Right in San Francisco

Respecting America

Let's go back to one of my favorite book premises: All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. Let's talk about respect.

It is reasonable to expect that someone who grew up with a Kenyan anti-British colonial father, an expatriate mother, and a politically active Indonesian stepfather would have a bit of a different view of America than the rest of us. That's OK, and maybe it even brings something worthwhile to the melting pot. The problem is that Barrack Obama apparently missed the kindergarten lesson on respect.

On one level the discussion about the Constitution can be boring. Sure the Founding Fathers were well educated in the classics, in political theory, and in the failings of the monarchies in Europe. Sure, the document they crafted is brilliant with its separation of powers, its federalism, and its Bill of Rights. But as long as it remains abstract it is hard to get excited about Rick Perry's defense of the 10th Amendment (which reserves most powers to the states or to the people) or Senator Mike Lee's criticism of the Commerce Clause (which has been used to continually enlarge the scope of what the federal government can regulate in the name of interstate commerce.) Let's get more concrete in assessing the past three years.

On respect for the separation of powers: when President Obama used the setting of his 2010 State of the Union Address to publicly chastise the Supreme Court for its Citizens United decision he disrespected the least political of the three branches in a public setting where they could not respond; when he ignored the War Powers Act with an extended air campaign in Libya without Congressional approval he thumbed his nose at a pliant Congress; when he made Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and National Labor
Relations Board "recess appointments" while the Democratic Senate was technically in session he disrespected a century of Senate rules.

On respect for federalism: when he determined that everybody in the country needed to buy insurance he greatly expanded the federal role (and probably violated individual rights); when his NLRB tried to determine that Boeing couldn't build 787's in South Carolina he disrespected both private enterprise and the states; when the EPA told Governor Jindal of Louisiana that he could not build a berm to protect the coast from BP's oil spill he took on the role of "sole protector"; when he sued Arizona for enforcing immigration laws he made adversarial what should be a cooperative effort.

But last week's decision to require all health insurance policies to cover contraception and some forms of abortion (with no co-pay or deductible) overturns the decades-long truce between pro and anti-abortion advocates. The Catholic bishops take the lead in defending the people of good conscience doing good deeds in hospitals and schools, but the implications are broader as the secular authorities show no respect for the religious convictions of millions of citizens or the role of Congress. In our diverse, pluralist society this is a big deal. The good news is that the 2013 implementation date gives the voters a chance to be heard and "repeal Obamacare" is a strong rallying cry.

-----

This week's video is a brief clip of my San Francisco representative giving a "valley girl" prediction about the Republican nomination.

bill bowen - 1/3/12

A Welcome Inspiration

   Terrible year. Whether you're part of the unemployed 10% (really 20); whether your retirement plan was irreparably damaged; whether you are concerned about the debt being piled on our grandkids; whether a nuclear Iran or North Korea is your concern; whether you are just appalled by Harry Reid's sordid civics lesson. A terrible year by any measure.

    But, there is a transcendent better perspective. The following "In Hoc Anno Domini" editorial has been run each year in the Wall Street Journal since it was written by Vermont Royster in 1949.  

   When Saul of Tarsus set out on his journey to Damascus the whole of the known world lay in bondage. There was one state, and it was Rome. There was one master for it all, and he was Tiberius Caesar.

    Everywhere there was civil order, for the arm of the Roman law was long. Everywhere there was stability, in government and in society, for the centurions saw that it was so.

    But everywhere there was something else, too. There was oppression -- for those who were not the friends of Tiberius Caesar. There was the tax gatherer to take the grain from the fields and the flax from the spindle to feed the legions or to fill the hungry treasury from which divine Caesar gave largess to the people. There was the impressor to find recruits for the circuses. There were executioners to quiet those whom the Emperor proscribed. What was a man for but to serve Caesar?

    There was the persecution of men who dared think differently, who heard strange voices or read strange manuscripts. There was enslavement of men whose tribes came not from Rome, disdain for those who did not have the familiar visage. And most of all, there was everywhere a contempt for human life. What, to the strong, was one man more or less in a crowded world?

    Then, of a sudden, there was a light in the world, and a man from Galilee saying, Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's.

    And the voice from Galilee, which would defy Caesar, offered a new Kingdom in which each man could walk upright and bow to none but his God. Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. And he sent this gospel of the Kingdom of Man into the uttermost ends of the earth.

    So the light came into the world and the men who lived in darkness were afraid, and they tried to lower a curtain so that man would still believe salvation lay with the leaders.

    But it came to pass for a while in divers places that the truth did set man free, although the men of darkness were offended and they tried to put out the light. The voice said, Haste ye. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness come upon you, for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.

    Along the road to Damascus the light shone brightly. But afterward Paul of Tarsus, too, was sore afraid. He feared that other Caesars, other prophets, might one day persuade men that man was nothing save a servant unto them, that men might yield up their birthright from God for pottage and walk no more in freedom.

    Then might it come to pass that darkness would settle again over the lands and there would be a burning of books and men would think only of what they should eat and what they should wear, and would give heed only to new Caesars and to false prophets. Then might it come to pass that men would not look upward to see even a winter's star in the East, and once more, there would be no light at all in the darkness.

   And so Paul, the apostle of the Son of Man, spoke to his brethren, the Galatians, the words he would have us remember afterward in each of the years of his Lord:

   Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

-----

   For more seasonal inspiration, go to Pandora Radio, sign up, and enter your favorite Christmas carol. Consider Pandora my present to you. In return, you can "re-gift" www.RightinSanFrancisco.com.

bill bowen - 12/25/09

Faith, Hope, and (Mostly) Charity

    A number of conversations - and a year-end search for tax deductions - have caused me to think about "doing good". (One daughter's father-in-law was recently selected as a Minneapolis "volunteer of the year"; the other daughter's father-in-law volunteers helping poor immigrants in the Bay Area. The least that I can do is think about the subject.) A few experiences inform my conclusions:

    1. A few years ago I spent quite a bit of time investigating the San Francisco system for homelessness. Our group made a number of minor recommendations which were accepted - an on-line booking system for shelters, for example - but it became clear that this is an insoluble problem in the gestalt of San Francisco.  Recent reporting shows that the number of "sleep on the streets" cases remains about 3000 (out of 6-12,000 total), despite the City spending $190,000,000 per year on the problem, building about 700 housing units per year for the homeless, and paying for 800 people per year to return to their homes around the country. Some 60 to 80 % of the homeless are recent transients, are not looking for a new beginning, and form the base stock for an industry here.

   2. My corporate experience over three decades shows that many companies support their employees' philanthropic efforts - perhaps because it makes for good marketing, or because it helps to attract and retain good employees. One company had a target of 2% of earnings going to charities as matches for employee contributions. Both actively supported such institutions as the Second Harvest food bank network and Junior Achievement. We also had active scholarship, recruiting, and intern programs for minorities and in-company support groups. Corporations are made up of people who want to do good.  

    From this, I have discerned some principles for giving of time and money: 

    1. It begins with the family. And in the current economy we all have family members who will need help.

    2. The recipients must be making an effort. This is not expected in the San Francisco homeless industry. In the corporate world, the efforts were designed to enable people who were striving. 

    3. Charity is best where it has a multiplied and sustainable result - the "teach a person to fish" principle. Thus, education is a priority, and rigorous thought is required in assessing the limitless needs.  

   4. If there is to be a "it is immoral not to help this group of people" argument, I like to see what that group is doing to help people outside their group - whether they practice charity, or only want to receive it.  

    Finally, I'd like to dispell a myth that liberals are better at this than conservatives. Research from 2006 identifies that conservatives give about 30% more than liberals. As a group, conservatives are more religious than liberals and much of the difference is in giving to churches/synagogues/mosques, but the greater giving is not limited to giving to religious institutions. It seems that conservatives are more likely to give their own money while liberals are better at taking moral credit for giving the government's money - e.g. ours. 

                                                        ----- 

  This week's You Tube is a somewhat infamous interview with the latest star of the Kennedy political machine. If appointed, she will offer Republicans a good chance to pick up an important seat in 2010.

Bill Bowen - 1/2/09