Bad Attitudes, Good Attitudes in the Media and Healthcare

I have to admit that I haven't been engaged with the discussion on healthcare, as I am not open to government taking over that part of my life, no matter what their "greater good" arguments are. I recognize that my husband's employer, as well as many other employer's are probably most interested in this discussion, as many foot much of the bill. But, I have listened to some of the discussion. What stikes me is the press!

We need a Free Press to remain a Free Society. Without a free press, we are headed for an authoritarianism that will subvert any choice that the individual may want. The taking over of our liberties is done incrementally and without much notice, unless one is aware. The press is aware of what is happening, if they will 'take a step back for ideological commitments and do their job responsibly. The government is held accountable by the press and is the greatest assest, if sometimes the only way "we, the people" are informed! I love to see a "critical press". But, most of the time the press holds a double standard when it comes to Republican and Democratic leaders.

I caught a glimpse of change when one of the press's most prestigous and well-known asked a question of Obama's press secretary. He tried to delay answering the question until the end of the press conference. Why? Was it because he hoped that the question would not be televised, or that he had time to "think" about how to finagle out of directly answering the question? Was the question so direct and critical that he was "taken aback"?

Whatever the reason of his request for delay, he was held accountable to the press! In fact, the press insisted that the question be answered, then and there. And it was suggested that the press was being controlled! I was very elated to see such courage, such critical thinking, such responsibility toward the American people and one's job!

Was this a bad and disrespectful attitude toward those in authority? Or was this a Good Attitude because the press was not being held hostage to the adminstration's desires about healthcare?

Is this adminstration having an open dialogue with the American people about the real problems, and allowing the population to engage, be informed and educated, as well, as being honest about the pros and cons of both sides of the issue? I don't think so.

I "ran upon" a town hall meeting when flipping through the channels last night, while babysitting. The moderator asserted that Obama had not been informed beforehand about any question that was forthcoming. He was answering honestly and directly. The first question was about why America wouldn't want a one payer insurance policy, meaning that the government underwrites all of everyone's healthcare. Obama did not answer with pros and cons, but only with the pros concerning government take-over of everyone's healthcare.It seemed to me that it was a 'prepared answer' to a specifically focused question. Obama didn't show any critical thinking skills at all.

Then, a woman stood up and said she hoped she could ask a question without crying...she gave her "story" and the public was moved, Obama gave her a hug and reassurance that "government would be there"! I was not moved and was incredulous at a Town Hall meeting of our president, the most powerful of the free world, having an"Oprah-like" "feel". I turned off the TV. I couldn't bear how manipulative the whole scene seemed.

I am not negating this woman's real crisis, if it is real. But, I am negating what seems to be a "play for reality TV" when it comes to our policy decisions. All it takes for authoritariansm to take hold of our government is for there to be no accountability. The "consent of the governed" is being taken incrementally, subtly, and without any critical thinking on the part of the American people!

Did the press have a "bad attitude" toward the press secretary by "not being nice" in his request of denying an anwer to a direct question? or was the press really in "good behavior" according to their responsibility toward the American people? I think it is obvious!

Two Kinds of Theologians (that I can tell)

There seems to be two kinds of theologians. The first type of theologian speaks to support or defend a"tradition". They "speak for God" and are "defenders of the faith". These are those in authority over others in specified institutions and positions. These theologians are exclusivist, at least in "appearance".

The other kind of theologian is one who does not make claims about speaking for "god" or a specific "tradition", but is speaking about what is universal, the ethical. The ethical is not based on revelational texts, but values.

The former bases their understanding and their theology on specific texts of "revelation" or tradition's authorities. These theologians are useful to benefit tradition's goals of growth, and communal impact and commitment.

But, I find that the ethical theologian doesn't have to be functioning within the institutional paradigm, but can use many means of "getting his message across". The purpose of these theologians is the concern for humanity, for individuals and for justice. These theologians can be journalists, lawyers, authors, teachers, activists, and even, politicians (wouldn't that be nice!).

Theologians can be anyone who cares about life in general and its larger purposes, or vision. And I think theological ethics is imperative in today's climate of expediency, pragmatism, and outcomes.

In America, it is obvious that many live for today's hamburger to be cooked well, and tomorrow's bills to be paid, but do not attend to what is happening to the larger concerns of our nation or the world at large. This attitude breeds an attitude of indifference and ultimately the downfall of our nation's imfluence and power abroad.

Others in our nation have an attitude of a different kind of entitlement, and special priviledge. These people disregard or disrepect others in their abuse of legalities that subvert the intent of the law and take advantage of the system. Their inside knowledge, either formal education or position give them a feeling of empowerment over others. This attitude breeds arrogance and ultimately leads to what has recently been seen on Wall Street, in larger corporations, or our politicians.

Both American groups are indifferent to our nation's values of equality before the law. One disrepects the law by not being "good citizens", as a lack of taking responsibility, while the other disregards the law's intent. Both undermine what has made our country great, "the rule of law". Both need a good dose of theological ethics.

Networks, Individuals and Relationships

Relationships make us human, Relationships sometimesdefine our person, but should not be our sole source of "self". Relationships make for opportunity, as relationships are about connection.

The business world calls "connection" networking. But, what if an individual has no network? What if, for no fault of their own, they have fallen through the cracks of their community? Some think this is the time for those "left out" to "reach out and touch". But, what if the message within the person inhibits them from continuing to "reach out"? Messages are sent by how we exclude another and these messages are internalized. That is why it is important that all have a voice, otherwise, we do disservice to another and end up scape-goating them.

The real issue is that the scapegoat is usually the answer to much of the problem, as the scapegoat covers or takes upon himself the sins of the others. But, the scapegoat suffers, while others go "scot free" in their jealousies, petty competiviness, and superior attitudes toward another make like them. This is not justice, or just.

Discrimination is based on a lie that another is not worthy or to be valued. And discrimination is unloving. Obama represents a new hope that all of us will not continue in the petty bigotedness of the past, but represent a new hope for tomorrow...