ideas

Losing Religion

Sometimes naked
Sometimes mad
Now the scholar
Now the fool
Thus they appear on earth:
The free men

__Hindu verse

J once said that college robs students of their religion. Liberal campuses - urban in the way of communities that actively reject traditional expectations - and faculty systematically attack the presumptions of absolutes, demonstrate the similarity of religions over time and generally breakdown the compacts that we tacitly accept in year after year of prayer before dinner and Sunday school.

I’ve been thinking a lot about that lately – about spirituality vs religion, about the theocracy movement that is gaining frightening speed, about how easy it is to have everything you think you know changed by the company you keep.

I grew up in a religious family. Sure at the time that we knew what was right – or at least what was wrong. My father still reads the Bible every day, leads Bible studies, travels to Romania and India to carry out His work. My extended family includes ministers, missionaries, evangelicals – some of whom speak about all that happens – good or bad – as God’s will.

As a teenager, I was sure. I gave sermons on youth Sundays at church, I sat on committees, penned moving speeches to raise money, championed moral absolutes.

And, I guess you could say that I lost that in college. Or, you could say that I recognized my fallibility.

It is the way of organized religion to lay claim to Right – to be so sure that their personal beliefs are Truth that they will wage war to propegate them (literally as in the crusades; figuratively as in the legion of morally-inspireds graduating from “Christian” law schools charged with forcing religious principles into all aspects of public life).

The only thing I now know for sure, is that I know nothing for sure. Like many independent souls, I have struggled over the years with what I believe on any issue – from religion to civic responsibility.

I look no farther than the evening news to see how divorced my reality is from the rest of the world. Go as far as Angola where fear and ignorance of modern medicine led to the spread of a plague and the stoning of health workers who came to help. Go as close as downtown where homeless, some plagued by mental or physical illness, wander the streets begging for something as simple as a cup of coffee. 

To be a Christian, some say, is to believe what cannot be proved, to make that leap of faith. I would argue that for many it’s much simpler than that – it’s being taught something from birth, making it as real as mathematics or any other lesson. Or it could be like any other drug, a reality that feels better than everything else. Or, the simple human want for the inclusion of community. For as many people who truly know God, I would guess there are at least of equal number who call themselves Christian for much more human reasons.

So, college … Didn’t take away my personal belief – something I have and will struggle with. Rather, it taught me that my beliefs are just that – beliefs: a theory, a world-view shaped profoundly by experience, a preference for how to answer enduring questions. I emerged a secularist – wanting to defend the independence of public spaces. To make moral choices personal choices. To enable continued exploration of what truly is Right, if such a thing can even exist.

And, so I lost my Religion – because organized religion requires absolutes – from molding laws based on derived Oughts to recruiting undecideds.  And in losing it, I gained a powerful understanding of faith, of trust and of privacy.

Why I'm Blue: the walmarting of ohio politics

walmart politics: average voters demanding personal reward at any social cost. politicians taking advantage of that mindset to reward the rich and garner campaign war chests.

Two Republican proposals made the morning news today - both good ideas with troubling funding sources; both excellent examples of the fundamental disconnect between Republicans and Democrats or the impossibility of, as Lisa put it, serving two masters (in this case social good v funding sources for the inevitable next campaign).

First up: Taft tax reform pitch

WCBE - the local public radio station- treated morning listeners to part of (Ohio Governor Bob) Taft's state of the state address. He trumpeted 21% across-the-board income tax cuts and the elimination of select business taxes, explaining that the cuts are required to spur business growth in the state.

It's difficult to argue the point. Ohio isn't exactly a destination state for new business. No ports, no major cities, no sought-after addresses. Add to that the troubling fact that we lost 200,000 jobs in the last three years. That we lead all other states in the loss of 25- to 39-year olds. And, that we have the third highest combined tax burden in the country. Obviously, the status quo is not working.

But, cutting taxes means cutting spending (at least in theory). Logically, those who receive the greatest relief from the tax cuts would expect to also see a share of the cutbacks. Not so in our Walmart culture where the middle class expects - no, demands - impossibly low prices without any reduction in service or quality. And, certainly without any regard for the people who enable our lifestyles.

Bellowing that we must "have the courage to prevail," Taft unveiled the funding source: massive cuts to Medicaid, which he described as the "Medicaid Monster.” Taft’s tax package also hikes taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, electricity and home purchases, and retains half of the penny sales-tax increase enacted last year.

I'm a flat tax advocate. I don't believe that the simple fact of taxes on sales is necessarily regressive. BUT, this tax plan is a clear assault on the most unempowered among us. Tax cuts that give the most relief to big business (those that make significant capital investments) and upper and middle class individuals. All being paid for by cuts in healthcare assistance for the poor and new taxes targeted to place the largest burden on the poor and lower-middle class.

These policies are enabled by our selfishness. It's the protection of wealth at the expense of the worker. It's an abandonment of social responsibility. I have no doubt that Medicaid needs reformed. I have no doubt that it’s partially responsible for medical inflation and is fraught with abuses (as all government programs seem to be). But, that it was singled out – and coupled with sales taxes targeted to most-burden the least able to pay – is the most blatant pandering to our selfishness that I have seen yet.

If the WWII generation was the "Greatest Generation," ours is the Disposable one. With no respect for anyone but ourselves, we lay off, disenfranchise and abandon like people who have no social compact. The sheer size of our nation and the division of classes has made it possible to look the other way too many times. We forgot that every one else is human, too. Proposals like this – if enacted – only confirm our callousness.

The other morning news story - tomorrow.

Ohio abandons poorest citizens

Yesterday, AP reported that Ohio is going the way of the national Republican regime – legislating for those who live the American Dream rather than those who live the American Reality.

Now, the state is ending a program that paid for medicines and treatment for homeless and extremely poor Ohioans with chronic health conditions such as heart problems, diabetes or mental illness.
Disability Medical Assistance is a $73 million state effort designed to bridge the gap while people await approval for Medicaid, Social Security or other benefits. Income guidelines mean a single person would have to earn less than $115 a month to qualify.

$115/month.

This is who we choose to cut benefits for? Could there be Ohioans more vulnerable?

It gets worse, cuts in Medicaid are also likely – from higher eligibility requirements to lower benefits. We pay some of the highest taxes in the country and we can’t use our shared resources to provide even a sparse safety net for people who can’t care for themselves…

Here’s a quote from the wire: "I'm absolutely panic-stricken," said Judith Austin, 55, of Columbus, whose two heart surgeries were covered by disability assistance at a cost of $372,000. "I have no medical care again. I have no clue what I'm going to do. This could cost me my life."

I continue to struggle with the unreality of today’s Republican majorities. How can they claim god for vengeance and social control and conveniently ignore the compassion part of religion? Agendas that conveniently end at the old testament. I dig that shiny new roads for your SUVs, convenient tax loopholes, oh, and, jailing everyone who smokes a joint are important, but when lives are at stake (and there is no question that they are), we should be able to create a political climate that makes it possible to protect the people who need it most.

30,000 at-risk, sick Ohioans, by the way. There’s something to vote on-

Whatever happened to believing in the social safety net?

Individualism and self reliance.

Two of the great myths of the American experience.

And, two of the value cornerstones that continue to enable the decade-long assault on the social safety net. America's middle class, secure in its cul-de-sac new builds, demands a bootstrap mentality from the poor, elderly, sick and challenged.

If I could do it, we ask, why can't you?

What began with the dismantling of welfare (a policy that decreased both welfare rolls and quality of life and opportunity for struggling families who now live in a constant state of crisis) has found its latest new frontier at Bush's "ownership society," a concept of individual wealth creation that turns a blind eye to the working poor and favors lifestyles grown in the suburbs.

The ideas of individualism and self reliance that fuel these politics are ideas born of ego. If a single change could account for my own political swing, it would be the realization that those concepts of independence are paper dragons, absurdly created by the very support systems that make our individual successes possible.

Tell me you were the first one in your family who went to college; that you worked your way through school; that you worked three jobs to make a way for your family; that you saved for a decade to buy a first modest home; that you worked your way up from mailroom clerk to corner-office executive ... I know you had more help than you think. A parent who showed you dedication by example, a mentor who helped you cut the path; a boss who took a chance on a gut feeling; a client who gave you a shot ... the possibilities are endless. Even an uncommon intellect or talent are gifts that others can't access...

Still, Americans want to believe we are self made. If we go to work every day, why can't the welfare mom? Nevermind that she grew up in a broken home herself, holds a GED, lives a chaotic day-to-day existence and raises three kids with no support from the father. Get a job. $8 at McDonalds. Before child care.

Social Security's foundation in the New Deal seems to be securing it a similar fate. We can't afford it; it's doomed, the president says. So, forget the poor elderly it was created to protect. Forget the still struggling elderly who are faced with everything from skyrocketing healthcare costs to failing corporate pension systems to families too busy to come to their aid.

Perhaps it's the ubiquity of mega-malls, the all-too-obvious division of American cities into haves and have nots, or the simple political power of the affluent. Somehow, we've turned our conflicted value of self reliance into a callousness that ignores the struggle of our weakest citizens, that nearly shows disgust toward struggle, need and misery.

How did we get to this place? When did we lose the value of the safety net?

If Democratic leaders are to counter these Republican proposals, they will be charged with creating a 21st-century social safety net that gives people time and resources to adjust to change and provides protection against crises beyond their control. Despite the crash of the bull market five years ago, politicians are still banking on that promise of investment potential, even as companies are dumping "defined benefit" pensions based on salaries and replacing them with plans that force employees to bear the risk of investing successfully. Letting (forcing?) tens of millions of unsophisticated investors risk Social Security money in the stock market strikes me as a nightmare guaranteed to bring about either greater public burdens or the impoverishment and homelessness of many elderly in the generations to come.

Roosevelt's vision of Social Security was designed as a program for mitigating the potential for economic disaster in old age. That danger is certainly still present - for those without the resources to save, America's truly working poor, and those middle class families who face uncommon crises - from severe illness to failed investment to theft. Perhaps our greatest error was treating it like an entitlement. The result? A renewed middle class revolt against the social safety net. A troubling ethos that demands the impossible from citizens who have likely known generations of struggle. A nation that steels itself against empathy with false ideals.

Providing for the most vulnerable. Rewarding a life of work. Those should be American values.

Dear Mr. President, Cancel the Inauguration

Living in the wealthiest nation is the world presents near constant conflicts of conscience. We are ridiculously lucky – born armed to the teeth with layers of privilege that most of the world will never know. Although suffering is always a part of life in this country and all others, there are occasions when the contrast is so sharp, the waste so great, that it is impossible not to see our copious consumption as directly hurting those in need…

This, in my estimation, is one of those times.

There is no question that U.S. aid to the nation-victims of the tsunami is generous. $350 million + troops, supplies, a floating water desalination plant, naval hospital ship, etc. Still, as countries around the globe canceled fireworks displays and tamed new year’s celebrations to send those party dollars to these devastated nations, the Presidential Inaugural Committee continued plans for a party for Bush that will top $40 million.

After such a hard-fought campaign, the president’s supporters clearly deserve a celebration, but in light of the devastation, it seems that the president should be the embodiment of all that Americans stand for…  Think of all the individuals and families that have given what they can, so moved by the tragedy that they gave to strangers even at great personal cost. I am struck by the bleak contrast of a garish presidential party. And, I suggest that the inauguration parties should be canceled or scaled back and the savings sent – in the form of engineers, water purification experts, supplies and vessels – to Asia.

Like other tragedies before it, this is not a partisan issue, but it may be a uniquely American one… If you agree, please send a note on to the White House or your Congressional reps. Here’s a place to start:

Dear Mr. President [[email protected]],

Congratulations on securing a second term. I’ve watched the developing plans for inauguration parties with some interest. After such a hard-fought election season, I’m sure you and your supporters are looking forward to the celebration.

Nonetheless, many of the world’s celebrations were canceled in recent weeks because of the overwhelming destruction of the tsunami in Asia. Americans have personally contributed millions – moved by the suffering of others, even when they could scarcely afford the donations they made.

I am writing to ask you to make a similar personal sacrifice. Please cancel or scale back the celebrations and send the money to the victims of the tsunami in the form of  engineers, water purification experts, supplies and vessels. The world is sending money, but we are uniquely positioned to send the individuals and experts that can save lives.

I don’t consider this a partisan issue, Mr. President, but I do ask you to consider how a generous gesture like this one would represent the tremendous outpouring of empathy and concern from America.

All the best,

[name]

I agree with George Bush…

There, I said it. I feel queasy and a little out of sorts, but I have to give credit where due…

Watching our president struggle through one of his rare Q&A sessions with reporters (the 15th of his administration), I actually found myself shaking my head in a new direction. When the talk turned to immigration, I was nodding.

Bush is apparently planning to spend a bit of that Red State political capital on a very un-Red policy initiative: the guest-worker system proposed early in his administration. He said Monday that such a system was "a compassionate way to treat people" who come to the United States to perform jobs Americans don't want, but also noted "one of the important aspects of my vision is that this is not automatic citizenship." Bush said allowing legal guest workers, who must eventually return to their home counties, would relieve pressure on U.S. borders.

My major qualm is that I suspect from his privileged position, Bush overestimates how many jobs Americans won’t do (and, doesn’t have much in economic growth policy to create / retain jobs we might rather do…). That short-sightedness may hamper his ability – and, certainly that of his lock-step staff – to build a policy that protects / grows American jobs. Nonetheless, there is much to be enthusiastic about here…

Bush talked about the struggles of wanting to work and care for your family and having to sneak across a border to do it. He talked about making it possible for America’s present-though-undocumented workers to return home to visit family, to cross borders with freedom, to be a legitimate part of the American economy…

He’s undertaking something previously thought to be impossible in Washington – a critical rethinking of a mammoth institution in an attempt to do better with resources and lives. Better. Not different or more. But, better. Instead of creating impossible directives, building bureaucracy or typing out more fine print, he’s actually attempting to empower border patrol, workers and employers with a radical change in policy.

I did say radical. This is a huge departure from the core hierarchal values of his party. This may be one issue where Bush shows true independence and delivers meaningful change…imagine this type of rational policy [that makes best use of available resources and recognizes humanity] in other key institutions… for example:

• Significant legal reform that slashes prison populations by de-criminalizing minor drug offenses and abandonning mandatory minimums (enabling prisons to reform and educate rather than just warehouse; that focuses law enforcement resources on significant crime …)

• Rethinking the tax code with a half-page, flat tax, no deduction return (reducing the opportunity for cheating, normalizing the burden, getting the government out of the business of advocating certain lifestyles over others…)

• Getting smart about transportation security by focusing on securing areas of terminals and air fields and worrying a little less about scissors…

This immigration direction is something I’ve been hoping to see from the Left; Bush is certainly an unexpected torch-bearer for this fight… 

Incarceration: Moral Blindness?

Living with a sociologist, I occasionally pick up an intriguing fact or two. Like, many criminologists consider women to me more evolved than men (oh, the joy of over simplification!) And, prisons - seemingly a relic of an institution - are actually a relatively new way to deal with crime and criminals.

Until the 1800s, what prisons existed were used primarily for detention - holding debtors until they could meet their obligations. Crime was dealt with quite another way - immediately and punitively with physical punishments like branding, whipping, a stint in a pillory or, of course, the gallows. In 1820, thieves were still hanged for stealing as little as five shillings' worth of goods.

19th century Americans rethought the issues of punishment and deterrence with a shiny new institution they introduced to touring Europeans as "penitentiary." The original conception was a bit different than how we know prisons today. Inmates were to be reformed in the original prisons with a regime of silence and hard work. The inventive justice did seem to work - for a century and a half, crime dropped steadily in Western nations.

The hope was that as society evolved, inequities and need would decrease, naturally reducing the impetus for crime. But, alas...

In the 1960s, crime began to rise again. And, our reactionary politicians did what we've all come to know and despise in contemporary elections - they promised to introduce new legislation that would be "tough on crime." They instituted long sentences for relatively minor crimes, created mandatory minimums and basically stuffed the prisons so full that they became the warehouses we have come to expect today...

Even the prison building spree in the 70s couldn't house all the so-called criminals that legislators were creating. Today, we have two million people incarcerated in prisons and jails - compared to 200,000 just three decades ago. Always doing things big - America has 25% of the world's prison population (and only 5% of the world's people).

Are we that bad?

Likely not.

The title of this post is actually part of a quote from S.C. Justice Anthony Kennedy who warned of ''moral blindness'' in the criminal justice system. And, the Bar Association and others have issued reports and calls for an end to mandatory minimum sentences and a renewed emphasis on rehabilitation in response to the catastrophic mess politicians and administrators have made of the country’s prisons.

Why am I going on about all of this? Well, because I think it speaks volumes about where the country is right now. The prison system is a single institution where we can see the resurgence of American blood lust over the last few decades. Imprisoning so many people (many over relatively minor crimes) and instituting very punitive sentences is something of an inflation in retribution. It's no longer simple punishment for a crime or rehabilitation through work and silence - it's now an entire culture of internal violence and recidivism. Our increasingly hierarchal culture needs to place a claim on Right – to be morally and socio-economically superior. It’s an ethos that feeds everything from welfare reform to the War in Iraq to the mass imprisonment of Americans.   

Is this justice? Or just debilitating and degrading?

I actually read that there's great promise in the Finnish model. Formerly a brutal prison system that mirrored that of their Soviet neighbors, they rethought the way they treat their criminals (think: the ubiquitous Churchhill quote: ''Treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country.'')

Under the new system, Inmates -- referred to as ''clients'' or ''pupils,'' depending on their age - live in dormitory-style rooms, address guards by the first name and get generous home leaves. The theory behind it is that the lack of freedom is the primary punishment and that other cruelties are more a reflection on the captors than on the crime / reform / punishment of the inmates.

And, it seems to be working … crime rates have remained at a relatively low level. And, Finland imprisons only 52 prisoners per 100,000of their citizens – the lowest rate of any European country and not even comparable to the 702/100,000 in the United States).

Can you imagine this system in our country? Does it matter that it works? No. Politicians would call it lenient; media would do sweeps specials on the exceptions; our entire ethos of labeling and punishing what we consider inferior would be in chaos…

In all the talk about inflation, how do we skip over this mass incarceration and degradation of Americans…

Oh, one other thought, Charles Graner – one of the defendants in the Abu Ghraib torture and abuse hearings – has a day job when he’s not called to active duty. He’s a prison guard at the Fayette County Prison and State Correctional Institution in Pennsylvania. Who will investigate where he learned to torture and degrade?

Relativism, Self Esteem and Day-Time TV

Rarely does watching day-time television lead to googling Plato, but occasionally, the endless stream of reality programming uncovers an enduring truth of our culture, one with roots in age-old philosophy.

It started this way. The woman in front of the camera was overweight; clad in dingy jeans and an aging rock t-shirt; topped with greasy hair and a gap-tooth smile. While not ugly, she was certainly not a traditional American beauty.

Only no one had told her.

Donia comfortably referred to her look as hot and strode about with a near-masculine confidence. She had that elusive “self esteem.” In spades.

I’ve always been somewhat skeptical about the idea of self esteem – an ideal imposed by a culture that also demands perky c-cups, a 24” waist, flawless complexion and long, shiny – preferably golden – hair. If you are unattractive – inside or out – and know it, is that realistic – or low self-esteem? If you’re lovely and know it, do you really need yet another social validation?

Then, there’s Donia.

At some point, she deflected, rejected or chose to ignore our otherwise shared standards of beauty. She loved herself for what she was, not what she wasn’t. She was a relativist in classic Protagoras and Plato style: “The way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me; and the way things appears to you, in that way they exist for you.”

Until, her family and friends nominated her for a makeover show.

The chic, perfectly-clad Gotham hosts stood Donia in front of a set of 360-degree mirrors to critique her favorite outfits – calling her look saggy, sloppy, unflattering.

Arming her with several thousand dollars on a sponsor’s credit card, they subjected the once-happy rocker to two days of shopping in trendy, big city boutiques, accompanied by an endless commentary on what did and didn’t work on her much-discussed body type.

The third day included a complete hair and makeup makeover. The woman who emerged to model her new look was decidedly more sullen. She told the confessional cameras how unsure she was, looked at the hosts for approval, talked a lot about her new looks…

By creating a standard, they had effectively knocked a couple of rusty dings in her impenetrable self-esteem.

Of course, it’s no surprise that by introducing a new culture or ethic to someone naive to that idea, beliefs and self-identity can be shaken. But, Donia is someone who has been immersed in this beauty ethic her entire life. But either by rejecting it or surrounding herself with her own denial and people who would consistently feed that denial, she was happier with her appearance than the most beautiful women I’ve met.

You’ve likely seen similar curiosities in your own relationships. An unbelievably beautiful woman who thinks she’s fat and ugly. A decidedly plain or cruel girl who thinks the whole room is in love with her.

It’s all relativism. One embraced standards that most can never live up to. The other just didn’t consider them part of her playing field.

Relativism’s critics describe it as the thesis that all points of view are equally valid – meaning there are no Truths, no good or bad or ugly… Perhaps more accurately, though, relativism understands that any one thing (self perception, moral values, etc.) is relative to some particular framework of understanding or personal standpoint. And, relativism says that no one standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.

Applied to cultural standards of beauty, in a relativist world, what one sees as ugly, another sees as beautiful; fat as full-figured; etc. Self esteem is in how you experience yourself, rather than how you compare.  There is no separate or objective truth apart from how each individual happens to see things. An impossible standard for morality or justice, but a real possibility for personal beauty, value and self esteem...

Intriguing, really. Instead of dragging young girls into health classes and counseling, maybe we should be talking about and teaching philosophy. Ways to think about things – not just an ongoing barrage of norms and oughts and products … perhaps that will be our culture’s next challenge, philosophical education as a way to view the barrage of information that technology enables….

Faith at Work

While J was off getting a post-surgical check-up this morning, I was busying myself with the media archive that is a waiting room magazine collection. I came across a New York Times magazine article called, “Faith at Work” by Russell Shorto (10/31/04), featuring various businesses where prayer and “saving” are common with co-workers and customers. This paragraph particularly gave me pause:

On-the-job evangelism extends far beyond [the highlighted Minneapolis community]. In 2001, Angie Tracey, an employee at the Centers for Disease Control, organized what she calls a "comprehensive workplace ministry," among the first officially sanctioned employee religious groups within the federal government. She says that many colleagues have been "saved" at her group's Bible studies and other gatherings on government property, and she describes the federal agency's not-yet-saved employees as "fertile ground." Her program has spread rapidly within the C.D.C., and employees at other divisions of the federal government -- the Census Bureau, the General Services Administration, the Office of Personnel Management -- have contacted her about bringing the Word into their workplaces, too.

Fertile ground?

Reads more like a hostile work environment to me.

I certainly don’t discount Christianity. In fact, I grew up in a Christian household and have many family and friends who are to varying degrees casually to profoundly religious.

For me, Christianity is simply not the one, absolute truth. With so much similarity in world faith and so many valuable truths in secular philosophy, I don’t imagine that our flawed society would possess or otherwise know the absolute about anything…

That said, if there is a single barrier between me and a renewed relationship with a church, it is America’s religious (as a group – as represented by their leadership).

Alternately used as a haughty platform for judgment or a junkie’s opiate for surviving day-to-day unhappiness (think, prozac through prayer), America’s brand of Christianity often strikes me as anything but….

Principles of empathy, shared welfare and service that I’ve drawn from a Christian background as well as secular philosophy, seem secondary in mainstream religion. I remember reading an article before the election about how true Christians could not be liberals (because of issues of tolerance and choice), but I can’t imagine a Christianity that’s not liberal – particularly in supporting peace, understanding, social welfare, social justice and opportunity.

There, I suppose, our paths diverge.

One of the highlighted boss-missionaries in the article prays over things like mortgages and home sales with his customers. Does that strike you as small and selfish in a world at War – a conflict he likely supports? Somehow it doesn’t strike me as particularly, well, Good – if we’re applying capital letters to absolute things.

This article concerns me greatly – especially from my place here in the Midwest (certainly part of the Bible Belt). I believe our founders made the right choice in drawing a line between the public and private, in recognizing the both great and terrible power of religion. Although some Christian values could do well to improve the culture of work, proselytizing and intolerance (a necessary tenant of any philosophy that believes itself the final truth) can serve no greater good…

Buy the article here.

Read more excerpts here.

Reason #1,275 why Rumsfeld should be tarred and feathered

(he's a retro guy - so, why just fire him?)

Including today's fatality, nearly 1300 soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq. (Incidentally, so have ~16,000 civilians). I honestly can't imagine what that must be like for parents and spouses ... to know that their loved ones gave their lives (and likely took lives) for such a despicable political war.

Nonetheless, I would expect a certain gratitude on the part of the president and his cabinet. A humble respect for the sacrifice of these young soldiers.

If you watch the West Wing (what can I say? I have some time on my hands these days...), you may have seen "President Bartlett" deal with causalities of military action. Calling the families personally, being truly moved by lives that were lost in the commission of his orders, understanding the gravity of leadership … emotional themes that are apparently just another media fairy tale.

For the Bush Administration, the families of fallen soldiers are something of an inconvenience, a bureaucratic detail to be delegated and forgotten. Apparently, neither Rumsfeld nor Bush can even be bothered to sign the KIA (killed in action) letters to parents and spouses. Col. David Hackworth (USA Ret.)at Defense Watch explained that two Pentagon-based colonels “indignantly reported” that Rumsfeld had relegated signing KIA letters to a machine. Families of the dead indicated that Bush uses a signature stamp. Hackworth writes:

One father bitterly commented that he thought it was a shame that the SecDef could keep his squash schedule but not find the time to sign his dead son’s letter….

Sue Niederer, whose son Seth was also killed in Iraq, sums it up: “My son wasn’t a person to these people, he was just an entity to play their war game. But where are their children? Not one of them knows how any of us feel, and they obviously aren’t interested in finding out. None of them cares. And Rumsfeld depersonalizing his signature – it’s a slap in the face, don’t you think?”

Recent administrations have had the luxury of detachment from war. Not since FDR have their sons served in battles that they ordered. Bush and Rumsfeld take that ever farther, insulating themselves from the personal duty to mourn the men and women who laid down their lives for these wars… these men are unfit to lead this country's sons and daughters.