Cheney's Bunker-Mentality-Disorder

What's up with Dick Cheney? Why is a former Vice President preaching "the Gospel of Fear"? Throughout our short history our leaders tended to be fearless men of courage. What's with Cheney? Why is he fixated on 9/11? Why isn't he more Churchillian? 

Those of us who have been around the block a few times remember a condition -- perhaps a psychological illness -- known as "Bunker Mentality." It is characterized by fear and the attitude that one is constantly under attack and therefore must hide from the real world. Obviously, Mr. Cheney suffers from this disorder. 

And why are we surprised that he has Bunker Mentality Disorder? Consider what happened that September day in 2001 when our country was attacked by terrorists. Dick Cheney disappeared and hid in an underground bunker.  For two years or more after, he frequently disappeared and was said to be in"undisclosed locations." Most victims of BMD go into hiding figuratively, but in  more serious cases,  such as Mr. Cheney's,  the victims literally go to "undisclosed locations."

We should not be too surprised at Mr. Cheney's present condition. Who knows what the rest of us would be like if we spent that much time in an underground bunker?

Size Matters

Size, it seems, has always mattered for Americans. Instilled into our psyche is the notion that bigger is indeed better. A place of honor is bestowed on the largest--the largest state, the largest city, the largest budget, the largest skyscraper, the largest corn crop, the largest salary, the largest university, etc., etc. In fact, our Constitution itself rewards those states with the largest populations with more political power. We even treat the undesireable aspects of life with more respect  depending on the size -- the largest natural catastophe, the largest terrorist attack, etc. If it's big, Americans are impressed. The Madoff scandal generates more significance beacuse it is the largest rip-off that we know about.

Perhaps, 2009 will go down in history as the year that Americans came to the realization that "big is not better"; for it is this year that the citizens have had to rescue  institutions deemed "too big to fail." In an atmosphere in which it was considered "un-American" to question or limit the size of a business or institution, these "too-big-to-fail" companies were permitted and even encouraged to expand. Then, when they self-destructed, it was declared that they are "too big to fail" -- meaning that they have a death-grip on the citizenry's genitals -- and the government, which they had been condemning, had to step in and save their sorry behinds.

In the financial industry, for years now the large banks have been permitted to devour the small with impunity;  but when the bottom fell out, it was the large ones who needed a bailout while the smaller ones who had been vigilant and cautious were able to survive on their own. Similar events occurred in the investment industry. Since 1987, the local, small investment company that I was doing business with has changed hands five times, each time being bought out by a larger company. And, once again, it was the large, "too-big-to-fail" institutions that needed government assistance.

Perhaps, the classic example of excssive size being a detriment is General Motors, the slow-moving goliath of the automotive industry. Its very size was part of its problem; it was apparently unable to make the tough decisions and implement the changes  that a smaller and more focused company like Ford was able to do. It is  only now that GM, on the brink of bancruptcy, is downsizing, eliminating product lines, closing dealerships and rethinking its future in the world of transportation. And, of course, it is GM, not Ford, that needs government assistance.

The list of over-sized failures could go on and on, but there is one other area that deserves mention. In the 1950's and 60's , days of "the larger-the-better" mentality, the educational gurus were promoting school consolidation, combining several smaller districts into one large district based on the theory that increased size means increased efficiencies. By the 1990's we found that large schools are neither more efficient nor productive. Every state that measures student performance has discovered that students in small school districts consistently outperform those in large districts, and to make matters worse, the cost per student is usually less in the smaller districts. Parents instinctively know this and, if possible, search out smaller schools, whether they be public, private or chartered.

Unfortunately, the health-care industry appears determined to follow the same failed paradigm. Although the industry is not known for its transparency, independent sources indicate that patients rate quality of care higher in smaller community hospitals than in larger metropolitan hospitals. Infection rates are lower in small community hospitals, and these same facilities have a higher rate of compliance with the recommended policies for preventing infection.

Perhaps, in 2009, Americans will hesitate before automatically buying into the "bigger-is-better" philosophy. Perhaps, we will be wary of anything that is "too big to fail." If it's too big to fail; it's too big and should be down-sized. 

Democracy on Hold

How long will the obstructionists be allowed to deprive the citizens of Minnesota of their elected voice in the US Senate?

Doctors Trying to Prevent Evaluation

When your doctor asks you to sign a privacy statement, you presume the document is designed to protect your privacy. Perhaps you should read it. Some of the "privacy" statements being used by doctors these days are a legal form in which you promise not to "publish or air" any unfavorable facts about the doctor's care. These doctors are not interested in protecting the patient's privacy, they are more interested in preventing you, the consumer, from "publishing or airing" an unfavorable review of their performance.

One has to question the doctor's confidence in the quality of the care he provides if, on his first contact with the patient, he tries to prevent that patient from evaluating that care. What's next? If I buy a Toyota Prius, is the dealer going to require me to sign a legal form that prohibits me from "publishing or airing" any unfavorable information about the car?

Personally, when a doctor asks me to abdicate my right to evaluate the care she/he provides me, I will be looking for a different doctor.

President Obama at the University of Notre Dame

Although I have tried to avoid it, I can no longer ignore the ruckus the conservatives (Catholics and others) are fomenting over the fact that Notre Dame University invited the President of the United States to deliver the commencement speech at the spring graduation ceremony. Their argument, repeated ad naseam and repeated daily by the press,  is that since the President is in favor of women's choice, a Catholic University should not invite him to be their commencement speaker.

Again, they wish to define the world in terms of one issue--abortion. They do not care that the President's position on so many other issues is the same as the Church's.

But the real problem posed by this campaign to embarrass the University and the President is this: Notre Dame invited both Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush to give commencement addresses, and the conservative Catholics did not object, even though both supported the death penalty, a position contrary to that of Catholicism.  

One has to ask, why all the uproar now? There can be only two answers. One--it's all political. Reagan and Bush were Republicans; Obama is a Democrat. So, it's not about Catholic principle and teachings; it's about politics. Two--it's about race. Reagan and Bush were white; Obama is black. If this is the case, which I hope it is not; it's not about Catholic beliefs, it's about the color of one's skin--shades of the Republican "Southern Strategy."

The hope is that the real conservatives, Catholics, and Republicans will not allow themselves to be used or associated with the ugly and violent activities that some of their brethern are threatening. 

Sister Patricia McCarty Speaks Out

I would like to share the following "Letter to the Editor" which appeared in the Toledo Blade May 12, 2009.

Article published May 12, 2009
Women of faith merit respect


Thank you for your articles, letters, and comments you have published regarding the Vatican visitation of U.S. communities of women religious. I am a Dominican sister who has professed for 55 years in the Congregation of the Most Holy Rosary, Adrian. I reside in our retirement facility in Adrian.

You can count me as one who was born Catholic and who is filled with gratitude for my faith and for the church that has nurtured my spiritual life.

I have ministered as teacher, school principal, campus minister, and Provincial.

My story of dedicated service is similar to every woman religious who has vowed her life to God. I have been in the trenches and the leadership and I believe I’ve seen and heard most everything, but nothing like this. It is my understanding that congregations were not consulted on this investigative process or provided with any substantive information as to the purpose behind it.

I am deeply hurt and saddened that, in my elder years, the Vatican believes it necessary to question my life and faithfulness. That the first interest the Vatican has ever shown in my life and ministry comes shrouded in secrecy and suspicion is deeply troubling to me. What could possible be the rationale or defense for such an approach?

Like Anna in Luke’s gospel (2:33 and 37), my life has been lived out in the “proverbial temple” of religious life. I have served with integrity and here I will die — but not before I am investigated by the Vatican! American women religious deserve better.

Sister Patricia McCarty, OP
Adrian

Joe, The Unlicensed Plumber

Why does anyone care what Joe, "the plumber," thinks about gays or anything else for that matter? What qualifies him to speak on anything other than clogged toilets? But more importantly, why does the media provide him with a platform? Come to think of it, why am I writing about him?

The Hypocrisy of It All

One would think that the so-called deficit-conscious congressmen and senators who voted against the recovery bill, the stimulus package and are now attacking the Obama budget would be out front in opposing the continued construction of the C-17 transport planes we don't need. Strangely enough, some of these same congressmen are already trying to slip billions of dollars of pork-barrel weapons projects like the C-17 into the supplemental budget request for Iraq and Afghanistan. (NYT,5/5/09).

The Secretary of Defense asked that the C-17s be cut from the budget. And the Air Force doesn't want these billion-dollar planes which will sit idle on the tarmack. So why are these congressmen, who are opposed to bills promoting healthcare, education, and jobs, so gung-ho to spend all this money on planes that no one wants? The only people who still want these planes are the contractors who make a ton of money building them--and, of course, the congressmen who receive large contributions from these guys.

One might argue that, even though the planes are not needed, many people are going to be employed building them. So, they are a "make-work" project. Our country has done that before, but if we are going down the "make-work" route, why not invest in projects that will benefit all citizens--project like rebuilding the infrastructure and creating " green" energy--the very thing these same people voted against in the Obama Stimulus Package.

The difference, it seems,  is that the C-17 generates large amounts of money for the few who have invested heavily in influencing congress, while the Obama Stimulus Package would generate funds for the general public.  But, no. We can't speak of the helping the "general public" or doing something for the "common good," because these same congressmen have decreed that such talk amounts to the damned and  dreaded "socialism."

They, of course, presume we will not recognize their hypocrisy.

What Would Jesus Say to Bishop Blair?

Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo " has banned a workshop on gay and lesbian ministry scheduled to start today at the Sisters of Saint Francis campus in Tiffin." (The Toledo Blade, 5/1/09).

The workshop was to be given by New Ways Ministry which has been holding such workshops across the country for 32 years in an effort " build on the positive tradition of welcoming lesbian and gay people." Its executive director, Francis Debernardo, said he spoke with Bishop Blair by phone after learning of the cancellation.

" He [ the bishop] was upset and said one of the things he didn't like about New Ways Ministry is that we have from time to time challenged the bishops and the Vatican to be more understanding of lesbian/gay people," Debernardo said. "But that doesn't mean we're out to destroy the church or to be in opposition of church leaders."

Apparently, the bishops and the Vatican do not want to be challenged to be more Christlike.

One wonders how Jesus would have dealt with  lesbians and gays.