|
|
| Home | Calendar | About Us | Join Us | Contact Us | |
|
Editorials |
|
|
Member: Forget the password?
Contact the . |
Speak Out!October 2008 -- Will the Poor Ever Be Heard? -- Barbara Finch What does it say about the state of affairs in Missouri when four newspapers, one television station, one radio station, and 19 civic and faith-based organizations in a major metropolitan area can't get the attention of the two leading candidates for governor at the height of the election season? That's what happened when Community Against Poverty, a broad-based coalition of local civic and religious organizations, planned a forum to ask the candidates about their ideas to fight the growing epidemic of poverty in Missouri. Journalists from respected media organizations agreed to pose the questions. However, the candidates were not available to answer. One did not respond to the invitation to participate; the other declined with a form letter. Maybe the problem was scheduling. Or maybe it was pure political calculus: the Democratic candidate felt that he didn't need to show up because the St. Louis metro area is his "base" and he doesn't need to work hard here; the Republican candidate felt like he'd never make inroads in the city so it would be a waste of time for him to come. But perhaps it was the topic that was off-putting. Maybe the candidates don't want to talk about the 740,000 Missourians who live in poverty. Maybe they don't have any ideas about how to increase access to health care, improve housing and education, create jobs and eliminate hunger. Maybe silence is safe. But the question remains: if a group as diverse, powerful, and respected as the one who planned this forum can't get the candidates to respond, what chance is there that the poor can ever be heard? People who live in poverty usually can't form coalitions. They're too busy trying to hold body and soul together and make it one day at a time, sometimes one hour at a time. So, it's up to us to speak up on the issues that impact them. The forum will go on, without the candidates, on Wednesday, September 24, at 7:00 pm at the Missouri History Museum. Come and learn the heartbreaking facts, and then be prepared to speak out. After all, that's why we're called Women's Voices. September 2008 -- Saddleback Would Horrify Constitution's Drafters -- Mary O'Reilly First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......." The Founding Fathers of the great experiment that is our nation were the children of the Age of Enlightenment. The men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were deeply concerned with avoiding the sort of repression that the joining of the State with a particular religious viewpoint engendered in England and other European countries. The "establishment clause" of the Bill of Rights was intended to protect every citizen's right to worship his/her God as he or she saw fit. Or, of equal importance to that group of skeptics, to NOT worship if that was their choice. While "Judeo-Christian" principles are part of the collective Western knowledge base, they were not the only principles at work on the minds of the Founders and their intention was never to found a "Christian" nation in preference to any other religion. Our nation's laws have subsequently been written with the aim of keeping a distance between religion and politics, in order to protect the intent of the Founders, and the religious freedom of the citizens of the United States. Our politics in the last several election cycles have lost sight of this deeply important principle. The Founders would be appalled after the recent event at the Saddleback Church in California! The idea that the two candidates for president of the United States would agree to appear before the world in a Christian church and respond to questions about their relationship with Jesus Christ is deeply shocking and utterly inappropriate. Candidates are not meant to have to pass a religious litmus test. That is completely wrong and very troubling. My first response to the news that McCain and Obama had agreed to this event was that they would need to also appear at the churches of other Christian denominations and at Jewish Temples and Islamic Mosques and the houses of worship of Hindus, Buddhists, American Indians, and all other religious organizations. That might have softened the offensive nature of the Saddleback event somewhat. But the question about the candidates' relationship with Jesus really put the entire issue beyond the realm of being acceptable under the Constitution. I understand that Senator Obama may believe that he needs to counter the pernicious rumors that continue to be circulated about his religion, but both candidates need to be constantly mindful of the principle of separation of Church and State. To do otherwise is very dangerous territory. I am going to write to the campaigns and tell them so, and I suggest you consider doing the same: http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2 http://www.johnmccain.com/Contact/ August 2008 -- Less Isn't More -- Barbara Finch This summer my husband and I spent a weekend at a retreat center in the mountains of North Carolina, where a group of youngsters was also having a camping experience. In the dining hall, there was a large poster on the wall above the garbage cans, where the children scraped their plates and put their silverware in tubs of soapy water. The poster was titled "The Ort Report." (The word "ort," as those who work crossword puzzles know, is defined as a leftover scrap of food.) Children at this camp were permitted to serve themselves from a buffet line, and camp counselors were trying to teach them to take only the food they would eat on their plates. To obtain "the ort report," table scraps were measured and the leftover quantities were graphed on the poster. The chart revealed that the children had gone from a few gallons of leftovers at the start of camp to just over a quart a day near the end. Clearly, the kids were learning to take only what they wanted and could eat, and not waste food. I've thought about "the ort report" a lot lately as I've eaten in restaurants and been astounded at the amount of food that is frequently served. My husband recently ordered a pasta entree and received a bowl, the size of a vegetable bowl, filled with at least a pound of cooked spaghetti. In another restaurant I ordered, from the appetizer menu, a crab cake sandwich called a "slider." When it appeared, I was astounded to see not one, not two, not three, but FOUR sandwich buns, each filled with at least a quarter-pound of faux crabmeat. If it had been any good, I could have made four lunches out of it. Much has been written about the super-sizing of Americans from a health standpoint, but food waste is clearly a social justice issue. Food that is served to customers and comes back into the kitchen cannot be donated to a food pantry. (When we were in China, we were told that leftover food is fed to the pigs, but I doubt that happens in St. Louis.) This culture of casual over-consumption is harmful to us and to the environment. We've become complacent about what we order and what we eat. In homage to business competition, we've encouraged restaurants to serve us more food for less money. And while we have become overstuffed, others in our community are forced to visit food pantries. We need to think carefully about the resources we consume, and those we throw away. There are ways to cope with restaurant overkill: split entrees with another person, order from the appetizer menu, or take your "orts" home for another meal. Until restaurant owners learn that more isn't better, we're going to have to learn how to be careful, thoughtful, deliberate diners. I have two suggestions: (1) cook and eat at home, or (2) buy a pig. August 2008 -- Judy Arnold Last week, I went to renew a prescription for which I had previously been charged a $20 copay. I had recently lost my retiree insurance and had just changed to a Medicare Part D plan (a story in itself). I was shocked when I was told my copay would now be $52. As I was resignedly taking out my credit card, I suddenly decided not to capitulate right away. I went home and called my doctor to find out if I could take something cheaper and was told that there was a generic for the brand-name medication I had been taking. I was furious! I went back to my pharmacy set to do battle because I'd been paying for that higher-priced brand-name for months. Fortunately, I was polite to the pharmacist as I inquired about why I hadn't been told about the generic (I knew that this pharmacy's policy was to inform clients about available generics). She checked my records and found that my former insurance company had a special contract with the maker of the brand-name product and would not allow the pharmacy to offer the generic to its subscribers. But my new insurance plan had no such constraint, so now I could get the generic drug for a $4 copay! I saved $48. This time, things came out in my favor, because I challenged the system, but what about the very elderly or very sick who don't have the energy or ability to fight back? In our opaque health care delivery nonsystem, there are just too many variables for people, especially the weakest, to make truly informed health care choices. Surely, as members of the richest society in the world we can do more to hold politicians accountable for preventing our country from creating a sane, open system for delivering care fairly to everyone--the well, the sick, the well-off, the poor, the young, the old. It is simply the ethical thing to do. But it is also the thing to do if we want to have a productive society in an increasingly competitive global economy. It is time for us to join the other developed countries and treat health care as a basic human right, not an optional consumer good. |
|