The Militant Moderate

Just when you think you have seen a lot of dumb things from the current federal administration, you find that they have done something even dumber.  To make matters worse, the administration is stuck again in a vituperative defense of it dumb acts against critics, who are as numerous as the sands along the sea coast around eastern ports.  These critics include senators and congressmen from both political parties, governors of affected states, nearly every person of note in the mass media, and most concerned citizens in the country – including the Militant Moderate.  

The MM supposes that there might be acts of greater social and political insensitivity than that of approving of an Arab company managing our ports, but at the moment he would be hard pressed to think of one.  Similarly, it is difficult to imagine why the president, after discovering this blunder, did not immediately separate himself from the process of dumb decision-making by hirelings and come out openly in a call for reconsideration of that internal procedure – thus allowing the staff to reverse itself and save face.  

The Militant Moderate surmises that there must be deep-seated nuances of relations with ostensibly friendly Arab governments, and that the president is trying to maintain good relations with those whose cooperation is needed in the Gulf.  Also, the MM is aware of reports of close business and investment ties of the UAE with the Bush family over a long period of time.  However, any person with a modicum of acumen about government, public relations, and politics should have known that this was not a good avenue for placating friendly Arab business associates.  

The White House press secretary keeps repeating himself to media people in describing how thorough was the process, how cabinet members have affirmed it, and how customs and the Border Patrol are still going to be in charge of security.  Considering our farcical experiences with the southern border, does anyone feel more secure with those people involved?  Does anyone feel more secure knowing the president’s appointees have reviewed this decision and found it sound?  

Political pundits now say, “It is a matter of lack of trust.”  

The Militant Moderate wonders how loud the public must shout, “We don’t trust you!  We don’t trust your advisors!  We don’t trust your vice-president!  We don’t trust your version of ‘intelligence’!  We don’t like the secrecy with which you operate!  We don’t trust your opinions on Social Security or Medicare, or most other issues of substance!  We don’t trust your explanations of your budget!  We don’t trust your management of the Iraq war!  We don’t trust your decisions in handing out bundles of our tax dollars abroad, and to your political cronies’ companies, without proper accounting!  You have fooled us before, and it is not so easy anymore!”  

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

While it might be easy to condemn the Oklahoma Education Association for suing the state for not maintaining an adequately financed educational system, the Militant Moderate has mixed feelings about this whole idea.  Like most others, the MM has a certain repugnance to lawsuits to force the legislature to do what it ought to do even if it does not want to do it.  On the other hand, the MM shares the frustration of educators with the politicians’ perennial lack of attention and action to address the critical needs of schools and colleges.  

As a college president for 25 years and a teacher, professor, and administrator for another 15 years before, the Militant Moderate shares the frustration of all educators with the lack of concern exhibited in the political arena for the problems of educational finance.  Year after year, the OEA, representing educators, has tried to keep educational needs before the politicians, and most years these have received only token attention.  There have been a few good years, but mostly endless years of skimpy budgets.  

Faced with these years of frustration, what can an educational organization do?  During years of surplus, what do educators hear from the politicians?  It is tax cuts, tax cuts, and tax rebates.  This is not necessarily a partisan issue.  Although one party may be more tax cut oriented than the other, both are guilty of putting the wrong priorities first.  Oklahoma teachers have always been within one or two places of last in salaries, and Oklahoma schools have always been in the last few places in per pupil finance.  Now that there is money to remedy this, the politicians again speak of “tax cuts.”  It would certainly be tempting just to sue the rascals.  

Appropriately, people raise a concern over putting the courts in charge of school finance, and not the elected body.  But this need not be so.  Lawsuits are lodged about the quality of jails, hospitals, or mental institutions – not with the result of courts taking them over.  If the jail is judged substandard, it may be forced to improve or close.  The court does not take over and make the decisions on how to build or run a jail.  

The Militant Moderate is not sure what form the decision of the schools’ lawsuit against the state might take.  This makes everyone a bit uneasy.  It might be as simple as a finding that the state is inadequately funding its system of education, and some schedule of remediation suggested or possibly mandated.  The court would have to find that there is a compelling public interest in certain improvements in the schools in order to enter that arena with specific mandates.  While a general finding of funding inadequacy might be made, this should normally be followed by the enumeration of deleterious effects of that circumstance upon the public.  Inequity or discrimination in funding of different districts or units would be another case, of course.  

An unfortunate negative byproduct of this lawsuit for better financing of common schools may be the neglect of the needs of higher education, mental health, social services, corrections, and other state services, as common education funding is mandated.  That would not be a good thing.  The MM strongly believes that buildings, buses, equipment, and other capital expenses should remain strictly a local responsibility, except perhaps for a few instances of equalization when maximum mill-age votes will not suffice.  Since Oklahoma ranks 18th from the bottom in level of state tax burden, it should be clear that cutting taxes is a fiscally foolish action by politicians.  

While the Militant Moderate does not claim to have all the answers, this whole issue should be of considerable concern to Oklahoma citizens – a concern which should be reflected their voting choices and in the priorities of their elected representatives.  


Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA -- The Militant Moderate

“America is a Christian nation.”  How often have we heard this?  If a polling organization were to call tomorrow, around 85% would answer in agreement.  Since about that same proportion would identify personally in some way with Christians, most believe this is a Christian nation.  The Militant Moderate is about to provoke controversy, because he is going to tell you that is a myth.  America is not a Christian nation!  

The United States was founded on the principle of separation of church and state.  In fact this country could not become the United States, i.e. could not get its Constitution ratified, until it was made clear by the addition of the Bill of Rights that there would be absolutely no official religion or church in this country.  Good, church-going, Christian citizens of several colonies, such as (Baptist) Rhode Island, would not hear to the ratification of that document until they were assured that there would be freedom of worship, and that government would never again take the side of one religion or one denomination over another.  

The Constitution under which we became a nation does not mention God anywhere in it.

The early colonies were settled by refugees from countries where there was a state religion.  The Puritans in Massachusetts were rebelling against the Church of England, the official church of the King and Parliament.  Huguenots in South were religious refugees who made a sojourn first in the Netherlands.  Catholics, persecuted in England, settled in Maryland.  Quakers, also persecuted in Europe, settled in Pennsylvania and Dutch Protestants in New York.  In an early example of the struggle for religious freedom in this country, Baptists under Roger Williams and Anne Hutchison left Massachusetts in protest to religious dictates of the Puritans to settle in Rhode Island.  

Colonial America was settled and populated heavily by those who sought freedom from the domination of another sect or religion back in Europe.  Citizens of the new world were not about to take a chance on again becoming dominated and persecuted for their faith.  They demanded that this freedom be written into the new Constitution.  They had learned hard lessons from previous situations where there existed a national religion.  They did not intend to repeat it.  

Therefore, AMERICA IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION.  AMERICA IS A SECULAR NATION in which all religions have freedom to worship their God according to their own faith and beliefs.  Church and state are separate.  The Constitution says that no laws are to be made which will establish any religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion by believers.  

This nation is one which offers a free and fertile environment for all religions to function and to grow in competition for the minds and hearts of citizens.  This nation offers the freedom to each person to exercise the religion of his or her choice, or to the freedom to abstain from worship if that choice is made.  Popular religious movements, such as the Baptists and the Wesleyans, owe much of their success to this environment of freedom.  
In contrast to their traditional doctrine of separation of church and state, under which the denomination flourished, the current Southern Baptist leadership has moved to restrict freedoms of its own members and churches.  That leadership has also involved the church deeply in partisan political affairs.  This portends well for neither church nor state.  Heaven forbid that this church, or any other, seize control of our political system!  

While this may be disturbing to many, the Militant Moderate must make a couple of points.  Reason tells us that in a religiously free country it is not appropriate to display religious symbols and quotes from religious texts on the walls of government buildings.  Nor is it appropriate to insert references to God into pledges of national loyalty.  To do so endorses that religion, which our government has agreed in the Constitution not to do.  When our courts reach these conclusions, let us understand the freedom that represents.  

While most Americans may be Christian, this is still a nation fettered by no official religion.  This is a nation where religious freedom prevails for all.  Thank God!  Let freedom rule!  Let freedom rule!  

…………   Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard,    AKA  The Militant Moderate

Not expecting anything of substance, the Militant Moderate was not disappointed in the President’s State of the Union Address.  Expecting the president to go through his usual smirking, grimacing, winking, mannerisms, and body language, the Militant Moderate was repulsed but not offended.  Not expecting the president to admit deadly mistakes, the MM was not surprised with the use of patriotic fervor for defensive cover.  

Not expecting the president to address the real issues in a helpful way, the MM was not disappointed when he offered no real solutions for health care even when elements of the solution are obvious to anyone but a republican congressman with campaign donations in his pocket from the industry.  Not expecting that he would address the horrible snafu with Medicare prescriptions, caused by republican pandering to pharmaceutical and insurance companies, the MM was not disappointed by lack of simple corrections.  

The president called for an end to partisan bickering and for democrats and republicans to work together on the nation’s problems.  That may seem strange coming from the president whose party has divided the country, but it is their custom to pass blame to others.  This administration’s cohorts have pulled every dirty trick in or out of the books, from swift boat lies to rigged elections, to destroy all political opposition.  Why would they expect anything but hostile response to their partisan misconduct?  

Sorry, Mr. President, but the State of the Union is not good, and it is not strong.  This is a badly divided country.  Your approval ratings hover around 40%.  Sixty percent of the people think the country is going the wrong direction.  Six out of ten think that the Iraq war was based upon misinformation.  Many now understand that the Iraq War and terrorism are two different fights, and that you have chosen the wrong one upon which to dissipate our soldiers’ lives and the nation’s resources.  

Only thirty-eight percent give your congress a favorable rating.  There is corruption in the republican congress, and in your own management and procurement operations.  Members of your staff group have violated the laws protecting identity of intelligence personnel – for political retribution.  You and your staff have had dealings with the convicted lobbyist, but you will release no information.  What are you hiding?  Incompetent political cronies have been appointed to important positions with awful consequences.  Your claims to legality for spying on the American people are worthless, and just what did those Quaker folk have to do with Al Qaeda anyway?  Maybe it was an offense like Cindy Sheehan’s T-shirt, which got her arrested?  

Mr. President, you did not mention the $8+ trillion national debt, that over $2 trillion of that is held by the Chinese banks, or that it has become worse on your watch.  You did not mention this country’s capital being drained away by the trade imbalance every year.  You did not mention that thousands of jobs are being exported overseas annually.  Obscene profits of oil companies were not mentioned, although these came at the expense of American consumers.  You did not mention the corporate tax dodges still flourishing in off-shore financial operations.  
Nothing was mentioned about the shrinking middle class and the growing poverty class.  Nothing was said about the undermining of the American standard of living as a result of cheap labor (and no benefits) overseas.  You took no cognizance of the fact that there are thousands of American families, with both parents working at minimum wage, stuck in poverty.  Why not raise that wage?  

Mr. President, you did not tell us that the annual deficit would go away if the tax cuts you advocated making permanent were dropped, except for the costs of your Iraq adventure.  The new budget would be more acceptable if you vetoed it now and sent it back for congressional pork liposuction.  Your talk of cutting spending failed to disclose that total federal spending has increased by 42% on your watch.  

The prosperity you mention must refer to the dramatic increase in both income and wealth for the upper five percent under your tax policies.  The purchasing power of wage earners has actually decreased under your programs.  Of what value are low unemployment rates if the growth is in cheap jobs?   Mr. President, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer under your administration.  Are you pleased with that?    

The truth, Mr. President, is that there is extreme disunity within the Union, and our beloved country in great distress.  You and your followers must accept much of the responsibility for this situation.  But first you need to recognize realities.  

………   Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard,   AKA  The Militant Moderate