Americans Idle

The following is the second of an occasional 2009 series looking at how the traditional "Seven Deadly Sins" play in today's world.

Hello there. It's been a while since I've come 'round. I'm sorry about that. It hasn't been for lack of want; I've been pining to opine. It's just that I've been busy taking care of some very important things in my personal life, including my ongoing search for gainful employment.

Wednesday, May 16, 2009, marked the 222nd day since my...what's that euphemism employers like to use when they don't want to sully their souls?...ah yes, my DISPLACEMENT. Being euphemized for over seven months is not exactly cause for celebration. However, 222 days is as good a time as any for reflection, and I have learned much during my time in this predicament.

I've learned on whom I can count in tough times. I've also learned that I'm not surprised by how short that list is.

I've learned that my threshold for rejection is mighty, thanks to the tolerance I developed from the rejection I faced in high school; finally, something from my teen years has come in handy. (If only I could say the same for trigonometry.)

I've learned that COBRA is more than just a bad '80s Sylvester Stallone movie. I've also learned that I happen to like bad '80s Sylvester Stallone movies, so if anyone is up for a Cobra / Rocky IV / Over the Top triple feature, let me know; I'll pop the corn.

The list goes on about the things I've learned, but if there is one thing that I HAVEN'T learned, it's how to prove to others that just because I don't have another job yet doesn't mean I'm not working hard at getting one. When you work hard at something, you usually have something else to show for it, like a good report card for hard work at school or a nice lawn for hard work in your yard. But this is not the case for a job search. If you work hard at looking for a job, but don't actually get a job, there is nothing you can present that shows your hard work.

I typically don't fret over what others might think of me. Still, I have a base desire to at least paint an accurate portrait of myself. I don't have a job yet because (so far) I've been unsuccessful - not lazy. I'd much rather be labeled the former than the latter. Failure is not a sin, but Sloth is.

And while the Deadly Sin of Sloth might conjure images of parental-basement-dwelling slackers with no desire to do anything but play video games, blog about playing video games, or Twitter about blogging about playing video games, there's another breed of lazy person out there - the politician.

Not the running politician, mind you. THAT guy works hard. From Dog Catcher to President, the running politician can't shake enough hands or work enough phones to convince the people that he is the best man for the job. But when he gets that job, something happens: he tends to commit Sloth.

Consider federal earmarks, those wasteful spending addenda that ride the coattails of important Congressional bills. These are also known as pork, which surely is offensive to Babe, Hamm, Miss Piggy, Porky and Petunia, Arnold, Wilbur, Piglet, and most other dignified swine. All earmarks are telltale signs of Sloth, including the $500,000 for a "virtual space community for students" added by Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R), and the $200,000 for a "Tattoo Removal Violence Prevention Outreach Program" added by California Rep. Howard Berman (D). The list is almost endless (and an impressively exhaustive reference of all pork, including those above, can be found here.

Or, consider the Sloth exhibited in the local school district referendum that paired, on one ballot item, the expansion of a teacher training center with the addition of two new artificial turf fields for local high schools...in addition to the one already installed.

Or, consider Andrew Harris, the Sloth-committing Maryland state senator (R) who threatened to withhold $424 million in funding from the University of Maryland if it proceeded with plans to screen a pornographic film - Pirates II: Stagnetti's Revenge - in the student union. The screening itself was to have been funded completely by fees assessed to the students...not by any state or school funds.

So how do these three examples - and the countless others they represent - constitute Sloth? Well, the mark of a good politician is that he can convince you that his idea is worthy of implementation. To do so takes effort.

Earmarks do not take effort. Earmarks are lazy. Earmarks say, "There's no way I can sell this idea on its own merit, but I want it, so I will attach it to the other guy's thing, because that thing is SO good, people will approve my thing just so his thing is approved too." Where's the effort in that?

Odd referendum pairings are lazy. The example says, "The community won't want another tax increase to finance more artificial fields when so many other things are needed for all of the students in the district (not just the athletes), but who would want to deny teachers the help they deserve? Let's tie the teachers to the fields so the fields are approved too." Where's the effort in that?

But the adult film example is the laziest of the three. Whereas the earmark and the referendum exhibit the use of Sloth as a means to gain something, the adult film example sites Sloth as a means of suppressing something. It's the political equivalent of "I don't like this game, so I'm taking my ball and going home." Where's the effort in that? (And heaven forbid this senator ever catch wind of some of the works of that Shakespeare guy.)

All of these paths are easy, and I'm not suggesting that the path of least resistance should always be avoided. It shouldn't. If a politician can find a shortcut that saves time/resources/money, that's great. Go for it. Just don't pitch me a bottle of efficient but sell me a bottle of deceptive instead.

If a virtual space community or tattoo removal or new athletic fields or stopping pornography are the passions of politicians, those politicians need to do drop their pens, roll up their sleeves, and do the work to convince me - convince all of us - that those passions are best for the community/state/country. To manipulate purse strings in an effort to forward an otherwise-failed agenda item is just plain lazy.

You Might Help Make It, So Try Not To Miss It

It doesn't matter what side you are on. Your party's convention is over. Now that the house lights are up...

...the thousands of delegates who trekked across the country have returned home to do whatever it is they do when not dolled-up in sequined shirts, giant hats, novelty glasses, buttons for days, and other egregious fashion crimes that would result in societal banishment during any of the other 207 weeks of the quadrennial cycle.

...the millions of viewers who tuned-in to watch the endless coverage and analysis can finally restore order to their lives by getting more sleep, acknowledging their loved ones, and setting their DVRs to record important things, like sports, reality TV, and the season premier of HEROES.

...the countless who worked so tirelessly to construct and deconstruct the stages can, if they wouldn't mind, lend me the giant Democratic pillars to use as a backdrop for my annual State of the Household address, and lend me the massive Republican TV screen to use for what surely would be the coolest round of golf...at Pebble Beach...on the Wii...ever.

...the balloons have been deflated, as have the expectations of some. The confetti has been swept away, as have the dreams of others. But while you might lie there, still a little dazed and trying to remember how on earth you wound up in bed with THIS candidate, there will be no sleeping-off the hangover. It's time for a little hair of the dog...or the donkey or the elephant.

It doesn't matter what side you are on. Your candidate's campaign has begun. With less than 60 days to go...

...there are Sunday talk shows to appear on, scheduled when supporters should be at church. Poor God. First football, now this.

...there are commercials to produce, aimed at that 20% of the voting public who have not yet made up their minds. After something like 700 days of fast-forwarding through these things, NOW the undecided want to pay attention? We return you to democracy, already in progress.

...there are phone calls to place. Check that. There are computers to program to place phone calls, offering "go vote" reminders to the forgetful, making donation pleas to the generous, talking smack about opponents to the base, and causing unwanted cooling effects on meatloaf everywhere.

...hands will be shaken, Purell will be abused, speeches will be made, bumpers will be stickered, blogs will be written, blog spelling will be critiqued, debates will be held, debates will be overanalyzed, Fox will be accused of pandering, MSNBC will be accused of pandering, mud will be slung, and foul will be cried!

Then the day will arrive.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008.

Election Day.

It doesn't matter what side you are on. You will bear witness to History. This might sound like a no-brainer, but...

...as passionate and engaged people, some of things we write, particularly in the political arena, can be pretty intense. We love our guy and we hate their guy, and in our zeal to make our case, we write anything we can to advance our cause or attrite theirs. It's a way of operating that can become so focused, it isn't a case of forest for trees, but rather trees for leaves. As discourse becomes discord, and as the time to debate becomes the time to demean, we tend to lose sight of what is about to happen. Yes, yes. History. So the professional blatherers say; so long as my guy is on the winning end, the History will be glorious, we tell ourselves. But the glory of what will happen in November isn't just the History itself, it's the inevitability of it.

...this History is different than what usually awaits us at the start of each day. History never stops; it occurs and is recorded - on film, in print, in our minds - every minute that ticks past, but it does so with the specter of COULD looming overhead. You COULD get that big promotion, but you might lose out to a coworker; you COULD get up the nerve to ask that person from accounting out to lunch, but you might get cold feet; you COULD win the lottery, but you might wind up with a worthless stub and a perennial dream of retiring to the coast of Maine. Because of all of this uncertainty, because anything is possible, because so much is probable, because very little is definite, we stop paying attention to things, and in the process, we miss History as it happens, and only know it as a reference point in the past.

...this time is special. The specter of COULD doesn't know this time. We WILL have our first African American president this time, or we WILL have our first female vice president this time. Love him and hate her, or love her and hate him, History doesn't really care. History only knows that one of these two people, already History-makers in their own right, will make History one more time. One of these two people will not only stand on the shoulders of those who have come before them - one of these two people will stand with shoulders upon which future generations will stand. History will make it so, and we know precisely when.

It doesn't matter what side you are on. This is too special to be missed. So I ask you...

...between now and November 3, do what you will for your candidate - volunteer, donate, stump, pray.

...between now and November 3, focus on those leaves, rally your allies, attack your foes.

...between now and November 3, plead your case and defend your case with the passion of a thousand white-hot suns.

...on November 4, watch History unfold, and consider yourself lucky for having seen it coming.

Conservatives Go Pro-Choice

Imagine it's Friday. You have just finished a grueling week of shuffling papers from the IN basket to the OUT basket. You and your Sweetie rendezvous at your favorite haunt for dinner. The martinis are great, but when the main course arrives, something is not right. Oh sure, Sweetie is eager to dive into that delicious lobster tail on the plate, but your filet mignon is nowhere to be found. When you ask the waitress about the status of your entree, she replies, "I find it morally reprehensible to eat meat on Fridays. As such, not only will I not eat meat on Fridays, I will not be a party to anyone else eating meat on Fridays."

Now, imagine the filet mignon is healthcare. Maybe you should have done brunch instead.

In the July 31, 2008 edition of THE WASHINGTON POST, a Page One (above the fold) story, as reported by Rob Stein, is best summarized in its opening two sentences:

A Bush administration proposal aimed at protecting healthcare workers who object to abortion, and to birth-control methods they consider tantamount to abortion, has escalated a bitter debate over the balance between religious freedom and patients' rights.

The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.

Simply put, Uncle Sam wants to close his wallet to any federally subsidized healthcare provider that does not let employees choose to abstain from job responsibilities with which he/she morally disagrees. Both sides, for the most part, see this as an abortion issue of the science-versus-ideology variety. There is no meal-based metaphor for that one.

The rest of Stein's piece presents arguments for and against the proposal. The Conservative side champions, among other things, the protection of workers who "...are increasingly facing discrimination because of their beliefs or are being coerced into delivering services they find repugnant." The Liberal side wants to safeguard against, among other things, "...[defining] abortion in a federal regulation as anything that affects a fertilized egg...."

I have issues with this proposal. Surprise.

First, the whole setup smacks of a Constitutional end-around. Conservatives cannot legally deny a woman her right to choose, so instead they try to make the fulfillment of that choice as difficult as possible by cutting healthcare funding. Hmm. This sounds familiar. In broader terms, one political party disagrees with a core ruling that it cannot change, so it attempts to cripple that ruling indirectly by striking at the periphery. Double hmm. It sounds doubly familiar. In more focused (albeit focused elsewhere) terms, Liberals cannot legally deny a person the right to own a gun, so instead they try to make owning that gun as useless as possible by banning bullets. I knew I heard it somewhere before. Attempting to ban bullets has never worked because...it's a Constitutional end-around. Why should this proposal be different?

Second, there's a phrase for how the administration wants to categorize the healthcare workers who do not wish to participate in performing abortions, etc. According to the Selective Service's website (SSS.gov), the phrase represents "...one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles." Yes, the description is militarily based, but you can use the phrase to fit non-military situations such as this one. That phrase is "Conscientious Objector." Just as Selective Service allows someone to claim to be a Conscientious Objector in an effort to avoid participating in combat, the new proposal allows someone who opposes abortion to claim to be a Conscientious Objector in an effort to avoid participating in the performance of the medical procedure. This begs only one question: If military Conscientious Objectors are called "Draft Dodgers," what do you call medical Conscientious Objectors? "Health Haters?"

Look, even if the proposal is altruistic, even if the administration has no agenda other than the best interest of employees in the workforce, even if the only partisanship is that being generated by the media and their audience, then there is only one issue to be had with the proposal: Why should we let employees off the hook for responsibilities they knew they would have?

Job duties cannot be selected a la carte. As employees of any business, people are - and should be - expected to perform ALL of the duties of the jobs they are paid for, the jobs they were hired for, the jobs they applied for. I begrudge no one his or her beliefs. If a person is opposed to something, I support their right to that opposition; what I don't support is the abandonment of common sense in the guise of moral self-righteousness.

If you oppose meat on Fridays, and restaurants serve meat on Fridays, why choose to work in a restaurant?

If you oppose war, and the Armed Services conduct wars, why choose to enlist in the Armed Services?

If you oppose birth control, and pharmacies dispense birth control pills, why choose to work in a pharmacy?

If you answered "the money" or "the schedule" or "the opportunity" or "the education" or "the benefits" or "the experience" or "the travel" or any other reason to take any of those jobs, or any other jobs that might pose moral dilemmas, then you made your choice. Live with it. You chose something superficial over your beliefs, which speaks volumes about how important those beliefs must be to you in the first place. Don't ask Mommy, Daddy, or dear old Uncle Sam to bail you out of this one.