A number of my friends and relatives have wondered why I’m not supporting Drew Edmondson for Governor this year. After serving as an Assistant Attorney General for eleven years, most of those in the Edmondson era, and campaigning for him in two elections, it seemed natural that I would support his run for Governor. Well, I’m not, and here’s why.
In June of 2006, Drew called me into his office at the State Capitol and threatened me with my job if I didn’t vote the way he wanted on the Oklahoma Democratic Party State Central Committee, where I served as State Secretary. He launched into a paranoid tirade about his political enemies, dating as far back as his campaign for Congress against Mike Synar. He even shared his opinion that people dealing with mental health issues should just “get over it.” In a monologue littered with “F” bombs, he made it clear that he wasn’t interested in the facts, but was operating on raw emotion.
Could he have handled the situation differently? Sure. It was obvious he didn’t have all the facts, and that somebody had gotten him riled up. The meeting should never have taken place in the State Capitol; in fact, he said “this conversation never took place,” so it was obvious he knew better. Moreover, it should never have resulted in a job-related ultimatum. I was always careful to separate my duties as an Assistant AG from my political activities, and I expected the same from my boss.
I left that meeting with a markedly different opinion of Drew Edmondson. This wasn’t the conscientious friend of the people, in the mold of my hero Ed Edmondson, that I thought he was. This was a cold, calculating, and ruthless political operative who saw conspiracies and enemies where none existed. (The issue he ranted about never came before the Central Committee, as I assured him it would not.) This was a chameleon who could be your best friend when it suited him or your worst nightmare when it did not. Whatever the circumstance, Drew looks out for Number One, and Number One must always be vindicated.
It’s been a challenge to separate my emotions from a rational analysis of this situation. But it’s clear to me that someone with that kind of personality has no business in the Governor’s office. Sure, it’s a political position, and it’s a tough world out there. But the best leadership is to encourage others to excel in the tasks assigned to them, and creates a healthy work environment. There should be no need for a superior to stoop to threats of termination to leverage an employee, especially over empty rumors and gossip.
We also need a Governor who listens to both sides in gathering facts and making decisions, someone who doesn’t fly off the handle and jump to paranoid conclusions. He (or she) has to be able to sort out when they are being played by others for their own political gain, and look at what ought to be done in a given situation. Being the State’s Chief Executive requires better than what Drew demonstrated to me.
Furthermore, we don’t need a Governor who thinks people who are dealing with life’s many challenges should just “get over it.” Does that apply to veterans with post-traumatic stress syndrome as well, or consumers who have been wronged by predators, or crime victims? All these folks for whom Drew has claimed to be a champion for all these years – was that just a sham as well? Should they just “get over it” too?
We can do better than that. And that’s why I’m supporting a better candidate for Governor.
- Walter Jenny Jr.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Government Faces New Threat From Corporations
The recent blowout in the Gulf of Mexico is on everyone’s minds these days. President Obama, under public pressure to take action against the oil and gas industry, recently announced he wants to trim tax incentives for the oil and gas industry. He may face new hurdles in doing so because of the new-found political powers of corporations.
The industry is doing well today because public policy supports the exploration for new domestic energy sources. BP’s drilling in the Gulf was part of that effort. Now that they enjoy robust incentives, the industry probably won’t give them up willingly. Try taking a bone away from a bulldog. He’s not inclined to let you have it.
In January the Supreme Court overturned provisions of federal campaign finance law which limited corporations and unions from spending money directly in campaign advertising. Under the aegis of free speech, the decision “unleashes the floodgates of corporate and union general treasury spending” in political campaigns, as Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent.
Corporations are creatures of statute; the Constitution doesn’t mention them at all. So how did corporations start getting treated on par with human beings?
In a quirk of American judicial history, in 1886 a court reporter slipped language into a Supreme Court decision headnote that implied corporations were entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Nobody caught it, and subsequent courts started citing the case as law.
Granted, the First Amendment broadly says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” But as Justice Stevens saw it, the Founding Fathers “had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.”
Federal election restrictions on corporations date back to 1907, when Congress banned all corporate contributions to candidates. The Senate Report on the legislation at that time observed that the “evils of the use of (corporate) money in connection with political elections are so generally recognized that the committee deems it unnecessary to make any argument in favor of the general purpose of this measure. It is in the interest of good government and calculated to promote purity in the selection of public officials.”
How could a corporate heavyweight influence a political campaign?
Take the case of Hugh Caperton and behemoth Massey Coal Company. Caperton, owner of another small coal company, sued Massey in West Virginia for fraud and breach of contract, and in 2002 won a $50 million judgment. (Yes, Massey is the same coal company where 29 miners died in an explosion two months ago.) In 2004, Massey’s CEO, Brent Benjamin, spent $3 million of his own money to help unseat a West Virginia Supreme Court justice. Massey then appealed the jury verdict and won 3-2, with the new justice voting in its favor. On review, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the new justice should have recused himself from the Massey appeal.
Benjamin did nothing illegal; it was his personal cash. But now corporations like Massey will be able to spend their own money in similar efforts, effectively buying legislative seats to protect their interests.
To fix the Gulf oil leak, BP alone claims to have $5 billion in available cash, $5 billion in bank credit lines and an additional $5 billion in standby credit facilities. That’s a lot of firepower held by one of many oil companies, some of which could possibly be directed toward fall elections in the best interests of stockholders. The general public has neither the cohesiveness nor the cash to respond.
Justice Stevens conceded in his dissent that lengthy and expensive lawsuits like Caperton’s might catch some of the worst abuses. “This will be small comfort to those States that, after today, may no longer have the ability to place modest limits on corporate electioneering,” he added. And the effects may be irreparable, as we may learn on the Gulf coast.
What’s next? Justice Stevens wrote, “Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.”
But corporations won’t need to go there. They now have more subtle and more effective ways to protect their interests. Unless Congress acts first, corporations may target members of Congress who side with the President in efforts to trim back corporate welfare to the oil and gas industry.
The very people who cry for smaller government forget that a weak government cannot provide the safeguards we expect – from national security to the regulation of offshore oil drilling, subordinated debentures and Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi schemes to name but a few. Everyone wants small government until they need a big strong government. By then, it’s too late.
In 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Apparently, we have failed.
The industry is doing well today because public policy supports the exploration for new domestic energy sources. BP’s drilling in the Gulf was part of that effort. Now that they enjoy robust incentives, the industry probably won’t give them up willingly. Try taking a bone away from a bulldog. He’s not inclined to let you have it.
In January the Supreme Court overturned provisions of federal campaign finance law which limited corporations and unions from spending money directly in campaign advertising. Under the aegis of free speech, the decision “unleashes the floodgates of corporate and union general treasury spending” in political campaigns, as Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent.
Corporations are creatures of statute; the Constitution doesn’t mention them at all. So how did corporations start getting treated on par with human beings?
In a quirk of American judicial history, in 1886 a court reporter slipped language into a Supreme Court decision headnote that implied corporations were entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Nobody caught it, and subsequent courts started citing the case as law.
Granted, the First Amendment broadly says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” But as Justice Stevens saw it, the Founding Fathers “had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.”
Federal election restrictions on corporations date back to 1907, when Congress banned all corporate contributions to candidates. The Senate Report on the legislation at that time observed that the “evils of the use of (corporate) money in connection with political elections are so generally recognized that the committee deems it unnecessary to make any argument in favor of the general purpose of this measure. It is in the interest of good government and calculated to promote purity in the selection of public officials.”
How could a corporate heavyweight influence a political campaign?
Take the case of Hugh Caperton and behemoth Massey Coal Company. Caperton, owner of another small coal company, sued Massey in West Virginia for fraud and breach of contract, and in 2002 won a $50 million judgment. (Yes, Massey is the same coal company where 29 miners died in an explosion two months ago.) In 2004, Massey’s CEO, Brent Benjamin, spent $3 million of his own money to help unseat a West Virginia Supreme Court justice. Massey then appealed the jury verdict and won 3-2, with the new justice voting in its favor. On review, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the new justice should have recused himself from the Massey appeal.
Benjamin did nothing illegal; it was his personal cash. But now corporations like Massey will be able to spend their own money in similar efforts, effectively buying legislative seats to protect their interests.
To fix the Gulf oil leak, BP alone claims to have $5 billion in available cash, $5 billion in bank credit lines and an additional $5 billion in standby credit facilities. That’s a lot of firepower held by one of many oil companies, some of which could possibly be directed toward fall elections in the best interests of stockholders. The general public has neither the cohesiveness nor the cash to respond.
Justice Stevens conceded in his dissent that lengthy and expensive lawsuits like Caperton’s might catch some of the worst abuses. “This will be small comfort to those States that, after today, may no longer have the ability to place modest limits on corporate electioneering,” he added. And the effects may be irreparable, as we may learn on the Gulf coast.
What’s next? Justice Stevens wrote, “Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.”
But corporations won’t need to go there. They now have more subtle and more effective ways to protect their interests. Unless Congress acts first, corporations may target members of Congress who side with the President in efforts to trim back corporate welfare to the oil and gas industry.
The very people who cry for smaller government forget that a weak government cannot provide the safeguards we expect – from national security to the regulation of offshore oil drilling, subordinated debentures and Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi schemes to name but a few. Everyone wants small government until they need a big strong government. By then, it’s too late.
In 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Apparently, we have failed.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
US Courts Best For Terrorists
Shortly after noon, a vehicle with a hundred pounds of dynamite and five hundred pounds of cast iron shrapnel explodes at the corner of Wall and Broad Street in downtown Manhattan. 39 people are killed, hundreds more injured, and the stock market closes in a panic.
A prediction of things to come? No, for this act of terrorism took place almost 90 years ago, on September 16, 1920.
Nobody was ever arrested or convicted for the 1920 Wall Street bombing. A note in a mailbox a block away implicated anarchists. Comprised mostly of Italian immigrants, they were protesting poor labor conditions, capitalism, inflation and oppression by the federal government.
Their eloquent firebrand was one Luigi Galleani, who was deported to Italy in June of 1919 out of fear that he was part of a conspiracy to assassinate President Wilson. An anarchist, after all, had assassinated President William McKinley in 1901.
Galleani’s disciples included Nicola Sacco and Bartolemeo Vanzetti, who were indicted five days before the Wall Street bombing, on September 11, on shaky charges of armed robbery and murder. Their subsequent convictions and executions in 1928 sparked anti-American protests around the world.
In 1917 Congress adopted the Espionage Act, which made it a crime to speak or write against our involvement in World War I. After anarchist bombings escalated, Congress adopted amendments prohibiting “any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States.” That was followed by the Anarchist Act in 1918, which made it legal to evict any non-citizen for mere membership in an anarchist organization or possession of anarchist literature for the purpose of dissemination. Immigration policies also shifted preferences away from southern Europe in favor of northern Europeans.
Anarchists reacted in 1919 by sending at least 38 package bombs to prominent judges and public officials who had supported or enforced the deportation laws. One target of two bombings was Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, who responded by rounding up over 10,000 immigrants in what became known as the Palmer Raids. Nearly 500 immigrants were eventually deported, and terrorism in the name of anarchy has gradually abated.
Today we would recoil at the manifest violations of free speech and due process. But all this took place in an era before Miranda warnings, court-appointed legal counsel, international human rights treaties and civil rights reforms. The American Civil Liberties Union, in fact, was founded during this time in an effort to protect the rights of those threatened with deportation. There were undoubtedly abuses when viewed through the tinted glasses of history; as at today’s Guantanamo prison, some might have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong ancestry.
But it’s notable that the American judicial system was able to deal with the crisis without resorting to military tribunals. Although judges and prosecutors and juries faced intimidation and reprisal from foreign nationals, there was a consensus that civilian courts were the proper forum for criminal acts. While the United States had effectively “declared war” on anarchists, no state of war had been declared between the United States and Italy. There was also no indication the weak Italian government was encouraging the terrorist acts – in fact, Benito Mussolini’s rise to power in the 1920s was in part an effort to stifle anarchists in Italy.
Military tribunals are intended to try members of enemy forces during wartime. Even during the Civil War, in most cases military tribunals were not used where civilian courts were still functioning. Simply declaring war on terrorism, as we have declared war on drugs and war on poverty, isn’t enough to invoke their use in lieu of civilian courts on simple criminals, regardless of the gravity of their crimes.
Finally, military tribunals aren’t a guarantee of maximum punishment. Of the 177 Nazi officials tried by American military judges, only 12 death sentences were issued.
Sacco and Vanzetti, fairly tried or not, were tried and convicted in a Massachusetts state court. The foreign nationals who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 were tried and convicted in federal court. The underwear bomber, who tried to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day, has been arraigned in federal court. Faisal Shahzad tried to set off a truck bomb in Times Square this month, and the courts there are fully competent to try him for doing so.
To imply that these constitutional courts are somehow incompetent or insufficient to try these individuals is an insult to one of the three pillars of our federal government – the very role model we urge other nations to embrace. To do anything less means the bad guys win – that our system of government isn’t worthy of respect. Let’s not lower our standards to their level.
A prediction of things to come? No, for this act of terrorism took place almost 90 years ago, on September 16, 1920.
Nobody was ever arrested or convicted for the 1920 Wall Street bombing. A note in a mailbox a block away implicated anarchists. Comprised mostly of Italian immigrants, they were protesting poor labor conditions, capitalism, inflation and oppression by the federal government.
Their eloquent firebrand was one Luigi Galleani, who was deported to Italy in June of 1919 out of fear that he was part of a conspiracy to assassinate President Wilson. An anarchist, after all, had assassinated President William McKinley in 1901.
Galleani’s disciples included Nicola Sacco and Bartolemeo Vanzetti, who were indicted five days before the Wall Street bombing, on September 11, on shaky charges of armed robbery and murder. Their subsequent convictions and executions in 1928 sparked anti-American protests around the world.
In 1917 Congress adopted the Espionage Act, which made it a crime to speak or write against our involvement in World War I. After anarchist bombings escalated, Congress adopted amendments prohibiting “any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States.” That was followed by the Anarchist Act in 1918, which made it legal to evict any non-citizen for mere membership in an anarchist organization or possession of anarchist literature for the purpose of dissemination. Immigration policies also shifted preferences away from southern Europe in favor of northern Europeans.
Anarchists reacted in 1919 by sending at least 38 package bombs to prominent judges and public officials who had supported or enforced the deportation laws. One target of two bombings was Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, who responded by rounding up over 10,000 immigrants in what became known as the Palmer Raids. Nearly 500 immigrants were eventually deported, and terrorism in the name of anarchy has gradually abated.
Today we would recoil at the manifest violations of free speech and due process. But all this took place in an era before Miranda warnings, court-appointed legal counsel, international human rights treaties and civil rights reforms. The American Civil Liberties Union, in fact, was founded during this time in an effort to protect the rights of those threatened with deportation. There were undoubtedly abuses when viewed through the tinted glasses of history; as at today’s Guantanamo prison, some might have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong ancestry.
But it’s notable that the American judicial system was able to deal with the crisis without resorting to military tribunals. Although judges and prosecutors and juries faced intimidation and reprisal from foreign nationals, there was a consensus that civilian courts were the proper forum for criminal acts. While the United States had effectively “declared war” on anarchists, no state of war had been declared between the United States and Italy. There was also no indication the weak Italian government was encouraging the terrorist acts – in fact, Benito Mussolini’s rise to power in the 1920s was in part an effort to stifle anarchists in Italy.
Military tribunals are intended to try members of enemy forces during wartime. Even during the Civil War, in most cases military tribunals were not used where civilian courts were still functioning. Simply declaring war on terrorism, as we have declared war on drugs and war on poverty, isn’t enough to invoke their use in lieu of civilian courts on simple criminals, regardless of the gravity of their crimes.
Finally, military tribunals aren’t a guarantee of maximum punishment. Of the 177 Nazi officials tried by American military judges, only 12 death sentences were issued.
Sacco and Vanzetti, fairly tried or not, were tried and convicted in a Massachusetts state court. The foreign nationals who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 were tried and convicted in federal court. The underwear bomber, who tried to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day, has been arraigned in federal court. Faisal Shahzad tried to set off a truck bomb in Times Square this month, and the courts there are fully competent to try him for doing so.
To imply that these constitutional courts are somehow incompetent or insufficient to try these individuals is an insult to one of the three pillars of our federal government – the very role model we urge other nations to embrace. To do anything less means the bad guys win – that our system of government isn’t worthy of respect. Let’s not lower our standards to their level.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Roots
Today is Confederation Day in Switzerland.
OK. So what?
Well, sometime between 1835 and 1850 my great-great-great grandparents and their son and daughter emigrated from Switzerland to Franklin County, Missouri, some 60 miles west of St. Louis. They farmed, raised their families, attended the nearby Lutheran church, buried their dead, and carried on their lives year after year, decade after decade. That past is silent now, but speaks volumes about their faith, their tenacity, and their stubbornness. Once they settled, they didn't move far - descendants still call Franklin County their home today, although my branch of the family married there and immediately moved to the "promised land" of Oklahoma in 1910. But it's always fascinated me that these stalwart people would uproot themselves from their ancestral home in the valleys of the Alps, lock stock and barrel, and plop themselves down in the middle of the frontier, barely to budge since.
I think they came from Kanton Glarus, because the Jenny surname is fairly common there, but I have no reason to prove that. All references are just to Switzerland, no canton and no community. There's no evidence they ever went back to visit. The two children married a brother and sister of the Jung family from Alsace. The naturalization records of another Jung brother stated he arrived in 1838 as a citizen of France, so it's possible both families came over about the same time, and could have come together. Ann Jenny's 1910 death certificate and another brother's 1926 death certificate list their parents as being from Germany and both of them born in Germany, but Alsace got bounced back and forth between France and Germany quite a bit during those years, so that comes with a grain of salt.
I've researched a lot of my other branches much further back than five generations. Still, this is my paternal line, from which I inherit my surname, and I'm the last male carrying that surname. The family homestead still stands, maintained by another line of descendants, and they've done an admirable job preserving the heritage.
One of these days, however, I hope to find out more about where they came from in Switzerland, and why. And, if health and wealth bear me out, to go back and visit someday.
OK. So what?
Well, sometime between 1835 and 1850 my great-great-great grandparents and their son and daughter emigrated from Switzerland to Franklin County, Missouri, some 60 miles west of St. Louis. They farmed, raised their families, attended the nearby Lutheran church, buried their dead, and carried on their lives year after year, decade after decade. That past is silent now, but speaks volumes about their faith, their tenacity, and their stubbornness. Once they settled, they didn't move far - descendants still call Franklin County their home today, although my branch of the family married there and immediately moved to the "promised land" of Oklahoma in 1910. But it's always fascinated me that these stalwart people would uproot themselves from their ancestral home in the valleys of the Alps, lock stock and barrel, and plop themselves down in the middle of the frontier, barely to budge since.
I think they came from Kanton Glarus, because the Jenny surname is fairly common there, but I have no reason to prove that. All references are just to Switzerland, no canton and no community. There's no evidence they ever went back to visit. The two children married a brother and sister of the Jung family from Alsace. The naturalization records of another Jung brother stated he arrived in 1838 as a citizen of France, so it's possible both families came over about the same time, and could have come together. Ann Jenny's 1910 death certificate and another brother's 1926 death certificate list their parents as being from Germany and both of them born in Germany, but Alsace got bounced back and forth between France and Germany quite a bit during those years, so that comes with a grain of salt.
I've researched a lot of my other branches much further back than five generations. Still, this is my paternal line, from which I inherit my surname, and I'm the last male carrying that surname. The family homestead still stands, maintained by another line of descendants, and they've done an admirable job preserving the heritage.
One of these days, however, I hope to find out more about where they came from in Switzerland, and why. And, if health and wealth bear me out, to go back and visit someday.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Health Care in Oklahoma: Change Starts At Home
During this summer’s debate on health care reform, there’s no place in the country where the stakes are as high as they are in Oklahoma.
In the 2008 Annual State of the State’s Health report issued by the Oklahoma Department of Health last month, Oklahoma continues to rank as one of the worst states in the nation when it comes to our quality of health. Our rates of deaths due to heart disease, strokes, respiratory disease and diabetes are through the roof. The report concludes we need to exercise more, eat more fruits and vegetables, and avoid smoking tobacco. The entire report, which makes for interesting reading, is available to download at no cost from the Health Department’s website.
Despite the headlines, governmental intervention is not the only way to achieve health care reform. We first have to check our lifestyles and attitudes on a personal basis. It’s less expensive to eat better, exercise more, and stop smoking than it is to pay for emergency rooms or insurance premiums, and that applies to us both individually and collectively.
One of the most important things we can do this summer is to support the Obama administration’s efforts to bring about change in health care in this country. It’s been tried before, but this time with a Democratic Congress and White House there’s real hope that substantial progress will be made. President Obama has brought together the major stakeholders, usually at odds with each other, to bring about a consensus for change, and he wants results in the next ninety days or so. The results may not be perfect, but they should help improve the quality of life and stem the swelling cost of health care in the United States. If we don’t deal with it now, it will only get worse tomorrow.
Everyone has a horror story about how the health care system hasn’t worked for them or someone they know. The administration’s starting point is to collect those stories. They are encouraging Americans to meet and discuss both the problems and potential solutions, and at the very least raise awareness in the community. From there, they can start to fashion solutions. If there’s enough demand for a solution, the political tide can reach critical mass and solutions can be found.
A well-attended public forum for that purpose was held June 6 at the OU Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City. One of the keynote speakers was Edmond’s Wayne Rohde, who has championed the cause for insurance coverage for autism care in Oklahoma. Those who attended were invited to share their frustrations and suggestions with policymakers in Washington. The public can still submit their views through the website www.mybarackobama.com.
The next step is the National Health Care Day of Service on June 27. A free Health Fair is being sponsored by Change Oklahoma, Organizing for America and the Community Hope Improvement Project from 10 to noon in the south parking lot of the State Capitol. There will be free blood pressure checks, public health information, snacks and drinks, and a food drive for the Jesus House (please bring non-perishables and canned goods). There will also be plenty of people around to discuss health care issues and raise awareness about the need for change.
Change Oklahoma is also working with The Oklahoma Blood Institute (OBI) on a statewide Blood Drive on June 27. This is a perfect opportunity for almost all Oklahomans to participate; for some, it may be the first time they’ve donated blood. One of OBI’s bloodmobiles will be located at the Home Depot on Broadway in Edmond. Other events are taking place nationwide Saturday, and can also be located through www.mybarackobama.com.
Change Oklahoma is also beginning an initiative to encourage Oklahomans to be more physically active. The Health Department study ranks Oklahoma as the fifth most physically inactive state with almost 30 percent of our adult population reporting no exercise in the preceding thirty days. Physical activity has a role in reversing or preventing diabetes, heart disease, stroke, cancer, arthritis and other health problems. Some physical activity is good, but increased activity is even better. In other words, go around the block one more time on your morning walk. Park a little further from the store. Spend less time on the sofa or in front of the computer, and find a new hobby that will get you up and moving. That’s a project I’m going to adopt myself.
We all need to go the extra mile to become a little healthier. That may be the greatest and least expensive health care reform of all.
In the 2008 Annual State of the State’s Health report issued by the Oklahoma Department of Health last month, Oklahoma continues to rank as one of the worst states in the nation when it comes to our quality of health. Our rates of deaths due to heart disease, strokes, respiratory disease and diabetes are through the roof. The report concludes we need to exercise more, eat more fruits and vegetables, and avoid smoking tobacco. The entire report, which makes for interesting reading, is available to download at no cost from the Health Department’s website.
Despite the headlines, governmental intervention is not the only way to achieve health care reform. We first have to check our lifestyles and attitudes on a personal basis. It’s less expensive to eat better, exercise more, and stop smoking than it is to pay for emergency rooms or insurance premiums, and that applies to us both individually and collectively.
One of the most important things we can do this summer is to support the Obama administration’s efforts to bring about change in health care in this country. It’s been tried before, but this time with a Democratic Congress and White House there’s real hope that substantial progress will be made. President Obama has brought together the major stakeholders, usually at odds with each other, to bring about a consensus for change, and he wants results in the next ninety days or so. The results may not be perfect, but they should help improve the quality of life and stem the swelling cost of health care in the United States. If we don’t deal with it now, it will only get worse tomorrow.
Everyone has a horror story about how the health care system hasn’t worked for them or someone they know. The administration’s starting point is to collect those stories. They are encouraging Americans to meet and discuss both the problems and potential solutions, and at the very least raise awareness in the community. From there, they can start to fashion solutions. If there’s enough demand for a solution, the political tide can reach critical mass and solutions can be found.
A well-attended public forum for that purpose was held June 6 at the OU Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City. One of the keynote speakers was Edmond’s Wayne Rohde, who has championed the cause for insurance coverage for autism care in Oklahoma. Those who attended were invited to share their frustrations and suggestions with policymakers in Washington. The public can still submit their views through the website www.mybarackobama.com.
The next step is the National Health Care Day of Service on June 27. A free Health Fair is being sponsored by Change Oklahoma, Organizing for America and the Community Hope Improvement Project from 10 to noon in the south parking lot of the State Capitol. There will be free blood pressure checks, public health information, snacks and drinks, and a food drive for the Jesus House (please bring non-perishables and canned goods). There will also be plenty of people around to discuss health care issues and raise awareness about the need for change.
Change Oklahoma is also working with The Oklahoma Blood Institute (OBI) on a statewide Blood Drive on June 27. This is a perfect opportunity for almost all Oklahomans to participate; for some, it may be the first time they’ve donated blood. One of OBI’s bloodmobiles will be located at the Home Depot on Broadway in Edmond. Other events are taking place nationwide Saturday, and can also be located through www.mybarackobama.com.
Change Oklahoma is also beginning an initiative to encourage Oklahomans to be more physically active. The Health Department study ranks Oklahoma as the fifth most physically inactive state with almost 30 percent of our adult population reporting no exercise in the preceding thirty days. Physical activity has a role in reversing or preventing diabetes, heart disease, stroke, cancer, arthritis and other health problems. Some physical activity is good, but increased activity is even better. In other words, go around the block one more time on your morning walk. Park a little further from the store. Spend less time on the sofa or in front of the computer, and find a new hobby that will get you up and moving. That’s a project I’m going to adopt myself.
We all need to go the extra mile to become a little healthier. That may be the greatest and least expensive health care reform of all.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
More to monument than meets the eye
The Edmond Sun, May 28, 2009
EDMOND — Well, here we go again. The Republican-controlled Oklahoma Legislature, knowing what’s best for us, has approved the installation of the Ten Commandments on the State Capitol grounds and persuaded Gov. Brad Henry to silently approve it.
Republican Rep. Mike Ritze of Broken Arrow has pushed this idea since discovering that Oklahoma was not displaying the Decalogue like Texas does. He took it upon himself to right this wrong, even going so far as to pay for it himself so no tax dollars would be used.
First, a little background. A group called the Fraternal Order of Eagles had been distributing paper copies of the King James Version of the Ten Commandments since 1951 as part of a program to fight juvenile delinquency. Apparently Cecil B. DeMille, who directed the movie “The Ten Commandments,” decided to have their artwork carved in stone and donate them to communities around the country. The project turned into a promotion for the movie, as actors from the movie appeared at dedications of some of the markers, and FOE members were encouraged to sell tickets to the movie.
At least 145 of the markers were erected in 34 states and Canada between 1955 and 1985. Many remain, including one at the Texas State Capitol. After four decades, a Texas lawyer challenged its presence on public land.
On June 27, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Texas monument and 5-4 against a related Kentucky display, with Justice Stephen Breyer changing his vote. Understanding the subtle distinction between the two cases may help explain why an Oklahoma monument is on shaky constitutional footing.
In the Kentucky case, county officials posted copies of the Ten Commandments in two county courthouses. After being challenged, they twice added other religious documents, and defiantly passed resolutions affirming the importance of the Ten Commandments to Kentuckians.
To favor one faith over another, or adherence to religion generally, clashes with society’s demand for “tolerance that respects the religious views of all citizens,” the Court wrote in declaring the display unconstitutional. By showing a purpose to favor religion, the government “sends the... message to... nonadherents ‘that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members....’”
In contrast, the Texas FOE marker stood for four decades with 17 secular monuments and 21 historical markers on 22 acres around the Capitol building commemorating the “people, ideals, and events that compose Texan identity.”
Rep. Ritze says his display will be constitutional because the same display approved in Texas. Not so fast. If the purpose is to promote religion, it’s unconstitutional. If the purpose is historical or secular, part of a broader educational context, it may pass muster. Where are the other secular monuments to the rule of law in Oklahoma? What about the Iroquois Confederacy that gave us three branches of government? Where is the educational nature? What of the long-standing acquiescence by the community, or the FOE involvement?
The 2005 cases did not reference their state constitutions, but in Oklahoma our Constitution may pose a problem. Article II Section 5 is pretty clear: “No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.”
Ritze says his monument will quote the King James Version of the Bible, because that 1611 translation was used on the Texas marker approved by the Supreme Court. Will it be limited to the commandments set forth in Exodus 20, or will it include the laws in chapters 21 through 23 that were written by God’s finger on the stone tablets? Or will it be the summary in chapter 34 after Moses broke the first pair of tablets? If the purpose is to educate, why leave out the synopsis at Deuteronomy 5:6-21, or Christ’s new covenant recorded in Matthew? Should we prefer the Catholic, Lutheran, Jewish, Evangelical or Methodist version, or even Islam’s ten moral stipulations in the Qur’an? Wars have been fought and churches have split over lesser issues; now one politician, not even ordained, will make that decision for all of us.
James Madison wrote, “The Religion of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.” Maybe that’s the message we should carve in stone at the state Capitol.
The Edmond Sun, May 28, 2009
EDMOND — Well, here we go again. The Republican-controlled Oklahoma Legislature, knowing what’s best for us, has approved the installation of the Ten Commandments on the State Capitol grounds and persuaded Gov. Brad Henry to silently approve it.
Republican Rep. Mike Ritze of Broken Arrow has pushed this idea since discovering that Oklahoma was not displaying the Decalogue like Texas does. He took it upon himself to right this wrong, even going so far as to pay for it himself so no tax dollars would be used.
First, a little background. A group called the Fraternal Order of Eagles had been distributing paper copies of the King James Version of the Ten Commandments since 1951 as part of a program to fight juvenile delinquency. Apparently Cecil B. DeMille, who directed the movie “The Ten Commandments,” decided to have their artwork carved in stone and donate them to communities around the country. The project turned into a promotion for the movie, as actors from the movie appeared at dedications of some of the markers, and FOE members were encouraged to sell tickets to the movie.
At least 145 of the markers were erected in 34 states and Canada between 1955 and 1985. Many remain, including one at the Texas State Capitol. After four decades, a Texas lawyer challenged its presence on public land.
On June 27, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Texas monument and 5-4 against a related Kentucky display, with Justice Stephen Breyer changing his vote. Understanding the subtle distinction between the two cases may help explain why an Oklahoma monument is on shaky constitutional footing.
In the Kentucky case, county officials posted copies of the Ten Commandments in two county courthouses. After being challenged, they twice added other religious documents, and defiantly passed resolutions affirming the importance of the Ten Commandments to Kentuckians.
To favor one faith over another, or adherence to religion generally, clashes with society’s demand for “tolerance that respects the religious views of all citizens,” the Court wrote in declaring the display unconstitutional. By showing a purpose to favor religion, the government “sends the... message to... nonadherents ‘that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members....’”
In contrast, the Texas FOE marker stood for four decades with 17 secular monuments and 21 historical markers on 22 acres around the Capitol building commemorating the “people, ideals, and events that compose Texan identity.”
Rep. Ritze says his display will be constitutional because the same display approved in Texas. Not so fast. If the purpose is to promote religion, it’s unconstitutional. If the purpose is historical or secular, part of a broader educational context, it may pass muster. Where are the other secular monuments to the rule of law in Oklahoma? What about the Iroquois Confederacy that gave us three branches of government? Where is the educational nature? What of the long-standing acquiescence by the community, or the FOE involvement?
The 2005 cases did not reference their state constitutions, but in Oklahoma our Constitution may pose a problem. Article II Section 5 is pretty clear: “No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.”
Ritze says his monument will quote the King James Version of the Bible, because that 1611 translation was used on the Texas marker approved by the Supreme Court. Will it be limited to the commandments set forth in Exodus 20, or will it include the laws in chapters 21 through 23 that were written by God’s finger on the stone tablets? Or will it be the summary in chapter 34 after Moses broke the first pair of tablets? If the purpose is to educate, why leave out the synopsis at Deuteronomy 5:6-21, or Christ’s new covenant recorded in Matthew? Should we prefer the Catholic, Lutheran, Jewish, Evangelical or Methodist version, or even Islam’s ten moral stipulations in the Qur’an? Wars have been fought and churches have split over lesser issues; now one politician, not even ordained, will make that decision for all of us.
James Madison wrote, “The Religion of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.” Maybe that’s the message we should carve in stone at the state Capitol.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Bainbridge Sails Again
The dramatic release of the MV Maersk Alabama and the rescue of her captain from pirates off Somalia have been widely applauded as a major success for the Obama administration. But it’s not the first time the United States has flexed its muscle to protect American interests from pirates on the high seas, and it won’t be the last.
The Maersk Alabama was a 17,000 ton cargo ship containing emergency relief supplies destined for Kenya. Somali, enveloped in anarchy and poverty, has been a hotbed for pirates in recent years because of the enormous profits involved. There have been seventy pirate attacks since January, and 14 foreign ships and 260 crewmen are currently being held for ransom. The Maersk Alabama was the first American-flagged ship to be waylaid in almost 200 years.
Piracy has been around for centuries. Any local warlord with a few fast boats could hijack a passing merchant ship and hold it for ransom from its owner. Safe passage could sometimes be guaranteed in advance by the payment of tributes to local leaders, for whom it became a lucrative source of revenue. Although only used once during World War II, Article I of our Constitution authorizes Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal, meaning we could enter the piracy business if we wanted.
Dealing with piracy was one of the first great international challenges of the United States. After the American Revolution, our fledgling Navy was inadequate to protect shipping that was so essential to the country’s survival. In 1784, Congress began allocating protection money for pirates along the Barbary Coast of the Mediterranean. Thomas Jefferson, then the ambassador to France, argued that paying tribute would only encourage more attacks, but in the short run it was less expensive to pay the tribute until an adequate Navy could be built. By 1800, the ransoms and tributes we were paying amounted to twenty percent of the annual revenues of the United States.
When Jefferson became president in 1801, the ruler of Tripoli demanded $225,000 from the United States for safe passage through the Mediterranean. Jefferson refused, and began deploying ships and blockading ports on the Barbary Coast. For the next four years, American ships clashed sporadically with pirate frigates. One American ship, the USS Philadelphia, ran aground in Tripoli harbor while chasing a pirate ship, and was converted to a Tunisian gun battery against the Americans until it was torched by Stephen Decatur Jr. and the U.S. Marines four months later.
In 1805 an expedition of eight Marines and 500 mercenaries marched from Egypt to capture the city of Derna, marking the first time the American flag was raised in victory on foreign soil.
Under assault and weary of the blockade on his port, the ruler of Tripoli signed a peace treaty with the United States, exchanging captives for $60,000 in ransom. The U.S. had proven it could execute a war far from home, could support a navy, and could fight as one country rather than separate states.
When the United States became distracted with the War of 1812 with England, piracy resumed, and the United States had little choice but to start paying ransoms again.
After the war ended, the United States sent ten ships to the Barbary Coast and forced the pirate ruler to capitulate. The resulting treaty ensured no further tributes and granted the United States full shipping rights to this day.
The great irony of this story is the history behind the USS Bainbridge. Launched in 2004, she is the fifth American warship named for Commodore William Bainbridge. In 1800, as captain of the USS George Washington, it was Bainbridge who delivered American tributes to pirate leaders along the African coast. While making a delivery to the ruler in Algiers, he made the mistake of anchoring in the harbor directly under the guns of the fort. The ruler insisted that Bainbridge hoist the Algerian flag and shuttle the Algerian ambassador on an errand to Turkey, or be sunk; Bainbridge complied with the embarrassing demand, much to the delight of the pirates.
In 1803 Bainbridge was the captain of the ill-fated Philadelphia when it became stranded in Tunisia. He was held captive in Tripoli for nineteen months. After he was released as part of Jefferson’s treaty with Tripoli, he served as captain of the USS Constitution during the War of 1812 and later against the Barbary pirates after the war with England ended.
Renegade pirates are no match for Navy Seals, and it’s clear this administration will have little patience for such behavior against United States interests. It’s good to see America’s respect being earned again around the world.
The Maersk Alabama was a 17,000 ton cargo ship containing emergency relief supplies destined for Kenya. Somali, enveloped in anarchy and poverty, has been a hotbed for pirates in recent years because of the enormous profits involved. There have been seventy pirate attacks since January, and 14 foreign ships and 260 crewmen are currently being held for ransom. The Maersk Alabama was the first American-flagged ship to be waylaid in almost 200 years.
Piracy has been around for centuries. Any local warlord with a few fast boats could hijack a passing merchant ship and hold it for ransom from its owner. Safe passage could sometimes be guaranteed in advance by the payment of tributes to local leaders, for whom it became a lucrative source of revenue. Although only used once during World War II, Article I of our Constitution authorizes Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal, meaning we could enter the piracy business if we wanted.
Dealing with piracy was one of the first great international challenges of the United States. After the American Revolution, our fledgling Navy was inadequate to protect shipping that was so essential to the country’s survival. In 1784, Congress began allocating protection money for pirates along the Barbary Coast of the Mediterranean. Thomas Jefferson, then the ambassador to France, argued that paying tribute would only encourage more attacks, but in the short run it was less expensive to pay the tribute until an adequate Navy could be built. By 1800, the ransoms and tributes we were paying amounted to twenty percent of the annual revenues of the United States.
When Jefferson became president in 1801, the ruler of Tripoli demanded $225,000 from the United States for safe passage through the Mediterranean. Jefferson refused, and began deploying ships and blockading ports on the Barbary Coast. For the next four years, American ships clashed sporadically with pirate frigates. One American ship, the USS Philadelphia, ran aground in Tripoli harbor while chasing a pirate ship, and was converted to a Tunisian gun battery against the Americans until it was torched by Stephen Decatur Jr. and the U.S. Marines four months later.
In 1805 an expedition of eight Marines and 500 mercenaries marched from Egypt to capture the city of Derna, marking the first time the American flag was raised in victory on foreign soil.
Under assault and weary of the blockade on his port, the ruler of Tripoli signed a peace treaty with the United States, exchanging captives for $60,000 in ransom. The U.S. had proven it could execute a war far from home, could support a navy, and could fight as one country rather than separate states.
When the United States became distracted with the War of 1812 with England, piracy resumed, and the United States had little choice but to start paying ransoms again.
After the war ended, the United States sent ten ships to the Barbary Coast and forced the pirate ruler to capitulate. The resulting treaty ensured no further tributes and granted the United States full shipping rights to this day.
The great irony of this story is the history behind the USS Bainbridge. Launched in 2004, she is the fifth American warship named for Commodore William Bainbridge. In 1800, as captain of the USS George Washington, it was Bainbridge who delivered American tributes to pirate leaders along the African coast. While making a delivery to the ruler in Algiers, he made the mistake of anchoring in the harbor directly under the guns of the fort. The ruler insisted that Bainbridge hoist the Algerian flag and shuttle the Algerian ambassador on an errand to Turkey, or be sunk; Bainbridge complied with the embarrassing demand, much to the delight of the pirates.
In 1803 Bainbridge was the captain of the ill-fated Philadelphia when it became stranded in Tunisia. He was held captive in Tripoli for nineteen months. After he was released as part of Jefferson’s treaty with Tripoli, he served as captain of the USS Constitution during the War of 1812 and later against the Barbary pirates after the war with England ended.
Renegade pirates are no match for Navy Seals, and it’s clear this administration will have little patience for such behavior against United States interests. It’s good to see America’s respect being earned again around the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
