| Empathy
not a liberal issue
By
KEN MIDKIFF
Published
Friday, June 12, 2009
(http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/jun/12/empathy-not-a-liberal-issue/)
Empathy is
code for activism of the liberal variety?
As an unapologetic
liberal, I didn’t know that. When I asked my left-leaning
friends, they didn’t know that either. Guess we didn’t
get the memo from Liberal Headquarters, which is apparently somewhere
in California, probably San Francisco.
Right-wing pundits
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly assert that
in President Barack Obama’s nomination announcement of Sonia
Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, he used the word “empathy”
as a code for his obviously liberal activist views: yet another
proof that he’s a Socialist. No doubt, Limbaugh et al would
have defined Obama as a Communist, but since the fall of the USSR,
there are very few Communists to blame for anything. Calling someone
a Communist only reveals how out-of-touch the caller is.
But what’s
this about “empathy” being a code word for baby-killing,
Christian-hating, gay-marriage-loving, anti-assault-rifle activists?
What about “compassionate conservative?” Doesn’t
“compassionate” mean that one can empathize with others
or at least care about them?
Empathy means
identification with someone or something, as opposed to sympathy,
which means to feel sorry for someone. That’s all. If Sonia
Sotomayor takes into account what her decisions will mean in the
lives of ordinary Americans, is that wrong? Supreme Court decisions
are not made in a vacuum; real people with real concerns depend
on the pronouncements of the court.
The Constitution
was written to ensure the “welfare of the people.” I
guess the framers could be accused of being empathetic by right-wingers.
Alexander Hamilton would take great exception to being thrown in
the same category with Thomas Jefferson.
But none other
than Newt Gingrich stated, “We are a nation of laws, not empathy”
— ignoring that George H. W. Bush stated that one of his reasons
for nominating Clarence Thomas was Thomas’ empathy —
but the Constitution prescribes both. Empathy and law go hand in
hand.
While we’re
at it, let’s take a look at all the allegations flung at “activist”
judges. As long as judges stick to issuing decisions favorable to
conservatives, they’re labeled strict constructionists, but
let such judges make decisions favorable to the average Joe, and
all of a sudden, they’re labeled activists. Do not pass go,
proceed directly to Dante’s Inferno.
•
My column of
a couple of weeks ago caused some angst among pro-concentrated animal
feeding operation advocates. Some accused me of making things up
and that I should give equal time to the positive side of CAFOs.
Sorry, but I
can find no appeals or litigation brought by “urban move-ins,”
so there is no other side. Kathy Borgman of Arrow Rock was described
as a move-in by one online commenter. She is, I guess, since she
came from Saline County a long time ago. And Whitney and Day Kerr
are residents of Kansas City but have long owned property near Arrow
Rock; they’re certainly not urban move-ins.
The bottom legal
line is if a person moves in to a known nuisance, that person has
little likelihood of success in an appeal or lawsuit. But if a resident
of long standing is subjected to a previously non-existent nuisance
such as a CAFO moving in, then the chances of a successful appeal
or lawsuit goes up dramatically. Those who lived in an area long
before a CAFO moved in have filed successful appeals and litigation.
As for the CAFO
near Arrow Rock not being of the Premium Standard Farms variety,
the fact remains that the farmer would be raising hogs for an Indiana
agribusiness. One of the most critical definitions of a “family
farmer” is ownership of farm animals.
Those who equated
“feeding a hungry world” to the growing number of concentrated
animal feeding operations must believe the bogus information dished
out by the Farm Bureau and Missouri Pork Producers. The last time
I looked — yesterday — the number of malnourished and
starving people in the world is increasing: so much for people in
Bangladesh or Nigeria eating the other white meat.
•
Since the US
Congress designated the Current and Jacks Fork rivers as the Ozark
National Scenic Riverways in 1964, the area has been managed by
the National Park Service. While the park service could have used
better bedside manner in acquiring lands along the Current and Jacks
Fork, it seems that some folks neither forget nor forgive and have
successfully pressured the park service to treat the ONSR cavalierly.
This has led to an 8-mile segment of the Jacks Fork being placed
on the national impaired waterbody list: It is contaminated by bacteria
and is actually hazardous to human health. Wading and swimming are
literally life-threatening.
The source of
this contamination is well-known and well-documented: horses. Specifically,
horses from a trail ride; many crossings of the Jacks Fork have
led to a lot of horse dung in the water. Horse dung contains various
types of bacteria that are found in the intestines; among them E.
coli H7-0157. Those who come into contact with E. coli, in particular
those who ingest the contaminated water, are subject to everything
from infected wounds to a bloody death.
Removing horses
from the Jacks Fork is a solution to water quality impairment, but
the “protect and preserve” part of the original legislation
seems to have been tossed aside. From folks who treat the ONSR as
a Six Flags-type adventure to jet boats roaring up and down the
Current to construction of illegal roads and trails to almost gravel
bar on the Current and Jacks, the ONSR bears little resemblance
to what it was in 1964.
But that is
exactly what protect and preserve means. The Current and Jacks Fork
were to be protected from ATVs and four-wheel drive vehicles and
preserved for the ages so that our children and grandchildren could
enjoy the same float trips down scenic and quiet rivers as we did
way back in the late middle of the last century.
There is a longstanding
feeling among the citizens and the elected officials of Shannon
County that something has been taken away without their consent,
yet the Missouri General Assembly urged the U.S. Congress to do
exactly what it did. The governor of Missouri was in favor of creating
a national park along the Current and Jacks Fork rivers. In short,
state and national elected leaders were in agreement.
But the park
service has managed the ONSR as if the lands on the rivers’
banks still belong to a few disgruntled folks in Shannon County.
The Shannon County Commission has acted as if federal laws don’t
apply to them and have engaged in building roads where no roads
existed, all in violation of a National Park Service/Shannon County
agreement inked long ago. The National Park Service has failed to
enforce the agreement and Shannon County doesn’t recognize
it exists.
Now the National
Park Service has issued its preliminary general management plan,
which will guide its actions and dictate how the ONSR is to be managed
for the next 20 years or so. The plan is now out for review and
comment, and there will be a public meeting here in Columbia at
the Courtyard by Marriott on Lemone Drive on June 25 between the
hours of 3:30 and 7 p.m.
If the past
actions of the NPS are any indication, it will take a concerted
effort by citizens to ensure that the management plan is enforced.
|