I know something now about Rush (the rock band, not the talk show host) that I did not know before. I know the date when I received that first Rush album on Moon records, the one my friend Bob Roper (then a record promoter at A&M of Canada) kindly sent me: it was May 24, 1974, a Friday. I marked it up with a star next to the track I thought would be the most important for the deejays to play (as you may have guessed, it was "Working Man"), and having first given it to Denny Sanders (he was on the air at the time) to see if there would be an audience reaction (there was), a couple of days later, a copy was in the bin for all of the WMMS-FM announcers to use. And they did.
The reason I did not recall the exact date is simple: I had no idea at the time that championing an unknown band from Canada was about to change my life. (In fact, as I noted on the album in my Music Director's comments, they were
probably going to be confused with another Canadian band of that time,
Mahogany Rush.) I had no idea the band-members and I would become friends, and I had no idea that Bob Roper and I would still be in touch four decades later. So, while I figured out that I got the album in the late Spring of 1974, the day and date never stayed with me... until someone provided me with the information, 42 years later.
As many of you know, I turned 70 on Valentine's Day, and as I get older (even though I still think of myself as young and cute), I sometimes think back on certain times and events in my past; sometimes it's to wonder if I could have done something differently, and at other times, it's to marvel at how many years later, the results of an event are still part of my life... I mean, knowing the members of Rush for nearly 43 years is pretty amazing. But of course, at the time, I had no way of knowing how that event would turn out, or even that it would be important in the future. I was a radio music director. I listened to lots of albums. It was my job. It was fun to discover a new band, but I never expected to become friendly with the members or keep in touch for years. It all proves you just can't predict what will happen.
The same is true about my personal life: for example, if you had asked me at the time, I couldn't tell you the exact day and date when I met my husband-- we just celebrated our 30th wedding anniversary, but again, while I know where we met, I never expected we'd still be together years later, so it didn't occur to me to mark in my memory exactly when I first saw him. Unlike movies, where meeting "the one" is accompanied by special background music, my life never did come with an orchestra, nor even a lone guitarist, to warn me that a big event was about to occur. As my then-boyfriend and I continued to date, I was able to retroactively mark the day we first met (March 18, 1984), but again, at the time, it didn't seem like it was going to be anything unique. When you are dating, you meet lots of folks, and it's hard to know which one will be the one you marry. In this case, despite a few breakups and near-breakups, we ultimately did get married, and I feel blessed that we are still together.
My point is that many of life's biggest events only became noteworthy long after they have taken place. Sometimes, it may not seem that anything important is happening, but life has a way of taking some unexpected twists and turns. May 24, 1974 was one of those days for me, and March 18, 1984 was another. Neither seemed unusual or noteworthy at the time, yet both have had a lasting effect on who I am and how I've lived. And if there's a message in any of this, it's just to say don't assume you know what's going to happen. Sometimes, a life-changing event has just taken place, but you won't know its full impact until sometime in the future.
Opinions and commentary about politics, the media, history, religion, and current events.
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Cruelty as Public Policy
Whenever a Republican becomes president and has to propose a budget, I fully expect he will want to allocate more money for defense (whether we need it or not); and I fully expect he will want to defund both Planned Parenthood and PBS/NPR. I will talk about why doing that is a really bad idea; but first, let me discuss one of the most cruel and callous assertions I've ever heard from any politician.
I was driving home from a meeting at work, and listening to the daily press briefing that Sean Spicer holds; the topic was President Trump's new budget proposal. A reporter questioned whether it's a good thing to be cutting funding for grants that support early childhood education (including making sure that poor kids get something to eat, rather than trying to learn while they are hungry) and Meals on Wheels (which brings much-needed food to the elderly and shut-ins). Spicer had turned the questions about the budget over to Mr. Trump's Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, and he basically said there was no good reason to waste taxpayer money on such things. When pressed further, he said that there is no evidence such programs produce results, and the administration just wants to fund programs that produce results.
Needless to say, I was not amused. In fact, first I was stunned, and then I was outraged. Please tell me: what is a better result than making sure children and the elderly aren't going hungry? And doesn't the Preamble to the Constitution speak about promoting the general welfare? I can't think of a better way for the government to help its citizens than by funding programs that prevent hunger (evidently not producing enough results to be continued); or programs that provide legal aid for the poor-- which are often utilized by victims of domestic violence (also cut in Mr. Trump's proposed budget); or programs that fund Pell Grants, so that poor and lower-class students can attend college (also scheduled to be cut); or how about eliminating aid to libraries and museums (yup, on the chopping block too). There are even cuts to programs that address public health emergencies-- in fact, there's a 20% decrease in the National Institute of Health's budget (and a $54 billion increase in defense spending). Those are priorities that truly make no sense to me-- finding a cure for Zika or a more effective treatment for breast cancer is less important than building up the military? Really?
Okay fine, I know what some of my conservative friends will say-- it's not the government's job to do that; let private charities take care of it. But charities alone cannot handle all of the people who are in need. As Mr. Trump acknowledges, the economy is great in some parts of the country, but in others, it is struggling, and his budget severely hurts the very people who voted for him. I understand wanting to cut back on wasteful spending; but I see NO evidence that programs dedicated to feeding the elderly or helping the poor to attend college are examples of waste. Rather, if we are to "promote the general welfare," giving tax breaks to the upper 1% while making the poor go without seems unnecessarily cruel.
And then there's PBS and NPR. Yes, I know many of my conservative friends insist these networks are (gasp) liberal, but the 40-45% of listeners and viewers who identify as Republicans yet are loyal fans of both PBS and NPR would disagree. Audience surveys repeatedly show that those who choose PBS and NPR come from both political parties, as well as many Independents. They all agree that these two networks have thorough and factual news coverage as well as some wonderful programs for folks of all ages. (Defunding Big Bird? How rude!)
As for Planned Parenthood, I understand that for some religious conservatives, any organization that performs abortions is morally objectionable (even though only 3% of what Planned Parenthood does is related to abortion). But most of what Planned Parenthood provides relates to contraception, as well as prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases. And no, contrary to a common conservative discourse, you can't just replace Planned Parenthood with some other clinic; many states are finding that few clinics are equipped to offer the care that Planned Parenthood provides. In fact, many rural areas have few if any women's health clinics, and even in bigger cities, the expertise of Planned Parenthood means women who go there for contraception or advice about family planning will find highly trained people who genuinely understand women's health. My question to those wanting to shut down Planned Parenthood and leave millions of poor and rural women with nothing is this: won't denying women access to contraception cause more, rather than fewer, abortions?
And here we are, ready to enact policies that are merciless, policies that will hurt the most vulnerable citizens. I must admit I am puzzled by what has happened to the Republican party: when I was growing up, Republicans were fiscally conservative, but they weren't overtly cruel. A party that defends denying meals to the elderly, or says that feeding hungry school children "doesn't work" has truly lost its way. I hope there are some Republicans with courage who will speak out against a budget that may make the military happy, but will be a disaster for nearly everyone else.
I was driving home from a meeting at work, and listening to the daily press briefing that Sean Spicer holds; the topic was President Trump's new budget proposal. A reporter questioned whether it's a good thing to be cutting funding for grants that support early childhood education (including making sure that poor kids get something to eat, rather than trying to learn while they are hungry) and Meals on Wheels (which brings much-needed food to the elderly and shut-ins). Spicer had turned the questions about the budget over to Mr. Trump's Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, and he basically said there was no good reason to waste taxpayer money on such things. When pressed further, he said that there is no evidence such programs produce results, and the administration just wants to fund programs that produce results.
Needless to say, I was not amused. In fact, first I was stunned, and then I was outraged. Please tell me: what is a better result than making sure children and the elderly aren't going hungry? And doesn't the Preamble to the Constitution speak about promoting the general welfare? I can't think of a better way for the government to help its citizens than by funding programs that prevent hunger (evidently not producing enough results to be continued); or programs that provide legal aid for the poor-- which are often utilized by victims of domestic violence (also cut in Mr. Trump's proposed budget); or programs that fund Pell Grants, so that poor and lower-class students can attend college (also scheduled to be cut); or how about eliminating aid to libraries and museums (yup, on the chopping block too). There are even cuts to programs that address public health emergencies-- in fact, there's a 20% decrease in the National Institute of Health's budget (and a $54 billion increase in defense spending). Those are priorities that truly make no sense to me-- finding a cure for Zika or a more effective treatment for breast cancer is less important than building up the military? Really?
Okay fine, I know what some of my conservative friends will say-- it's not the government's job to do that; let private charities take care of it. But charities alone cannot handle all of the people who are in need. As Mr. Trump acknowledges, the economy is great in some parts of the country, but in others, it is struggling, and his budget severely hurts the very people who voted for him. I understand wanting to cut back on wasteful spending; but I see NO evidence that programs dedicated to feeding the elderly or helping the poor to attend college are examples of waste. Rather, if we are to "promote the general welfare," giving tax breaks to the upper 1% while making the poor go without seems unnecessarily cruel.
And then there's PBS and NPR. Yes, I know many of my conservative friends insist these networks are (gasp) liberal, but the 40-45% of listeners and viewers who identify as Republicans yet are loyal fans of both PBS and NPR would disagree. Audience surveys repeatedly show that those who choose PBS and NPR come from both political parties, as well as many Independents. They all agree that these two networks have thorough and factual news coverage as well as some wonderful programs for folks of all ages. (Defunding Big Bird? How rude!)
As for Planned Parenthood, I understand that for some religious conservatives, any organization that performs abortions is morally objectionable (even though only 3% of what Planned Parenthood does is related to abortion). But most of what Planned Parenthood provides relates to contraception, as well as prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases. And no, contrary to a common conservative discourse, you can't just replace Planned Parenthood with some other clinic; many states are finding that few clinics are equipped to offer the care that Planned Parenthood provides. In fact, many rural areas have few if any women's health clinics, and even in bigger cities, the expertise of Planned Parenthood means women who go there for contraception or advice about family planning will find highly trained people who genuinely understand women's health. My question to those wanting to shut down Planned Parenthood and leave millions of poor and rural women with nothing is this: won't denying women access to contraception cause more, rather than fewer, abortions?
And here we are, ready to enact policies that are merciless, policies that will hurt the most vulnerable citizens. I must admit I am puzzled by what has happened to the Republican party: when I was growing up, Republicans were fiscally conservative, but they weren't overtly cruel. A party that defends denying meals to the elderly, or says that feeding hungry school children "doesn't work" has truly lost its way. I hope there are some Republicans with courage who will speak out against a budget that may make the military happy, but will be a disaster for nearly everyone else.