|
|
|
| A Larger View |
How Current Events and Problems wrest
The Spiritual Movement of Humanity
|
| Volume X Edition 3 |
May/June |
2005 |
In this issue:
The Schiavo Aftermath: the Seeds of Doubt, Televised Frenzies: The Harm of Quantity, Promoting Corporate Profits?, Pharmacists and Their Conscience, Plus Web Site of Interest: Learning About Herbs, and To Ponder On: Papal Legacy - Another View.
The Schiavo Aftermath: The Seeds of Doubt
One of the principles making democracy spiritual is its core tenet of participation. This means that, instead of being imposed upon its citizens, a democratic regime finds ways to represent their interests. One such way is to enlist as large a number as possible to vote for or approve of or otherwise endorse the policies of the regime in power. President Bush was elected with 51% of the votes thus implying that a large group was not favoring him. Yet the administration has gone on assuming a mandate. Jumping on the winning bandwagon, media pundits and others declared this the reign of the republicans thus pitting the nation even further into what is now called red and blue states. How much of a mandate can exist when 48% of the population is not behind a candidate and his agenda? That was and remains a very good question, particularly since a rather small, insular, pro business, anti-government, pro-life group influences most aspects of domestic and foreign policy. At the same time those opposed to such policies while remaining in the background have largely fallen silent-no doubt for good reasons. They have not, for example, proposed an alternative to social security private accounts, although they have worked to limit the scope of the proposals under discussion. In the midst of what seems to be the neo-con\Christian right apogee, comes the case of a young woman said to be in a persistent vegetative state for the last 15 years. They act as champion for the parents who want to keep her alive and who believe she can be rehabilitated. They mobilize and are successful in not only convincing the governor and the President to get involved but also the House majority whip to shepherd a bill through Congress. But the courts in reviewing the case, as directed by the bill, did not do what they wanted. As a result this small influential group turned to state legislatures and have now been instrumental in introducing a variety of bills to ensure the promotion of their view of end of life issues. They have also begun to strategize so that in future the rulings of judges can be more in line with their values and beliefs. All that, though, may be the beginning of a new story. Just when it looked to those in power that they could have their way with almost anything they wanted, believed in or decided to support, polls pointed to, if not asked, for a reality check. The majority of the public not only did not approve of political intrusion into a private matter, they indicated that they believe the country is going in the wrong direction.
Washington insiders still think that the party in power can have anything it wants. Such hubris in the face of poll numbers as well as their implications would suggest not for long. Republican strategists believe that the way you win in politics is "you plant the seeds of your ideas and you effectively blockade the other side from advancing any of its ideas". But democratic pollster Stanley B. Greenberg believes republicans are planting the seeds of a backlash. Maybe the legacy of Terri Schiavo will not be how her case emboldened the religious right's ideas, but how it planted the seed of doubt in many, doubt that they want to be governed by such ideas, doubt about elected officials interfering in private matters, doubt about a given set of religious values being imposed upon them, doubt that this is the kind of democracy they want.
The need for alternatives is keenly felt. The dissent is there. It's only a matter of time before it reaches critical mass. Our own attitude and actions could play a role in determining when.
Televised Frenzies: The Harm of Quantity
There are times when television is a wonder-filled medium, the way it brings us all together as it did after 9/11 or the way it lets us share into events that otherwise would be remote or only for the few. The televised funerals of people like President Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul II allowed us to witness and experience what only those present could. But then there's the daily fare, and the many excesses. Critics began to question the intensive focus in the 80's during the trial of the Menendez brothers accused of killing their parents. A bit later with that of O.J. Simpson double murders, the phenomenon went national. Now it continues with any case or story that promises to titillate. The problem, however, is more than the fact it pre-empts worthwhile stories from being aired. The problem lies in the kind of coverage as well as what that implies and leads to. To keep us watching a given station as opposed to another, a network feels it has to lure us. To lure us our emotions must be enlisted. That in itself may seem harmless enough, but when emotions are thus involved, critical thinking is impeded. What we end up with is a lot of tug-at-your-emotions-asides and sidebars, and very little of the issues that surround the given story. They may be mentioned but a mention is not a real discussion. To be fair, they are sometimes discussed, and experts are called in, but then it seems the discussion is peripheral either just long enough for us not to be bored and switch to another channel, or sufficiently confrontational to keep us guessing as to which side makes (as opposed to has) the better argument. The result is that we know very little more when it's over than we did when it began, and we don't even realize it until perhaps much later. We may think we know what issues and questions we ought to ask to prepare our own living will, but do we? Do we have better understanding of the pathology of sexual abuse by following Michael Jackson's case? We need not step back far to see the extent to which the conversations of our daily interactions are guided by these programs. It's as though our own thoughts are anesthetized by the emotions we are led to experience. But the real problem of course is the harm it all does, harm in the illusion of knowledge, harm in the obstruction of thought, harm in the over- stimulation of our emotions.
It's doubtful any of this shall stop anytime soon. But if we can understand the harm of such frenzied coverage, perhaps we can lessen its effects when it comes to ourselves and to those around us.
Promoting Corporate Profits?
The recent bankruptcy bill passed by the U.S. Congress favors credit card companies, and is said by its critics to fit into the administration's corporate agenda. Despite its anti-consumer provisions, there have been no protests, no outcry. Across the ocean in France and in Germany, corporate earnings are not viewed so passively. Even the political establishment is now beginning to wonder if there's such a thing as too much corporate profits. The corporate earnings of some European companies rose up to 55%, and that gave weight to trade unions' request for higher wages. The French prime minister then felt obliged to give civil servants a pay increase of as much as 1% at a time when ballooning budget deficits cast a shadow on French economic health. In Germany, where corporate profits have fared better than those of the U.S. and are still rising, the anger is directed at downsizing and the issue of jobs losses it implies.
Regardless of the country, or the particular consequences corporate profits lead to, we have to ask at what point do they stop being good for the public?
Pharmacists And Their Conscience
There's a budding right to life debate surrounding what pharmacists should and should not do. While the issue has gained momentum, it hasn't yet made it to the front pages. Pharmacists in several parts of the country are refusing to fill orders for contraceptives on the ground that they violate their religious beliefs and the practice therefore goes against their conscience. In Illinois, the governor has signed a 150-days emergency order (which began April 1) mandating pharmacists to dispense the drugs regardless, and reproductive rights groups are pressuring legislatures to pass laws ensuring contraceptives can be dispensed. On the other side, those supporting the rebelling pharmacists are citing the right of the military to refuse an order to torture. Pharmacists too, they say, have the right to resist an order their conscience tells them is wrong.
It is a given, one ought never to violate one's own conscience. That said the comparison between pharmacists and the military does not appear to be parallel. People in the military have circumscribed choices. The order of the entire body is predicated on obeying orders and not obeying can lead to court-martials and incarceration. Laws were therefore necessary to exempt those for whom not obeying was not an act of rebellion but one of conscience. By contrast a pharmacist is employed by a given concern by choice. Pharmacies, which rarely have only one pharmacist, are not the arbiter of what is best for a patient. And what about drug safety? Should a pharmacist dispense any drug he believes harmful? What about drugs like Humira, which can cause bone cancer, or Celebrex, which is perfectly legal but no better than Vioxx? What of the many opiates creating dependencies and the many drugs where side effects can lead to serious consequences? Pharmacies have the responsibility to serve the whole public without discrimination. The public has the right not to expect bias from their pharmacists, and pharmacy owners can require that their employees meet the criteria enabling them to conduct their business. It would seem that while a pharmacist may have the right to his or her conscience, a given pharmacy should find ways to accommodate both it and the rights of its customers. Hopefully creative solutions can avoid the kind of legislation that regardless of which side of the religious-based conflict it is meant to uphold, is bound to belong more to a theocracy than to a democracy.
Web Site of Interest: Learning About Herbs - www.mskcc.org/aboutherbs/
This site from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City has a comprehensive database on herbs. Some are familiar and some less so. Although the site is mainly concerned with those herbs that have been alleged to cure cancer, it covers as wide a range as one could find anywhere. Each herb is dealt with in terms of what it is meant to do, what its contraindications may be, how it interferes with drugs, what research supports its claims. The tenor tilts towards the criteria of medical research and often appears skeptical of claims or potential benefits. Nevertheless the wealth of accurate information makes this an important site for general herb information.
To Ponder On - Papal Legacy - Another View
There's no doubt that Pope John Paul II touched many lives and was loved. There's no doubt that he was more saintly than most of his predecessors, that he lived by example, showed us what forgiveness and ecumenism mean, that he made contributions to both his church and to humanity. But all that is seen through our worldly eyes. How would it look were we able to see through a divine lens? Would we see through the devotion and adoration and the biases they create? Would we treat him as a pope or as any other human being? Would we assess his achievements differently? How would we, for example, view the fact that his policies allowed AIDs to grow in certain parts of the world, mainly in Africa? What about his stance against reformers in Latin America, people who tried to make the church more responsive to the needs of the poor? And would we justify the use of resources and money for a statesman's funeral instead of perhaps helping those in need? It's not that we wouldn't understand or forgive, that's what divine love is all about, but that we wouldn't be prey to the miasma of human emotions and values?
A Larger View is published by the Inner\Outer Partnership, a tax-exempt educational organization probing how spiritual principles can be agents of individual and societal change. We are funded through donations. Please send any - as well as any comments - to P.O.Box 1293, Pac. Pal. CA 90272-1293. Also contact us by email at alargerview@earthlink.net or call 310-836-7710 or visit our web site at www.innerouterpartnership.org
To un-subscribe, send an email to alargerview@earthlink.net |
|
