The government shutdown and debt ceiling debacle has distracted me from my usual partisan rancor and political rhetoric (such as it is). What now has me flummoxed are the news polls wherein ordinary citizens express that they are frustrated with "everyone in Congress" and that most, if not all, of its members should be 'fired'. When asked to further explain their views about the shutdown, these same citizens didn't have a clue and ended up parroting what they heard on TV.

These "views" represent what’s wrong with the political situation in Washington. Statistically, a significant percentage of those polled (perhaps even a majority) never voted. The fact that at least 50% of registered voters regularly fail to vote is disgraceful given that voting is the bare minimum of our civic responsibility. How can we hold our state and federal governments accountable if we fail to engage the political process?

This is truly a bipartisan, liberal and conservative issue. We all need to step away from MSNBC, Fox News, talk radio, etc., and start making informed decisions based upon the facts. Hyperbole and manufactured talking points won't cut it. Simply put, special interests, extremist organizations and big money will fill the vacuum left by our failure to participate in the electoral process.

And the lack of accountability and political apathy has real consequences. Gerrymandering, voter suppression laws and the rolling back of our civil rights quietly occurred with little or no opposition. Inaction is interpreted as acquiescence.

Ultimately, we cannot abdicate our civic duty, leave our future to the professional political class and expect sensible outcomes (i.e., the preservation of the middle class). But it takes work - and a reaffirmation of our identity as citizens of a great democracy.

I'm not trying to advance a liberal, progressive agenda here. I'm just saying that, in the end, we can only blame ourselves for the dysfunction of our political institutions.

Homelessness and Hate

I am always surprised by the hatred that ordinary people extend towards the poor and homeless. Time and time again, I witness intentional acts of hatred and meanness by folks who, but for a momentary lapse of compassion, I readily identify with and would probably befriend under most other circumstances.

At best, the behavior of most Americans towards the poor and homeless is apathetic. But even this fails to account for the fear, anger, aggression and outright cruelty. So, it would seem, not only are most people apathetic, but they actually desire the destruction of those less fortunate than themselves.
...
What can explain this pathological social condition? In my mind, I think it’s a form of collective depression. It’s often said that depression is rage turned inward. And this is where the issue turns political: collective depression is the manifestation of political and economic oppression of the masses by elites. The destruction of the economy, brutal capitalist ideals, and evangelical intolerance act together in concert to create a form of oppression that is truly soul-crushing. Nothing is certain. We all feel threatened and insecure over our future. We fear that the bottom might collapse under us with no safety net below to catch and restore us to our lives.

It not a very great logical leap for most of us to intuit just how unfair this is. This intuition, no matter how subversive or deeply buried in our subconscious, leads to anger. Frustration follows, fueled by the corporate sponsored media, crass commercialism and biased political opinion which is passed-off as real analysis. We’re left befuddled, confused and unable to understand our circumstances. For reasons outside our control, we’re caged off from the world. We’re afraid. And we strike back at those who represent what potentially awaits for all of us.

But the real tragedy here, is the apathy which consumes us. We have lost the ability to connect with other people solely because of their economic circumstances. And we could care less. Further, we gain a measure of comfort and temporary security when we act out on the poor. In a perverse sort of way, our happiness and sense of security depends on our capacity to commit acts of cruelty against those least able to look after themselves, let alone defend themselves against our rage.

Why I've Adopted a Vegan Diet

I am not given to religion or other superstitious habits. However, in my view, the world's religions are cultural repositories of what I refer to as, "old wisdom."  To that end, if taken on a secular basis, Buddhism has something old and wise to say about eating meat.  The first is the notion that eating meat diminishes a person's capacity for compassion.  The second is that life is suffering and one must do what he can to mitigate suffering generally.

I was particularly struck by the argument for compassion.  Most people think that compassion is something that is only expressed between humans.  However, if I understand this tenet of Buddhism correctly, compassion is something that is expressed towards all living things.  If this is true, then we must also have compassion towards all animals, even those we eat.

But this raises another question; is compassion a relative principal?  In other words, does one standard apply to humans and another to animals?  Up until very recently, I ate meat from animals that were sustainably raised, fed organic grain and/or grass and humanely slaughtered. After all, if the animal I was eating was treated well and had only "one bad day" in it's life, I must have been acting compassionately.  But that line of reasoning made me uncomfortable.  How could I eat the flesh of an animal, no matter how well treated, that was sentient and capable of genuine affection towards people and other animals?  Also, I realized how disconnected I was from the brutal reality of meat production.  Like most people I know, I purchased neatly packaged meat in upper-end markets without ever having to witness the animal's fear and terror in the moments leading up to its slaughter.  The answer was startlingly simple.  I haven't missed meat since.

The mitigation argument is a surprisingly political one.  Aside from the obvious relationship between compassion and mitigating suffering, mitigation requires that we look deeper into our food sources vis-a-vis the U.S. meat and poultry industry.  There we find cruel and inhumane treatment of animals on an industrial level.  We also find that industrialized meat production results in tremendous environmental problems associated with animal effluence into the soil and water tables as well as the emission of animal gasses into the atmosphere.

The corporate actors involved in the industrial meat production couldn't care less about the lives of the animals they "process" and engage in a level of dispassionate cruelty (and environmental degradation) that is truly psychotic.  And that psychosis is passed onto the public via sophisticated corporate marketing techniques.  As a result, Americans have no idea about how meat is produced and its associated environmental costs. In fact, the decades-old marketing blitz has been so successful that most Americans are now desensitized and lack the capacity to think about the ethical consequences of industrialized meat production.  It's as if no one cares. Industrialized slaughter with all of it inhumanity and cruelty has become banal.

The same can be said for the dairy and egg industry.  There, cows and chickens are kept penned up in horrific conditions.  Cow are milked to the point where their udders become infected and the discharge passed into the milk.  Chickens spend their entire lives in small cages with their beaks clipped to prevent self injury. All that matters is the final product.  The quality of the animal's life is irrelevant (although organic milk and egg production is much more humane and sustainable, I refrain from these products due to other dietary and health concerns).

There's only so much that one private actor can do in the face of industrialized slaughter.  Adopting a vegan diet is not an easy choice.  Culturally, the U.S. does not support vegan food stuffs and I'm forced to be more creative in the kitchen. Fine dining is somewhat limited and I face the wrath of indignant wait staff when I ask if I may substitute ingredients.  Adequate protein intake is also an issue.  But the question remains:  do my actions promote or mitigate suffering? I choose compassion and mitigation; therefore, I must reject the corporate exploitation of animals.

A Road to Extremism

On May 8, 2012, a Tea Party candidate defeated U.S. Senator Richard Lugar in the Indiana Republican primary.  Although Lugar was a corporatist stooge in the true sense of the word, at least he was the corporatist stooge that we knew.   Lugar was an entrenched Washington insider which made predicable. In his place, Indiana’s former state treasurer and Tea Party adherent, Richard Mourdock, is now the Republican candidate for a seat in the U.S. Senate.  If he wins and the GOP takes control of the Senate, the road to extremism will be open and unobstructed.

This is the real fruit of the so-called “Reagan Revolution.”

Because of the GOP’s catastrophic decline in the 1960’s and 1970’s, Ronald Reagan was forced to mobilize the evangelical and religious right to win the presidency in 1980. In doing so, he inadvertently transformed American politics into a theocratic process.

 Over the course of the 1980’s (with the emergence of the neoconservative movement), religion and corporatism defined contemporary American political values. These values finally metastasized into the Tea Party movement.

 Fiscal, foreign, and social policy issues are now hopelessly intertwined with evangelical Christian values. Consequently, many Americans are confused and adhere to conservative, corporate policy because it closely aligns with their neo-Christian beliefs (in which apathy replaces compassion and intolerance and righteous indignation are the new beatitudes).

 How will this Reagan-inspired movement continue to evolve? Sadly, religious-corporate fervor can only lead to a fascist end. Noam Chomsky puts it best, “I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system.”a Tea Party candidate

Ryan's Sick Plan

On May 3, 2012, the Huffington Post reported the following story:

“The co-creator of the concept that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is relying upon to reform Medicare no longer thinks it will work [Henry] Aaron and former Urban Institute president Robert Reischauer came up with the idea of “premium support” in 1995, after the failure of then-First Lady Hillary Clinton's bid to reform the health care system… …The basic idea is simple: let people pick their health insurers in the private market, subsidize the premiums, and competition will drive down costs. That's the theory behind Ryan's plan.”

 I was an attorney for the state agency that provides regulatory oversight of California's health insurance plans. Though, I have little legal experience with the Medicare system, I share Henry Aaron's concerns about deregulation of the commercial heath care insurance industry generally, and the strain that it places on health plan enrollees. In my opinion, health insurance plans are an inefficient and costly way of delivering health care services. For example, as much as 34 cents of every premium dollar goes to plan administrative costs. The notion of excluding potential enrollees due to pre-existing conditions is corporate malfeasance at its worst.

 Ultimately, it's about policy (i.e., fiscal) choices. To that end, the GOP plunged the country into two unnecessary wars costing trillions of dollars and then enacted trillion dollar tax breaks for the wealthy. And now, under Paul Ryan, the GOP proposes draconian, irresponsible cuts to Medicare and other social programs with even more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. To his shame, President Obama has done little to implement meaningful health care policy (I do not consider the Affordable Care Act a step in the right direction). A single payer system is the only viable alternative.

 Conservatives screech words such as "freedom" and "choice" and in doing so, place health care in the context of free market principals. Adequate health care is not about the free market. Adequate, accessible and affordable health care is a right.

The True Measure of the Man

Recently, it was reported that Mitt Romney bullied a prep school classmate.  As the story goes, the classmate was gay and Romney and his friends assaulted him cutting off his hair.  Romney wielded the  scissors.  When asked by reporters about the assault, Romney described it as "high school hijinks" and proceeded to give a patently half-hearted apology.  An earlier story also described how Romney strapped the family dog (who was presumably in a crate of some sort) to the roof of the family car during a trip to Canada.  Apparently, the dog was ill ("with the runs," as Romney describes it) and Romney did not want the dog in the car.   


Clearly, Romney is a bully with no common sense - which is alarming enough given that he is the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. But what is even more troubling is his appalling ethical deficit. Ethical public policy is premised on compassion, empathy and a desire not harm the weakest and most vulnerable of society. As Francis of Assisi put it, “If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and joy and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow man.” 


How can one expect Romney to lead this country ethically and justly if he would brutally assault a gay classmate and strap a helpless, sick animal to the roof of his car on a cold, windy trip to Canada?

The State as Executioner

Californians will soon have an opportunity to vote whether to repeal the death penalty.  Ironically, the author of initiative seeks to repeal the death penalty on purely fiscal grounds.  Apparently, the cost of inmate appeals and the subsequent delays in executions cost California too much money.


As a threshold matter, it seems to me that administration of the death penalty is only a small part of the California penal system. While banning the death penalty would promote judicial economy and reduce expenditures, other measures can be taken to greatly reduce the cost of California's prison system (such as eliminating or reducing incarceration for minor drug offenses).

But the real issue here is the inequality of the death penalty. An African American is four times more likely to receive the death penalty than his white counterpart. The disparity is even greater between rich and poor defendants. Further, a number of death row inmates are released due to new DNA evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and perjured testimony. How can we then tolerate the death of a single innocent person in favor of maintaining an inherently flawed punishment?   

What is left is the satisfaction of perceived justice (which is too often defined by citizens entrenched in Old Testament values). If the death penalty is viewed critically, it becomes clear that the State should not be in the business of rote vengeance. State sponsored homicide simply does not promote any legitimate policy end. Many studies have shown that the death penalty does not does not act as a deterrent. The law must be above human emotion and irrationality.

And no less importantly, what are we asking of our correctional officers, administrators,  and prison doctors to participate in the death of another person? Just because an execution is medicalized and administratively governed doesn't make it right. We only need to look at Nazi Germany for the ultimate example of medicalized homicide and its administration.

The sophistication of a polity can best be measured by how it treats its worst elements. A life term in prison is not a pleasant thing. And while it may not satisfy plebeian cries for blood, at least it preserves our humanity.