As I watched the local news last night regarding the arrest of Dolores Briones, file footage of her while she was the county judge shows her seated between Larry Medina, who has been indicted, and Betti Flores who plead guilty early on during the FBI investigation that continues to roll. Next to Flores is Dan Haggerty who is accused of accepting benefits, and next to Medina is Miguel Teran who has not been implicated to my knowledge, but I suspect that he will fall as well. This was the county commissioners court at that time, 4 out of 5 have been targets of the FBI investigation. How sad is that?
I am saddened by the state of affairs in my community, saddened and angry; and I feel powerless to do anything about it. It’s even worse when I consider that the state of affairs in my community is a reflection not simply of the state of affairs in my country and throughout the globe, but throughout the history of mankind. When I put it into that historical context I feel a little better. That’s just the way that man is wired. Consider this, Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus Christ for thirty pieces of silver, a simple quid pro quo, a bribe, extortion, greed.
Last week two fellas were arrested for bribery, the information released is that they bribed a former county judge whom I thought was one of the good guys. Two other fellas were arrested and the information in that arrest said that a sitting county commission accepted "benefits" for his support. I thought he was one of the good guys too. I can't tell you how disappointed I was to hear that two people whom I knew, trusted, and respected were now being accused of accepting bribes. I have always been something of a cynic, but this news only hardened my already jaded view of elected officials. This is the latest in an FBI investigation that began several years ago.
One of the seven deadly sins, greed, drives man to do many stupid things. In my community, a man whom I like and trust and respected is accused of accepting $10,000 worth of benefits, like sporting event tickets, in exchange for his support of a business transaction. He has served for many years and from my estimation he served honorably, he is a well known and successful realtor, he earns a good salary with a generous retirement plan and health care benefits; but for a chance to see a basketball game his reputation is ruined and the possibility of indictment is biting him in the ass. All that he worked for could be forfeit. How stupid is that?
In 2004 the FBI began an investigation into charges of fraud in a huge local non profit agency that had federal contracts worth tens of millions of dollars, employing thousands of people. The agency’s mission was to employ people with disabilities; the contracts were set aside for that purpose; the agency did not employ the intended population. Last week two more people were arrested for defrauding another federal contract of $550,000, that contract was dedicated to helping children with severe emotional problems. In the interim, dozens of prominent people have been convicted, indicted, arrested, implicated and accused of being greedy.
The FBI investigation of the National Center for Employment of the Disabled, NCED into allegations of fraud in federal set aside contracts set off a chain of events that continues to unfold. The head of this organization was a large, wealthy, flamboyant man known for his philanthropy and generosity. He had several business interests, to my knowledge all of them were stained with corruption. That is how he became wealthy and generous. His business interests included a health insurance business that catered to government entities. He bribed elected leaders to vote in favor of his health insurance company and he made a lot of money. The investigation pulled on that loose string on a wool sweater that unraveled all manner of greed. Business people wanting business deals bribed government officials for lucrative contracts. It’s very well documented in the local newspaper.
Last week’s arrests included a former county judge. The indictment implicated another former county judge of accepting $24,000 in bribes. Yet another former county judge is in prison for fraud. That’s three former county judges, in Texas the county judge is the highest ranking elected official in county government. There have been former county commissioners, former city representatives, former judges, former school district trustees, former school district superintendent and associate superintendents and all manner of once trusted and respected elected officials and highly placed public servants that have fallen to greed.
It’s election season. Many candidates are announcing there bids for other offices. Many political party loyalists, insiders in the political game now want my vote. This elected person is running for that other political office. Political offices are now like musical chairs. He wasn’t happy being a state representative, now he wants to be a county commissioner; and he wasn’t happy being a county commissioner, now he wants to be a state representative. Hey, let’s trade offices. One has been known as a do-nothing and the other is the son of one of those indicted politicians.
In 1925 Mahatma Gandhi wrote about seven social sins that destroy societies, two of them apply here: Politics without Principles, and Wealth without Work. We all know that thievery is wrong and that it’s bad for business. Gandhi knew it and he told us so. In today’s newspaper appears an article about local efforts at economic development. How can we work on economic development when so many powerful people are stealing from the public trough?
They’re stealing from me and I take that personally, it’s a personal insult, it’s disrespectful of all of my labor for the last 40 years. They are taking my wealth without working for it. They are politicians without principles, disregarding my strong work ethic and the idea that I will reap my just rewards. No, they want their salaries and they want some of MY just rewards, rewards that they have not earned and to which they are not entitled.
Today we continue to hear how it’s in everyone’s interest to offer incentives to businesses to do business in El Paso. It’s how we do business in this country. Government gives money, in the form of tax incentives, to businesses. Business people give government people money in the form of bribes AND campaign contributions. It’s business as usual, just like Judas. But it gets worse, we have this neat little thing called campaign contributions that are legal, a legal form of laundering money. Some folks are squeamish about giving bribes so they give campaign contributions instead. When business people have business deals before an elected body, are members of that body swayed by campaign contributions? No, of course not!
Do ever wonder what happens to the money left in campaign accounts when the campaign is over? She ran for office, raised a lot of money during the campaign. She lost the race and has money left over in that account. What happens to that money? What happens to any surplus money in Rick Perry’s campaign account when he loses that race? David Dewhurst is worth more than $200 million, he will raise a fortune in his bid for a senate seat. What will he do with surplus contributions? Look around. This elected person gives money to that political candidate all the time. I give money to John for his campaign, he give money to Mary for her campaign. I don’t like Mary.
In neighboring Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, in a country known for public corruption, bribes are common. (As if they are not common in our country.) But it’s a more honest form of corruption in Juarez. Consider this, you get stopped by a Juarez police officer for running a red light. You offer to pay your fine on the spot and you’re free to go on your merry way for $20. It’s an “honest” bribe. In this country you get a ticket for running a red light, you hire an attorney for $200 who gets your ticket dismissed. Said attorney attends all of the judges political fund raisers and makes campaign contributions. Then he takes your ticket to a judge who dismisses your ticket. What’s the difference? It’s the same offense with the same outcome. In Juarez its illegal, in El Paso it’s legal; over there its corruption, over here its politics. Both scenarios have the same basic element, money is the short cut.
I have lost faith and confidence in elected officials at all levels. No, not all of them are dirty. I just don’t which ones are dirty, and which are not, and which ones haven’t been caught yet. I liked, trusted and respected two of the people accused last week in federal documents of accepting bribes. I thought I knew them to be good people with good hearts. So far, none of the people arrested in connection with the public corruption investigation have been exonerated, the FBI has an excellent conviction record in this case. Many have pleaded guilty, some have been convicted in court, some sentences have been sealed, some have not been sentenced, and some are sitting in prison. How do I go to the polls feeling so doubtful about the integrity of the candidates? It’s sickening.
Americans want to spread democracy around the globe. We spent a lot of money and sacrificed many lives in Iraq, in part to spread democracy. Folks, right now democracy doesn’t look very pretty. Theoretically, democracy is just peachy, but operationally, democracy is stained with corruption. I am infuriated by reports that nationally recognized leaders are caught cheating on their taxes, it’s thievery and it’s wrong. Is this democracy? Is selling arms for hostages democracy? In our great democratic society we prosecute the bank teller who dips into the drawer, but not the bank president who takes the bank to bankruptcy while taking with him millions of dollar. Who committed the greater wrong, the teller or the bank president?
Back to my beloved El Paso, I have known many of the thieves involved in this culture of corruption. I see some of them in public, walking around almost without shame. Ironically, in recent national headlines many high profile athletic coaches are smeared for impropriety, and one of the local thieves was my grade school coach and he seems to be highly regarded by those around him, even if he is a known thief. Some of them belong to community organizations and they are treated with back slapping by their friends and followers. Am I the only one that sees them coming and reaches to protect the wallet? Am I the only one that thinks “that person stole from me?” My brother once told me, “I’m not afraid of the thug on the corner, I can beat him or out run him. But that thief in a coat and tie I’m afraid of because he will take me to the cleaners and get away with it.”
You see, every time someone engages in corruption, or what I am calling thievery, they are robbing me of something. Public dollars that are channeled to thieves rob me of best value, they cost me directly through higher taxes. Tax incentives, my favorite soap box theme, deprive public coffers of revenue and lost revenue results in higher taxes for me. The superintendent who purchased hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bullshit educational aides from his lover used my money to do so, he stole it from ME. The ongoing investigation is costing ME a ton of money. Those thieves in jail are still costing me a ton of money, and they eat better than I do. How can I mitigate this state of affairs?
I have been a maverick much of my life. In early adulthood I voted republican. One day I surmised that in my staunchly democratic community I might be better served by voting in the democratic primaries so that I could vote against ALL incumbents. In 1976 I voted for Jimmy Carter. Between that presidential election and the last one, I voted AGAINST every democratic AND every republican candidate.
I read the newspaper daily, for years I read US News & World Report cover to cover, I watched the news casts and the political debates on television. Armed with my maverick world view of the information presented to me, I voted AGAINST donkeys and elephants. So here I am facing another election. Why should I NOT vote against ALL incumbents? This FBI investigation tells me that if all incumbents are voted out of office, some of them will be thieves that don’t need to be in office. If all incumbents are evicted… Shit, how many of the candidates can resist greed?
Herein is my dilemma, your dilemma. Some of the incumbents, at all levels, are thieves who are all too willing to give away public dollars for personal gain. Some of the candidates are long standing political wannabees who have been hanging around office holders and political campaigns for years awaiting their turn, and they want a piece of the pie. How do I separate the good from the bad when dozens of local folks have been convicted, indicted, arrested, and implicated in thievery? Who do I trust? How can I have a serious conversation with a political candidate when in the back of my mind I see snake oil vendor?
I feel powerless. I have but one consolation. God, give the strength to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Come to me, give me the insight that eludes me, free me of this cynicism that jades my world view, give me guidance. Lord, touch our elected office holders, cleanse their hearts, souls and minds. Father, give these people the vision to see temptation, and the fortitude to resist it. Guide my hand when I go to the polls to cast my ballot. Hurry!
Folks, you decide if the current state of affairs is acceptable to YOU. Polls suggest a gross disapproval of government and big business. If things are acceptable to you then keep your favorite politician in office for another term. If things are not acceptable, then vote for new blood. Do not vote for party stalwarts, they are part of the problem. Do not vote for political staffers, they are part of the problem. Do not vote for big business types, they are part of the problem. That narrows your choices to the inexperienced candidates.
Beyond prayer and being cautious in our voting practice what do we do? I hereby challenge every sitting elected official to declare their innocence of any wrong doing. I challenge all candidates to do the same. I submit that any elected official that has not declared their innocence be voted out of office. I want to hear from my politicians, including political party leaders, that they have not accepted bribes nor acted unethically. I want candidates to tell me that they are honest people and have not and will not accept bribes. Without that assurance, how can I vote for them? Damn!
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
Is the War in Iraq Really Over?
The war in Iraq is over! At least for now, for US troops, for America, it’s over. That part of the world has known war from the beginning of mankind. Remember, Iraq is the cradle of civilization, the Tigris/Euphrates river valley, Mesopotamia. There has always been war there, our departure won’t change that. It was the birthplace of the Babylonian civilization, it was the eastern boundary of the Roman Empire; the Euphrates river, as a water source, has been a source of conflict for centuries. Our departure will not change a culture of conflict in that region of the world.
Shock and awe was the beginning of a war against an enemy whose real threat to our country continues to be debated. I personally never agreed that Iraq or Saddam Hussein were a threat to me or to my way of life. Reports just prior to the final departure of combat troops from Iraq say that some American leaders describe the war to be worth the lost American lives and the financial expenditures. Oh really? Was it worth it, really worth it?
In approximate figures, we lost more than 4,500 American lives, and more than 30,000 service members were injured. No one really knows how much money we LOST over there, but many estimates exceed $1 trillion. What did we gain for this costly investment? It was worth all that? Tell that to war widows and orphans. Tell that to service members who will live out their lives without limbs. Tell that to hard working Americans like me whose 401K balances have plunged in part due to astronomical expenditures against a debatable enemy threat. We went into the war in response to the bombing of the world trade center in September, 2001. It took us several years, thousands of lives, and trillions of dollars to catch and kill Osama bin Laden, the accepted culprit who instigated the precipitating event. What is the state of affairs in Iraq?
Sunni and Shiite continue to battle for control of the streets, the villages, and the government. Who are these Sunni and Shiite. I’m no expert, but basically, these two groups differed on who should lead Islam after the death of the Prophet Mohammed in the year 632. The differences are intolerable and often times violent, hence the ongoing civil war in Iraq that started with the toppling of Hussein. Sunnis are the overwhelming majority and Hussein was Sunni. He was brutal in his assault on the minority Shiite people, but because the divide between the two factions is so deep and emotional, the Arab world did nothing to stop him because most of the Arab world is Sunni. This divide was at the core of his war with Iran.
Our relatively short stay in Iraq, even if you include our foray into Iraq in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm, will not change 15 centuries of conflict. Given this history, it sounds pretty stupid to hear American leaders talk about the positive outcome of the war. I have said for more than 20 years, when arguing with my friends, that we have no business in the middle east. They are consenting adults and they will continue to kill each other. We cannot stop them, but we can withhold our money from them. They are consenting adults, they can kill each other AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE.
In 1978 Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin received the Nobel Peace Prize; in 1994 Israeli Yitzak Rabin, Palestinian Yassar Arafat, and Israeli Shimon Peres won the Nobel Peace Prize; in 2003 Shirin Ebadi of Iran won the Nobel Peace Prize. Imagine that! So many peace prizes and so little peace! I propose that the Swedish Academy revoke their peace prizes because there is no peace in that land. It reminds me of the diploma that the Wizard of Oz gave the scarecrow, worthless.
I served in the Army and Army Reserve for 31 years. I was always ready to go do my duty. I was called up for Operation Iraqi Freedom, I saluted the flag and did what was expected of me. I was a battalion commander, I made sure all of those in my command saluted the flag and were combat ready. Alas, we were in the day room when shock and awe started and we missed the war. A couple of months later the Army decided they didn’t need us and they sent us home. While I didn’t agree with the Commander in Chief, I swore to obey his orders and I was going to fulfill my oath, come hell or high water. But just so you know, I didn’t agree with that decision then, and I don’t agree with that decision today.
Yes, there is revolution afoot in the middle east. Tunisia fell. Egypt fell. Libya fell. Syria is falling. There will be new governments. But in the land of Isaac and Ishmael can there be peace? Isaac and Ishmael were sons of Abraham. Isaac was born to Abraham’s wife, Sarah. Ishmael was born to Sarah’s Egyptian slave servant. Their conflict embodies the conflict of Jews and Arabs today, both claiming to be rightful heirs of God’s blessing, the original family feud, before the Hatfields and McCoys, before the Montagues and the Capulets. Whomever prevails in those countries will use their new positions of power to prevail over their enemies, that is what they do. Whomever prevails in those countries will not make peace with Yitzak, nor will they accept “the west” in peace.
I say to you, the war in Iraq was an exercise in futility. It was waged for reasons other than national security. It cost too many lives and too much money. We won nothing. The war in Afghanistan is the same. We will not change the Taliban, nor the Afghan nor the Pakistani world view. Let accept those differences and simply steer clear of them all. We can purchase our oil from them without having to “be in bed” with them. Tis better to pay more for oil than to spill blood for it. Tis better to accept differences than to install “democracy” in a land that doesn’t want it, for a people who don’t know what to do with it. Bring home American’s fighting men and women, stop making war widows and orphans. War wins very little, did you not learn that in Korea or Viet Nam.
Today, Kim Yong Un is the new dictator in North Korea. Sixty years after the armistice, Korea is still at war. Widespread famine persists in N Korea. I say bring our troops home from South Korea. If young Kim invades S Korea, let Japan and China spend their money and lose the lives of their countrymen to intercede. As Susan Powter said, “stop the insanity!”
I pray with my very essence for one thing - that my cynical prediction for the future of the middle east be wrong, that I may be forced to eat these words that I publish today. May the God of Abraham make me take back what I write here. May the Peace of the Lord be with us all.
Shock and awe was the beginning of a war against an enemy whose real threat to our country continues to be debated. I personally never agreed that Iraq or Saddam Hussein were a threat to me or to my way of life. Reports just prior to the final departure of combat troops from Iraq say that some American leaders describe the war to be worth the lost American lives and the financial expenditures. Oh really? Was it worth it, really worth it?
In approximate figures, we lost more than 4,500 American lives, and more than 30,000 service members were injured. No one really knows how much money we LOST over there, but many estimates exceed $1 trillion. What did we gain for this costly investment? It was worth all that? Tell that to war widows and orphans. Tell that to service members who will live out their lives without limbs. Tell that to hard working Americans like me whose 401K balances have plunged in part due to astronomical expenditures against a debatable enemy threat. We went into the war in response to the bombing of the world trade center in September, 2001. It took us several years, thousands of lives, and trillions of dollars to catch and kill Osama bin Laden, the accepted culprit who instigated the precipitating event. What is the state of affairs in Iraq?
Sunni and Shiite continue to battle for control of the streets, the villages, and the government. Who are these Sunni and Shiite. I’m no expert, but basically, these two groups differed on who should lead Islam after the death of the Prophet Mohammed in the year 632. The differences are intolerable and often times violent, hence the ongoing civil war in Iraq that started with the toppling of Hussein. Sunnis are the overwhelming majority and Hussein was Sunni. He was brutal in his assault on the minority Shiite people, but because the divide between the two factions is so deep and emotional, the Arab world did nothing to stop him because most of the Arab world is Sunni. This divide was at the core of his war with Iran.
Our relatively short stay in Iraq, even if you include our foray into Iraq in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm, will not change 15 centuries of conflict. Given this history, it sounds pretty stupid to hear American leaders talk about the positive outcome of the war. I have said for more than 20 years, when arguing with my friends, that we have no business in the middle east. They are consenting adults and they will continue to kill each other. We cannot stop them, but we can withhold our money from them. They are consenting adults, they can kill each other AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE.
In 1978 Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin received the Nobel Peace Prize; in 1994 Israeli Yitzak Rabin, Palestinian Yassar Arafat, and Israeli Shimon Peres won the Nobel Peace Prize; in 2003 Shirin Ebadi of Iran won the Nobel Peace Prize. Imagine that! So many peace prizes and so little peace! I propose that the Swedish Academy revoke their peace prizes because there is no peace in that land. It reminds me of the diploma that the Wizard of Oz gave the scarecrow, worthless.
I served in the Army and Army Reserve for 31 years. I was always ready to go do my duty. I was called up for Operation Iraqi Freedom, I saluted the flag and did what was expected of me. I was a battalion commander, I made sure all of those in my command saluted the flag and were combat ready. Alas, we were in the day room when shock and awe started and we missed the war. A couple of months later the Army decided they didn’t need us and they sent us home. While I didn’t agree with the Commander in Chief, I swore to obey his orders and I was going to fulfill my oath, come hell or high water. But just so you know, I didn’t agree with that decision then, and I don’t agree with that decision today.
Yes, there is revolution afoot in the middle east. Tunisia fell. Egypt fell. Libya fell. Syria is falling. There will be new governments. But in the land of Isaac and Ishmael can there be peace? Isaac and Ishmael were sons of Abraham. Isaac was born to Abraham’s wife, Sarah. Ishmael was born to Sarah’s Egyptian slave servant. Their conflict embodies the conflict of Jews and Arabs today, both claiming to be rightful heirs of God’s blessing, the original family feud, before the Hatfields and McCoys, before the Montagues and the Capulets. Whomever prevails in those countries will use their new positions of power to prevail over their enemies, that is what they do. Whomever prevails in those countries will not make peace with Yitzak, nor will they accept “the west” in peace.
I say to you, the war in Iraq was an exercise in futility. It was waged for reasons other than national security. It cost too many lives and too much money. We won nothing. The war in Afghanistan is the same. We will not change the Taliban, nor the Afghan nor the Pakistani world view. Let accept those differences and simply steer clear of them all. We can purchase our oil from them without having to “be in bed” with them. Tis better to pay more for oil than to spill blood for it. Tis better to accept differences than to install “democracy” in a land that doesn’t want it, for a people who don’t know what to do with it. Bring home American’s fighting men and women, stop making war widows and orphans. War wins very little, did you not learn that in Korea or Viet Nam.
Today, Kim Yong Un is the new dictator in North Korea. Sixty years after the armistice, Korea is still at war. Widespread famine persists in N Korea. I say bring our troops home from South Korea. If young Kim invades S Korea, let Japan and China spend their money and lose the lives of their countrymen to intercede. As Susan Powter said, “stop the insanity!”
I pray with my very essence for one thing - that my cynical prediction for the future of the middle east be wrong, that I may be forced to eat these words that I publish today. May the God of Abraham make me take back what I write here. May the Peace of the Lord be with us all.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
That's another fine mess you've gotten me into
In August, 2009 with the adoption of the 2010 city budget, the City of El Paso passed a measure that extended health benefits to domestic partners of city employees. This act touched off the ugly side of our city that includes a law suit filed by Mayor John Cook.
Today, this topic is in the daily news with strong feelings on all sides of the matter, and it is, quite disturbing. Law suits and counter law suits and somewhere along the way city officials will be party ot a law suit for actions taking in their official capacity and tax payers will pay for a legal defense. It started with a simple vote, passed 7 – 1, with the only dissent being based on the State of Texas ban on gay marriage.
This action was taken on the heels of a local scandal that drew national media attention when gay men were expelled from a restaurant because they were kissing. Before this local scandal there did not seem to be a moral imperative extend benefits to domestic partners of city employees. The timing of this action made me suspect that the some city representatives were seizing the moment to gain political favor in a city that has an almost universal allegiance with the democratic party.
An active religious group launched an effort to get an ordinance on the ballot that would deny this benefit. At the core of this group’s protestations was their view about homosexuality. The effort was successful and an ordinance was put on the ballot and it was approved at the next election by a majority of voters. Unfortunately, that ballot was poorly written.
The wording on the ballot was such that it inadvertently eliminated health benefits for some retired city workers, some foster children and some relatives of city employees who were disabled. This is odd because foster children are covered by Medicaid, as are many people who have disabilities. City council, armed with the inadvertent effect of the new ordinance, overturned the ordinance, a political misstep that angered a majority of voters.
The religious group, sticking to it’s venomous anti homosexual script launched a recall petition drive to remove three city servants from elected office. The petition drive was widely successful, causing authorities to plan for a recall election. The city mayor filed a suit to stop the recall election.
On one side is a rather “progressive” city council and mayor, none of which are eligible to hold their seat another term. They will not have to live with the consequence of their actions on this matter. On another side are the religious opponents who quote scripture to speak out against homosexuality and they do so in a self-righteous, not-too-Christian tone. Another group includes those who are furious that City Council overturned the results of a city wide vote on the matter and do not necessarily agree with religious faction’s anti homosexual agenda. Curiously, little has been heard from those city employees who inadvertently lost benefits because of the wording on the ballot. Little is heard from those unmarried heterosexual couples. And the silence from the gay community is deafening. How odd is that?
The faction who is angry that the majority vote was overturned has cause to be angry. Given the current mood of discontent across the nation that both big business and big government are running rough shod over the will, and pocketbook, of the voter, that faction is getting more vocal. They are complaining that their right to vote is being usurped. Some fear that future votes might be overturned, for example a public bond election that voters reject might be overturned. A city charter referendum might be rejected by the voters and then overturned by city council. To many of those voters, it is a matter of losing the sense of majority rule on a particular issue that causes concern. Why bother voting if elected officials aren’t going to honor the will of the voters.
At the heart of the matter is the effort to extend health benefits to domestic partners of city employees; however it was never really about domestic partners. It was always about extending health benefits to homosexual partners of city employees, and City Representative Susie Byrd said so in a blog entry where she described how she was moved by a gay man’s plea. However, I guess that extending health benefits to homosexual partners of city employees was not politically feasible so they expanded their ordinance to domestic partners, including heterosexual couples who live together. According to the news reports, this entire scandal is about extending health benefits to 19 partners of city employees, only two of which are homosexual.
A closer look at this matter is warranted as the voters consider their options. Unmarried heterosexual couples who have been living together have declined health insurance with full consent. They did so by remaining unmarried. They could have gotten married and been covered, but they made an informed decision not to do so. Insurance is available if they want it, as soon as they get married. In the midst of the scandal, some clergy offered free wedding services for them if they wanted to get married. If they have chosen not to get married to access health insurance then why should anyone go out of their way to provide them access to health insurance? And worse, why would anyone want to bear the expense to do so? Besides, taxpayers fund a public hospital and community health centers and public clinics so it seems that much has been done to extend medical care to that segment.
A progressive city council could have chosen to adopt the State of Texas definition for a common law marriage and used that definition in its benefits package. But that action would not have covered homosexual partners and the ends would have been achieved. A progressive city council could have chosen to include in its benefits package all those who live in the home of city employees, including extended family and friends. But that action would have included too many others. Or city council could have extended coverage to unmarried homosexual couple only, both of them. What would have been wrong with that?
The measure to extend benefits to those who had not been traditionally covered could have been handled differently to remove the complaints of the anti tax faction. Domestic partners could have been in a different category what would require the city employee to bear ALL of the expense of the insurance premium with no contribution from the tax payer. City council could have chosen to extend coverage ONLY to those who were inadvertently dropped from coverage. Why did City Council not consider other options? Why did they continue to roll into this tunnel with full view of the on coming lights?
This issue took a life of its own. In November 2010 voters approved a ban on health benefits. In June, 2011 city council rejected 55% of the voters and extended the benefits anyway. The religious group launched a successful petition drive to recall the mayor and two city representatives. The mayor filed suit to halt the recall election and has lost at every turn thus far. Religious groups can be expected to do what they do, they are, after all, religious folks. It’s what they do. Asking them to not do religious things is an exercise in futility. Expecting them to do otherwise is foolish.
Throwing out the separation of church and state argument is hypocritical. I don’t know a single government official or politician who willingly gives up religious holidays. If you want to separate church and state then work on Christmas and Good Friday, and on the Sabbath. Take those holidays off of the government work schedule and keep government doors open for business on those days.
I don’t blame the religious group for this mess. I don’t blame the homosexual community for this mess. I don’t blame anti tax zealots for this mess. I blame those on City Council who, like a dog with a bone, can’t let it go, and won’t consider other options. They are bent on extending health benefits to two people and don’t have the courage of their convictions to say so, to say that they want health benefits for homosexual partners and to write an ordinance to that effect.
A local priest bought a series of newspaper ads. In the ads he professed Catholic doctrine in regards to homosexuality. That act, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. One expects preachers to preach. In this case he did so in the local newspaper at a time when anti homosexual rhetoric is heating up. The Bishop reassigned him to a parish in a rural community far away. One could say the priest was banished – for professing his faith. This parish priest had won local acclaim for observing traditional Catholic practices and giving mass in Latin. The Bishop’s actions have alienated a vocal faction of Catholics who think the local diocese should be more assertive and he upset a loyal bunch of parishioners who want their pastor to be returned.
It’s not about being a progressive community that attracts big business. All the things that the city has done to attract big business hasn’t worked thus far, health benefits for homosexual partners is not a magic bullet that will attract big business and high paying jobs. It’s not about increasing the number of persons in the city with health insurance, this measure only covered 19 more people. It’s not about money because the total cost for those 19 covered lives is really not that much.
It’s about being politically correct, at all costs. It’s much like republicans rallying against taxes, regardless of the consequence. Tow the party line, damn the torpedoes. Be politically correct at all costs, even when the cost is at the expense of common sense.
It’s ok for elected officials to put their career on the line for their convictions, but is it necessary to prolong a divisive issue. The mayor could choose to drop his law suit to stop the recall election and take his chances in a recall vote. If a majority of the voters want to keep these three officials in office they will do so and the three will be vindicated. City council has an opportunity to introduce another city ordinance that reconciles the will of the majority of the voters. However well intentioned these three folks might be, they have created a hostile environment for the homosexual community, as if they didn’t face enough hostility already. And they have created a hostile environment for the faith based community.
Recently the County Commissioners Court had an opportunity to do what the city did, they were smart and stayed away from that hornets nest. Personally I think that unmarried heterosexual city employees who have a live-in partner should not be covered under the same plan as city employees who are married. The only thing keeping them from health benefits is their own desire to be unmarried. I think the mayor should drop his law suit and allow the recall vote to move forward without opposition. These three folks can solicit campaign contributions and with those funds take their case to the voters. I think they have an obligation to revisit their position and introduce a compromise measure. I think that if they really want to extend benefits to gay partners of city employees they should say so and quit skirting the issue. I think that the three officials would have a very difficult time getting political contributions to support that cause.
Today, this topic is in the daily news with strong feelings on all sides of the matter, and it is, quite disturbing. Law suits and counter law suits and somewhere along the way city officials will be party ot a law suit for actions taking in their official capacity and tax payers will pay for a legal defense. It started with a simple vote, passed 7 – 1, with the only dissent being based on the State of Texas ban on gay marriage.
This action was taken on the heels of a local scandal that drew national media attention when gay men were expelled from a restaurant because they were kissing. Before this local scandal there did not seem to be a moral imperative extend benefits to domestic partners of city employees. The timing of this action made me suspect that the some city representatives were seizing the moment to gain political favor in a city that has an almost universal allegiance with the democratic party.
An active religious group launched an effort to get an ordinance on the ballot that would deny this benefit. At the core of this group’s protestations was their view about homosexuality. The effort was successful and an ordinance was put on the ballot and it was approved at the next election by a majority of voters. Unfortunately, that ballot was poorly written.
The wording on the ballot was such that it inadvertently eliminated health benefits for some retired city workers, some foster children and some relatives of city employees who were disabled. This is odd because foster children are covered by Medicaid, as are many people who have disabilities. City council, armed with the inadvertent effect of the new ordinance, overturned the ordinance, a political misstep that angered a majority of voters.
The religious group, sticking to it’s venomous anti homosexual script launched a recall petition drive to remove three city servants from elected office. The petition drive was widely successful, causing authorities to plan for a recall election. The city mayor filed a suit to stop the recall election.
On one side is a rather “progressive” city council and mayor, none of which are eligible to hold their seat another term. They will not have to live with the consequence of their actions on this matter. On another side are the religious opponents who quote scripture to speak out against homosexuality and they do so in a self-righteous, not-too-Christian tone. Another group includes those who are furious that City Council overturned the results of a city wide vote on the matter and do not necessarily agree with religious faction’s anti homosexual agenda. Curiously, little has been heard from those city employees who inadvertently lost benefits because of the wording on the ballot. Little is heard from those unmarried heterosexual couples. And the silence from the gay community is deafening. How odd is that?
The faction who is angry that the majority vote was overturned has cause to be angry. Given the current mood of discontent across the nation that both big business and big government are running rough shod over the will, and pocketbook, of the voter, that faction is getting more vocal. They are complaining that their right to vote is being usurped. Some fear that future votes might be overturned, for example a public bond election that voters reject might be overturned. A city charter referendum might be rejected by the voters and then overturned by city council. To many of those voters, it is a matter of losing the sense of majority rule on a particular issue that causes concern. Why bother voting if elected officials aren’t going to honor the will of the voters.
At the heart of the matter is the effort to extend health benefits to domestic partners of city employees; however it was never really about domestic partners. It was always about extending health benefits to homosexual partners of city employees, and City Representative Susie Byrd said so in a blog entry where she described how she was moved by a gay man’s plea. However, I guess that extending health benefits to homosexual partners of city employees was not politically feasible so they expanded their ordinance to domestic partners, including heterosexual couples who live together. According to the news reports, this entire scandal is about extending health benefits to 19 partners of city employees, only two of which are homosexual.
A closer look at this matter is warranted as the voters consider their options. Unmarried heterosexual couples who have been living together have declined health insurance with full consent. They did so by remaining unmarried. They could have gotten married and been covered, but they made an informed decision not to do so. Insurance is available if they want it, as soon as they get married. In the midst of the scandal, some clergy offered free wedding services for them if they wanted to get married. If they have chosen not to get married to access health insurance then why should anyone go out of their way to provide them access to health insurance? And worse, why would anyone want to bear the expense to do so? Besides, taxpayers fund a public hospital and community health centers and public clinics so it seems that much has been done to extend medical care to that segment.
A progressive city council could have chosen to adopt the State of Texas definition for a common law marriage and used that definition in its benefits package. But that action would not have covered homosexual partners and the ends would have been achieved. A progressive city council could have chosen to include in its benefits package all those who live in the home of city employees, including extended family and friends. But that action would have included too many others. Or city council could have extended coverage to unmarried homosexual couple only, both of them. What would have been wrong with that?
The measure to extend benefits to those who had not been traditionally covered could have been handled differently to remove the complaints of the anti tax faction. Domestic partners could have been in a different category what would require the city employee to bear ALL of the expense of the insurance premium with no contribution from the tax payer. City council could have chosen to extend coverage ONLY to those who were inadvertently dropped from coverage. Why did City Council not consider other options? Why did they continue to roll into this tunnel with full view of the on coming lights?
This issue took a life of its own. In November 2010 voters approved a ban on health benefits. In June, 2011 city council rejected 55% of the voters and extended the benefits anyway. The religious group launched a successful petition drive to recall the mayor and two city representatives. The mayor filed suit to halt the recall election and has lost at every turn thus far. Religious groups can be expected to do what they do, they are, after all, religious folks. It’s what they do. Asking them to not do religious things is an exercise in futility. Expecting them to do otherwise is foolish.
Throwing out the separation of church and state argument is hypocritical. I don’t know a single government official or politician who willingly gives up religious holidays. If you want to separate church and state then work on Christmas and Good Friday, and on the Sabbath. Take those holidays off of the government work schedule and keep government doors open for business on those days.
I don’t blame the religious group for this mess. I don’t blame the homosexual community for this mess. I don’t blame anti tax zealots for this mess. I blame those on City Council who, like a dog with a bone, can’t let it go, and won’t consider other options. They are bent on extending health benefits to two people and don’t have the courage of their convictions to say so, to say that they want health benefits for homosexual partners and to write an ordinance to that effect.
A local priest bought a series of newspaper ads. In the ads he professed Catholic doctrine in regards to homosexuality. That act, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. One expects preachers to preach. In this case he did so in the local newspaper at a time when anti homosexual rhetoric is heating up. The Bishop reassigned him to a parish in a rural community far away. One could say the priest was banished – for professing his faith. This parish priest had won local acclaim for observing traditional Catholic practices and giving mass in Latin. The Bishop’s actions have alienated a vocal faction of Catholics who think the local diocese should be more assertive and he upset a loyal bunch of parishioners who want their pastor to be returned.
It’s not about being a progressive community that attracts big business. All the things that the city has done to attract big business hasn’t worked thus far, health benefits for homosexual partners is not a magic bullet that will attract big business and high paying jobs. It’s not about increasing the number of persons in the city with health insurance, this measure only covered 19 more people. It’s not about money because the total cost for those 19 covered lives is really not that much.
It’s about being politically correct, at all costs. It’s much like republicans rallying against taxes, regardless of the consequence. Tow the party line, damn the torpedoes. Be politically correct at all costs, even when the cost is at the expense of common sense.
It’s ok for elected officials to put their career on the line for their convictions, but is it necessary to prolong a divisive issue. The mayor could choose to drop his law suit to stop the recall election and take his chances in a recall vote. If a majority of the voters want to keep these three officials in office they will do so and the three will be vindicated. City council has an opportunity to introduce another city ordinance that reconciles the will of the majority of the voters. However well intentioned these three folks might be, they have created a hostile environment for the homosexual community, as if they didn’t face enough hostility already. And they have created a hostile environment for the faith based community.
Recently the County Commissioners Court had an opportunity to do what the city did, they were smart and stayed away from that hornets nest. Personally I think that unmarried heterosexual city employees who have a live-in partner should not be covered under the same plan as city employees who are married. The only thing keeping them from health benefits is their own desire to be unmarried. I think the mayor should drop his law suit and allow the recall vote to move forward without opposition. These three folks can solicit campaign contributions and with those funds take their case to the voters. I think they have an obligation to revisit their position and introduce a compromise measure. I think that if they really want to extend benefits to gay partners of city employees they should say so and quit skirting the issue. I think that the three officials would have a very difficult time getting political contributions to support that cause.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
The enemy of my enemy is still a bad man.
What should America do about the revolution in Egypt? Nothing, absolutely nothing! Anwar Sadat, Egyptian President 1970 - 1981, was assassinated by fundamentalists, now known as terrorists. Hosni Mubarak was an acceptable moderate Arab who jailed fundamentalists, some of whom later plotted the first attack on the World Trade Center. He was the enemy of our enemy, those evil fundamentalists, but as we learn from today's headlines, he is a bad man.
Today's knee jerk reaction is to support Egyptian revolutionaries because Mubarak is a bad man, making them enemies of our enemy, but that does not make them good men. Who will lead Egypt after the revolution? Mohamed ElBaradei, the UN nuclear guy? Why not, he won the Nobel Peace Prize? Yassar Arafat also won the Nobel Peace Prize and he was THE PLO terrorist. ElBaradei is the same guy who led unsuccessful nuclear inspections in Iran and Iraq and who the US opposed openly.
Just because he is the enemy of our enemy (Mubarak) does not make him a good man. And he probably will not be kind to us because we opposed him on the world stage. It is not in America's best interest to support or oppose any party in Egypt. Can we learn from out past mistakes in that region.
We supported, trained, funded, and equipped Osama bin Laden because he led Afghan freedom fighters who were fighting the invading Russian army, Russia was our enemy. We are fighting bin Laden today. But at the time he was the enemy of our enemy, never mind that he was and continues to be a bad man. Bin Laden is the worst enemy America has ever had, but he was our friend once upon a time.
We supported the Shah of Iran. I was stationed at Fort Bliss in 1973 and attended the University of Texas at El Paso '77 to '80. Iranians studied earnestly at UTEP and at Bliss, lots of them. I lost a girl friend to an Iranian at UTEP, guess I got the last laugh on that one. We were friendly with Iran because they gave us a platform to base weapons to counter balance the Soviet Threat. The Shah was the enemy of our enemy, and our friend. But the Shah was a bad man. He ruled with an iron fist and his death squads were brutal and indiscriminate.
Iranians, led by their clergy, revolted in 1979, giving rise to the Iranian Hostage Crises that brought down President Jimmy Carter. Today we have an Iranian nation that is a threat to the entire region. We supported the Shah knowing he was a bad man and he has been replaced by many bad men who lead a terrorist sponsoring nation. What a horrible outcome! Oh, by the way, the Shah and Anwar Sadat were very close allies.
We hated the new Iranian government led by an extremist clergy. Their enemy became our friend - Saddam Hussein. We trained him and armed him. He launched a vicious war against Iran with US-provided arms. He was a bad man. He gassed Kurds and invaded Kuwait. We stood by and watched in 1991 when he ordered a fatal attack against thousands of unarmed Kurdish refugees fleeing his aggression.
We are still in Iraq years after we deposed Hussein. Is Iraq peaceful today, or democratic, or on the road to recovery? Insurgents continue suicide bombings killing hundreds of bystanders. History will judge the new head of Iraq, Nouri al Maliki, but he has yet to prove himself to be a good man.
The middle east has a history of turmoil. They don't like western values or interference. How will Egyptians respond to American meddling in their affairs? Will ElBaradei be a good man? There are too many variables. Do YOU trust the American government to back the right man? Given our history of backing the wrong man in that region time and again, I cannot trust American diplomats to make the right choice.
I pray for peace in the world. I pray for the world's people. I'm not sure who to support in Egypt, the revolutionaries or the government. The evil you know is sometimes better than the evil you don't know. One thing is sure in my mind, we should not endorse any party. Let them do what they will. They will kill each other, that is bad. But they are consenting adults, let them kill each other with their own bullets.
May the Lord of Abraham judge them because He did not give me the wisdom to do so, and I know that He did not give you the wisdom to do so either. He certainly wasn't kind to our Secretary of State and nothing gives me reason to believe that he was generous with any of those who lead our diplomatic missions in that region. Hence my opinion, do nothing. Let the revolution unfold. Let Egyptians select their own leader however they choose to do so. The next leader might be a bad man too, but he might be a good man. It could happen. But the Egyptian people will not blame Americans for their choices. God help them because America cannot.
Today's knee jerk reaction is to support Egyptian revolutionaries because Mubarak is a bad man, making them enemies of our enemy, but that does not make them good men. Who will lead Egypt after the revolution? Mohamed ElBaradei, the UN nuclear guy? Why not, he won the Nobel Peace Prize? Yassar Arafat also won the Nobel Peace Prize and he was THE PLO terrorist. ElBaradei is the same guy who led unsuccessful nuclear inspections in Iran and Iraq and who the US opposed openly.
Just because he is the enemy of our enemy (Mubarak) does not make him a good man. And he probably will not be kind to us because we opposed him on the world stage. It is not in America's best interest to support or oppose any party in Egypt. Can we learn from out past mistakes in that region.
We supported, trained, funded, and equipped Osama bin Laden because he led Afghan freedom fighters who were fighting the invading Russian army, Russia was our enemy. We are fighting bin Laden today. But at the time he was the enemy of our enemy, never mind that he was and continues to be a bad man. Bin Laden is the worst enemy America has ever had, but he was our friend once upon a time.
We supported the Shah of Iran. I was stationed at Fort Bliss in 1973 and attended the University of Texas at El Paso '77 to '80. Iranians studied earnestly at UTEP and at Bliss, lots of them. I lost a girl friend to an Iranian at UTEP, guess I got the last laugh on that one. We were friendly with Iran because they gave us a platform to base weapons to counter balance the Soviet Threat. The Shah was the enemy of our enemy, and our friend. But the Shah was a bad man. He ruled with an iron fist and his death squads were brutal and indiscriminate.
Iranians, led by their clergy, revolted in 1979, giving rise to the Iranian Hostage Crises that brought down President Jimmy Carter. Today we have an Iranian nation that is a threat to the entire region. We supported the Shah knowing he was a bad man and he has been replaced by many bad men who lead a terrorist sponsoring nation. What a horrible outcome! Oh, by the way, the Shah and Anwar Sadat were very close allies.
We hated the new Iranian government led by an extremist clergy. Their enemy became our friend - Saddam Hussein. We trained him and armed him. He launched a vicious war against Iran with US-provided arms. He was a bad man. He gassed Kurds and invaded Kuwait. We stood by and watched in 1991 when he ordered a fatal attack against thousands of unarmed Kurdish refugees fleeing his aggression.
We are still in Iraq years after we deposed Hussein. Is Iraq peaceful today, or democratic, or on the road to recovery? Insurgents continue suicide bombings killing hundreds of bystanders. History will judge the new head of Iraq, Nouri al Maliki, but he has yet to prove himself to be a good man.
The middle east has a history of turmoil. They don't like western values or interference. How will Egyptians respond to American meddling in their affairs? Will ElBaradei be a good man? There are too many variables. Do YOU trust the American government to back the right man? Given our history of backing the wrong man in that region time and again, I cannot trust American diplomats to make the right choice.
I pray for peace in the world. I pray for the world's people. I'm not sure who to support in Egypt, the revolutionaries or the government. The evil you know is sometimes better than the evil you don't know. One thing is sure in my mind, we should not endorse any party. Let them do what they will. They will kill each other, that is bad. But they are consenting adults, let them kill each other with their own bullets.
May the Lord of Abraham judge them because He did not give me the wisdom to do so, and I know that He did not give you the wisdom to do so either. He certainly wasn't kind to our Secretary of State and nothing gives me reason to believe that he was generous with any of those who lead our diplomatic missions in that region. Hence my opinion, do nothing. Let the revolution unfold. Let Egyptians select their own leader however they choose to do so. The next leader might be a bad man too, but he might be a good man. It could happen. But the Egyptian people will not blame Americans for their choices. God help them because America cannot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)