On The Couch With The Barking Dingo
In a week filled with remarkable- and heatbreaking- news, we at the SC&A Institue have been priviledged to have shared with our readers some outstanding and very thoughtful exchanges. In a blogosphere filled with the mundane and indifferent, we are gratified that you have chosen to exchange ideas with us and each other, in a manner befitting the level of conversation. We really do look forward to reading those of you who choose to guest post.
Along these lines, below is our 'On The Couch With The Barking Dingo.' You will find his responses thoughtful- and thought provoking. Noteworthy are his remarks on TerrI Schiavo (now a lawyer, Dingo did a stint at an insurance comapny) and in particular, his remarks on religion and common ground.
We read Dingo religiously (there are times we just can't help ourselves) and have been bettered for it. In addition, he has regular readers who comment (you know who you are) that will illuminate, frustrate or absolutely drive you crazy- but contribute mightily to his blog. You may not agree with his politics, but he's worth the read.
If Dingo is a Yankees fan, we take back all the nice things we've said.
The left and right seem to be sitting in a circle, firing shotguns at each other re Terri Sciavo. How and why did this happen? Seems to us no one will benefit and everyone will get hurt.
Because in the game of politics, it was in the politicians best interest that this did not get resolved. Who cares if we actually benefit or get hurt as long as they can rally their base to win re-election. You say 'everyone will get hurt.' Not everyone... not the politicians.
As a lawyer (and as such, have at least one Constitutional Law course behind you), is it ever appropriate for Congress to involve itself in the way it did in the matter of Terri Schiavo?
Of course there are time they should step in. They are rare, but necessary. Sometimes the states don't do enough to protect their own citizens. Congress had to step in during civil rights. Congress had to step in on environmental issues. There are many times that a state does not hold up there end of the bargain. Was Florida's law really neglectful of its citizens? In my opinion, no. You will always have situations that fall outside the the contemplation of the law, but I would not call the law wanton neglect or derelict in duties. I think Congress overstepped its bounds in this matter. Whether you agree with the results of the event, it was about people who wanted the best for Terri. One group who thought it was best for her to live, the other believing it was best for her to die. But at least it was about Terri. In Texas, where the law allows the Hospital to pull the tube based on money... that, is a dereliction of duty.
In your view, is there a real distinction between the 'hard' left and the 'hard' right?
About 3 shades of gray. There is so little distinction I sometimes wonder why they don't join forces in order to take over the world and then divide it amongst themselves. Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore are the same person. Anne Coulter and Janeane Garofalo are the same person. There is no compromise, there is no middle ground, there is only their view and if you don't like it, too bad. It is all about imposing their view of morality. We have to remember that the political spectrum is not a line, but a circle. I am much closer to a moderate conservative that an extreme liberal. Might I also point out that having hard right or left is not always bad. Every idea that we now hold sacred as Americans was at one point new and radical. Our founding fathers were the leftwing, radicals of their day. They were the original American iconoclasts. 230 years ago conservatives, like Rush Limbaugh, would have been standing on a soap box in Boston saying, "Friends, these revolutionaries... these traitors want to destroy our way of life! They dare question King George? They dare go against the word of our sovereign who was rightfully chosen by God." It always makes me chuckle when staunch conservatives hold dear the ideas of men they would now call "moonbats."
Is there a common ground between the 'soft' left and 'soft' right?
There is a lot of common ground to be found. The blogs show that themselves. The fact that a group of people, who have never met and share different values, different upbringings, different lifestyles, can come together and talk about the issues freely and openly is proof there is common ground. Bloggers like Maxed Out Momma have opened up ideas to me that I would never have seen on my own. And while I may disagree with some of the soft right's views, it allows me to either strengthen my own view, or to modify it in a way that is a combination. You can learn more by exploring the issues with those who disagree than those who agree. I think abortion is the area very ripe for the soft left and right to cooperate. I think many on the left realize that there needs to be some limitation on abortions (late term). And I think the right is realizing that there will always be situations where abortion is necessary (rape, incest, health of mother). But what about the majority of abortion that occur in this country? The "mistakes?" You have to worry about whether abortion is legal or illegal a lot less if you can do away with the unwanted pregnancies that are preventable, and you make the alternatives to abortion more attractive. Once you focus people on the cause and not the result, I think people can start working together.
One of the great American patriots of our time has been the late Danial Patrick Moniyhan. What made him so great (and beloved)? Why has there been so few to follow in his shoes?
Well, first of all, they are pretty big shoes. Whether you agreed with his politics or not, he was a brilliant man. Second, he was the most partisan and least partisan man in the senate. He was such a contradiction that he was both a neo-conservative and a neo-liberal. Someone like him would have a hard time getting elected these days. Him and John McCain are of similar breed. Neither would make it through their parties primaries these days if they were just starting out.
You made a remark re Judicial activism, that one cannot expect activism on some matters and then none on other matters. Do you believe Jurists should be activists?
It is a very difficult question to answer, but, to a certain extent, yes. It is difficult because one of the major components of a sound judicial system is consistency. That means that you should know the outcome of 95% of disputes before anything goes to court. This allows people to quickly resolve disputes because they already know who will win. The other major component is justice. Sometimes, the two are mutually exclusive. Morality (which I believe is part of justice) should be considered in a judges ruling as well as being consistent. A legal system that does not serve justice, cannot be respected. A legal system that is not consistent cannot be followed. We can try to create laws that do both, but there is always going to be problems. Taking the Schiavo case again. Here we have a law that gives the spouse the ultimate responsibility of decision. What if the parents were given the right to decide instead of the spouse? Then you open up the possibility of parents who would pull the tube against the spouses wishes. What happens if the parents have split opinions? In the end, someone must have the authority to decide and you can have the courts changing that in order to arrive at their desired outcome or you destroy consistency. You would never know if the person you really want making the decisions for you will actually be the person who ends up making the decisions. Lets say if you change the law to say that you must have a written and signed document in order for anyone to pull the tube. That seems simple enough, right? Now lets say Mr. X gets up in front of all of his friends and family and proclaims, "I am about to sign a directive that if I were ever to lapse into a vegetative state I want the tube to be pulled with no if, ands, or buts." Just before Mr. X signs the document, a ceiling fan falls on his head and he goes into a persistent vegetative state. The law is clear, the judge has to keep him alive if he is to be consistent with the law, but is justice served? And if you think that these things never happen, well, the truth is stranger than fiction. So, once again, you are stuck in trying to find that elusive middle ground. The one thing I havelearned from the Schiavo case is that when the far right cries "activist judge" it does not mean anything about following the law or not, it just means judges who don't rule the way they want.
Going back to TS, we recall the recounting of your personal experience with some of those issues. How has that experience affected, if at all, your feeling on what boils down to state intervention? Does it worry or concern you that insurance companies might exert too much influence on the definition of the 'quality of life' discussion, so as to serve their interests?
The decisions should be made by the family, not by insurance companies and not the state. No good can come out of the state asuming control of these decision. As for insurance companies. Insurance companies are a strange breed. I actually worked for insurance companies before going to law school. The employees are some of the most caring and friendly people I have ever worked with. So, how is it that these very nice people make such unpopular decisions? It is all because the people they are making decisions about are just numbers and names on paper. If they ever actually saw an individual in the hospital, got to know their family, they would never be able to deny any claim. Unfortunately, it is way too easy, when everyone is faceless numbers, to make 'quality of life' decisions that have nothing to do with the quality of life, but the quantity of money. However, people will also have to come to terms with paying higher premiums if they want that right to chose not to be usurped by insurance companies. Nothing is free.
Responsible political opinion understands the need for dissent. How do we influence the current culture to embrace dissent, willingly and without malice?
I touched on this earlier. I believe that dissent is the most important tool in creating sound policy. I believe in the "thesis - antithesis - synthesis" model. It starts when we stand up against the people on our own side of the spectrum who do nothing but shout down the opposition. It starts when we listen to what the other side says. It starts when we are willing to accept ourselves as fallible. It starts when the majority of us are willing to say the status quo is unacceptable. It is tough to get people stand up for the middle and then sit down and talk to each other. There is not sex appeal in co-operation. You never hear, "what do we want?... For our elected officials to respectful discuss their differences and come up with the best remedy!.... When do we want it?.... Now!"
You have always been passionate about your beliefs and opinions. How do you want to be perceived and remembered by your community?
I try not to think about how others will perceive me or remember me. When you do that, you tend to do things for the wrong reason. When I lived in smaller towns, I was a volunteer fireman. None of the firemen I knew joined in order to be remembered as someone who served their community. But because they served their community, they will be remembered as such. Dr. King didn't lead a movement in order to have streets named after him, but he had streets named after him because he led a movement. A good reputation is the reward of trying to be a good human, not the goal. My reputation (good or bad) will follow my actions.
There have been some great liberal religious voices in the past, clergy and lay people alike- far fewer now. Is there room at today's table for a religious liberal? Why have those voices been so silent, as of late?
A wanted a really insightful and contemplative response to this one. But the truth is, this is all beyond me. How anyone has been able to claim religion (left or right) goes well beyond my understanding of both politics and religion. Logically, if anyone should have a lock on Christianity, it should be the left. Jesus never talked about homosexuals. He never said a single word about abortion- 99% of his teachings were about caring for the poor, healing the sick and caring for the children. Jesus was the original bleeding heart. But religion in politics has been dwindled down to two topics. Why has the religious voices on the left been silenced? For me, I no longer feel comfortable going to church, and only go on my own when there is no mass. I tried going back to the faith about two years ago. I went to the church and while there asked about any charitable activities I could take part of. The only one they organized was helping homosexuals "see the light of their sins." I cannot change my views on homosexuals. I have an innate belief that they are as much gods children as heterosexuals are. I have both friends and family who are gay, and even if I wanted, I would not be able to change my views. I believe that god made them that way and god loves them that way. Because of that, I am no more able to sit and listen to a priest call them sinners anymore than I could sit and listen to a priest be bigoted towards blacks. I know many liberals who have the same feelings of alienation from the church. Of course, the left is also to blame for the lack of liberal religious voice. We have squeezed out all of those who are devote believers. If you are pro-life, you will not get a seat at the liberal table, end of story. Liberals have become so anti-organized religion that clergy, no matter what their motives, are seen as untrustworthy. Its sad when people can't see the forest through the trees. I think the truest tale of how this whole battle over religion is absurd was shown with the death of the pope. It shows that religion is not "claimable." It cannot belong to right or left. The pope was pro-life and anti-death penalty. He was anti-gay marriage and anti-capitalists. He was for toppling dictators, but only through peaceful means. Is there room for a religious voice at the liberal table? Yes, there is huge void for a religious voice to be heard. I think they are already there talking. The question remains- is anyone listening?
Along these lines, below is our 'On The Couch With The Barking Dingo.' You will find his responses thoughtful- and thought provoking. Noteworthy are his remarks on TerrI Schiavo (now a lawyer, Dingo did a stint at an insurance comapny) and in particular, his remarks on religion and common ground.
We read Dingo religiously (there are times we just can't help ourselves) and have been bettered for it. In addition, he has regular readers who comment (you know who you are) that will illuminate, frustrate or absolutely drive you crazy- but contribute mightily to his blog. You may not agree with his politics, but he's worth the read.
If Dingo is a Yankees fan, we take back all the nice things we've said.
The left and right seem to be sitting in a circle, firing shotguns at each other re Terri Sciavo. How and why did this happen? Seems to us no one will benefit and everyone will get hurt.
Because in the game of politics, it was in the politicians best interest that this did not get resolved. Who cares if we actually benefit or get hurt as long as they can rally their base to win re-election. You say 'everyone will get hurt.' Not everyone... not the politicians.
As a lawyer (and as such, have at least one Constitutional Law course behind you), is it ever appropriate for Congress to involve itself in the way it did in the matter of Terri Schiavo?
Of course there are time they should step in. They are rare, but necessary. Sometimes the states don't do enough to protect their own citizens. Congress had to step in during civil rights. Congress had to step in on environmental issues. There are many times that a state does not hold up there end of the bargain. Was Florida's law really neglectful of its citizens? In my opinion, no. You will always have situations that fall outside the the contemplation of the law, but I would not call the law wanton neglect or derelict in duties. I think Congress overstepped its bounds in this matter. Whether you agree with the results of the event, it was about people who wanted the best for Terri. One group who thought it was best for her to live, the other believing it was best for her to die. But at least it was about Terri. In Texas, where the law allows the Hospital to pull the tube based on money... that, is a dereliction of duty.
In your view, is there a real distinction between the 'hard' left and the 'hard' right?
About 3 shades of gray. There is so little distinction I sometimes wonder why they don't join forces in order to take over the world and then divide it amongst themselves. Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore are the same person. Anne Coulter and Janeane Garofalo are the same person. There is no compromise, there is no middle ground, there is only their view and if you don't like it, too bad. It is all about imposing their view of morality. We have to remember that the political spectrum is not a line, but a circle. I am much closer to a moderate conservative that an extreme liberal. Might I also point out that having hard right or left is not always bad. Every idea that we now hold sacred as Americans was at one point new and radical. Our founding fathers were the leftwing, radicals of their day. They were the original American iconoclasts. 230 years ago conservatives, like Rush Limbaugh, would have been standing on a soap box in Boston saying, "Friends, these revolutionaries... these traitors want to destroy our way of life! They dare question King George? They dare go against the word of our sovereign who was rightfully chosen by God." It always makes me chuckle when staunch conservatives hold dear the ideas of men they would now call "moonbats."
Is there a common ground between the 'soft' left and 'soft' right?
There is a lot of common ground to be found. The blogs show that themselves. The fact that a group of people, who have never met and share different values, different upbringings, different lifestyles, can come together and talk about the issues freely and openly is proof there is common ground. Bloggers like Maxed Out Momma have opened up ideas to me that I would never have seen on my own. And while I may disagree with some of the soft right's views, it allows me to either strengthen my own view, or to modify it in a way that is a combination. You can learn more by exploring the issues with those who disagree than those who agree. I think abortion is the area very ripe for the soft left and right to cooperate. I think many on the left realize that there needs to be some limitation on abortions (late term). And I think the right is realizing that there will always be situations where abortion is necessary (rape, incest, health of mother). But what about the majority of abortion that occur in this country? The "mistakes?" You have to worry about whether abortion is legal or illegal a lot less if you can do away with the unwanted pregnancies that are preventable, and you make the alternatives to abortion more attractive. Once you focus people on the cause and not the result, I think people can start working together.
One of the great American patriots of our time has been the late Danial Patrick Moniyhan. What made him so great (and beloved)? Why has there been so few to follow in his shoes?
Well, first of all, they are pretty big shoes. Whether you agreed with his politics or not, he was a brilliant man. Second, he was the most partisan and least partisan man in the senate. He was such a contradiction that he was both a neo-conservative and a neo-liberal. Someone like him would have a hard time getting elected these days. Him and John McCain are of similar breed. Neither would make it through their parties primaries these days if they were just starting out.
You made a remark re Judicial activism, that one cannot expect activism on some matters and then none on other matters. Do you believe Jurists should be activists?
It is a very difficult question to answer, but, to a certain extent, yes. It is difficult because one of the major components of a sound judicial system is consistency. That means that you should know the outcome of 95% of disputes before anything goes to court. This allows people to quickly resolve disputes because they already know who will win. The other major component is justice. Sometimes, the two are mutually exclusive. Morality (which I believe is part of justice) should be considered in a judges ruling as well as being consistent. A legal system that does not serve justice, cannot be respected. A legal system that is not consistent cannot be followed. We can try to create laws that do both, but there is always going to be problems. Taking the Schiavo case again. Here we have a law that gives the spouse the ultimate responsibility of decision. What if the parents were given the right to decide instead of the spouse? Then you open up the possibility of parents who would pull the tube against the spouses wishes. What happens if the parents have split opinions? In the end, someone must have the authority to decide and you can have the courts changing that in order to arrive at their desired outcome or you destroy consistency. You would never know if the person you really want making the decisions for you will actually be the person who ends up making the decisions. Lets say if you change the law to say that you must have a written and signed document in order for anyone to pull the tube. That seems simple enough, right? Now lets say Mr. X gets up in front of all of his friends and family and proclaims, "I am about to sign a directive that if I were ever to lapse into a vegetative state I want the tube to be pulled with no if, ands, or buts." Just before Mr. X signs the document, a ceiling fan falls on his head and he goes into a persistent vegetative state. The law is clear, the judge has to keep him alive if he is to be consistent with the law, but is justice served? And if you think that these things never happen, well, the truth is stranger than fiction. So, once again, you are stuck in trying to find that elusive middle ground. The one thing I havelearned from the Schiavo case is that when the far right cries "activist judge" it does not mean anything about following the law or not, it just means judges who don't rule the way they want.
Going back to TS, we recall the recounting of your personal experience with some of those issues. How has that experience affected, if at all, your feeling on what boils down to state intervention? Does it worry or concern you that insurance companies might exert too much influence on the definition of the 'quality of life' discussion, so as to serve their interests?
The decisions should be made by the family, not by insurance companies and not the state. No good can come out of the state asuming control of these decision. As for insurance companies. Insurance companies are a strange breed. I actually worked for insurance companies before going to law school. The employees are some of the most caring and friendly people I have ever worked with. So, how is it that these very nice people make such unpopular decisions? It is all because the people they are making decisions about are just numbers and names on paper. If they ever actually saw an individual in the hospital, got to know their family, they would never be able to deny any claim. Unfortunately, it is way too easy, when everyone is faceless numbers, to make 'quality of life' decisions that have nothing to do with the quality of life, but the quantity of money. However, people will also have to come to terms with paying higher premiums if they want that right to chose not to be usurped by insurance companies. Nothing is free.
Responsible political opinion understands the need for dissent. How do we influence the current culture to embrace dissent, willingly and without malice?
I touched on this earlier. I believe that dissent is the most important tool in creating sound policy. I believe in the "thesis - antithesis - synthesis" model. It starts when we stand up against the people on our own side of the spectrum who do nothing but shout down the opposition. It starts when we listen to what the other side says. It starts when we are willing to accept ourselves as fallible. It starts when the majority of us are willing to say the status quo is unacceptable. It is tough to get people stand up for the middle and then sit down and talk to each other. There is not sex appeal in co-operation. You never hear, "what do we want?... For our elected officials to respectful discuss their differences and come up with the best remedy!.... When do we want it?.... Now!"
You have always been passionate about your beliefs and opinions. How do you want to be perceived and remembered by your community?
I try not to think about how others will perceive me or remember me. When you do that, you tend to do things for the wrong reason. When I lived in smaller towns, I was a volunteer fireman. None of the firemen I knew joined in order to be remembered as someone who served their community. But because they served their community, they will be remembered as such. Dr. King didn't lead a movement in order to have streets named after him, but he had streets named after him because he led a movement. A good reputation is the reward of trying to be a good human, not the goal. My reputation (good or bad) will follow my actions.
There have been some great liberal religious voices in the past, clergy and lay people alike- far fewer now. Is there room at today's table for a religious liberal? Why have those voices been so silent, as of late?
A wanted a really insightful and contemplative response to this one. But the truth is, this is all beyond me. How anyone has been able to claim religion (left or right) goes well beyond my understanding of both politics and religion. Logically, if anyone should have a lock on Christianity, it should be the left. Jesus never talked about homosexuals. He never said a single word about abortion- 99% of his teachings were about caring for the poor, healing the sick and caring for the children. Jesus was the original bleeding heart. But religion in politics has been dwindled down to two topics. Why has the religious voices on the left been silenced? For me, I no longer feel comfortable going to church, and only go on my own when there is no mass. I tried going back to the faith about two years ago. I went to the church and while there asked about any charitable activities I could take part of. The only one they organized was helping homosexuals "see the light of their sins." I cannot change my views on homosexuals. I have an innate belief that they are as much gods children as heterosexuals are. I have both friends and family who are gay, and even if I wanted, I would not be able to change my views. I believe that god made them that way and god loves them that way. Because of that, I am no more able to sit and listen to a priest call them sinners anymore than I could sit and listen to a priest be bigoted towards blacks. I know many liberals who have the same feelings of alienation from the church. Of course, the left is also to blame for the lack of liberal religious voice. We have squeezed out all of those who are devote believers. If you are pro-life, you will not get a seat at the liberal table, end of story. Liberals have become so anti-organized religion that clergy, no matter what their motives, are seen as untrustworthy. Its sad when people can't see the forest through the trees. I think the truest tale of how this whole battle over religion is absurd was shown with the death of the pope. It shows that religion is not "claimable." It cannot belong to right or left. The pope was pro-life and anti-death penalty. He was anti-gay marriage and anti-capitalists. He was for toppling dictators, but only through peaceful means. Is there room for a religious voice at the liberal table? Yes, there is huge void for a religious voice to be heard. I think they are already there talking. The question remains- is anyone listening?
<< Home