as princes in a feudal caste system they are answerable only to their sovereign, in this case the Pope. Cozzens further mentions that a well known Protestant theologian, Paul Tillich, pointed out many years ago that those who see fit to judge the world and its standards need to be subject to judgement in the same manner. Yet, because of its adherence to an antiquated feudal structure, it will be very difficult for the Church to allow itself to be held accountable.
Corporate bigwigs on Wall Street have never gotten the message. They are worth billions and don't need to answer to anyone. If you saw them as they sat in front of Congressional oversight Committees, their faces were just dripping with arrogance and disdain as they made no attempt to answer any questions or even suggest that they understood why people were angry. These corporations represent the source of tea party anger as well as anger throughout the electorate. They continue their lack of sensitivity by strongly opposing the financial regulation bill. They seem to firmly believe that the government should give them everything they want even though they have failed to be good stewards of the largesse they have received from all of us in the past.
Oil company executives in the Gulf are another group that don't get it. BP CEO Tony Hayward said the size of the oil spill is irrelevent. His style is arrogant and confrontational. He noted that the Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean and the spill is tiny in comparison. Apparently BP doesn't need to follow safety regulations. The reports coming out of the Gulf are increasingly disturbing, but it seems to be business as usual for the company. Can people still believe with Calvin Coolidge that what is good for business is good for the country?
The only place I don't see this sense of entitlement is in government. Yet, everyone is angry at government. Is it possible that some of this anger may be misdirected? Of course it is easy to criticize government. They make many mistakes and do many things wrong. Excessive partisanship has made getting things done nearly impossible. There are often unintended consequences even when they try to do something good. But I don't think government comes close to being the problem that the other culprits I've mentioned are.
Let's take a quick look at 'big government' that is so often cited as the problem. I recommend that you read Tom Schaller's article in the Baltimore Sun, dated May 18th and entitled "A Far Cry Indeed from Socialism". Data he points to indicates that of the 31 first world countries, taxes in the United States make up the lowest percentage of GDP. Of these same countries U.S. policies have the least distributive effect on income. Interestingly, those real socialist countries like Denmark, Norway and Finland seem to best espouse American values of hard work, effort and personal ingenuity. It is in the U.S. where who your Dad is counts more than what you personally bring to the table. Of 25 industrialized countries we are actually the least socialist. We have the lowest level of taxation, the lowest degree of distribution of wealth, and the highest level of poverty.
So, I would contend that our government is accountable to us, whereas Wall Street and major corporations are not. In fact our governemnt has the greatest accountability of all - democratic elections. It likely represents our best hope of bringing some accountability to the corporations and Wall Street tycoons who see themselves as above the normal rules of living in an interdependent world. I don't know what hope there is for bringing accountability to the Church, although that is also going to have to come from people in the pews demanding it and even withholding their contributions. As for government it might be helpful to tone down the continuing tirades against it. Destroying government is not the answer. The small government of the Libertarians will not get us where we need to be in the 21st century. The result will only be to give more power to Wall Street, the oil companies, the coal companies, chemical companies and others. That is why these companies spend so much money to prevent serious financial and other kinds of regulations from being enacted. We need to work to make government better so that it can effectively advocate for the little guy instead of the giants of corporate America.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Immigration Reform, Now
The new Arizona law on immigration can be seen as a reaction to legitimate concerns arising out of violence and potential violence at the border. At the same time it can also provide the impetus needed for the country to move to meaningful, comprehensive immigration reform. Hopefully, it will indeed serve as an opportunity to address an issue that we have failed to address for far too long. We know that the drug cartels have created a dangerous situation in the area, including the shooting of Americans for no apparent reason. Fear and violence is the order of the day. The border needs to be protected.
Yet, to most students or even casual observers of the constitution this new law seems draconian, an over reaction, and quite frankly unamerican. The situation has served to energize people to move at times in opposite directions. On the one hand, It seems that we are ready to have the authorities stop us with the notorious demand, 'papers, please'. In fact, polls suggest that a majority of Americans favor the Arizona law which at the same time has sparked outrage, demonstrations, talks of boycotts, and even a response from the Phoenix Suns and the National Basketball Association. Once again it seems that the country is split down the middle in what ought to be the appropriate response to this new immigration crisis.
Many are already making vociferous protest. San Francisco has officially decided that no city officials will do business in Arizona. Many others have adjusted travel plans to avoid the state. Is econmoic boycott the answer? It seemed to work when the state refused to adopt Martin Luther King day as a holiday in the state. Even cities in Arizona are boycotting the law, so there is clearly no unanimity even within the state of Arizona. We have seen thousands upon thousands of Latinos and others take to the streets in protest. The Catholic Church has been unyielding in its opposition.
Legal avenues for attacking the constitutionality of this law are also being explored. Some lawsuits have already been filed and the justice department is looking into appropriate federal action. For one thing immigration appears to clearly be a federal issue and not one to be delegated to the states. One possible avenue would be for the government to file a friend of the court brief together with an already proceeding lawsuit. These avenues will play out over time, but the continued and ever growing polarization on this issue demands action now.
It's not as if this is a new issue. The problem has been festering for decades. The last real attempt under President Bush and with the strong backing of Senator John McCain, failed because of overheated rhetoric and commentators like Lou Dobbs. Lou Dobbs is gone but the rhetoric is heating up again. How do we have a reasonable conversation about immigration? Do people want to solve the problem or do they want to use the issue to play partisan politics? How do we get away from the rhetoric and get something done? If the bill is brought up will we be faced with the outcries we had when Geoge Bush and John McCain tried to pass a bill? Or is it possible that we actually have a window of opportunity where something positive could happen?
Is it possible that despite the cacaphony of voices, we may not be as far apart on the goal as it may seem. We actually have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done. The bill that Senators Leiberman, Kerry, and Graham have been working on pretty much contains all the elements needed to resolve this issue once and for all. These elements include securing the borders, some kind of card that could be used to gain employment, a guest worker program, and a reasonable path to citizenship. The problem is we can't get the job done. Too many other issues need attention, such as financial reform and the energy bill. Besides, the fall elections are coming up and no one wants to address the issue now. It is politically a bad idea for both democrats and republicans. Should that really matter? The Arizona law and its fallout reflect the need. Something must be done. Isn't that why we send our representatives to congress? Courage and leadership are the only ingredients that are lacking at this time. Where will they come from?
I believe in compromise, but I also believe in results. If you are doing your job and lose it as a result of your efforts, so be it. The problem has existed long enough and it has now come to a head. I expect my representatives to go to work and resolve the problem before we have more laws like the one in Arizona, more demonstrations, riots, increased polarization, and violence. Now is the time. We have waited too long. America is waiting. The time to act is now. The American people hired this congress to solve problems. This one needs solving, and it needs solving now.
Yet, to most students or even casual observers of the constitution this new law seems draconian, an over reaction, and quite frankly unamerican. The situation has served to energize people to move at times in opposite directions. On the one hand, It seems that we are ready to have the authorities stop us with the notorious demand, 'papers, please'. In fact, polls suggest that a majority of Americans favor the Arizona law which at the same time has sparked outrage, demonstrations, talks of boycotts, and even a response from the Phoenix Suns and the National Basketball Association. Once again it seems that the country is split down the middle in what ought to be the appropriate response to this new immigration crisis.
Many are already making vociferous protest. San Francisco has officially decided that no city officials will do business in Arizona. Many others have adjusted travel plans to avoid the state. Is econmoic boycott the answer? It seemed to work when the state refused to adopt Martin Luther King day as a holiday in the state. Even cities in Arizona are boycotting the law, so there is clearly no unanimity even within the state of Arizona. We have seen thousands upon thousands of Latinos and others take to the streets in protest. The Catholic Church has been unyielding in its opposition.
Legal avenues for attacking the constitutionality of this law are also being explored. Some lawsuits have already been filed and the justice department is looking into appropriate federal action. For one thing immigration appears to clearly be a federal issue and not one to be delegated to the states. One possible avenue would be for the government to file a friend of the court brief together with an already proceeding lawsuit. These avenues will play out over time, but the continued and ever growing polarization on this issue demands action now.
It's not as if this is a new issue. The problem has been festering for decades. The last real attempt under President Bush and with the strong backing of Senator John McCain, failed because of overheated rhetoric and commentators like Lou Dobbs. Lou Dobbs is gone but the rhetoric is heating up again. How do we have a reasonable conversation about immigration? Do people want to solve the problem or do they want to use the issue to play partisan politics? How do we get away from the rhetoric and get something done? If the bill is brought up will we be faced with the outcries we had when Geoge Bush and John McCain tried to pass a bill? Or is it possible that we actually have a window of opportunity where something positive could happen?
Is it possible that despite the cacaphony of voices, we may not be as far apart on the goal as it may seem. We actually have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done. The bill that Senators Leiberman, Kerry, and Graham have been working on pretty much contains all the elements needed to resolve this issue once and for all. These elements include securing the borders, some kind of card that could be used to gain employment, a guest worker program, and a reasonable path to citizenship. The problem is we can't get the job done. Too many other issues need attention, such as financial reform and the energy bill. Besides, the fall elections are coming up and no one wants to address the issue now. It is politically a bad idea for both democrats and republicans. Should that really matter? The Arizona law and its fallout reflect the need. Something must be done. Isn't that why we send our representatives to congress? Courage and leadership are the only ingredients that are lacking at this time. Where will they come from?
I believe in compromise, but I also believe in results. If you are doing your job and lose it as a result of your efforts, so be it. The problem has existed long enough and it has now come to a head. I expect my representatives to go to work and resolve the problem before we have more laws like the one in Arizona, more demonstrations, riots, increased polarization, and violence. Now is the time. We have waited too long. America is waiting. The time to act is now. The American people hired this congress to solve problems. This one needs solving, and it needs solving now.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
'Extremism in the Defense of Liberty is No Vice'
During the time when I was a staunch supporter of Barry Goldwater, his remarks at the Republican National Convention in 1964 made sense to me. I actually still find them somewhat appealing, but it is all in the interpretation. If it means that liberty is so precious that one should be passionate in its defense and strive to protect it in every way appropriate, it makes sense. I'm pretty sure however, that what we are seeing from the far right as well as the far left is not what the good senator had in mind.
There is also the issue of how the current political climate compares to periods in our past. When this question comes up we often hear from historians about attacks on George Washington or Abraham Lincoln and are told that the level of hostility may be considerably less than in earlier days. While this conversation may be historically interesting, it is of little value in the present context. I think it more important that we look at what is happening today and address the issues that we are facing right now.
First. Why are people so angry? We know that political polarization is not new, but it is festering at the moment, and often in an alarming manner. The recession and unemployment are legitimately driving discontent with conditions in the country. Fear of too much spending is also a big part of the equation, although it didn't seem to be as big a concern during the previous administration. Actually, by any reasonable analysis, the recession would be far worse if we had not spent large sums of money to ameliorate it. It has always been a principle of business that you have to spend money to make money. I'm not an economist, but the notion of tightening one's belt in the face of financial collapse seems to have been a major failure of the great depression. The point, however, is that this is a legitimate issue, but is it worthy of the intense anger and potential violence it has at times created?
Democracy thrives on lively debate, and differences of opinion. What we are seeing, however, goes far beyond healthy discourse. Threats against members of congress, and even acts of violence are not part of the democracy we pride ourselves on in this country. Talk of secession, taking up arms, and building militias to attack the federal government can only be characterized as extreme. Many of these people consider themselves patriots, yet what is patriotic about trashing your government? What ever happened to working within the system for meaningful change?
No doubt the group I am talking about represents a small fraction of Americans. It is also true that there has always been a fringe group of folks who represent and advocate extreme positions. What I find troubling now, is that these extreme positions are finding their way into the main stream of political discourse and action. This is not by accident, either.
It is a truism that bad things happen when good men (women) do nothing. What we are seeing today includes silence against these festering dangers, and even intentional or unintentional encouragement of some of the worst traits within us. There is a media bias, and well known commentators are encouraging and supporting some of the more extreme positions that are out there. Even worse is responsible officials and politicians are not making clear their opposition to such violence and extreme views. How many politicians challenged their constituents during town meetings and other venues telling them that some of their positions were not accurate? I can only think of two examples. One was in the campaign when John McCain told one of his supporters that Barack Obama was indeed an American, and recently when Senator Tom Coburn told a supporter that her information about health care reform was incorrect and even that Fox news was not always a reliable presenter of facts. So much more of this kind of statesmanship is needed. There are levels of discourse that should be challenged, and we need more responsible officials to make that clear.
The misinformation that is out there obfuscates legitimate concerns. There is also a legitimate concern that racist remarks, spitting, threats and acts of violence could escalate even more, since they are not being stongly repudiated. There is real danger, that a terrible tragedy might ensue, sooner rather that later. The Oklahoma bombing grew out of such misplaced anger. We don't want to see that happen again.
What can be done? As I mentioned, we have seen hints of what can happen, but these efforts need to be coordinated. The messages of people like Tom Coburn and John McCain need to be coordinated and sustained. Finally, this is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is an American issue. How powerful it would be if Democratic and Republican leaders came before the media together and stated unequivocally, that such behavior cannot be tolerated. That there is no acceptance on either side, of the extreme positions that use falsehoods and calls to unacceptable behavior to pursue their causes. There are enough legitimate different positions on policy matters to argue about without resorting to falsehoods, threats and violence. Can we make common cause on this matter? Although,it seems unlikely given the current political climate, I believe we can. We are all Americans. We believe, not just in Virginia or Texas, but in the United States of America. We believe in our way of government. Let's send the 'crazies' back to the fringes where they belong.
There is also the issue of how the current political climate compares to periods in our past. When this question comes up we often hear from historians about attacks on George Washington or Abraham Lincoln and are told that the level of hostility may be considerably less than in earlier days. While this conversation may be historically interesting, it is of little value in the present context. I think it more important that we look at what is happening today and address the issues that we are facing right now.
First. Why are people so angry? We know that political polarization is not new, but it is festering at the moment, and often in an alarming manner. The recession and unemployment are legitimately driving discontent with conditions in the country. Fear of too much spending is also a big part of the equation, although it didn't seem to be as big a concern during the previous administration. Actually, by any reasonable analysis, the recession would be far worse if we had not spent large sums of money to ameliorate it. It has always been a principle of business that you have to spend money to make money. I'm not an economist, but the notion of tightening one's belt in the face of financial collapse seems to have been a major failure of the great depression. The point, however, is that this is a legitimate issue, but is it worthy of the intense anger and potential violence it has at times created?
Democracy thrives on lively debate, and differences of opinion. What we are seeing, however, goes far beyond healthy discourse. Threats against members of congress, and even acts of violence are not part of the democracy we pride ourselves on in this country. Talk of secession, taking up arms, and building militias to attack the federal government can only be characterized as extreme. Many of these people consider themselves patriots, yet what is patriotic about trashing your government? What ever happened to working within the system for meaningful change?
No doubt the group I am talking about represents a small fraction of Americans. It is also true that there has always been a fringe group of folks who represent and advocate extreme positions. What I find troubling now, is that these extreme positions are finding their way into the main stream of political discourse and action. This is not by accident, either.
It is a truism that bad things happen when good men (women) do nothing. What we are seeing today includes silence against these festering dangers, and even intentional or unintentional encouragement of some of the worst traits within us. There is a media bias, and well known commentators are encouraging and supporting some of the more extreme positions that are out there. Even worse is responsible officials and politicians are not making clear their opposition to such violence and extreme views. How many politicians challenged their constituents during town meetings and other venues telling them that some of their positions were not accurate? I can only think of two examples. One was in the campaign when John McCain told one of his supporters that Barack Obama was indeed an American, and recently when Senator Tom Coburn told a supporter that her information about health care reform was incorrect and even that Fox news was not always a reliable presenter of facts. So much more of this kind of statesmanship is needed. There are levels of discourse that should be challenged, and we need more responsible officials to make that clear.
The misinformation that is out there obfuscates legitimate concerns. There is also a legitimate concern that racist remarks, spitting, threats and acts of violence could escalate even more, since they are not being stongly repudiated. There is real danger, that a terrible tragedy might ensue, sooner rather that later. The Oklahoma bombing grew out of such misplaced anger. We don't want to see that happen again.
What can be done? As I mentioned, we have seen hints of what can happen, but these efforts need to be coordinated. The messages of people like Tom Coburn and John McCain need to be coordinated and sustained. Finally, this is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is an American issue. How powerful it would be if Democratic and Republican leaders came before the media together and stated unequivocally, that such behavior cannot be tolerated. That there is no acceptance on either side, of the extreme positions that use falsehoods and calls to unacceptable behavior to pursue their causes. There are enough legitimate different positions on policy matters to argue about without resorting to falsehoods, threats and violence. Can we make common cause on this matter? Although,it seems unlikely given the current political climate, I believe we can. We are all Americans. We believe, not just in Virginia or Texas, but in the United States of America. We believe in our way of government. Let's send the 'crazies' back to the fringes where they belong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
