Barbara's Virtual Notepad

Politics and Religion

2011-08-07T00:48:00.000-04:00

“Perry Leads Prayer Rally for ‘Nation in Crisis’” touted the article’s headline in the “Politics” section of the August 7 New York Times. It seems that before 30,000 people in Reliant Stadium in Houston, Saturday morning, August 6, Gov. Rick Perry, a lifelong Methodist, called on Jesus to bless and guide the nation’s military and political leaders and “those who cannot see the light in the midst of all the darkness.”

Perry reportedly had said that there would no long speeches, no banners, no signs. “You didn’t come here to listen to people preach,” he told the crowd. “You came to pray, and Jesus wants to hear your voice.” Perry read several passages from the Bible while people stood or kneeled in the aisles or on the concrete floor in front of the stage, some wiping away tears and some shouting, “Amen!”

He had invited fellow governors to join him, but only Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas, a Republican, attended. Gov. Rick Scott of Florida made a video statement that was played in the stadium.

When I read the above article in The New York Times, I was stunned. Then, looking back at past elections, I recalled that George W. Bush in 2000 and again 2004 had used the churches to garner followers and votes. It worked. Then in 2008, a well-known preacher invited the candidates to be interviewed on television to specifically discuss their faith, essentially their “Christianity.” They were to demonstrate to the nation whether they were fit to lead, supposedly the only qualification being Christianity, as defined by these people.

Now we have come to the present governor of Texas and a “possible” presidential candidate holding a Christian rally that presumes that this country should be guided by Jesus and that its leaders be devout followers.

I wonder how many of the Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves.
The position of the right-wing Christian movement currently enmeshed in our political landscape is disquieting. What is most disturbing is their insistence on making our government a “Christian” institution, and as displaying such intractable positions on many social issues. They view our country, no, the world, through a very small lens. It seems to be a case of “there is us,” and “there is them.” And every person who not a true believer is “them,” whether atheist, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or agnostic, or for that matter anything “different.”

Until George W. Bush came into office, religion didn’t seem to be much of an issue with any of our presidents. If any of them were religious, they didn’t wear it on their sleeves, as Bush did, dropping euphemisms into his speeches to let other true “Christians” know he was one of them. That wall between church and state has crumbled so badly, we must start repairing it before it’s too late. History should have taught us by now that much of what is happening today does not bode well for the country.

2011-07-30T23:43:00.003-04:00

Paul Bruni wrote in today’s New York Times: “To Grover Norquist, Washington is an indiscriminate glutton, and extra taxes are like excess calories, sure to bloat the Beast.” But that seems an inaccurate statement as to Norquist, there really is no such thing as “excess” taxes considering that he’s insisted all his cohorts in Congress sign pledges to raise absolutely no revenues! Considering our debt, as well as the fact that most people, particularly the wealthy, are now enjoying the lowest tax rates of their lives, it is certainly strange, to say the least.

And as for that Constitution that Norquist and his fellow tea partiers claim to revere as a bible, I think he and they should have a closer look at it. Taxes are mentioned in so many places. Why, even in Section 1, article 8, our founding fathers said that Congress is empowered to levy and collect taxes in order to pay the county’s debts and provide needed services. They had that right. Incidentally, the rush to get that Constitution ratified was as tension-filled as what is going on today. You see, Congress needed to get that Constitution passed in order to take care of the many debts incurred from the war, and this document gave them the legal authority to collect the taxes to do so. So much for these petty demagogues ready to go off the cliff and take us with them.

"I Pledge Allegiance"

2011-07-19T14:53:00.004-04:00

So we have all but seven brave Congressional Republicans who have signed a pledge to someone named Grover Nordquist, who has appointed himself the new God of the conservatives. All of the Republican presidential candidates, except for Huntsman, have signed it as well.

First there was the pledge to not raise taxes (or indeed to do anything to raise revenue—an interesting position for someone in government since our Constitution was passed in order to be able to collect revenue). Wonder whether they would consider such a pledge in business? Or is the business of the government something holy to them?

Then this Tealiban group has people signing marriage pledges that originally claimed that black families had it better under slavery than today since there were more "intact" families then. We could feel sorry for them because they are so ignorant but in truth they are worse than ignorant. And stupidity is no excuse for what is going on.

The irony of course is the signing of any pledge by these Über right-wingers to not raise taxes on pain of being abandoned by the tea party; what could be more unpatriotic? There should be more respect for the pledge they took upon taking office to uphold the Constitution. That pledge should trump whatever any outside conservative serves up. What happened to governance? Congress should not be controlled by pledging anything to some outside group. Their first loyalty should be to the country--the entire country!

And yet their intransigence seems to reserve the biggest sneer of all for the Fourteenth Amendment, which maintains without equivocation that this country does not default. This is so firmly ingrained in our history that from the beginning our Founders made sure they would not default on the debts they carried into the founding of the country. This hypocrisy, along with the rest of the GOP’s dishonest stance, comes to light when we realize that the debt ceiling was raised seven times during Bush’s tenure, and it didn’t make a ripple. Methinks that if Obama said “day,” they would say “night.” Sad, isn’t it?

The real loser unfortunately is the country, and most of these Tealiban don’t give a damn.

Tea Party favorites like Ron Paul know how to make everything appear so very simple. For example, he somehow believes that taking the country back to a bygone era will improve things; never mind that he never lived in those pre-modern eras when we didn’t really have a middle class but only the very rich and the very poor. There was a great deal of suffering for those not part of that wealthy upper class. And don’t forget, we were not a super-power or a force to be reckoned with in the world.

If the Republicans get their way, we will never be a major force in the world again. It only takes going back to 1929, with no regulations, no safety nets, and another crash looming in our future, and we’ve had it. It is no exaggeration. After all, we now have a Congress full of people who have never served in any public office before coming to Washington and they claim to know all the answers. They are so intransigent, they can’t bend, so I imagine they will break. My fear is that they will break the country with their sharp edges.

My experience has been with those who know all the answers that in the end they usually know none of them.

The Republicans maintain it is all right to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and the most vulnerable in our society in order to preserve the wealth of the super-rich. Republicans appearing on various talk shows claim they are compromising if they sign a bill for the debt ceiling to be raised; this is the compromise.

It's a strange compromise they have in mind when they want every program created to help those in need gutted. As for the President, I think he can stand on his own just fine. The problem is that the Constitution says this is something Congress is supposed to take care of. And yes taxes have been collected since George Washington sent out troops to collect them from some citizens not overly eager to contribute to the running of their new government.

There seems to be a common misunderstanding about what raising the debt ceiling means. There is no room to fully explain it here, but rest assured it is not about spending a lot more money next week if they raise the debt ceiling tomorrow. What it really means is honoring our debts and obligations. Right-wingers claim that failing to raise the debt ceiling will not ruin our credit rating or our economy, or send the world markets into panic. What they base their claim on seems to be thin air.
The truth is the at present we are supposed to be the world's leader and when our credit goes, it could very well mean another 1929-like crash. That's why so many financial people (including Geithner, Bernanke, etc.) are getting increasingly panicked about the dangerously ignorant rhetoric. It isn't a game. It is the reputation and future of our country, and too many people like Paul et al. seem to live in an alternate universe where they happily imagine their simplistic nonsense as reality.

What Is So Compassionate About the Conservatives?

2011-07-03T22:57:00.001-04:00

New ads on television and conservative pundits like Michael Gerson are giving the Republicans much more credit for compassion than the Party has evinced in the past fifty years, if not more. Despite the rhetoric, there is no commitment to care for anyone beyond those least in need of any help. Charity cannot be found where none exists.

The truth is that most of the major initiatives that have moved our society forward have come from moderates or liberals. There is absolutely not one “conservative” idea that has benefited our society; certainly many of their notions have been a boon to the wealthiest of our citizens, who at present enjoy the lowest tax rate in our nation’s history. And this while we suffer through one of the worst economic periods in our history.

It has come to the point where the driving force in the party is the most extreme element; for example, people like Bachmann and her conservative cohorts, see no need for government at all, and it makes one wonder what many of our members of Congress are doing in Congress when they don’t even believe in government. That is, until they need it. But Bachmann who in fact is doing quite well in what are still the early days of the presidential campaign, has gone on record as being favor of having "Intelligent Design" taught in the schools. At the moment, her line is that the raising the debt ceiling is a bad idea. So much for enlightenment.

The current entrenchment of debt ceiling talks is a lesson for us, as we watch Republicans go as far as to tell us that “defaulting” is no big deal. It is difficult to believe that anyone with a grain of intelligence or an iota of responsibility would say such a thing. But other Republicans aside from Bachmann have done so. They are the poster children for why we should spend more on education.

No side is perfect here, but Republicans have been far more guilty of raising false arguments, and they have also been more willing to put our country at risk, no doubt in the mistaken belief that if the country defaults, Obama would then have a “failed presidency.” Another delusion.

While Republicans love to harangue the rest of us on patriotism, they play fast and loose with our future, resolutely loyal to “values” that have more to do with greed than responsible governance. I think it's a wonderful idea for Congress to stay on the job until they work out the issue of the debt ceiling. To fail to raise the debt ceiling for the first time in our history is an embarrassing, shocking, stupid path toward disaster.

A compromise must be worked out. And for those who are not familiar with the term, it means both sides give a little. You know, if you can't bend a little, you are in danger of breaking. So it must be worked out, and we can only hope that they do so with a bit of humility, a great deal of common sense, and an absence of the ubiquitous posturing. It may be too much to hope for; nonetheless, hope we must.

Her Fifteen Minutes of Fame Should be Over About Now

2011-06-04T14:46:00.000-04:00

I hope I am not the only one who feels this way. I have in fact already written comments to CNN, Huffington Post and a few others a number of times, and told them that without their “constant coverage,” Sarah Palin would not be as much of a "celebrity" as she is. If she sneezes, they cover it, and I contend there is nothing to cover.

She's a shallow, narcissistic woman who has cleverly given herself more than the allotted 15 minutes of fame due someone with nothing more to recommend her beyond the most superficial of qualities. I know of no other person with an alleged degree in journalism who could now even write her own books and yet received millions of dollars for the deals. I know of no other mayor of a town with only 5,000 citizens who had to hire a town manager to run the place. And I know of no other public personality (I would not even call her a politician since her office-holding days were so limited) who so consistently lies to the public.

In an age of deception of dubious practices, it was indeed quite a feat to win Politico’s Liar of the Year award. I do not argue that she is interesting to watch; it’s almost like being drawn to a collision or conflagration.

It is time to call a moratorium on Sarah Palin coverage. Let her bus quietly roar around the country with her beloved groupies running out to meet and greet her and the press covering real news. Something they’ve woefully neglected in recent years.

The Attacks on Women and Their Rights Continue

2011-06-04T14:42:00.000-04:00

As soon as you begin to discuss abortion and "murder" in the same breath, you have very decisively gone into religious territory. You are entitled to your religious beliefs, but you are not entitled to foist them on everyone else. That is what makes for religious freedom. You equate abortion with murder. However, whatever you choose to call it, there is no question that abortion is a medical procedure. As such, all discussion of abortion should rightfully be between doctor and patient, with the patient’s right of confidentiality protected. If we are not to wander into that wilderness of theocracy, this is essential. No one forces anyone to have an abortion, though it is true that a doctor may recommend an abortion to a patient.

Yes, you read that right. A doctor may recommend an abortion, based on medical facts, such as a pregnant woman being diagnosed with cancer or becoming ill with certain diseases after becoming pregnant. But even in those cases where termination is recommended, no one can force a woman to abort. That is why, for example a woman I know who was diagnosed with cancer refused to abort and had her baby boy. Unfortunately, she died before the child’s first birthday because, although she gambled on beating the odds, pregnancy makes cancer much more aggressive.

Most women who get abortions, by the way, are married and the reason for the abortion is rarely for birth control, although that has been known. But the bottom line is that it is none of our business. That’s right; it is not your business or my business. If a woman feels strongly opposed to getting an abortion, no one can force her, but on the other hand, no one should be allowed to force a woman to carry a child when she wants to abort. Whatever her reasons.

Abortion has become a more complicated issue in our society than almost anywhere else in the world not only because of that Puritan streak that remains in our society, but also in that it is a procedure that involves only women. And men’s control over women. For some men, the only control they have in this world is making babies, and allowing “their woman” to abort is a slap in the face, whether they can afford another child or not, whether the woman’s body has been weakened by too many births or not. Surely if men were having the babies, we would not be having this discussion, would we?

As for legislators who would like to take away women’s rights, including the right to abortion, look around, and notice that since the last election, many Republicans have gotten into State houses and governors’ mansions and they are not only attempting to get rid of abortion, but ironically passing bills that would cause even greater hardship to women who do not get abortions but bear the child. If a poor woman cannot get an abortion, and then she is also cut out of Medicaid, and can no longer get services at Planned Parenthood, she has been screwed in more than one way.

Ah, it is so easy to distort. But I will state unequivocally that I do not believe abortion is murder. I do not believe a fetus is a living baby. It is a potential baby, and unfortunately a woman can even carry a fetus to term and deliver a stillborn who never takes a breath. Yes, that is what defines a human being (in fact even legally), and that is it takes a breath on its own. By the way, even the church did not recognize the fetus as a “baby” and that “life begins at conception” until quite recently. And no one has ever found anything in the Bible forbidding abortion, for that matter.

If you insist that life begins at conception, and I truly hope you were not under the bed actually attempting validate when that was, then it must follow that every woman of childbearing age commits murder every month when she has her menses and lets all those eggs “die.” Perhaps every time a man ejaculates, he should be jailed for murder since all those aggressive little sperm didn’t take hold. Oh, but that’s the woman’s fault, isn’t it, since the eggs were not hospitable enough. Or perhaps unavailable.

On the other hand, if a fetus can survive on its own outside the womb and someone “aborts” it, that is, forcibly takes it out of the womb and destroys it, that would be murder and more akin to the type of “medical experiments” Nazis undertook. And, please, don’t bring in the Nazis here, as that is really another form of hyperbole. Nothing that Nazis did under the name of experiment is recognized as medicine. It was torture plain and simple and there is no equivocation about that. But abortion as a procedure is terminating a possibility, and in some cases a bad possibility if the physician has already seen there is a serious problem. Late-term abortion, which is very rare (much rarer than all the fuss about it a couple of years ago) is only recommended and done in very extreme medical cases. It is never a business of “Oh, doctor, I know I should have come in sooner.” Never! Not in any legitimate doctor’s office.

What all this comes down to is not distorting a statement and then extrapolating it in order to “prove” that abortion is evil. Listen, morphine is widely used in hospitals for pain after surgery, and it is to the great relief of the patient. That same drug can kill, given in high doses. And so it is with any argument. Distort if you will, but I still contend that abortion is a medical procedure---a legal medical procedure---and should not be demonized by a church that has always felt that everything and anything should be done to make sure that propagation remain high in the name of the church, so the membership will grow.

You know, we have serious medical issues in this country that are not being dealt with while attention and energy remain focused on this divisive and inflammatory issue. It would be in the best interests of everyone, quite frankly, to start taking care of business rather than making a business out of ideology. I keep hearing how we should take "government off our backs." What is puzzling is that these very same people who want to take government off our backs and bemoan "big" government and "needless" regulations over commerce and industry, would nonetheless cheerfully lead the government into the bedroom to attempt to dictate to us on the most personal of decisions.

Netanyahu at the White House

2011-05-20T19:33:00.000-04:00

Israel wants peace and the fact is that most Arabs want peace as well. But the history of the impasse in peace negotiations has such a long history and so many complications that it is almost impossible to discuss without people first reading quite a bit of history. But some “facts” that have been tossed about lately need to be corrected. First, the notion that Israel threw out all the Arabs in 1948 is not only false, but somewhat absurd. Consider how the fledgling state, with no real army, had the means to do such a thing. They in fact begged the Arabs to stay in their homes. Other Arab countries shooed them out so that they would not be in the way while they attacked and “threw the Jews into the Sea,” as they declared. After the war, some did come back. Another point that needs to be clarified is that millions upon millions are available for “poor” Palestinians. Yes, they are poor and they are exploited—for the most part by their Arab brothers who see them as important pawns in their war against Israel, it appears to be a great way to make Israel look culpable for their transient, unstable and wretched situation.

And for those who think Israel is intransigent, don’t forget that Israel has already given back a great deal of land, especially in proportion to their tiny state. Look at a map and get some notion of the scale of things in the Middle East. Israel is the size of our tiniest state, surrounded hundreds of millions of Arabs. For those who think Israel does not want peace, please remember that Israel made peace with Jordan, with Egypt. Most importantly, Israel almost made peace with the Palestinians. Except that Arafat backed out. They came so close and he then decided he preferred the status quo. The same Arafat who spent millions meant for his people on himself and his wife who was living it up in Paris. The Palestinians loved him, and he took advantage of them at every turn, just as Hamas does to the people in Gaza.

In regard to nonnegotiable items, there are some items that cannot be on the table. For example, until Israel took over the Golan, they were sitting ducks for Syria and there was nothing they could do about it—except to control the Golan. Do you think Syria is really short of land? There is no doubt that the fierce Syrians would use the Golan for launching attacks one more, even if some accord were to be signed? Too many lives are in the balance to take such a chance on that small but vital small piece of land. Certain boundaries are necessary and important to protect Israel’s security.

Finally, there is Jerusalem. Christians have the Vatican, Bethlehem, and a number of other holy places, and for Muslims, it is Mecca. For Jews, it is Jerusalem, the city of King David and the city invoked in so many Jewish prayers. Since the city has been unified, it has also been open to all religions, and everyone’s places of worship have been protected. Not so before. Is there anyone who would say that Berlin should once more be divided? The capital of Israel is Jerusalem. How do you divide a country’s capital? How bizarre is it that a country wins a war, no, several wars, and then the world demands it give back the land. I cannot think of any other such instance. It’s like saying the United States should give back the land taken from Mexico. Was the U.S. government a better example in their dealings with Native Americans and their land? In contrast, the Jewish State has tried to be fair—to the Palestinians and to itself.

Jimmy Carter's Brand of Foreign Policy

2011-05-05T08:50:00.001-04:00

Jimmy Carter, not one of our more illustrious presidents, has made a career, and not incidentally a fortune, as a lobbyist for the Saudis. That he now comes out with an op ed piece in the Washington Post rallying for political unity between Hamas and the Palestine Authority should be no surprise. But it does seem a rather fatuous position for an American politician in light of the fact that such an alliance would then put Hamas on the West Bank, their missiles in range of any point in Israel. Anyone who doubts they would use this advantage must keep in mind that they have never wavered from their assertion that Israel must be eradicated.

We now have a case for a law prohibiting any ex-president from becoming a lobbyist for a foreign country, whether friend or foe. In all our history, there has never seemed to be the need for such a law since one could claim this prohibition to be common sense. But Jimmy Carter has now made the case----for Hamas uniting with the PA----but for barring ex-presidents from taking on lobbying positions for foreign governments.

It's Unfortunate Republicans Do Spin Best

2011-05-04T00:00:00.001-04:00

Yes, it is unfortunate that Republicans do spin best because they do nothing else as well. Coming originally from Ohio, I can still recall as a child asking my mother why some politicians said we shouldn’t have fluoride in the water because “it’s a Communist plot.” She said it was a silly thing to say, but that they said it because there is always someone silly enough to believe it. Oh, yeah, the Republicans have experience in convincing their constituents with the handy lie. And it’s also not new that Republicans dislike the idea of spending money “on the people,” especially if those people are not their personal friends and family---or in many cases, their big supporters. What is frustrating is their high level of success in convincing people to vote against their own best interests.

One of the most interesting things I’ve noticed about this debate on health care is how many people have no idea at all what the new health care bill is all about. This is because the Republicans have been more successful than the Democrats in their message, and that missive was to spin the health care bill into an unrecognizable mass of frightening innuendos, distortion and outright lies (as for instance the first big lie to take hold: death panels). Remember? Having a chat with your physicians about end of life decisions became death panels, while in the meantime Republican governors all over the country have now created real death panels by denying health care to people on Medicaid, with some states going so far as to deny transplants (something I believe prisoners behind bars can receive). Talk about who’s got the death panels.

Although polls say that many people are against the law, what is quite astonishing is that when pollsters go back and ask specifically whether they’re against getting rid of preexisting conditions, lifetime ceilings on insurance spending on care, paying for preventive medicine, having universal health care, and in short each feature of the actual bill presented individually, almost everyone is for them! Such a contradiction could only be because most people who want all these things and yet say they are against the health care bill have no idea what’s in it and just sneer at what they call “Obamacare.” I think the President should be very proud of this bill, and we should all be very supportive of it---that is unless you want only your representatives in Congress to retain the features found in this bill, but insist they should be denied to you because Republicans have convinced you of it. No, it isn’t perfect, but it a great improvement on our present system.

Take as an example, a bill that was hailed as wonderful, the Bush Medicare Prescription drug bill, which in truth is no deal at all for seniors, leaving them at some point annually to pay full price for their medications! The bill itself was never even funded. And by the way, the new bill helps ameliorate the defective prescription drug bill by covering half of the donut hole, as it’s called, where seniors pay full price for drugs. In fact, despite the Republicans screaming that we can’t afford :Obamacare,” the reality is that we cannot afford to not embrace it. It was the best we could get in a tough fight, and I hope it is the good beginning to getting this bill even better. Yes, it would be wonderful to have a single payer system as countries with better health care systems that cost less do. It is not socialism, it is good policy. But corporate insurance industries and pharmaceuticals pour a fortune into squashing that dream.

What the never-ending shrill debate tells us, in the end, I think, is that an informed electorate could make a huge difference to the healthy future of our country. For example, it would greatly help our country get on a speedier road to recovery. Think of those who believe that cutting taxes for the rich creates jobs, and then think about it the eight years of Bush in which taxes were cut liberally and jobs began to slip away, finally to be eradicated at a clip of half a million a month!

Whether you like Obama or not, if you take an honest look at his record and see where we’ve come in the past two years, it is clear we are going in the right direction albeit too slowly because Congress continually hampers efforts to do what should be done. It has only been exacerbated by House Republicans who seem more concerned with ideology than the country and don’t seem to give a damn about anyone but themselves, despite invoking “the American People” this and the American people want that in order to slash rules and regulations. Haven’t we learned anything getting into this mess?

The Condescension of Representative Ryan

2011-04-17T23:08:00.001-04:00

Well, if you are very wealthy, you are for Ryan’s grand plan. Looking at his figures and listening to him and his cohorts speak, clearly, he has total disdain for most of us and believes that we are all very thick-headed indeed to not understand that his social agenda is driving him more than his desire to rein in any deficit. After all, Ryan voted for two wars we could not pay for; he was quite enthusiastic for Bush’s senior drug bill, a massive expenditure that none of the sponsors gave a thought to how it would be paid for, and so it went. In other words, Ryan himself, like the rest of his party, has had no care for the deficit at all until now.

But the problem is that the current Republican focus on the deficit is also a sham in terms of serious deficit-cutting because the game is still to give more to the rich, and have the elderly and the poor pay for it. The fact is that there is no way the deficit could be managed that way even if all the poor and elderly walked out into the sunset, never to return because they will have completely lost their medical care―unless they’re rich, that is.

Taxes on the wealthiest in our country must be raised, and it would be no hardship whatsoever considering that their taxes are at the lowest in memory. If you want to talk about sharing the pain, that would be sharing, and there wouldn’t even be pain. Yes, cutting is needed as well, but a good place to start would be the defense budget, which Secretary Gates has already indicated as a go. But Republicans have never seen a weapon they didn’t like, and are too hesitant to do what could and should be done. There are many areas of government that could be cut without hurting those among us who are in need of help.

The argument that keeping taxes low for the rich creates jobs is a lie that can no longer be used, not after eight years of the lowest taxes in the history of the wealthy and jobs disappearing on a daily basis. Your column is total nonsense. Are you perhaps a lobbyist? You’re certainly an apologist for a group that should be ashamed of itself; Ryan owes this country an apology for showing such condescension toward so many of our citizens.

How Much Voting Is Done in Ignorance?

2011-04-12T21:57:00.002-04:00

I believe it was Jefferson who said that in order for a democracy to work there must be an informed electorate. In fact, the Continental Congress, in drafting their documents, determined that only white males who owned property could vote. We can forget about the white and the males as being common knowledge, but the caveat that only property owners could vote was based on the assumption that a man of property would be educated. Interesting to think of the average voter today.

But what struck me while reading the news online was that there was a more important consideration that has been overlooked, and that is the education of those who run for office. When you hear comments from candidates that confuse some of the most basic facts of our history and display ignorance of government functioning, it is more than distressing. It is disgraceful. Perhaps with the requirement of a certain level of education and a demonstration of knowledge of our history and the working of our government as a requirement for candidacy, we would have fewer dunderheads in Congress, and more might be accomplished.

Some Still Call It News

2011-04-10T11:31:00.001-04:00

We live in an entertainment era where news is rarely news and events never see the light of introspection if they are not "interesting" or entertaining. I watch about three news programs on TV most evenings and then find I have to go online to find out what's really going on, moving through site after site to dig up what’s going on in the world. We have no Walter Cronkite or Edward R. Murrow; Wolf Blitzer is less than a poor substitute.

When I was a little kid, my mother used to turn on a newscast every evening with a woman whom I got used to watching. She was already an old lady at the time, and she sat at a desk and talked about what was going on in the world. Her name was Dorothy Fuldheim, and I learned many years later that she was considered one of the great newscasters of the day. What I learned at the time was to sit and listen to someone who knew what she was talking about; she educated an entire generation of people. We are now bereft, searching for someone who would bother to tell us what is going on. It is much harder work to make sense of things, and considering that it was never easy, it is a downright shame to have so many people obfuscate matters.

The “World News” on all three networks rarely ventures into the world unless there is something overwhelming going on in a place such as Japan or Libya; certainly the genocide and ethnic cleansings of the past several decades have made little splash on television. The other networks are no better. They all present what should be news with their own particular slant on things, as if an opinion is as much fact as anything else. Each network also makes decisions on reporting events that have an agenda with their parent companies. For example, the weekly news magazine “60 Minutes” used to be much stronger on bringing real news stories of the week, and now focuses on certain big stories of interest and more than offering news, presents a particular angle on things. Once in a great while, they do a superb job, but more often they will interview a celebrity whose book is being released by the parent company of the network, or they will deal with damage control for a related entity. The tie-ins are an important part of the package deal struck for the work.

And when tragedy strikes, television’s way of reporting on these big events is to go right to the spot. All the networks are big, as is CNN and some other cable outfits, and they love to travel to what they call trouble spots so they can have someone right where “it” is happening, particularly to interview whatever seemingly important person or eye witness they can find and, even more, to look for that human interest angle wherever they are.

Yet somehow they often forget to give you what might be described as an accurate picture of events, becoming so involved in their angle, in other words, their take on things. And, lately, even with so much overwhelming news, our networks often manage to skip the world some evenings and tell you about what some guy in Kansas did in the snowstorm, or how some young teenager raised money for poor people. It’s what some call "soft" news, and what I think of as human interest features and not news at all. With only half an hour, all three networks are now doing this because they're afraid if they don’t grab your interest and tug a bit at the heartstrings, they’ll lose their audience. They already have. Well, PBS is still taking up the burden, but they cannot handle it all, and if the Republicans in Congress have their way, they will be ever more pressed in attempting to their more serious work.

The New Order

2011-03-25T15:42:00.001-04:00

Despite the recession having ended, the permanent loss of so many jobs has made a full recovery painfully slow. The truth is that some people will never recover their former earning power and others will not be able to attain as high a level as they desire. What has happened in my lifetime is that for the first time we see one generation doing worse than their parents. Incredibly some college graduates are unable to buy a home after working for many years although they were raised in a home that was bought by parents who never went beyond high school, if that far. The middle class is eroding, and the figures that have come out indicate that a very small percentage of our citizens control most of the money. Or, perhaps we can say they sit on it.

Most Americans seem unaware of the great disparity between the haves and the have-nots, but as the great power of those at top multiplies exponentially, the more vulnerable and powerless the rest of us feel, for never before in our lifetime have we seen so few people with essentially all the money and the rest of us scrambling for some piece of the pie. And meanwhile we are lied to constantly.

Lip service is given to the lie that all we need to do is get more education and we will earn more. Ah, but how much more? Despite graduate degrees, many still earn less than parents with significantly less education, sometimes less than high school. We can gauge this by what they accomplished with their incomes that their children cannot. The American Dream has become elusive to this generation. Whenever we mention it, someone points to someone who “made it.” My goodness, someone made it! The truth is that almost no one today makes it. In the 1950s almost anyone who worked hard could essentially “make it,” in the sense of being in a comfortable middle class life. And while so many struggle in this life of quiet desperation, many of the very richest continue to lobby for more.

No one gives up power voluntarily and with our Congress made up of individuals who essentially have given themselves everything they could want out of life, they will neither give it up nor make their rich sponsors give up any power by allowing a more equitable system of taxation. Even during Reagan’s presidency, rich people paid significantly more taxes. We can’t continue to serve the rich by taking from the poor. This is the road to the downfall of us all, for without a middle class, democracy no longer flourishes.

Mr. Huckabee's Folksy Rendition of Truth

2011-03-04T16:04:00.004-05:00

Timothy Egan wrote his usual enlightening and wonderful column in today's Times on Mike Huckabee: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/the-fictions-of-mike-huckabee/?hp

I had an occasion to attend a lecture Huckabee gave in New York about a year ago. Aside from the expensively dressed New York conservatives who came to hear him, I noted a group of bluejean- and polyester-clad people who were turned away at the door for not being properly dressed, as the invitation had been firm about “casual corporate” attire. They entreated the doorman about having driven for days to come hear their hero. As the doorman jumped to open the door for me, I thought about how that group turned away probably were part of his most loyal base, though it’s just as well they were rejected as they would no doubt have been uncomfortable among the suits.

At any rate, I had prepared for the event by doing some research the night before and compiling something of a history of his record and comparing that with statements he’s been making, especially in the last few years. I took note of how Huckabee never let facts get in the way while performing his folksy approach to campaigning.

After his talk, which was about an hour of amusing anecdotes punctuated by references to the accomplishments he took credit for as governor of Arkansas, the floor was opened to questions. I never got called on, and afterward the young guy on my right told me he would not have called on me either as I looked “too serious and had an intelligent gleam in my eye.” I am not sure he meant that as a compliment, but it clued me in as to how my demeanor should be for any similar event.

Since I never got to ask my questions of Huckabee, I posed them of the people milling about me. I was quite gratified at their shock , especially when I pulled out papers, showing them the facts I had dug up, mostly at not-for-profit sites such as Factcheck.org, Snopes, and others. Nice to have the printouts as backup. Aside from the appalling story of his release of prisoners based on nothing more than claiming to have “found God,” there were many damning incidents in his career. His lies of not raising taxes when he did so---many times, his desire to have kids in schools learn about Creationism, as if that too were science, and there was one particular question I was sorry not to have gotten to ask him: “Why, Mr. Huckabee, are you for the death penalty while at the same time you eschew the taking of life, professing to be definitively ‘pro-life’? It would seem that in Mr. Huckabee’s universe, not all life is equal.

Rape is Rape is Rape

2011-02-06T00:03:00.004-05:00

It saddens me deeply that so many people were duped into believing the lies. So much so that they elected all these Republicans back into Congress. Such short memories. So many people who can't seem to think for themselves, but let the latest political slogans, much like the prime-time ads for pharmaceuticals, make up their minds for them.

How prescient Jefferson was in declaring that it takes an educated electorate to have a successful democracy. The majority in the country used to be fairly well educated, and now it would be safe to say that the majority are rather uneducated. Precisely when this happened is unclear. But clearly much of what is happening today would not be so were there more savvy people among the voters.

This week, in Congress, the House found further distractions to keep them from doing the business of dealing with the real problems we have in this country.It appears that a group of MEN have decided to change the definition of a rather old, established word that denotes a crime almost always committed against WOMEN.

Amid this great display of arrogance and ignorance, they somehow have extrapolated that should the definition of rape be changed, some cases of rape would not pass muster as "real" rape. Exactly what would constitute real rape and "phony" rape should be an interesting exercise in semantics although it seems that some of the men in Congress have got the strange notion that if the alleged rape did not involve some sort of violence, well, then it's not really rape, is it?

Now the truth is that I suspect these men don't give a damn about rape. Or, more to the point, any woman who has been raped, since this entire charade is solely for the purpose of denying women the right to an abortion should pregnancy result from the attack. The temerity of changing the meaning of a word in order to attempt to erase the actualization of rape is unbelievable. To deny help to these women (and sometimes children). What a very sheltered group of men. Also very mean spirited.

When the "Government" Complains about Itself

2011-01-20T21:30:00.003-05:00

Is this new Congress going to waste time on grandstanding about phony issues rather than work on the real problems of the nation, such as unemployment, tax reform, immigration, the budget? As they moan about the deficit and the spending, they somehow don’t see that they are the government they complain about and they are the spenders they claim to hate. The hyperbolic Boehner doesn't recognize irony. Can anyone be surprised at the lack of intelligence of many of our lawmakers? Only if you have denied yourself the exhilarating experience of even one day of Congressional debate over anything. Those Congressmen shouting down the halls about government takeover of healthcare should consider giving up their own "government" healthcare.

Yes, there is a stupid syndrome that has struck Congress. It is also true that for years many physicians have been bemoaning the fact that insurance companies interfere with their practice of medicine. On the other hand, years ago, at the thought of taking the initiative to change how medicine was practiced and healthcare delivered, they were paralyzed by the fear of socialized medicine. Because of their inability and/or disinclination to change the practice of medicine, the insurance companies were able to step in and literally take over. Now their pockets are so deep and heavy, we can’t rid ourselves of them. You know, one of the people who frightened everyone about changes in healthcare was Ronald Reagan who, before he was president, made films cautioning everyone that any changes, and, particularly introducing Medicare, would bring socialized medicine. Now of course everyone thinks that Medicare is wonderful, and so they will come to see this new affordable healthcare law, which is quite good as far as it goes, and it goes far enough to make some very positive changes. It will need to be tweaked along the way, just as social security and Medicare, etc. had to be.

As for the best healthcare we could get, I think it’s clear to most people in the field that a single-payer system would be best (and many doctors now say they feel that way). But the greatest impediment to that is of course the health insurance companies, so we should be grateful to have gotten this far after so many years.

Barack Obama's Visit to Jon Stewart

2010-10-29T00:10:00.000-04:00

Barack Obama’s visit to Jon Stewart’s Daily Show gave him the opportunity to set the record straight on his first 18 months in office, and the audience gave him a thunderous welcome. There is no question that Obama’s record has been distorted to the point where a number of Democrats in Congress actually believe the ads the Republicans began inundating the public with very quickly after President Obama took office. After all, their sole agenda has been to take back power. They worked on no legislation, devoting themselves to saying no and “taking back power.” To what purpose is something else since they have no definitive proposals beyond some scattered ideas of rather frightening measures. But that’s also what happened last time we played this out in recent history. But back to the facts, and one fact is that this president has worked harder than any president in memory and if you bother to research, you can find the evidence of his accomplishments.

The most impressive achievement is the healthcare bill, which no Democrat and indeed no American should be ashamed of. It is historic, it is the beginning of taking back healthcare from the health insurance industry and protecting consumers’ well being. To be able to say that 30 million people who were not covered will now have healthcare (not to mention the children) is historic. True, it will take a few years for the entire bill to be implemented, but a great many people are already benefitting.

Saving the auto industry was a good idea that is now beginning to show dividends as plants are slowly reopening, and the stimulus did indeed create jobs although most of the stimulus money has not yet been spent. We need to save our infrastructure at the same time people obtain jobs on such projects. Consumer protection for consumers in the area of financial regulation (credit cards for example) is very important. There are other accomplishments you can find. It would not be an exaggeration to say that he has done more for this country in less than two years than Bush did in 8 (unless you want to see two wars as accomplishment).

And yet the Republicans want to repeal everything. Have you forgotten that during the Bush years, when we didn’t have these things, everything went wrong? We are now on the right road, and it is a slow trek but at least we are finally doing the right thing. To expect everything to be accomplished immediately must be an idea acquired from watching television programs where the most complicated situations are resolved within an hour. But not in life. No doubt if it didn’t take 60 votes in the Senate to pass a bill and if a lone Republican were not allowed to hold up an incredible number of important nominations, things might go faster, but, hey, if you believe that giving the reins back to the Republicans (and some of these people now running are even more right wing than before) is the answer, I suggest you really think hard about the eight years before Obama.

Almost all those jobs that disappeared were lost before Obama took office and from the time, he went into the White House, it has been a slow but steady record of fewer and fewer jobs lost, more jobs created, and the economy coming back. Too bad it can’t happen more quickly. But it won’t happen at all if the Republicans have their way about cutting and austerity and the same kind of nonsense that Herbert Hoover so tenaciously put into practice. He thought that all you had to do was cut spending and everything would be great. Haven’t you heard? Things got worse. The truth is, people, that, first and foremost, we must invest in ourselves big time and

Rush to Judgment

2010-09-08T23:13:00.001-04:00

The Far Right Wing has not only taken over the Republican party but have dedicated themselves to doing nothing but work on tearing down the Administration, whether it's bad for the country or not. They have an agenda, and they don't let facts get in their way. Since Obama is so busy multi-tasking so many truly crucial issues, I can see where he really doesn't have time for all this toxic rhetoric, and may not appreciate how many people are ready to believe anything if they hear it repeated three times.

I think Obama has been done a disservice. He has been an excellent president and has not been given credit for what he has accomplished. And by the way, as many seem to have “forgotten,” the "bank bailout," necessary as it was, was actually done under Paulsen and Bush.

The healthcare bill was a landmark accomplishment that was not as strong as it should have been but the best that could be done for the time being. I don't know about you, but a friend recently diagnosed with cancer is very grateful that the insurance company cannot drop her now, or claim she's reached the limit of her benefits!

As for the automakers, they are coming back strong and that is good for the country, as is everything else that has been passed during Obama’s term in office so far, including the new credit card guidelines and the stimulus, which once again was too small but as much as could be pushed through this contentious Congress, because we now have Republicans who refuse to do anything but say no and claim to stick to their “principles.” That means being against whatever the other side wants, good or bad for the country.

This hardly resembles anything like Bush’s rather clumsy approach to half-heartedly governing and allowing “anything to happen,” as if he had no say, except for rushing into Iraq, rationalizing it with a bunch of lies. The meltdown of Wall Street as well as so many other impending calamities could not have been achieved in a short time and yet too many people expect everything to be fixed yesterday. We now have an administration that seems to be full of people with brains and a president who listens to them. Let them do their work. We let the last president do his worst; let’s now let this one do his best.

There is No Way to Satisfy Bigotry

2010-08-12T22:57:00.002-04:00

A member of the armed forces recently made news by refusing to obey an order sent to him by the Commander-in-Chief to deploy to Afghanistan. He claimed that it was not a legitimate order because he did not recognize President Obama as the legitimate President or Commander-in-Chief. His rationale was that an original birth certificate confirming his American citizenship had not bee shown to the American people.

Never mind that this has now become a moot point with all sane people who have even gone so far as research the subject and come up with more than sufficient evidence to support Barack Obama having been born in Hawaii of an American mother. The announcement was in the newspapers at the time as well. This never satisfied that group of nonbelievers known as birthers, for whom there could never be sufficient proof.

Despite a season of birthers popping up every once in a while during the past year, it still might have been enough to draw the attention of the press that he was a soldier refusing to obey orders from someone he asserted not to be his Commander. But eyebrows were raised higher upon learning than this soldier is also a physician.

When the story was given airtime, what puzzled me most is the assumption that because this officer is a doctor, he is somehow endowed with intelligence or indeed even good sense, never mind sanity. Obviously the press have not met enough doctors! Nonetheless, one thing has become clear to me during the past year and half.

There is no way some of the people in this country, no matter how much or how little education they have, will accept a black man as Commander-in-Chief. Their prejudices have been etched in stone, and so it appears that this army doctor would rather plug his ears and scream about a birth certificate than actually acknowledge any document that could be shown to him. He would still reject it.

These birthers, or perhaps racist is a more accurate name for them, attempt to fabricate some rationalization for their rejection of Obama as President, but the fact remains that no one can offer convincing proof to them because they don’t want to be convinced. Perhaps they believe they can get him out of office. It is a foolish belief, and I hope it isn’t dangerous.

This doctor should be court-martialed and face the consequences of being a traitor to his country, as his refusal to follow the orders of his Commander-in-Chief not only constitutes treason but is an embarrassment to us all. Any person who rejects a legitimately elected president has no defense. Scalia didn’t anoint this one. A great majority of voters elected Obama in a legal national election, and the country, as in most of our history, should come together and work for the good of the nation.

Perpetuating the racism that has already done so much damage to our nation is contemptible. Why not apply all that energy to working for something worthwhile such as getting kids to stay in school, and get an education, since it appears out nation is no longer the world leader in young educated people! From some of the reactions of the past year, I would say that a good number of our citizens need to go back to school.

Dumbing Down Our Country

2010-08-12T21:55:00.005-04:00

The United States has dropped to number 12 of countries with the highest number of young educated people. We have always parroted the phrase that someone who needs work in this country needs to get an education. While we laud the value of education, the truth is that the highest paid individuals in our country are our uneducated rock stars, athletes, and celebrities, most of whom make more money than our scientists, doctors and, most persuasively, our schoolteachers. Is there anyone more valuable than the kindergarten teacher whose influence on children plays out for an entire lifetime? And yet, perversely, even in the educational system, teachers are paid higher increments as their students get older and the teacher spends less time with individual students.

But back to our subject of having an educated populace.

It has become increasingly difficult to claim that we value education at a time when we have dropped to number 12 in having educated young people. And the real message behind that is that many of our young people get it, and suspecting that we really do not have much respect for education, are no longer trying to make the grade.

Things must change. But not only in attempting to convince young people to stay in school and grab that high school diploma in order to continue on into the world of higher education. As a society we must demonstrate that we truly do value education. That does not come about by glorifying the ignorant. We recently had a vice presidential candidate who almost seemed defiantly proud to know nothing of world affairs, and rationalized quitting her elected position to head on down to the lower 48 to make her fortunate. Instead of working on becoming an informed citizen, she lent her name and head shot to a ghostwritten book, got ghostwritten op ed articles published in the Washington Post and generally became a celebrity, earning millions. Based on what? It sure wasn’t the hard work our forefathers envisioned for the citizens of this young democracy. But she is not alone.

Do we really believe that Lady Gaga is more important than, let’s say, a local policeman or firefighter? Some would say the bottom line is money, and she is a moneymaker, so, yeah, maybe she is more important. But that system of thought makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy that could have just as easily been another system. We must as a country, and a society that likes to think of itself as educated, work to have education be accepted as a higher priority. Not just as lip service but as fact.

Our children must be encouraged to become, not rock stars, athletes, or reality show “stars,” but people who contribute more directly to our society. Angelina Jolie may seem like an angel making millions of dollars and then visiting poor countries and even adopting babies from some of these far-flung places. But the people who toil daily in our schools, hospitals and labs need the respect and remuneration that doesn’t perpetuate the myth that education counts. Some of our brightest angels are anonymously working selflessly for the betterment of our country rather than the self aggrandizement so prevalent among too many of our young people.

Republican Rabble Rousers

2010-03-25T14:21:00.000-04:00

A mob of people, with a glint in the eye that bespoke of violence barely held in check, converged on Washington once more this week. It appeared that Republican leaders welcomed them. Signs held up from balconies of the Capitol reading “Kill the Bill” by members of Congress seemed to egg on the rowdy swarm. The unconscionable behavior by some of the rabble included spitting on lawmakers, calling out racial slurs as well as homophobic epithets against at least one or more Congressmen. The lack of condemnation by Republican leaders has been taken, along with ambiguous statements, to condone behavior way out of line and unacceptable in our national’s Capitol. It has not been the first time but it must be the last.

John Boehner, the Republican leader in the House, after the fact and a time, decided to make a statement saying that such behavior is not right. However, he had been part of the problem himself up to that point. And lest we forget he had addressed another horde of tea party members when they came to Washington, holding up a thick bunch of papers, saying that this [healthcare bill, supposedly] is the worst threat to democracy he’s seen in his 18 years in Washington. Such hyperbole was welcome fuel to the hooligans and no doubt made them feel that they were being given permission to do as they please to achieve their own ends, which by the way seem quite murky beyond wreaking havoc. I don’t think they have any idea where they go from after destruction. After all, they don’t think the government should exist, and yet they seem to not understand the results of something so drastic.

What I find interesting is how many lawmakers seem to agree or at least egg on this rabble. Makes you wonder why they ran for office and agreed to become part of government if they’re going to encourage people to tear down government. It’s like giving someone a loaded rifle and saying, “Shoot me.” Or have they missed that part of it?

Healthcare Now!

2010-03-03T11:48:00.002-05:00

By now it must be clear to anyone with reason that healthcare reform does not mandate death panels and indeed, if one were to dwell on the idea of death panels then it would be to recognize that health insurance companies as they function today could be looked upon as death panels.

However, I do object to you characterization of the so-called Summit on healthcare of last week as well as what has now become “the” interpretation of the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

First, the Summit was a splendid idea and gave the public much food for thought and despite the mostly polite exchanges, it was still clearly an opportunity for the Republicans to uniformly tout their objection to working on the currently healthcare legislation at all. Scrap it was heard over and over again. It seems that that was the true Republican agenda, and we unfortunately know that starting over is a euphemism for let’s drop it altogether. Starting over again would no doubt take more than a generation at this point. We are also aware, those of us who follow such things, that our economy needs healthcare reform now. There is no way we can achieve economic recovery in a meaningful way without it.

Which brings us to polls, elections and such. We do govern by polls, or at least we shouldn’t and I am, thankful that no one has suggested a Constitutional amendment to allow for that.

Putting that poor notion aside, after observation and discussions with friends from Massachusetts, it is clear that Scott Brown’s election had nothing to do with healthcare. Massachusetts has universal healthcare and they may not care whether the rest of us have it, but they did take objection to the Democratic party’s nominee for senator deciding that she did not have to campaign because her election must be a slam dunk. It is unfortunate since her defeat has not been seen outside Massachusetts for what it was. A very poor candidate against a handsome, savvy candidate who had not trouble lying his way around the Commonwealth, telling voters that if healthcare reform passed, they would have to pay for everyone else. I am not even sure anyone paid much real attention to that. Many women may not have looked beyond the dazzling smile to listen to the words.

In any case, it has been mindboggling to see the spin over this election and it’s time that it stopped. It is paralyzing some of those in Washington who should be in full action mode working on getting the best healthcare reform bill possible passed, and passed as quickly as feasible, even if by reconciliation with an up and down vote. The country deserves no less.

Money Gets a New Voice

2010-01-25T00:52:00.003-05:00

Anyone living in New York City should be quite aware of the power of money in politics. After all, here we are living under a third Bloomberg mayoral term, bought and paid for much as the first two were. Despite the fact that one could say this third term is illegal, it appeared that no one had the money to mount a challenge to Mayor Bloomberg. Whoever said that justice is free?

You see, it's not about someone paying Bloomberg to vote for a particular company or law; it is Bloomberg himself having access to enough money to make sure no one could wrest the office away from him. And then once in office, he continues his own agenda, which so far has featured overbuilding the island of Manhattan to such an extend we can only hope it doesn't sink into the sea. Failing that, however, he is still lining his pockets with all these deals he brokers.

When it comes to using money in politics, I don't think companies seek so much to influence a vote on a particular bill (at least usually not, except perhaps in cases such as healthcare reform), as to support a candidate whose viewpoint matches their own. That's why we see even moderate Republicans such as Crist in Florida being challenged by more conservative organizations supporting a challenger to him. Having the money to buy up ad time against the competition as well as flood the market with ads pushing a particular candidate usually results in a great many people being brainwashed about a candidate much as they are about paper towels or soap detergent. These persuaders are no longer so hidden.

The Supreme Court even calling this case a First Amendment case is disturbing, as I think that is really stinking thinking. Anyone is free to say whatever they want about anyone, if it is not defamation. And we don't need a ruling from the Supreme Court for any company to voice its opinion. But once more, the point here was not really about SPEECH but MONEY. It's not what a company says, but the money it has available to spend on producing infomercials, films, expensive, sophisticated ads, etc. to sway the public in its vote. I don't believe this is a free speech issue at all.

Also interesting is that this conservative court is the most activist court we've seen in quite a while as it happily overturns precedents in its mission to bring its conservative agenda to life. And the above decision, wrongly presented as a First Amendment issue overturned a precedent of almost 100 years!

There is no question but that Roberts seems on a hellbent mission to take the country in the direction of his conservative vision, and he is supported by his four conservative cohorts. The opportunity may present itself, or if it doesn't, they can create the opportunity, to roll time back, way back on other issues. Do not be surprised at what other decisions may be made that roll back the country to earlier less egalitarian times. Have we already forgotten the Court's take on Lily Ledbetter?

Bernanke Deserves Our Thanks and Another Term

2010-01-22T23:28:00.002-05:00

Ben Bernanke at the Fed has done a superb job for which he has not been given adequate recognition, and that is a great injustice and it may be conseuquently mean a great loss for the country if he is not reconfirmed for another term.

His predecessor, the arrogant Greenspan, is still being praised despite his public apology for all his errors, noting that he was not paying enough attention. Yes, indeed. Even Greenspan himself now realizes that he did not do such a wonderful job.

Bernanke, on the other hand, performing as well as could be possible for the situation he faced in his tenure is now being castigated for events over which he did not preside and for the disastrous results for which he did not set things in motion.

Give him credit, however, for the fact that he has been a positive force in office. It is not known whether we would have done as well with someone else. Let's show our appreciation for his hard work. Better yet, let him continue. He is very much needed.

What clever politics to attempt to use such a convenient public figure as the vessel in which we dump all our anger and frustration over the incomplete recovery of the economy one year into the new administration. How ingenuous to dismantle someone with superior qualifications from the fine work he’s been doing in getting the economy heading in the right direction.

It is truly distressing to see someone of Bernanke’s ilk treated so shabbily. He’s not had an easy time of it, but he’s shown himself to be an impressive figure, certainly someone we need at the Fed. Give him confirmation to continue his thoughtful good work. We need Bernanke during these difficult times.

Scott and Sarah and the Fate of Healthcare

2010-01-22T23:18:00.004-05:00

The newly minted Senator Brown can be seen in some ways as being a male Sarah Palin, albeit more articulate and educated. What makes me think of Sarah when I look at Scott is the strong reminder of how they both trade on good looks, and they both lie. Big time. Brown campaigned all over his state crying out that he was going to stop health care reform in Congress so that the people in Massachusetts would not have to pay for everyone else’s healthcare in the country.

Of course that is quite a whopper, if you’ll excuse the expression. But then again, not only did many in that state believe this nonsense, but please remember: they don’t care about healthcare reform because they already have universal healthcare. It may not be the most serious contender to Sarah's winning "Liar of the Year" in 2009 for her Death Panel speeches, but combined with his Senate seat and its voting privilege Brown may be in the running for 2010.

The point is that the very hypocritical Senator Brown should not be able to crush a bill that would give to the rest of the country what the people of his state not only already have, but obviously appreciate having.

It would be a serious blunder to not pass healthcare reform, even if it is not perfect, and it certainly won’t be. But to attempt to maintain what we have is not only untenable but an invitation to the healthcare industry to continue jacking up the prices on everything as they have been doing on a regular yearly basis.

Business as usual in the healthcare industry translates to a tremendous barrier to getting our economy on its feet any time soon.

Obama's First Year

2010-01-12T14:04:00.003-05:00

Everywhere you look online, polls are being taken on whether in his first year in office the president has been successful. This in place of the more burdensome task of looking at the hard facts of what has been accomplished. And make no mistake, this president, much as he has been maligned by pundits, press, congressmen on the other side of the aisle and even Saturday Night Live, has been effective. You might consider that the loud roar against him may be in direct response to his unprecedented success. Yes, I will repeat that, unprecedented success!

National Public Radio has reported that a Congressional Quarterly study has discovered President Obama to have done better than even legendary arm-twister Lyndon Johnson in winning congressional votes on issues where he took a position. In fact, the study gives him the highest mark of any president since it began tracking more than fifty years ago. And this in a year where the issues Obama tackled included how to deal with Afghanistan, Iraq, an expanding terrorist threat, the economic crisis and battles over health care.

In addition, the list of his accomplishments during his year in office are impressive, despite the press’s reluctance to list such boring stuff as the fact that he ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending; ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices; instituted enforcement for equal pay for women; began the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq; made sure families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB; ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information as well as on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB. He also has the executive branch of government now respecting the Freedom of Information Act; instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible; and has put limits on lobbyist's access to the White House as well as limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration.
The list goes on with such important actions as removing restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research and adding new federal funding for research project as well as science and research labs. The much neglected infrastructure in our country has been given funding dedicated to projects focused on infrastructure rebuilding and, in the process, putting people back to work. The list is incredibly long for one year and that list does go on.

Has he had missteps? Nothing even close to the list of accomplishments. There is no question but that we now have an intelligent, savvy president who is listening and paying attention and, most importantly, getting things done. He has given us back our Constitution and our pride in our country. Another of his important accomplishments has been to garner respect in the world community for our country and leadership, something that would seem a gargantuan task after the Bush years in the wilderness.

Before you take a poll on Obama’s “success” or “failure,” it would perhaps be more seemly to actually look at the record.

The Washington Post Pas de Deux with Palin

2009-12-12T00:40:00.001-05:00

It is a mystery to me why the Washington Post continues to keep publishing articles trumpeting absurdist rhetoric allegedly written by Sarah Palin. There is no doubt that these pieces convey ideas with which she agrees, but one would expect a newspaper to be at least somewhat cautious in allowing a celebrity/ex-politician to use their op ed pages in the pretense that she can actually write a sentence about anything in standard English. I would be more disposed to let it go if she were at least holding office or officially running for something. Then we could all get down to dealing with the content. Perhaps. But having these columns appear recently on such a regular basis quite frankly makes one wonder whether they are employing some new intern on their staff who has mistakenly taken her for a pundit of some sort.

The Partiality of Polling

2009-12-12T00:29:00.003-05:00

The tyranny of polling has reached utterly idiotic proportions among news agencies, most particularly CNN and Fox. I don't understand how a poll can be taken on a complex subject, with the inherent danger of asking questions couched in terms that are very likely biased, if not downright incorrect, and then answered by people who are not qualified to understand what they are being asked.

Most people, including many in our Congress, do not have enough of a background in economics to be able to comprehend and discuss issues on the economy and debt intelligently, and yet polls are taken in which people are asked to toss off an opinion on these matters as if one did not need expertise.

Having people offer uninformed nonsense about serious topics trivializes what is imparted as news and misleads viewers. It does not give credence to any network having “the best news team in television,” a sobriquet that must be earned with more serious journalistic work than putting together poll after poll, as if this were made up of facts.

The Intolerance of No Choice

2009-12-10T14:39:00.001-05:00

In regard to a number of comments sent to me lately, I would like to articulate the following. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but I would like to point out a few things about misconceived notions. First, most abortions ARE NOT some form of birth control, although I’ve heard of women who got pregnant because pharmacists would not fill their birth control prescriptions. Another problem. Second, most abortions are performed on married women. Third, a majority of terminations are performed because of actual medical problems, not necessarily putting the mother’s life at risk, but then again that is not our business. But the fact is that for a number of medical reasons, women who are having planned babies are advised to terminate. But my point is that this is all an issue between doctor and patient and no more our concern than any other procedure. I wonder whether there would be a debate if the procedure were one that only men underwent.

I know of many women who have had abortions, and not one is sorry she had the abortion. I know of no one who “wanted” it, but nonetheless each understood why it was the right decision for her. My attitude is not cavalier, but it is based on medical rather than religious belief. It is never a decision taken lightly. But if abortion is not made available to all women, regardless of station in life, there will be worse tragedy.

Choice works both ways. For instance, a woman I knew, pregnant for the first time at 40, was diagnosed with breast cancer. Although not for religious reasons, she refused an abortion. She felt she could deal with the cancer later despite the admonition that cancer is much more aggressive in a pregnant woman. She had a healthy baby but sadly did not live to see his first birthday. But it was her choice. We mourned and if I could go back in time, knowing what the result would be, perhaps I would have said something. But I said nothing because I felt strongly that it had to be her decision.

In a perfect world, there would certainly never be a need for abortion, whatever the reason, but to believe that abortion is another form of birth control is a mistaken concept that is put forward particularly by men who would prefer to misinform and control. Even if every single pregnancy in the world were a planned one, there would, unfortunately still be a need for termination of certain pregnancies, and I don't mean because it would not be a "perfect" baby, but because it could be a tragic outcome, such as grossly compromised child who might or might live a short time, or one who is already dead in utero. I in fact know a woman who was carrying a much wanted baby. The doctor informed her the fetus was no longer alive around the fourth month, but for his own insane reasons told the woman she had to carry to term because "it would be better." For whom, I don't know. But it took an incredible emotional toll on her to carry a dead baby all those months and suffer the oohs and aahs of people who didn't know. How could they be aware of such a cruel thing being perpetrated? And then, as you mentioned, there are the cases of rape, incest, danger to the woman’s life, etc. But why should a woman be under scrutiny and subject to passing a "test" for an abortion as if she were on trial? Once more, it is a medical procedure and as such should be treated like all other medical procedures—as a matter between doctor and patient.

Every woman who has not had to wrestle with this tough decision must feel relieved, but that cannot in any way make you self-righteous or smug. I imagine everyone is acquainted with women who have had an abortion but may not even be aware of it. Be more tolerant. One is entitled to beliefs but not to foist them on others.

Do Any Birthers Actually Believe Their Own Lies?

2009-12-04T17:21:00.002-05:00

It seems that Lou Dobbs and Sarah Plain now have something more in common? Besides feeling free to discuss any issue of which they know nothing, they are both what is referred to with that neologism, “birthers.” There is nothing that would satisfy these birthers and in particular Sarah Palin because they don't want to be bothered by facts.

They are demagogues of the worse sort, and it makes no difference to them that Obama's birth certificate was made public long ago, as well as copies of his birth announcement that was published in Hawaiian newspapers at the time. Actually, even had he not been born in Hawaii he would be an American citizen by virtue of his mother’s citizenship (like John McCain who was not born on US soil).

It is all irrelevant to Palin and her know-nothing followers. Their purpose is to stir up people and repeat the lies enough times that some people will believe them, illogical as they are. That these are ridiculous charges and reflect on a mean-spirited nasty turn of mind should give more people pause.

Palin has shown no respect for our President. And make no mistake, he is President of the United States, and deserves the respect of all our citizens, like him or not. She has said he badmouths America abroad---that is not true. But she badmouths him all over the place, as he has not.

As a candidate he was respectful of everyone, including Palin, despite her wild remarks, but she is not a big enough person to do likewise. Perhaps Palin focuses on wild charges about Obama, about healthcare, about everything because she cannot discuss any issues intelligently. Even on her pal Hannity’s show, she kept confusing Iran and Iraq.

What Are We To Do About Afghanistan?

2009-11-11T18:01:00.003-05:00

On this one, I am taking a pass and I'll tell you why. The war in Afghanistan has been neglected for about eight years, and thus nothing much has been accomplished either in Afghanistan, or Pakistan or anywhere in the immediate area outside Iraq.

Aside from the fact that the original war should have been in Afghanistan and not Iraq, the original mission (and there actually was one) was to get Bin Ladin and his gang, and it has not been accomplished. We were diverted. Does this mean we should be state building in the area? Absolutely not.

There is yet another point and it is this: we, the general public, do not get security briefings and know only part of what is going on in an area that is highly complex. I think Obama understands that we are not there to take over Afghanistan, Pakistan or any other country, as we unfortunately did in Iraq for some time. Do you recall seeing someone in our forces putting up an American flag? That could only be called an embarrassment.

On the other hand we have to deal with terrorist organizations that are now aggressively recruiting in our own country, proselytizing and training young people. To be terrorists against us right here. These activities exacerbate the situation both here and there. We are at war with at least two terrorist organizations, and in order to deal with them, it would make some sense to do so at their camps. They train for the most part in the Middle East.

It would also be disingenuous to say that this war has gone on for nine years and that makes it "enough," and thus it is time to bring everyone home.

I have no resolution to this war on terror; I don't know what we should do, but I also don't think anyone else with only partial information should presume to know. Taking a pass on this one might be a good idea.

The Price of Medical Care When The Church Lobbies

2009-11-10T23:07:00.005-05:00

We are on the verge of passing one of the most important pieces of legislation in our time. Not since Medicare has any bill affected more people and their well being than health care reform. But the House, in passing the first round, added what has become known as the Stupak Amendment, supposedly following up on the Hyde law forbidding public funding for abortion. This is a disgrace, and could become a tragedy in the making.

Abortion is a legal medical procedure and as such women should not be denied health care coverage for it. An abortion may be medically recommended if a pregnant woman is diagnosed with cancer, or becomes ill only to have it discovered that the fetus has been severely compromised. Whatever the medical indications may be for an abortion, careless contraception is rarely one of them.

And as with any other medical procedure, it is none of our business whether a woman undergoes the procedure or why. Such scrutiny is not seemly outside the medical setting. Discussion of medical care and procedures must remain between doctor and patient.

But if health care coverage is not provided for abortion, there will unquestionably be resultant deaths.

Catholic bishops, among others, have been lobbying Congress to ban public funding for abortions, and have now decided to go even further and bar women from purchasing insurance riders with their own money to cover abortion. I wonder whether these bishops are still getting tax breaks, despite their heavy lobbying.

The fact is that it is not right to deny coverage for any legal medical procedure and this cannot be an exception. Any excuse for not covering abortion can only be found on religious grounds and there we have the problem. And the solution. Let's get clarity about what is the right thing here: doing the right thing is keeping religion out of our politics. Women cannot continue to be victims. We all suffer the consequences.

Can A Public Option Be Optional?

2009-10-26T23:34:00.001-04:00

Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated that he will add a Public Option to the Senate Healthcare Bill, with the added element that states can opt out. It is not clear yet whether this decision is the purview of the governor or the entire state legislature. In either case, the caveat is that states most in need of a public option will indubitably opt out claiming they can’t afford it. Of course they cannot afford to be without it. Leaving it to the states to decide who shall have healthcare and who shall not have healthcare is reminiscent of the roulette played back in Reid’s home state. We know the house always wins in the end. It's all about money and not healthcare.

The fact is that we cannot afford not to have a public option since that is the only way to begin to bring down healthcare costs. In a strong public option, there is no profit-making middleman. Only such an option can make insurance companies behave. True, not everyone will even be able to select the public option, particularly if they get insurance through their employers. But those costs should come down as well when it is demonstrated that things can be done more economically. And with better outcomes. Insurance companies cannot continue to make healthcare a commodity to be sold much as a company would sell diamonds rather than a basic necessity. A strong public option that is not an optional option would also force fairer rules.

No man, woman, or child should be refused insurance or dropped for any reason, including pre-existing conditions or catastrophic illness. These are the people who most need insurance and we cannot continue to allow insurance companies to morph into the death panels of our country. For that is precisely what they do when they cut off insurance for those with catastrophic illness. Unless that patient is extremely wealthy—and if that were the case they would have a far superior plan to begin with—the company is for the most handing out a death sentence. It is unconscionable in a democratic society claiming to be sophisticated and caring.

A Walter Cronkite, He Ain't

2009-10-24T11:39:00.005-04:00

The New York Times recently reported that CNN’s four-hour documentary, “Latino in America,” rather than merely serving as an inducement for Hispanic viewers, turned into a political rallying cry for activist groups to demand the cable news channel fire Lou Dobbs, a veteran anchor with well-known views on immigration. It would be a heartening sight to see CNN, which has so long billed itself as the “best news team” in television rid itself of its current primetime chair. The word anchor is used loosely in his case.

Dobbs personifies the current argument flaring around the Fox v White House dispute about whether “newscasters” are unfair. In truth, the argument has been mislabeled, as there are newscasters and then there are others on the air. Unfortunately these “others” are people who may sit behind a desk, and are often mistaken for news anchors because they may actually bring up some news story, or a rather questionable news account. They should not be mistaken for newscasters. The first clue is that these people not give out news so much as opinion. And no one is more opinionated at CNN than Lou Dobbs. It would not be overstating the point to say that he not only states his opinions, but does so over and over again. The same opinions. It’s a bore. It’s obnoxious. And it ain’t news.

A Walter Cronkite, he is not. He is not even Wolf Blitzer who has rarely, though admittedly at times, crossed the line from newscaster to commentator. But the avuncular Dobbs is in a category by himself at CNN because he totally blurs that line and invites the viewer to believe that he is handing out facts. He presents himself as a news anchor and he is quite soundly not.

And if you accept his broadcasts as “fact,” then you would have to accept that the most egregious problem facing the nation in the past several years, up to this moment, is immigration. The rest of the news, for the most part, gets short shrift in his pronouncements, except as sidebars. This can hardly pass for news, and yet it pretends to. Dobbs has even contrived to keep a straight face as he discussed the "birthers" as if this were a hot "news" issue surrounding Obama's birth certificate, perhaps leading some viewers to wonder whether we have a legitimate president! Come on, people, when is enough enough?!

In light of how many truly serious issues we are facing today as a nation and as part of the global community, it would behoove CNN to find itself a real news anchor for the coveted 7:00 pm slot and actually put together a real news team to do the serious work of researching and presenting world news. That would of course take more than having people sit and rehash their opinions in lieu of facts. Right now, the viewer does not even get a balanced view of national news.

Republican Foot in the Mouth Disease

2009-10-20T11:33:00.001-04:00

A South Carolina Republican official, James Ulmer, chairman of the Orangeburg County GOP, is now apologizing for co-writing a newspaper op-ed, which ran Sunday in the Orangeburg Times & Democrat. The piece was meant to defend South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint's position against congressional earmarks. Ulmer said he made a "great error." Jews were described as penny-pinchers in the op-ed, which he penned along with Bamberg County GOP chairman Edwin Merwin.

It's so easy to "apologize" for statements made that turn out to be politically unwise, and yet because these were comments written in an op ed piece, they were carefully thought out and certainly reviewed and then edited. Hardly off the cuff. They are also prejudicial and vile, illuminating deeply seated negative feelings toward a group of people these writers obviously consider "different" from themselves.

It's true. Jews are different from these two characters who wrote the op ed piece. In fact, stupid stereotypes aside, the Jews in this country give more to charity than any other single group, and Jewish charitable organizations are known to spend more of each donated dollar directly for charity than for organizational expenses. In other words, donors' dollars are used more to help others than for operating expenses or salaries. Penny -pinching indeed, but hardly in the spirit of greed or for the purpose of anyone becoming enriched by such penny-pinching.

No group can be characterized by a few members. It would take a preponderance of members of any group to behave in a particular way in order to attach any sort of label. However, from many years of observation, I would venture to say that Jews, for the most part—and not the occasional aberration—tend to look out for others and demonstrate kindness and what is often called, ironically enough, “Christian” kindness, a trait no doubt taken from the laws of ancient Judaism, along with the Ten Commandments. http://barbaraspen.blogspot.com/

Obama and the Nobel

2009-10-09T13:13:00.003-04:00

Like many others, I was stunned to read this morning that President Barack Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. But after I read the Nobel Committee’s reasoning behind the award, I have to say that I saw this award in another light. As specifically stated, it is for what he has accomplished in the way he has reset the entire pattern of global relationships and aspirations. He has begun the process of making the United Nations live up to its name of inclusive rather than exclusive in trying to unite all nations and set positive goals, as for example, nuclear disarmament and reduction in global warming. He has brought the United States into a leadership role rather than shirking such responsibility and led the way in inspiring others to follow him in aspiring to the ambitious aims that could mean world prosperity and peace. Will he succeed in any of these goals that he so very gracefully began? None of us knows. But obviously many of us hope and more than that, wish to throw in our support. The Nobel Committee has done so in a most public way, using the weight of its lofty position to give its approval to his agenda. Thus I believe that the Award was given to him not just in recognition of his efforts (yes, his efforts) but to aid the realization of those goals.

What has been disheartening is that from the moment of the announcement, there were disparaging remarks about Obama not being worthy of the award. From people in countries whose agenda is in direct opposition to peace and disarmament, it was to be expected. But from those in our own country whose sole goal appears to be the usual game of partisan politics, it is nothing less than vulgar. Disparaging the president in these circumstances is nothing less than showing poor taste in not being a citizen proud of our country and its president. This is an international award that should make every citizen proud that we have once more been recognized for being the leader of the free world. His leadership qualities have been very much on display in every international forum he has attended. How he quietly comes onto the scene and becomes the focus is nothing short of amazing. Obama has used this advantage as a global bully pulpit to further goals of peace and prosperity on an international scale.

The Nobel Committee is throwing its weight behind Barack Obama to realize these worthy goals of bringing peace and his work in no less than taking the necessary efforts to save the planet; they are saying in essence that they are doing what they can to bring attention to his grand but necessary agenda and put its “seal of approval” on these worthy aims. Let’s all hope they succeed.

Obama's Deliberative and Thoughtful Progress

2009-10-07T16:55:00.001-04:00

SNL’s supposedly satiric takeoff on Obama’s “lack of achievement” after eight months in office was a cheap shot. Distorting the situation by nicely neglecting to list what Obama has achieved while not quite noting that the list of “non-accomplishments” is not so simple is low. For example, Gitmo has not closed but an Executive Order for the closing was signed, but the major impediment, by the way, is that everyone who was for it and that was just about everyone, is suddenly against it. Strange turn of events, wouldn’t you say, particularly since even Bush was finally for it by the end of his term. Sounds to me like political exploitation with the "not in my backyard” bravado neglecting the facts. Such as the fact that we already have terrorists in our high security jails. As for accomplishments, the Ledbetter bill, getting many more children eligible for health care, even announcing to the world that “we do not torture” count as accomplishment. One of his greatest feats has been to get the country back into a working relationship with our allies and making us once more a working member of the world community, working toward nuclear nonproliferation, lowering green house gases and global warming (and yes, it take the global community to work on that and since we are the largest perpetrator, our participation was always vital). It is unrealistic to expect miracles in less than a year and yet his administration has averted a major depression and gotten us out of the recession. No, we are not in recovery yet, but this complicated matter is at least being worked on intelligently, for a change. Health care is the key for so many things, it can be understood if gay marriage and gays in the military and immigration are put on the back burner behind the economy and health care for now. Since both those subjects impact everyone in the country, that should be accepted as the right thing to do, and not mocked on SNL showing a president who does nothing. It seems we finally have a president who does a great deal, but does not rush into thoughtless acts that cost the country further misery. It’s time for us to back him in his efforts and work together in our country’s recovery.

The Debate Goes on, But When Will the Lies Stop

2009-08-17T23:09:00.002-04:00

I am still astonished to hear people at town hall meetings rail against health care reform despite the fact that they would be the big losers if health care reform fails. It only goes to show how spin works when it is really sophisticated. And why is Senator Grassley so befuddled when questioned? Is it because he doesn't want to level with his constituents?

And before any of these people cheering for the failure of health care reform jump up and down, I hope they come to their senses and realize that if health care fails, it is a tremendous failure for the whole country.

The insurance companies (and some of the providers, like doctors who own a big piece of the action, such as nursing homes, MRI facilities, etc.) are against two major provisions in health care reform. And this was what they made sure the big noise was about.

1- The "end of life" options for discussions with doctor every five years for Medicare patients (paid for by Medicare and not mandated by anyone). This type of discussion is likely to produce health care proxies, living wills, etc., the types of things that would put an end to the tremendous amounts of money the insurers are now raking in doing totally unnecessary things for terminal patients that make no difference to anything but their bank account.

2-The so-called "Public Option" that so many people are railing about though they have idea what it's about except they scream about socialism, government takeover and everything under the sun. Do you want the government to come between you and your doctor, they scream at meetings. Of course not. The insurance companies are already there and they couldn't bear to lose that sacred position wherein they tell you which doctors you can go to (in network), whether you can even get a decent policy (pre-existing conditions), and so many other things. I myself have been told several times that I could not be covered for certain medications, would not be covered for procedures my doctors thought I needed, etc. A Public Option, which seems dead in the water, is so misunderstood and so important for people to get a better deal in health insurance in coming years. It is needed to stop those greedy insurance companies from continuing their grubby ascent -- I still cannot understand how some people can stand in front of the camera and talk about how wonderful our healthcare system is. These same people were infuriated with Wall Street big shots -- Well, you know what? These insurance CEOs make even more!! And they are scared to death of reform!

So I hope more people get wise and begin to see what is good for them before it's too late. It is beginning to remind me of Bush and all those people in the red states voting for someone who was against all their best interests. They somehow couldn't bring themselves to see what was before their eyes; that "their man" was really for the very rich and powerful and cared nothing for them, and indeed saw to it that things got much worse for people who were not in a good situation to begin with. Well, the entrenched “interests” have gotten so much richer in the past eight years, it is even harder to get the change we need.

I think greed may be an addiction, making those in the throes of it feel that nothing else and no one else matters. But we need reform desperately. So the lies have to be addressed and the doubts and fears allayed. We have been going slowly. Health care reform was first attempted more than 40 years ago, and if we don't get it this time, we may be in even more serious trouble because it is not just about health care, but the economy.

Be Sure You Know What You Stand For

2009-08-11T23:05:00.002-04:00

I’ve been watching town hall meetings on television for days, and was particularly dismayed by a meeting in Pennsylvania that was crammed with overwrought constituents venting highly charged rhetoric. One young woman begged the senator to return the nation to the Constitution because she didn’t want this country to become another Russia, and a middle-aged gentleman shrieked about socialism and having a dictator. The crowd seemed to accept that we had already become a socialist nation with Obama as our dictator! Unbelievable! Where do they get this stuff from?

What have these people been drinking? Or better, what radio programs have they been listening to? Which TV ads have they been fed to brainwash them into thinking healthcare reform is the devil?

Suddenly we have town hall meetings all over the country full of patriotic people who are terrified because we have overnight become “socialist” and no longer adhere to the Constitution. Yes, these people populating town halls appear quite prepared to accept the notion that Barack Obama, who has returned the Constitution to us and descried torture and abuse, is our dictator.

Where were all these patriots when George W. Bush threw away our Constitution, and his administration took us into an era of torture of prisoners and eavesdropping on American citizens? And don’t forget firing federal attorneys who were not politically acceptable, or outing a CIA operative to punish her husband who disagreed with policy. Or better yet dragging us into a preemptive war with lies. Not a peep out of these people.

Have any of these people stopped to think? Even for a moment? Hey, people, who do you think is paying for these ads? And what do they have to gain by filling you with such vitriol? If we do not have healthcare reform, we all go down. Except for health insurance companies. It’s as simple as that.

Obama will not go down. Our country will go down, because our economy cannot sustain the American way of healthcare with our greedy insurance companies. We are that desperate for restructuring. Blocking health care reform will plague us. Since the cost of healthcare takes up too large a part of our economy, our expenditure for it will continue to hold down the growth and resurgence of the economy. It does not allow us to compete with the rest of the civilized world who have discovered that they need not pay as much as we do for healthcare and yet enjoy better health than we! There is certainly something wrong here! We must develop a wellness model of medical care, as most of our major health issues are culturally driven, and can thus be reversed with education.

Meanwhile these people shriek about losing their choices. Isn’t it rather ironic that many fear government standing between them and their doctors when in fact the insurance company is already there? And for a lot more money every year too. And that price continues to escalate at wild rates, and yet I heard many people voicing the idea that a public government option would take away their right to choose their own doctor, deny them treatment and even have death panels and other horrible things which, by the way, if you stop to think about it, the insurance companies have themselves been promulgating for years!

It is the public option that would stand in the way of these companies perpetuating these practices of denying insurance to people with catastrophic illness, preexisting conditions and well -- you get the picture. I hope.

As for the price tag, healthcare reform will in the long run not only rally the economy, but also bring down the deficit. Yes, it can.

It's Not Just About Sex

2009-06-28T16:18:00.001-04:00

Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina supposedly considered resigning and decided not to. He seems to expect that repeated apologies and likening himself to King David of Biblical fame gets him off for poor behavior. What more is there to say about this self-serving hypocrite who was leading the charge against President Clinton and shouting “Impeachment” and calling for his resignation?

Well, there’s plenty more to say. In this year of indiscretion where disclosure of another peccadillo may leave the public jaded and bored, Sanford stands out. Beyond his repayment of the public cost of his fling and the adultery notwithstanding, though particularly embarrassing in his case considering his past sanctimonious statements, there is another issue.

Sanford is guilty of a serious dereliction of duty. As governor of South Carolina, he was unavailable for five days. Incommunicado. In this age of cellphones and Internet, he “disappeared.” AWOL from office. If there weren’t enough, this is not the first time he’s pulled a vanishing act, and the last time was during a crisis, when there was a raging fire in South Carolina.

If the chief executive of the state takes his duties so lightly that he feels he can disappear without even notifying his Lt. Governor and others who rightfully need to be able to reach him, he has no business being in the gubernatorial office. The public has a right to know who’s minding the store. They deserve to have someone in fact minding that store!

Sanford’s decision to retain his office is not only the height of hypocrisy but also irresponsible. He is not exempt from the rules, and he is certainly not above the law he no doubt feels is meant for everyone else.

There are voices in the GOP already calling for his resignation because they realize he has become a liability to the party. He was already a liability and embarrassment to his state; his refusal of the stimulus package was a horrific grandstanding example of carelessness as well as contempt for many of his constituents.

If he does not resign, the State Legislature should impeach him. It is painful to see yet another governor impeached. But that is certainly a better scenario than his continuing misbehavior in office.

Guns in Church, Indeed!

2009-06-27T21:15:00.003-04:00

In an article in The New York Times, someone is quoted as saying that guns are a tradition in our country's history and that in earlier times, everyone wore them to church. He is correct in saying that in our country's early history, in many churches, guns were necessary, sometimes because of fear of Indian attack or even outlaws. But I don't know that that they were ever in fear of other church members.

It is sad that anyone would want to uphold a “tradition” of wearing guns to church. In fact, if all firearms were forbidden in places of worship, we might actually be going forward toward becoming more civilized, as indeed many in the Old West hoped for. The idea is to have fewer guns, not more. It is too easy to discharge a gun; it is too accessible for young people to shoot in anger or children to grab in ignorance.

I agree with “Link” that all guns should be registered, and those who scream that they have a right to have a gun but don’t need to register it, seem to have no problem with the idea of having a driver’s license and registering their automobile.

I am astounded at the power of the NRA to convince this country for so many years to not require all gun owners to register their firearms. The sheer magnitude of the problem of firearms in the wrong hands in this country cannot even begin to be addressed without demanding that ALL firearms be registered and that no one be allowed to purchase a gun without a background check, including weapons bought at any gun show.

Background checks and gun registration should not hinder true sportsmen from pursuing their pastime, but it could very well deter a good number of felons and perhaps keep those with serious psychiatric problems from being able to acquire weapons.

No, it is not the perfect solution because there is no such thing. But that should not keep us from attempting to better the situation and start bringing the number of murders by firearms down. Guns are the easiest way to kill someone; without easy access, violence may well go down. To nothing? Never happened in history. But that doesn’t mean that things cannot get better.

No serious reasonable individual should object to either background checks or registration. That the NRA does so makes them appear unreasonable as far as I’m concerned. Uncaring and insensitive as well. Neither prerequisite hinders hunting. In fact, neither does banning assault weapons. Do you need one to shoot a deer or even a moose? Don’t think so. Those are weapons of war and don’t belong in the hands of anyone outside of soldiers and police officers.

Humor or just an old-fashioned racist message?

2009-06-16T23:15:00.001-04:00

An e-mail containing head shots of all the presidents of the United States, with the current occupant in the White House depicted merely a pair of large white eyes on a black background. Like a black man in the old minstrel show type of stereotypical black man? If it's a joke, it's not funny. Just as it's no longer funny to attempt to portray wife beating as amusing, or physical punishment of children at school as humorous.

You may find a joke somewhere about Obama's game of basketball, his dislike of beets or his battle to quit smoking. But there is no real humor to be found in belittling the President of the United States on the basis of his being a man of color. And that is exactly what this "joke" is all about—to point out that he is different from the preceding presidents, and that the difference is in color.

Another disturbing element to this story, in fact, the most disturbing aspect of this obvious racist e-mail is that it was "sent to the wrong list of people." Is there a "right list" for this type of e-mail? Beyond that, the comment indicates that the aide who sent out this e-mail was instructed to send it out to a list of people, and she mistakenly chose the "wrong list." I might add that perhaps we should look more closely at her boss, State Senator Diane Black of Tennessee, who claims she "knew nothing of it." Black leads the Tennessee Senate Republican Caucus and the word is that a statement on the e-mail noted that it had been paid for by the GOP!

And aides obviously don't send out anything to an entire list of people, any list of people, without instructions to do so. Mixing up those instructions is another matter. But we should not mix up the actions of the aide with the intentions of her boss.

Senator Black has much to answer for here, and her constituents, whatever list they may be on, should not tolerate this incident. They should in fact demand that she herself apologize for the e-mail. Should she fire the aide? I don’t know. A pity she hasn’t been fired herself. Don Imus was forced to resign after a racist remark he made against a black girls’ basketball team. What’s to be done with a political figure who sends a racist e-mail against the President of the United States? Does she get preferential treatment and a pass?

Impartial Application of the Law

2009-05-29T16:48:00.002-04:00

In Michael Gerson’s May 29 column in the Washington Post regarding Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, he wrote that Obama developed a “theory that Supreme Court justices should favor socially unfavored groups,” and that he opposed John Roberts for using his skills "on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak," while Samuel Alito sided with "the powerful against the powerless." Gerson stated that “Obama made these distinguished judges sound monstrous because they stood for the impartial application of the law."

This is an interesting contradiction. In claiming that Obama was against the appointment of these two justices for favoring the "strong" and the "powerful," Gerson extrapolates that the president thus favors the weak and the powerless. But the evidence indicates that what Obama was saying is that they [Roberts and Alito] favor only the powerful and never the powerless. Thus in consistently favoring more powerful interests, they demonstrate that they are not impartial. How this translates to Obama, and by extension Sonia Sontomayor, not being impartial I cannot fathom.

Sotomayor, as evidenced by her record, has declared for both weak and strong, rich and poor. In her 17 years on the bench, her decisions have been overturned about 1%. Rather a strong record. Certainly an extremely intelligent and fair, impartial one, unlike some we now have on the court.

Quite frankly, I still resent Justice Scalia taking it upon himself to declare who should be president of the United States, thus invalidating my (and your) vote!

The Final Exam

2009-05-15T22:41:00.004-04:00

President Barack Obama, our very own no-drama Obama, seems unable to avoid controversy lately, especially, it seems in regard to commencement addresses. Not long after giving his balloon-pricking address at Arizona, deflating the controversy stirred up there about not receiving an honorary degree because his “body of work still lay before him,” we have, in this case, not the university but some members of the faculty and student body, a minority, to be sure, but nonetheless a vocal minority, who seem to object to the choice of President Obama as commencement speaker. Their objection is based on the President’s stance in regard to abortion choice and stem cell research.

I am not sure what abortion and stem cell research have to do with graduation exercises, but it seems that University of Notre Dame senior Emily Toates is not only angry over Notre Dames’ decision to give President Obama an honorary degree, but she’s doing something about it: skipping the event. Her rationale is as follows: "I do not feel comfortable going and celebrating him as the university hands him an honorary degree -- in a sense honoring his policies."

She added that if Obama were invited to speak in a different context, there would be no uproar. "If he was invited to a town hall meeting, a panel discussion, something where we were discussing these issues ... then I wouldn't have a problem with it. I would go and hear what he has to say," she said. "The problem is, a commencement isn't the context for a dialogue. He's going to be standing up on the stage speaking to us in our seats. There isn't that opportunity for dialogue."

So, let me get this clear. Ms. Toate feels Notre Dame should not have Obama at graduation ceremonies because of his stance on abortion and stem cell research, but more importantly because there would be no dialogue on those topics. Forget that those topics have nothing to do with that special day. She says she would welcome him to the campus if the event were one in which abortion and stem cell research could be discussed. Does she mean that he is welcome to come only if she were able to argue with him on these topics? And if not, don’t come? I guess so.

To some, it would seem much more civilized and make more sense to have people who disagree on inflammatory subjects at an event that has nothing to do with those issues. Then you would not be there as contentious debaters. Must one always argue?

Yet the objection is expressed in another way by Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League. "I have no problem with Obama speaking on the campus. ... I have no problem with him addressing the law school, being involved in this symposium. ... I do have a problem giving him the honor."

Mr. Donohue seems to be inferring that the President of the United States is not worthy of an honor if he does not concur on abortion and stem cell research. I guess Mr. Donohue does not look further in evaluating the worth of a person, even if that person happens to be the president of his country.

I am glad to hear that most Catholics in this country do not feel like Ms. Toates and Mr. Donohue, and that a majority of them do not want the University to rescind the invitation. It is sad enough to hear that a graduating senior, after supposedly receiving a good education, is so narrow-minded and judgmental as to see people only in terms of such narrow issues, as if other aspects of character do not stand for much.

Hooray for Notre Dame for inviting the dynamic Mr. Obama. I am sure he would be happy to debate Ms Toates and Mr. Donohue at their pleasure, but I think neither he nor Notre Dame had that in mind when discussing the commencement program. It would be out of place and doesn’t belong on the agenda or in the minds of those who should be thinking of other things on that important day.

Is This the Best California Has to Offer?

2009-05-13T09:59:00.003-04:00

Miss California USA Carrie Prejean gets to keep her crown. Is anyone surprised? Since Donald Trump, who does not seem to have wits above his waist when it comes to beautiful young women, made this determination, the outcome should not have been in doubt. Of course, Ms. Prejean explains, she did not mean to have a photo of herself in underpants be placed online and, she insists, the photo was taken by a fellow who barged into her dressing room and snapped it, oh so quickly, and vanished, poof! Interesting to see that great big smile she has for the camera in that shot. Just the sort of expression one would reserve for an intruder.

But there are other points to ponder. The first is that the young woman does not only have a semi-nude photo of herself floating around the Internet planet, but she has also allowed herself to be the spokesperson for an organization that is not connected to the pageant. By appearing in commercials for a right-wing group pushing for “marriage between a man and a woman,” she has allowed herself to be the poster girl garnering publicity for an organization not officially a part of the pageant. However you feel about the specific issue, the point is that young Carrie seems more intent on publicity than on keeping to her contract.

In regard to that commercial, I found it pertinent to review the pageant tape, particularly the section relating to the marriage question. One receives a totally different impression here than from the shorter sound bite in which Ms. Prejean positively says that marriage should be between a man and a woman. In the full answer, she hesitates and begins with an enthusiastic and perky, “Isn’t it good that they have a choice?” After that bit of nonsensical chatter, she slowly worked her way to finally admitting that she was raised believing that marriage is between and man and a woman until finally asserting that marriage should be between a man and a woman. In other words, she comes across in the pageant as someone who’s not terribly bright but eagerly trying to please.

The question was not a good one to begin with. It in fact doesn’t belong in a beauty pageant as it is too loaded, and the answer was not so much an opinion as showing a young woman who is pageant savvy but not particularly intelligent. She is lauded for giving an “honest” answer but it took her too long to even come to her so-called answer.

As for the pageant itself, I wonder if it wouldn’t be more correct to select the best cosmetic surgeon to award for bestowing so much change. I’m not sure the change was always called for, but nonetheless, one has to wonder whether any woman in the pageant was real. With the dyed hair, implants in bust and butt, facial nips and tucks, one has to wonder what they all looked like before. The irony is that I suspect that many were probably more beautiful in the before pictures. There’s a power to authenticity.

One of the most shocking aspects of a pageant that will no doubt have too much influence over a great many teenage girls is that the California pageant people actually paid for Carrie’s implants. What a message for the girls. What a role model. Hey, Trump, maybe you should stick to real estate.

Those Who Seek Careers in Government

2009-04-29T09:44:00.003-04:00

As long as people with the qualifications of Katherine Harris, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Don Young and Michelle Bachmann are drawn to political life, we are in trouble. And we know a good number of Congressmen have the intelligence of a pickled beet. There may be a good number of wily politicians but there are too few elected officials with intelligence. And, by the way, it was Ronald Reagan, who made a career of maligning politicians while he made himself powerful as one, and went on to become president as he belittled the federal government and then used his presidential power to destroy unions and take greater power unto his own office. And to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Yes, it is possible to be clever but not intelligent. And it is more important to have the bright ones in office.

But not only have our best and brightest been staying clear of elected office, but for at least the last generation or two, bright young people have fled to Wall Street as they deserted the traditional top dog medical school applications in the face of what they saw as intrusion into medical practice and decline of income for physicians.

Now it may be time, with the fall of Wall Street, to make our young people look at the path to government. We must convince our brightest young people -- the top graduates (yes, like Obama) to lend their intellectual gifts to making government work again.

Government is important. As the recent “tea party” demonstrated, without government, chaos ensures. Anarchy is not freedom, and making barrels of money doesn’t entitle you to just bury it in your backyard so you can keep it. Money is responsibility, and when people with money don’t accept their responsibilities, they begin to live in a cesspool instead of a country.

The place between freedom and repression has no meaning for some in public life. It reminds me of the Puritans who came to the New World after their long persecution, seeking religious freedom. They found it, and then went about setting up Puritan states in which everyone had to be a Puritan. Ironic, isn’t it? Reminds me of many right-wing conservatives who think that their way is the only way and that somehow being able to run things their way is freedom. Yes, it is. But only for them. http://barbaraspen.blogspot.com/

Michelle Bachmann is at it again

2009-04-29T09:40:00.000-04:00

Representative Michelle Bachmann, whose intellect does not challenge that of a potato, has now surpassed even her past incredulous statements of saying that Obama really does pal around with terrorists and is a socialist. Her latest, and heaven help us were this to be the last, is to blame the current swine flu spread to the president.

What's more, she erroneously points out that the last major health panic was also under a Democratic president (Carter) when it in fact happened under Ford. But, that aside, how logic would bring anyone to the point of blaming a flu outbreak to any president is beyond understanding. Do her constituents back home really see that their representative not only has a tendency to speak glibly but also inanely? Her ignorance, coupled with stupidity and zeal, make for potential mischief-making on a calibre not be ignored.

Michelle Bachmann confirms the rumor that there must be many voters who truly do not know who they vote for or are so blindly aligned with their party that they ignore doing what is best for themselves and their country. Nobody needs to be represented by someone at this extremely low level of ethics and intelligence. Bachmann's integrity, if she ever had any, must have been lost somewhere between voting day and swearing in, and her naked ambition is embarrassing for its insensitivity and craven self-seeking.

An Honor for Whom?

2009-04-10T20:48:00.001-04:00

Arizona State has extended an invitation to President Barack Obama to be the commencement speaker this year. Presidents have always been popular choices for this role, and getting a sitting president to attend graduation ceremonies has always been considered a coup, even when the president has been less than vastly popular.

But this invitation presents perhaps the most ludicrous university commencement situation I've heard of in a long time. The university selects a commencement speaker, presumably, to offer the graduates sage advice from the vantage point of experience and achievement and offer some pithy counsel. What is perplexing is the reluctance to endow him with an honorary doctoral degree, with the pronouncement that “his body of work is yet to come,” implying he has accomplished nothing. So why invite him to speak?

Or, perhaps, they haven’t yet figured out that Obama has accomplished, aside from the highest office in the land. I suppose getting there doesn’t count to the people at Arizona State. Still, it might be argued that his work as a community organizer is worthy of being touted for students who usually do not consider doing anything for anybody.

Obama’s work in Illinois State government as well as in the Senate must also qualify as achievement. Adding his years teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago to that list illuminates how over the past twenty years he has kept himself busy. And for the most part doing work deserving recognition. Obviously his career is not finished and, if the first few months are any indication, there will be a great deal more to Obama’s attainments.

Yet if the university believes he has not yet been worthy of an honorary degree, he should not have been extended the honor of addressing the graduates. He is not the one to be embarrassed. The dunderheads at the university are sure to draw much derision from prospective students who may now opt out of Arizona State after this debacle.

They may reconsider their absurd position, which has been exposed in all its absurdity in the glare of public light.

America's Pursuit for Energy Independence

2009-03-09T20:17:00.001-04:00

As you sit on the freeway wondering why you’re not moving with 250 horses under your hood, you might reflect on the fact that in the short span of the past hundred years or so, man has produced more wonders than the sum of all that came before. Since so many of our miraculous inventions depend upon energy in order to operate, we have paid a price for this world, particularly as far as our use of nonrenewable energy.

Of our traditional energy sources, coal, which is the most expensive, produces toxic radioactive waste. And to be honest, clean coal just doesn't exist; and is not likely to. The supply of fossil fuel, another restricted form of energy, has been dwindling while the number of people consuming it has been increasing. Our traditional power plants cause global climate change, acid rain, smog, toxic mercury emissions, consumption of water resources and pollution of water. Further, having to depend on outside sources for much of our energy is not economically sound.

Nonetheless, we have been loathe to change. It has been easier to expiate our guilt by the mere act of admitting the need for change. The truth is that we have lacked the leadership and the policies to change our ways. In the meantime, we have been most unkind to ourselves and to our environment. But witnessing the consequences of such environmental pollution as polar ice meltdown and sea level elevation, it is clear we must act.

Decision makers have long overlooked renewable energy and even misled us into believing there are insufficient resources in clean energy. For example, Detroit has told us for years that there were no viable options to their gas guzzlers. We now know better, and production of hybrid automobiles as well as other alternatives is becoming a reality. Unfortunately, America did not lead in this area.

Americans helped create our increasingly complex world, contributing many of the amazing inventions of the twentieth century such as the airplane, the microchip and nuclear energy, among many others. It would be fitting that we deal with the threat to our planet and its consequences for future generations. We must harness our mental prowess and exercise our expertise for another goal: energy independence through the development of clean energy. It is sometimes referred to as green energy, reflecting the expectation its use will result in saving the environment.

Clean energy is electricity generated mostly from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and sometimes low-emission energy sources such as land-fill gas, fuel cells, micro-turbines, and combined cycle co-generation. In contrast to traditional energy sources, these drastically reduce environmental impact. In addition to preventing climate change, reduced acid rain, and less waste, clean energy could embrace possible long-term price stability as well as enhanced electrical capacity and reliability.

There is no doubt that we need to develop clean power, which would also result in job and economic growth. Improvements in these areas over the past few years have made for better technology and lower prices. Clean energy has the power to revive struggling communities, and provide the economic and climate recovery Americans are seeking. Clean energy strategies, in combination with green business development, community-based agriculture, ecotourism, recycling-based manufacturing, and eco-industrial parks, hold the key to job growth, reviving income for households and government.

It is past time for America to go green and achieve energy independence.

The News Hour Most Respected by the Public?

2009-03-09T20:15:00.002-04:00

President Obama today signed an Executive Order rescinding President Bush’s ban against federal funding for stem cell research. The scientific community, among others, was jubilant to have a president proclaim that religion and politics would no longer play a role in decisions regarding scientific research.

When this story was reported on PBS’s Evening News Hour with Jim Lehrer, two “experts” were brought on to discuss this issue. This is a usual PBS technique employed by the News Hour, and I often wonder why PBS feels there are always two sides to everything. For this particular story, the professor from the University of California who works in stem cell research obviously was quite capable of discussing this issue as one working in the field. But to present “the other side,” the program invited a gentleman by the name of Tony Perkins who is from the Family Research Council. This seemed a rather disingenuous move. He is obviously not from the scientific community. More to the point, from his floundering answers to questions, I would venture to say he has no scientific background at all.

The major point he had to make was that he objects to scientists deciding what is right and wrong in working with stem cells, but cannot tell us who should make these decisions. Except that it should be someone who is looking out for what is “right.”

I think it is patent nonsense to invite someone to discuss a subject on which he may have some strong opinions but is obviously totally ignorant. He was totally incapable of understanding the issue in all its ramifications, although he thought he was qualified, perhaps from his “moral” point of view. It reminds me of some of our Congressmen whose strong opinions do not stem from knowledgeable positions, but ideological bases.

Healthcare Reform Now!

2009-02-26T22:12:00.000-05:00

Healthcare reform is the most overdue item in our country's agenda—next to full equality (yeah, women still usually get paid less for the same work). At a time of the most serious economic downturn in the lives of many and vanishing work, more people are being left with no reserve and no savings. Add to that the tremendous amount of money an individual or family would have to spend on insurance as well as medications, and we can begin to see how serious this is, especially when multiplied by the millions. WE now have approximately 20% of our citizens without medical insurance and many with insurance still cannot often afford to pay the deductibles or premiums or copays for medications. Let’s face, healthcare is big business in America.

People go bankrupt because of health needs, and we are now paying more and getting less than any other nation on the planet. Those countries with poorer healthcare at least don't pay for it. We do. And we shouldn't have to pay so much for so little. In the countries referred to as “developed,” we cannot be proud of the percentage of infant mortality, maternal death, even teenage pregnancy. And we don’t even have the longest life span of developed nations, despite what we pay.

Obviously we waste money, and it has become clear that insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are no different from Wall Street in overpaying executives while demanding the consumer ante up. So it should be no surprise that the result has been an absolute disaster.

And it became even worse in the last few years. For example, those Congressmen who pushed for the heralded Bush Medicare drug plan? Didn’t they all go to work for the companies that lobbied for it? At exorbitant salaries! That tells the story in a nutshell. We need to have fewer intermediaries between doctor and patient, so that both benefit. At the moment, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies tell physicians how to practice medicine. They often decide which medications can be prescribed. And often refuse to pay at all if a patient wants to consult with a physician who may be the best choice for their problem bus not on their list. Insurance companies have been known to refuse payment for major catastrophic illness. In other words, we’re bound for better or better. In essence, they have sometimes decided who can live and who can’t afford it.

Shame on you! Shame on us! And shame on Congress if they take healthcare off the table.

Poor Players and Sore Losers

2009-02-15T17:37:00.002-05:00

The gang of Republicans left in Congress has almost no moderates among them. Sadly, John McCain was once mistakenly thought to be one. In the last election, despite his attempting to present himself as a maverick, everyone asked where the old McCain had gone to. Well, now we know. He went nowhere. And that’s the story. The real problem with McCain is that he is not the brightest bulb in the pack, and the strident John Boehner, who has gotten the remaining Republicans organized behind him, unfortunately, has the leadership of a bully. And there he stands, kicking out. No fresh ideas, no understanding, and no true leadership. Only the leader of the pack.

These conservatives in Congress reinforce their stale rhetoric and worn out ideas, and don’t seem to notice that the country isn’t with them. Boehner told the press before meeting with Obama that his group in the House was going to vote against the stimulus. Then after meeting with the president, he whined that Republicans had no input into the bill. Did he have any good ideas? Not that any of us heard. Did he go into the meeting in good faith? Hard to believe when he committed publicly that he was against “it.”

As for McCain and his bosom buddy, Lindsay Graham who knows how to throw a mean tantrum on camera, the notion of cutting the stimulus in half while upping the tax cuts at the same time appears a frightening thought. Even with the stimulus bill that passed, so many economists worried that it may not be enough. And I don’t think many people in the country are ready to continue accepting the nonsense that tax cuts stimulate the economy. We’ve had too many years of seeing that idea fail to stimulate anything but offshore accounts.

Calling the stimulus a lot of spending seems rather comical as I wonder how one creates jobs without spending money. Has anyone figured out how to make money without spending money? What I do like about the stimulus package, imperfect as it is, is that the concern for education, energy, healthcare and helping the states are all there. Perhaps there should be more, but they are crucial to stimulating this country back to its feet. And dealing with the energy and healthcare issues as well as education are necessary to a better, more prosperous future.

Too many people are not working and too many more see an abyss in their careers. President Obama is appreciated for unwavering approach to dealing with a problem and for making overtures to the Republicans while at the same time not allowing their rejection posture inhibit what needed to be done. Bravo! McCain, Graham and the others do not seem to even understand what has happened. They may be in trouble for reelection.

What is more to the point: these Republicans, with the exception of Senators Snowe, Collins and Spector, seem to be a group of politicians more concerned with histrionics than compassion. It would certainly do them all a world of good to feel what it’s like to lose your job.

And Now Obama Begins

2009-01-20T21:22:00.005-05:00

Barack Obama gave an 18-minute Inauguration Address that seemed to leave many feeling that he did not live up to expectations because they didn’t hear poetry. Two commentators on PBS nodded to each other that, yes, it was a good speech but it was not a great speech. Not one of his best. David Brooks declared that the definition of a great speech was one that was quotable and that there were no “quotable lines” in Obama’s speech. Well, it is a good many hours since Obama made this speech, and I have now heard it at least three or four times and also read the transcript. Now that the printed comments on the speech are coming in, I see that a good number of people, both professional writers and readers seemed inclined to quote lines that resonated with them. I don’t blame them. Each time I heard the speech, it was better and better.

The New York Times on their online front page quoted: “We cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve.”
—From the Inaugural Speech
-->
It caught my ear that Obama did not begin addressing the crowd with “My Fellow Americans,” but rather “my fellow citizens,” and I believe that was an important point to note, for he gave us a call to citizenship, emphasizing the responsibilities of citizenship and how historically it has been citizens responding to crucial times have meant the difference between success and failure, as he points out our current “collective failure to make hard choices.”

For those who didn’t hear poetry in Obama’s words, consider the following:

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

My own contender for what remains memorable to me from Obama’s speech include the following lines, which I expect to hear quoted by others in the future:

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

Yes, I found the speech quotable, but more than that, the essence of the address becoming stronger with each reading is to me the confirmation of a great speech. I suspect that the two people on CNN who said that his words would soon be forgotten may be in for a surprise. This moving address may join the very short list of Inaugural addresses to be remembered.

Roseanne Weighs in on Gaza

2009-01-13T23:27:00.003-05:00

Roseanne Barr on her website attacks Israel viciously, with rhetoric worthy of Hamas or the PLO. The Hezbollah would love her. For she is more than sympathetic to the Palestinians living in Gaza; she equates Israelis with Nazis and laments their “atrocities.” I do not know Roseanne Barr. I don’t know her background; I never even watched her television program. But I have been reading her website pages and I am shocked that this American actress is so biased against Israel that she could write so many lies. She claims that Israelis are evil and should be stopped. What should they stop doing, I ask? Stop defending themselves? Yes, more are dying on the other side now that Israel has decided to take action against the constant rocket attacks.

But then the rocket attacks are not new – and every time the Arabs have promised to stop sending rockets into Israel, they are quiet for a short time. But they do not seek peace. They are interested in the annihiliation of the Jewish state. Roseanne, on the other hand, claims ignorance of this, and says she would like a "two-state solution," and feels that Jerusalem should be divided into three: Christian, Jewish and Muslim (the Pope should have his piece of the property too, acording to the newly savvy Middle Eastern expert). We should count ourselves fortunate that Roseanne has not decided to go into politics.

Roseanne, have you been listening to the Arabs addressing the world? They do not speak of peace. They speak of destroying Israel and they tell their own people that Israelis are being slaughtered and they lie to their people about the numbers of casualties on both sides and encourage violence. They now claim they will not stop firing rockets into Israel until Israel withdraws from Gaza. But they have said this before, only to get Israel to withdraw and then they begin again.

The Arabs show the world pictures of civilians and women and children being killed and wounded. But take a look at videos shot in Gaza by others. You can find them on YouTube. And yes the militants in Gaza are Hamas terrorists. Yes, they are terrorists and cannot be likened to an LA gang! Why you think they are like LA gang members is beyond me; they an LA gang look like something right out of West Side Story. Yes they are sometimes murderers, but they don't have suicide bombers and shoot rockets into the rest of the city.

But Hamas members will grab a child on the streets of Gaza and use the child as a shield. This is not a new practice with them. These terrorists who claim to value human life set up all their operations in the most densely populated areas. This is their way of forcing the other side to wind up causing civilian casualties, although Israel goes to the trouble of dropping leaflets, announcing on the air and even doing robocalls to try to urge the civilians to get out of the way. Have you ever heard of any other “evil” forces going to this trouble to avoid civilian casualties?

Have you also noticed that in Gaza there is no real army with distinguishable uniforms? A soldier is basically fighting whoever is shooting, or in any other way appears to be offering resistance by having explosives or other weapons. Since it is difficult to tell the combatants, how is it that outsiders can figure out exactly how many civilians have been hit? How can they determine who is not a combatant? Can you? Israeli soldiers have had 14-year old boys shooting at them.

These same people who claim to value life are raising a generation of children on hate, teaching them that the most glorious thing in the world is to grow up to be a suicide bomber. They now have a cadre of suicide bombers, male and female, willing to murder and commit suicide in order to become a martyr. So, tell me, Roseanne, is this how they value life?

Israel left Gaza three years ago, and did the people there begin developing the areas in any way, aside from beginning a campaign of sending rockets into Israel? They were left buildings and homes by the Israelis, and the response to that was destruction. No, most of the people in Gaza are not even terrorists, but they are not in control of their lives either.

Hamas promised them everything if they were “elected.” They said they would provide riches and would take care of them in every way. Since Hamas has come into power, their lot is worse than it was before, because their leaders are militants. There is no way around it. Hamas is a terrorist organization committed to the destruction of Israel.

Where does Hamas get its weapons? From Iran. Are you sympathetic toward them as well, Roseanne? Iran gets weapons to Hamas through Egypt. That’s the same Iran whose president said he would like to see Israel taken off the face of the earth; this is the same Iran that is developing its nuclear capability. The same Iran who is openly hostile to the Untied States. And, believe me, that has nothing to do with Israel. With no Israel, we would not have Iran as a friend. Iran’s goal at present is to make headway with its grand plan of creating a new Persian empire in the Middle East. Good ole’ W has helped the Iranians with that by creating chaos in the Middle East with the war that shouldn’t have been.

Unfortunately, Gaza is the war that has to be. Hamas now has rockets capable of going deeply into Israel and they have not let up their attacks. Tell me, Roseanne, if a neighboring country were sending rockets into your backyard, would you consider acceptable and just hide in your basement? Or would you get good and angry and try to stop it? It sounds to me as if you are capable of being good and angry, but I wonder how you’ve decided where to direct your anger.

And the new senator from New York is ...

2008-12-16T11:43:00.003-05:00

There seems to be excitement in the air that one of America’s princesses, a political family’s princess, that is, has decided at the age of 51 to go into the family business. Of course when you’re a princess, only the best will do. And if you’ve got your eye on a Senate seat, why not as a Senator from one of the more populous states? In fact, why bother with elections when you can be appointed?

Caroline Kennedy, born of a privileged family, seems to be a very nice woman who’s managed to reach middle age without having any substantial career outside the family except for some writing and lots of charity work. And, yes, even her stint with the public schools was more of that fundraising and charitable work. She’s really good at raising money. Now, as to substance. It’s true that she went to Radcliffe and Columbia Law, but that’s not a great achievement for someone with her money and family connections. I’d be more impressed with that were she from Anywhere USA with no money or pedigree.

Interestingly, she neither distinguished herself academically nor took on noteworthy work after graduation. Rather she wrote two legal books with a law school friend, who most likely did the writing and was happy to share authorship with a name that would sell. Fair contribution, but not a true achievement. But more to the point, does she have what it takes to fight for New York?

Hillary Clinton did indeed work and distinguish herself even before becoming First Lady. As the junior senator from New York, she became known as a very hardworking senator. A highly intelligent overachiever. A role model whose shoes I don’t believe Caroline Kennedy could ever fill. The populous State of New York needs more than a dilettante sitting in the Senate, charming as she may be. We’ve learned that Hillary knows policy and the ins and outs of complicated issues.

Let Caroline, if she’s interested in politics, begin working her way up. At least a little. Maybe she could begin by campaigning publicly rather than privately, and going through an election process. There is no reason to start at the top by getting the spot with an appointment. New York deserves better. Anyway, isn’t this the year we were discouraging women who didn’t have real qualifications?

The Last of George

2008-12-02T21:06:00.001-05:00

George Bush has been making the farewell round of interviews before leaving office and Washington, and returning to Texas. His first such interview with the avuncular Charles Gibson reminded me of why we should be glad he’s leaving. There were two particular questions that were answered in such a way as to let us see the essence of this man who has attempted to lead the free world in a manner as ill-prepared as the answers to these interview questions.

When asked what he would change or “do over” if he could, the President fumbled a bit and came up with something about getting better intelligence about WMD in Iraq and then realized that that answer was not about doing anything differently from his part. So at that point Gibson queried him as to whether he would not have begun the war if he had known there were no weapons of mass destruction. The President paused, seemed a bit at a loss for words and then actually came out and “corrected” himself by saying that if he could change anything, there would have been WMD in Iraq! What a startling remark.

Did he realize that he was revealing he wanted to go to war, but would have felt better about it if the WMD charge had been borne out. In other words, what his critics have been charging about making war with Iraq no matter what seems to be correct. And yet, he said nothing about himself or his policies that he would have changed or revised. Are we to assume that he believes his policies were so on target that nothing could have been done better? Interesting thought to chew on.

The second point was Gibson’s question to Bush to pinpoint what he considered the highlight of his presidency, when he felt that , yeah, this is good, this is the way it’s supposed to be. Without any hesitancy, Bush smiled that slow smile of his and replied that the 2004 Inauguration was the pinnacle of his time in office, because he knew he had won the election and he felt marvelous about it. I was astonished that the President did not even attempt to come up with something less self-serving. If he would have said the administration’s work in Africa on AIDS, I could imagine some people at home silently applauding. But, instead, his answer once more tells us how self-absorbed and insular he is. To George W. Bush, the importance of his job has been to be president, not doing the job, but being the personage.

President Bush knew he was having this interview and could have prepared what one would expect to be asked, and those two questions are so elementary for such an interview. But he seemed, as usual, totally unprepared. That he could find no "high point" that could reflect anything he or his administration did, as opposed to merely winning the office, was quite revealing, inasmuch as he noted that he's leaving office with his head high (well, I guess he should consider himself lucky he gets to keep his head). But when he kept reiterating how he's always kept to his principles and never wavered from his ideals, I kept waiting for Gibson to ask him what those ideals were. I guess Gibson didn't expect a coherent answer so didn't bother.

To be fair, he is not the only president in history to fall short, though few have fallen so abysmally low. And it has always been to the detriment of the rest of us when we endure such an administration as we have for the past eight years. Let’s hope the next few years see inroads made on the mess that has proliferated during the past eight years across our country. It would be encouraging to see things done differently and a president who might look at the world through a different lens.

Voting

2008-11-04T16:08:00.000-05:00

This election is setting records for voter turnout. In some areas, people have been standing in line from eight to ten hours! When asked how long they would wait to vote, people from all across the country have replied, “As long as it takes.” That is the only right answer because otherwise they would in effect give up their right to vote.

That aside, it has become clearer than ever that we need a nonpartisan federal election commission to be in charge of presidential voting. It also means getting new, workable machines that leave a paper trail and can be used everywhere! Voting must be brought into the 21st century. And thank heavens for early voting. It has shown up the deficiencies in the system and has actually given more people an opportunity to vote. Recall that thousands were unable to vote in the last presidential election because they turned away after waiting for many hours! That should never ever be the case. It is denying citizens their most precious right. The more serious problems seem to be cropping up most notably in Ohio, Florida, Georgia, and Missouri (interesting that it seems to be toss-up states). Let’s get this process straightened out. And I suggest that those in particularly long lines might perhaps find it in their heart to allow elderly people and very pregnant women go ahead of them. Yeah, you may have to wait a while longer, but it would somehow be the right thing to do.

The next presidential election should see new working machines in every state and early voting available everywhere. Indeed, it is only due to this early voting that various problems have been spotted and dealt with. Considering this, I find it strange that the two most populous states in the country, California and New York, do not have early voting.

Say It ain't So, Joe

2008-11-04T16:05:00.003-05:00

Dear Joe,

It’s amazing what an overnight sensation you’ve become. I have so many questions for you. First thing that really astounds me, Joe, is why you went to the Obama rally when you’re obviously not an Obama supporter. More intriguing is my wondering why in the world you would misrepresent yourself by giving out that line about buying the company you’ve worked for for many years. You’ve obviously not worked for any company for many years and are certainly not in any position to buy it. So why misrepresent yourself, Joe?

As for your tax question, which now seems quite inexplicable seeing as how you’re in no position to buy any company, were you urged to ask that question? It in fact seems strange that you’d be so concerned about taxes since you owe taxes anyway.

I also wonder about John McCain’s having so much information about you at the debate. Were you expecting him to bring up your name? And why, Joe, would you be a McCain supporter when in fact you would be paying less under Obama tax plan than under McCain’s?

And now, you have become a visible supporter of the campaign because, you say, of “principles.” What principle was following in not paying all your taxes? And yet you defend the affluent. You say that people who earn a lot of money should be able to keep it. But, Joe, we would have no democracy without taxation, and quite frankly, the rich have not been paying their fair share. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “I love to pay taxes because I am paying for democracy.”

McCain-Palin have been saying that people who work should not be working so their money should be given to poor people. Who said that was the case? No one is going around taking from one person to give to another. Most tax money goes to running this country. Taxes are necessary for the government to function.

So, Joe, tell us something else. Have your principles told to pay your own way as you go around with the campaign? How much has the McCain campaign been paying you? What has been covered?

Finally, I can’t get over the fact that you are pushing to get an administration into office who in effect would be working against your own best interests.

Sarah and George

2008-10-23T13:44:00.000-04:00

Sarah Palin has much in common with George Bush. Both are attractive people who initially come across nicely before a crowd, particularly when addressing themselves to the lowest common denominator, despite being challenged by the English language. It bothers neither of them. She is a good looking woman who is too ignorant to even be cognizant of what she does not know. But it’s time to appreciate that her looks and so-called star quality really do not count when you are in an arena that has been peopled by such heavyweights as Angela Merkel, Madeleine Albright, Margaret Thatcher, Janet Reno, Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice. The NRC shouldn’t have bothered to spend any money to make Palin more palatable to the American public. Her credentials, demeanor, knowledge and ability to discuss the world in which a vice president operates are the wardrobe needed for this job, and not the new suit from Armani. Especially when the cost of that wardrobe exceeds her annual salary as governor of Alaska. To cover the novice in designer clothing does not imbue the woman in the sophisticated wardrobe with a worldly view.

Liberal Is Not a Dirty Work, Nor Is It Socialism

2008-10-19T16:18:00.005-04:00

Liberal is not a dirty word, and it is not un-American (much as Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 50s tried to make it so). It turned out that McCarthy himself was rather un-American. Ironic since he was head of the Senate Committee on Un-American Activities. By the time McCarthy left Congress in shame, it was clear that he had destroyed many innocent lives with his witch-hunt. Interestingly enough, so soon after the Second World War, most of his victims were not witches, or even Communists—but Jews. In fact, some card-carrying Communists who were WASPs were not bothered, while at the same time, there were some Jewish actors and screenwriters who had no provable ties or very flimsy tiesto the Communist Party, and were blacklisted and unable to work. It took only a hint, a whisper, a gossip campaign. Sometimes people were were "denounced" in order to turn the attention frm oneself.

As a sidebar, we know today what many people suspected back in the 50s—Ethel Rosenberg, who was executed along with her husband Julius, was not guilty. Yes, he was, but in the heat of the times, both were tainted with the same brush.

Fervor is often stronger than common sense. Look at the Palin rallies. I am old enough to get nervous watching her work the crowds. Yes, she is a demagogue. She smears Obama with lies and tries to paint him as dangerous. She can't talk policy. How can she, when she knows nothing of the world, but she's good at spewing ugliness.

But consider this: If not for so-called liberals, we would not have Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid for that matter. There would have been no GI Bill for veterans to go to school after serving (something Obama wants to strengthen). If not for Liberals, this country would not have gotten an Equal Rights Amendment, or the Voting Rights Bill. There would have been no Civil Rights Movement. And we would probably still be fighting in Vietnam.

And if you think any group is "less than," think again. If not for all of the above, minorities, all minorities, would still be second-class citizens in this country. Some of them are still not totally accepted, but it's at least a work in progress.

As recently as the 1960s, there were "restricted neighborhoods" in our country where people signed deeds when they bought their property, promising not to sell to blacks or Jews! Back in those days, many colleges in this country had quotas for Jews (15%). Today, there is a battle to get rid of these quotas for Asians. Democracy does not sit on its laurels. It obviously takes liberals to continue the fight for freedom, for it is nothing less than that.

Yes, all these "rights" are for all of us, and to think of liberals as un-American is to be bigoted, and considering that I would not want to be prejudiced against myself, I have to get very angry at those people who would like to bring this all back. It is the far right that wants to "rid" this country of all who do not believe as they do. That is dangerous.

Just this week, I watched Republican Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota smiling ingenuously at the camera while being interviewed by Larry King and then WNBC, and proclaiming that she knows that Obama and other "liberal" members of Congress are actually un-American! She also happily stated that of course Obama's ties to Ayers consitute a serious issue, and that the robocalls being done in a number of states—the ones that assert Obama is a terrorist because he associates with terrorist Ayers —are true! Amazing that Rep. Bachmann can look us in the eye and repeat these lies.

Another robocall says that Obama believes in killing babies who survive abortion (you'd have to be a medical nincompoop to buy into that piece of shit). Bachmann is hopefully one of a very small minority in even pretending to believe any of these outrageous statements. Either she's a particularly nasty person or simply too much of a moron to hold office. Certainly she is not posessed of sound judgment.

Hopefully, Bachmann will lose her seat at her next election because her constituents cannot be that stupid—at least I would imagine most of them can't be. And as for Ayers, he would not be a PhD Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, voted Citizen of the Year by Chicago not long ago and asked to serve on so many charitable committees (including at least one on which Obama also served) if he were the terrorist the Republicans say he is. And, mind you, he served on these committees with more Republicans than Democrats.

I guess McCain and Palin and their campaign are desperate, but I believe John McCain will live to regret this nastiness his campaign has unleashed. They say he has no control over his campaign (not a good sign for a future leader). But he is fomenting unnecessary and dangerous hatred to the country, and at a time when we have no time to waste with such nonsense as there are truly serious issues to deal with.

This viciousness only points up his inability to be a strong leader who would be capable of dealing with this country's problems. He can't deal with his own campaign or his supporters. Intelligent Republicans are flocking to Obama because they are embarrassed by Palin and by what McCain's campaign is doing, and they are also worried about his gaining an office for which he is unfit. The latest to defect is Bush's ex-Secretary of State, Colin Powell, who has now endorsed Obama after careful thought. As a Republican he doesn't want to trash McCain, but I believe he is another concerned citizen worried about the awful consequences of a McCain administration.

The Following is from FactCheck.Org

2008-10-18T14:47:00.004-04:00

Obama's "Welfare"
October 17, 2008

McCain calls Obama's refundable tax credits "welfare," but calls his own "reform."

Summary
The McCain campaign has taken to denigrating some of Obama's tax proposals as "welfare" rather than tax cuts. And it continues to mislead about who would see a tax increase.
A new McCain-Palin Web ad characterizes Obama's proposed refundable tax credits as "welfare." But McCain himself proposes refundable tax credits, too, as part of his health care plan, and calls them "reform."

The ad also says "hard-working families" and "seniors" would pay higher taxes. But – need we say this again? – that would be true only for the affluent few, not for the many.

Analysis
The "welfare" argument appears, among other places, in the McCain-Palin campaign Web ad released Oct. 16.

McCain-Palin 2008 Web Ad: "Joe the Plumber"McCain: I'm John McCain and I approved this message.Announcer: Americans are catching on ...Joe Wurzelbacher: Your new tax plan is going to tax me more.Obama: It's not that I want to punish your success. ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.Announcer: Everybody? Leading papers call Obama's taxes "welfare" ... "government handouts." Obama raises taxes on seniors, hard-working families to give "welfare" to those who pay none. Just as you suspected, Obama's not truthful on taxes.

"Not Truthful?"

The ad says,

"Leading papers call Obama's taxes 'welfare' ... 'government handouts'."

It says he would "raise taxes on seniors" and "hard-working families" and "give 'welfare' to those who pay none."

It concludes, "Obama's not truthful on taxes."

This ad, however, is short of truthful itself.

As we've said any number of times, what Obama proposes would not raise taxes on any "hard-working families" unless they make more than $250,000 a year, a very small fraction of families. Independent analysis has shown than 95 percent of families with children would see federal income taxes go down.

As for "seniors," most of them would not see any increase in their federal income taxes either. In fact, Obama proposes to reduce federal income taxes to zero for persons 65 and over who make less than $50,000 a year. No other seniors would see an increase in what they pay to the IRS unless their income is $250,000 for a couple, or $200,000 for a single filer. It's true, as the McCain campaign likes to point out, that seniors who make less would be adversely affected by Obama's proposal to close down billions of dollars in tax preferences for corporations, which independent analysts calculate would flow through to owners of stocks and bonds in the form of lower dividend payments and reduced profits from capital gains. But while experts at the Congressional Budget Office and the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center tally this reduced income as "tax increases" for purposes of analyzing how proposed tax policies would affect different groups, it would not show up as an increased tax bill for any individual taxpayer, whatever their age.

"Welfare" or "Reform"?
The "welfare" claim rests on the argument, made in an Oct. 13 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, about refundable tax credits. Obama proposes to grant a number of refundable tax credits to low- and middle-income workers. For example, he would give a $500 tax credit ($1,000 for a couple) for workers, which would phase out for single workers making $75,000 or for couples making $150,000 per year. As the Journal editorial says: "You can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability." That's true enough. Whether or not that makes them "welfare" is a matter of interpretation, however. As the Journal editorial also says in its headline, "It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is."

Fair enough. But McCain himself is proposing refundable tax credits of up to $2,500 a year for individuals, or $5,000 for families, as part of his health care plan. McCain doesn't call his credits a "tax cut" but he doesn't call them "welfare" either. He does call it tax "reform," right there on his own Web site:

McCain Web site:
John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code . . . [E]very family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance.

McCain makes his tax credit refundable to make it worth just as much to low-income workers as to high-income workers. If it were not refundable, it would be worth $0 to anyone who makes too little to pay any federal income taxes. A non-refundable credit would be worth the full amount only to individuals who owe at least $2,500 in federal income taxes, or couples who owe at least $5,000. Obama makes his tax credits refundable for the same reason – so they will benefit workers who earn too little to pay federal income tax.

Who's a "Taxpayer"?
Furthermore, the Journal's editorial misstated a key fact in its "welfare" argument. It said that anyone who doesn't pay federal income taxes is not a "taxpayer," which is simply incorrect. Here's what the editorial said:

Wall Street Journal editorial, Oct. 13:
[Refundable credits] are an income transfer – a federal check – from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare." ... Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The fact is, a worker can be a "taxpayer" whether or not they owe any income tax. Just about every worker is subject to federal Social Security and Medicare taxes totaling 7.65 percent on every dollar of earnings, up to $102,000 per year. Low-income workers, and retired and jobless persons as well, also pay federal excise taxes whenever they buy gasoline or pay a telephone bill, for example. Obama and other Democrats argue that for low-income workers, refundable tax credits are not “welfare” but, in effect, a reduction in their overall federal tax burden, counting payroll taxes.

Congressional Budget Office figures show that even those in the lowest-earning fifth of households pay an effective federal tax rate, on average, of 4.3 percent of their income, despite benefiting from existing federal refundable tax credits to a major degree. This group had average income of $15,900 in 2005, the most recent year for which CBO has done the calculations. But despite receiving "a federal check" through the income tax system that boosted income by an average of 6.5 percent (this shows up as a negative tax rate in the CBO tables), they still paid an average of $600 in federal taxes. That's true even after subtracting the effects of refundable tax credit "welfare."

"Leading Newspapers"
Finally, the McCain ad's reference to "leading newspapers" is worth examining. All three are known for their conservative editorial opinions, and two are under the same ownership. The ad cites two others besides the Wall Street Journal. One is an editorial in the New York Post, which does not make the "welfare" argument directly but refers briefly to the Journal editorial of the previous day. The other is the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, which made similar arguments and used similar figures in an editorial that appeared the day after the Journal's ran.

The Journal and the Post both are owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., which last year purchased Dow Jones & Co., publisher of the Journal. And the Tribune-Review is owned by Richard Mellon Scaife, who has funded many conservative crusades over the years.

As for the star of this ad, Joe Wurzelbacher (a.k.a. Joe the Plumber): He told ABC News, among other news organizations, that he makes much less than $250,000, in which case he'd get a tax cut under Obama's plan. But, he said, he hopes to make that kind of money one day.

For now, Joe would certainly qualify for a tax cut under Obama's plan. According to his hometown newspaper, the Toledo Blade, publicly available divorce court proceedings show that he made $40,000 in 2006. And according to the Tax Policy Center's analysis, 93.5 percent of those making between $40,000 and $50,000 a year would see a tax cut under Obama's plan, averaging $1,124 for the year in 2012.

—by Brooks Jackson

Sources
Editorial. "Obama's 95% Illusion; It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is." Wall Street Journal, 13 Oct 2008.Editorial. "READY, SET . . . SPEND!" New York Post, 14 Oct 2008.Editorial. "Obama's tax cut: New Welfare Deal." Pittburgh Tribune-Review, 14 Oct 2008.Congressional Budget Office. "Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates:1979 to 2005," Dec 2007.Tax :Policy Center. Table T08-0206 "Senator Obama's Tax Proposals of August 14, 2008," 14 Aug 2008.Vellequette, Larry and Troy, Tom. "'Joe the plumber' isn’t licensed; Local man focus of presidential debate." Toledo Blade, 16 Oct 2008.

About that Washington Post Endorsement

2008-10-17T23:30:00.002-04:00

I was glad to see the Washington Post endorsement, which if not unqualified nonetheless notes that Obama is their choice. It's not his first endorsement and not likely to be the last. Surely, in the thoughts of some of the endorsers is the issue of Palin. And while it is true that McCain’s running mate is without doubt unqualified, an important point to remember is that McCain’s judgment has never been his strong suit. Neither has his temperament—nor his brains. He is quite frankly an amiable adulterer with a wife who would not be the best role model for the daughters of those who claim to be voting for him on the basis of their religion (yes, we still have those, though they may actually have another reason they don’t care to discuss).

The truth is that Obama is the better candidate and the right man for this time in our history. We need his steady nerves and keen intellect, and his propensity for surrounding himself with the best, whether advisers or consultants. He has a personality that seems open to ideas, and in short embodies all that we found lacking in our current commander-in-chief, for whom few have any respect left. Obama is not perfect, but he does offer hope and a few other vital qualities that have been in short supply in the Oval Office.

Can McCain Take Charge of His Campaign, or Is He Already in Charge?

2008-10-12T23:40:00.005-04:00

If John McCain is the nominee of the Republican Party, then he is supposedly the leader of said Republican Party. I take it that also means he is the head of his own campaign. Accepting that, I have to then wonder whether McCain has no control over his campaign staff, or if he in fact condones the ugliness now emanating from his side of the campaign. All I know is that I have never seen this much hate being spewed in a presidential campaign. And I’ve lived through a good number of them.

There is no equivalent coming from the other side. In order to achieve that, the Obama people would have to go beyond swiftboating, and they have not touched that or in fact any personal aspect of McCain’s life. Keating is not personal, and further Keating is documented Congressional testimony. McCain was indeed one of the “Keating Five.” He was chastised for poor judgment. He continues to exhibit poor judgment.

How nasty can it get? Demagogue is not part of the official job description for vice president of the United States. If McCain and his cohorts manage to pull a victory out of their crusade of lies and hate, they will be greatly handicapped in their efforts to govern. They will have created too deep a fissure in the delicate makeup of this country, a land that is becoming more divided each day Palin is allowed to spew her venom. And if Obama succeeds to the presidency, McCain would have still made the healing of this country a difficult process.

Following this campaign on television, I see more destruction wreaked on our country every day. Make no mistake. This is the sort of damage that has many victims. To incite people to get so worked up that they look as wild as some of the crowds we’ve seen at Sarah Palin’s campaign stops, screaming “terrorist” and “kill him!” among other things should not be considered acceptable as part of this or any campaign.

For myself, I find it difficult to forgive McCain for this deep wound he is inflicting on a country to which he once gave service.

The Second Debate

2008-10-07T23:30:00.001-04:00

The second presidential debate was disappointing because the format was too constricting to allow the viewers to learn more about the candidates up close and personal. Yes, the rules were carefully worked out, but this debate, although in town hall meeting format, was no more informative than the first more traditional debate because of the constricting rules. And that has to be changed. The real problem is that the lunatics are running the asylum; the lawyers for the two sides work out the rules and they wind up hemming everyone in. When the League of Women Voters was running the debates, there was a debate – usually three moderators (newscasters), asking questions, having follow up, and the candidates were scared out of their wits. It was great! We got to learn more about these guys. They finally managed to shed the League, and they then decided to do it their way. That was good news for them, bad news for the American people.

Tom Brokaw, the former NBC evening news anchor hosted this debate, and in his mellifluous voice managed to inject himself far too frequently. He kept reminding the two candidates that they had agreed to the “rules” and the time constraints, and both continually ran over. And got a lecture from Brokaw. Uncalled for. Why? If the other candidate didn’t object, Brokaw not only should have left them alone, but let them respond to each other as well, as they began to insist on. It could have turned into a real debate!

Nonetheless, this evening it was even more apparent than in the last debate that Obama was the more assured, and the more presidential in his demeanor. McCain often walked nervously around while answering questions, waving his arms about. Obama seemed to speak directly to the people in a more consistent manner. And what was McCain doing while Obama was speaking? McCain – several times – got up and started walking around! And he nervously leaned against the chair, he changed positions; was he in pain? Does he have a health issue here? What was going on with his not being able to sit still while the other guy was up?

As for the questions themselves, no new ground here but Obama spoke more articulately and generally had better answers, although incomplete. We can blame time constraints to a certain extent, but not completely. I am aware that Obama has better programs but I know of this from reading online and checking out their Web sites, etc. There was a hint of it here in that Obama made more sense.

It also really began to grate on my nerves every time McCain came out with “my friends.” And that was at least once a minute. It reminds me of the guy at a coffee shop always prefacing everything with “honey.” It’s too familiar and feels patronizing, even if not meant to be.

Another Round of Dirty Politics May Give Us What We Already Have

2008-10-04T23:04:00.004-04:00

We already know that Sarah Palin is a windup doll, able to smile, wink and spout whatever nonsense her handlers give her. Now that it is clear that McCain’s chances of winning this race are dimming, the campaign is pulling out all the stops. And for the Republican right wing, that means playing as dirty as possible. Muddy the waters, make the public think the other guy is the one who’s dirty, can’t be trusted, and we’re the white knight. And Sarah has been anointed to bring this message to the people because we know she is so good at sarcasm, insult and passing on the dirt. This has been her trademark from her unveiling at the Republican convention.

And so Sarah continues the character assassination. This time, Palin has announced that Obama is pals with a terrorist, and if that weren’t bad enough, pals with a terrorist against America! Ironically, he was an anti-war [Vietnam] activist. The fact that this fellow committed whatever crimes he committed 40 years ago, when Obama was about 8 years old, and further that Obama is and has never been good friends with him – well, why does truth have to get in the way of Sarah’s attempt to depose Obama from his lead in the polls.

It is somewhat heartening to see that a number of organizations—even some news organizations—are attempting to separate truth from fiction in this election, after falling down on the job in a pitiful manner in the last two elections. Unfortunately some make sure to attempt to be “evenhanded” – you know, one side distorted and the other distorted too. Nonetheless, there are levels of distortion and these have to be examined most carefully.

Congressional Crunch

2008-09-30T22:06:00.000-04:00

I see Republican members of the House, as well as some Democratic Congressmen, making the TV news circuit and letting everyone (translate that to the folks back home) know that they voted against the Agreement yesterday. Indeed, they look us in the camera eye and tell all of us in televisionland that their constituents back home wanted the bill to go down.

Now I find that an interesting comment. The constituents, they say, want them to vote against the bill. They tell us that the public doesn’t want to bail out Wall Street moguls, and complain that Congress wouldn’t bail them out if they were in trouble, so why should their tax money bail out Wall Street?

Well, folks, they’re trying to bail you out! And your Congressmen either don’t understand the actual state of affairs or are too lazy to educate themselves. Their job is to first read, yes read, the draft of the bill—all 110 pages of it! It’s available online in pdf format and can be downloaded, so they don’t even have to be in Washington to peruse it. They can do it from home.

After looking over the bill and noting that there are safeguards for the taxpayer and the government, as well as provisions for oversight and golden parachutes for CEOs (not allowed). Well, need we go further? Examination should reveal that this bill is a very decent beginning to dealing with the crisis. And, yes, it is a crisis, and as such needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later.

The second and even more important part of the job is to explain to the folks back home what this crisis is all about and how this agreement is NOT about bailing out Wall Street but about freeing the debt market and saving our economy by getting it moving again. After that, the work continues. The populace is angry and they’ve been worked up by a lamentable choice of vocabulary and a lack of trust in our current administration. And no wonder. But in this case, there really is a serious problem (yeah, the MWDs are really there this time!).

One of the jobs of a Congressman is looking after the constituents by explaining why you want to support a particular measure and why voting for that measure would be good for Main Street. Not with a catch phrase, you know, like “No bailout for Wall Street,” but with honest evaluation of the situation and how you’re looking after the interests of those back home and their future ability to get a loan for a house, a car, a business deal or for your company to keep running so you don’t lose their job. That’s what our Congressmen need to, and it’s urgent.

As expected, the politicians “play politics” while sitting on their rear and just letting the mail and phone calls make the decision for them—especially when people making contact for the most part don’t really understand what’s going on. And if not, they need to make an honest effort to find out. That’s also part of the job. Get to work!

The Lame Duck May Just Implode

2008-09-29T22:06:00.002-04:00

The screen is full of people picketing and marching with signs screaming “No bailout!” We have Congressmen stubbornly insisting that the government should not bail out Wall Street. Hysterical e-mails from people like Michael Moore are hinting at conspiracies. And television commentators like Lou Dobbs tell us that we should allow these financial institutions to just “go down,” as they deserve. (Maybe he keeps his money under the mattress.) Or whatever. There’s obviously a movement, gaining momentum, toward voting down any kind of “bailout for Wall Street.” And some of our congressmen tell us in television interviews (oh, boy, don’t they all love doing interviews!) that it took a long time to get into this mess, so we can take our good ole time getting out, and meanwhile “get it right.” The general idea seems to be that someone goofed and let’s just stand back and let them go down.

And therein I believe lies the problem. It’s called a failure to communicate. Are Henry Paulsen and the Congressional committee that developed his plan really intent on “bailing out” Wall Street? I believe that a basic misunderstanding is the only barrier between us and major disaster.

The catastrophe facing us is not the historic drop in the Dow Jones, but rather the lending crisis. And this failure is not so much about Wall Street; it affects everyone. Or at least anyone who wants to buy a house, a car, pay for college, start a business, or for that matter, do anything that takes some infusion of capital. All those people marching with signs and screaming “No bailout” are as usual fighting against their own best interests. We need to do something—now.

As I understand it, the revised bill (which went from 3 pages to over 100, and which I was able to skim but not download) has a provision for an oversight committee, a $500,000 ceiling on CEO remuneration, and calls for the taxpayer to participate in any profits realized from the “investment.” I searched for and could not find (perhaps it was buried in there somewhere) a provision about mortgage renegotiation and trying to keep people in their homes. This last is important. Crucial in fact. But the point is that the agreement could be worked out without the acrimony sounding so much like Mommy and Daddy fighting in front of the kids.

However, the main obstacle to getting this crisis resolved before the fallout destroys too many on Main Street is ideology. The House Republicans—and a few Democrats—do not want any kind of “taxpayer bailout” and they don’t want to “rescue Wall Street.” They very self-righteously proclaim that government should not solve this problem. The problem is that they are the government and the American economy will go to hell if they refuse to do anything.

The lunatics are running the asylum. Write to these Congressmen and insist they get a bill passed before the country goes down the tubes. Many of these people are the same ones who have been irresponsible for enough years to get us into this mess. Not alone, certainly. But nonetheless mindlessly refusing to see any problem. They’ve been talking machines about “less” government for years. Well, look what has been wrought.

Insist they stop having press conferences and start having closed-door bipartisan meetings instead. Tell them not to come out until they have worked out an agreement to deal with this crisis—no matter how long it takes!!

The Pastors and the Politicians

2008-09-28T22:53:00.002-04:00

Thirty-three pastors thumbed their noses at the government and the IRS to use their pulpits to endorse a candidate today, September 28. This is not the first time this separation of church and state has been breached, but the meditated willfulness and intricate organization of this number of ministers exercising what they call their “rights” can only be viewed as stepping over the boundaries of their ministry and cannot be ignored. The government must take steps to revoke their tax-free status if these churches are going to use their premises to politicize their ministries. This further erosion of the rights of many to be dictated by the will of the religious right must cease.

John McCain has not only been endorsed by these pastors but he has been an active party to this assault on our Constitution by declaring that the United States is a “Christian” nation.

Indeed, the Puritans first came to the new world from Holland after having been kicked out of England. They were in search of religious freedom. They found it and proceeded to set up religious states where one had to be Puritan in order to live there. These same people in search of their religious freedom proceeded to deny it to others.

Each group of people who has come to these shores has had hopes, dreams and a faith that may or may not have already been represented in this new land. All were absorbed, and all were allowed to practice their faith without coercion to renounce their faith.

The far right has been attempting to overturn this American tradition by imposing its own cultural and social values on the rest of us. We’ve seen inroads in this direction during the Bush years and some of us have been appalled. Now I am aghast at how bold and arrogant these people have become in proclaiming that their values are the only values for our country.

The strength and appeal of this country for hundreds of years culminated with the wonder of a Constitution crafted by a group of brilliant men battling it out in Philadelphia in the summer of 1776, carefully considering what was necessary to be written into our Constitution in order to have a true democracy. In that spirit, it was clearly recognized that a separation of church and state had to be maintained.

Let these pastors understand that if they politicize their churches and endorse a candidate, they can no longer enjoy a tax-free status and must pay the price of those opinions. It is more than enough to misuse thier "spiritual" authority to sway votes. I believe they may even have difficulty claiming to be true Christians who practice tolerance, brotherhood and Christian charity toward others. The spirit of America that will keep this country strong cannot deny the diversity of this country through a claim of dubious moral superiority.

Palin and the Press

2008-09-24T16:42:00.002-04:00

How long is the press going to continue to allow the McCain camp to shelter their delicate flower of a candidate as if she were a major rock star. Interesting approach to running for office, but it should not be tolerated.

It’s about time someone spoke out about this “celebrity” game the Republicans are playing with their candidate! If one is running for high office, it is not fair to hide — or be hidden. If it’s too tough to have press conferences, maybe the candidate is not up to running for the office. Biden must have given about 70 press conferences by now - for better or worse. And forget any sexist aspect of it — the issue has to do with the fundamental nature of our political system. In a democracy a candidate is supposed to be accessible, in other words, to be out there. Really out there. Isn’t that the American way?

If It Ain't Barack, Don't Fix It!

2008-09-23T22:42:00.008-04:00

I've become a politics addict in the last few months, and it hasn't abated one bit in the past few weeks, despite the workload, other activites and outside interests. I've never felt so involved in an election and I've also never felt so saddened by what's been happening in this country. We've had an administration for almost eight years whose stupdity has been surpassed only by thier foolishness. And yet the country seems on the verge of electing another pair of people so poorly suited to the White House that I cringe just thinking about it. But the fact is that the country can't afford to have more of the same.

McCain was one of about 600 prisoners of war kept together as a group. But he relates his horrific experience as if "he were practically the only one" and wasn't one of a large group - no better and no worse (though I'm not sure how many others "broke"). What has begun to annoy me greatly lately however is that I hear in McCain's speeches a tone suggesting that we "owe" him the presidency for his service. That he "earned" it by being a captive!

Since he doesn't seem to know the difference being a Shi'ite and a Sunni and still hasn't figured out that Iraq and Pakistan do not share a common border, I would question his earning even his senator's seat. As for economics, his embracing Reagan's and Bush's old-line Republican policies that cripple the economy and starve the middle classes would march this country on the road to total disaster. As we dig ourselves deeper into debt, China, Saudi Arabia and Russia quietly buy up our country. One bridge, one highway, one building, one port at a time. They don’t have to make war with us. They will soon own us. Including that road to nowhere, good riddance to that.

But seriously, we are in very deep trouble in so many areas - foreign policy and the wars we are waging abroad, the economic and cultural wars at home that include healthcare, education, the budget and trade deficits, immigration. Need I go further? What of the current economic meltdown?

To point up how seriously we must think about who our next president should be: folks - for the first time in human history, we are living in a world capable of destroying itself.

We need a thoughtful, intelligent person leading the country, one educated and smart enough to deal with world leaders as well as myriad social and economic challenges. With hostile heads of state and conflicting interests at home, our problems are many and intricate, sensitive and difficult for many to even grasp. McCain is simply not up for the job - he is, to put it bluntly -- too stupid. He, like Bush, would simplify everything; he sees the world as a place where he wants to make sure his friends and family are taken care. Anybody else? Who else is there??

It is imperative that this time around people do not vote against their own best interests! It doesn’t matter what gender, what color the candidate is if we have one who is truly competent – we need someone capable of staying cool in hot situations and making decisions based on good reasoning and much advice from diverse advisers. Not a so-called “war hero” and a shrill dame who can zing out the one-liners written for her and then make sure to remain closeted against the up close and personal scrutiny of the press.

Check the facts -- go to Web sites such as factcheck.org, Snopes.com, Politifact.com and other nonpartisan groups that do research on what is being bandied about. Check as many as you can to make sure you learn everything you can about this election and the candidates running. I sincerely believe that after careful analysis, you will also come to realize that Barack Obama must be elected the next president.

Recycling

2008-09-23T22:39:00.001-04:00

After watching the convention this week, I have changed my opinion of Republicans. I used to think of them as profligate spenders who grew government and threw away money. But I see how wrong I have been. Tonight, I realize these Republicans are the staunchest recyclers I have ever seen.

Why, they recycled just about everything at their convention. They pulled out those 9/11 pictures (for what I’m not sure, but why waste good footage, right?). Was this supposed to remind us of the terrorists and how McCain will keep us safe? Sure enough, he told us he knows “how to win a war.” That is amazing. I don’t think even General Eisenhower ever claimed such a thing. But I’m sure I heard it. He said it a few times.

We heard the story of Sarah Palin. Again. And yet they seem to keep leaving out those specifics about her record. I don’t know whether being told she’s a soccer mom, PTA member, gun owner, and given a list of other activities makes her makes her credible up there.

And how many times are we going to have to listen to poor John McCain’s stint as a prisoner of war. He’s become like old Pappy who’ll tell you all about his war experiences at every conceivable opportunity. And even when not opportune. We’ve been told McCain’s a modest man and doesn’t like to talk about Vietnam. Not so you could tell. I’ve lost count of how many times he’s told us about his experiences as a prisoner of war. He’s made that the centerpiece of his life. Recycling the past continually.

And then, McCain recycled material in his speech from a number of candidates from the past. Interestingly enough, some of them Democrats. There was no fresh information, no revelations. No specific policies or details. It’s all about the past. Recycling.

He’s a Republican who’s tried to disassociate himself with the failures of the past eight years, and as a prominent Republican Senator during those years, I would say that’s a failed bit at recycling the past. What was most successful for him was establishing, again, again, and again that he’s a war hero. The only problem I can see with this is that he seems to feel we should make him president because he earned it by being a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Since when is the presidency a prize for war service?

The Economic Crisis and the Candidates

2008-09-23T17:22:00.001-04:00

As the financial crisis built up and answers and suggestions were flying back and forth this past week, there was some comment about Obama not “having all the answers.” And now that he’s spoken, the McCain camp says that his ideas were stolen from McCain. Maybe not the most absurd comment coming from the McCain camp, but nonetheless not worth Obama answering. Obama is hardly following "in McCain's footsteps," since McCain hemmed and hawed and then shot from the hip as is his style by declaring the SEC chair should be fired, because of course as we all know if we find a scapegoat, we need not take any responsibility (as McCain is wont to do always -- lie until you're caught dead to rights - I may have been in Congress for many years but even though I was against regulations, I'm not at all to blame for anything). After all, he's a hero.

Then McCain decided to go the Congressional route by sending the problem to committee, a surefire dead-end. He was even ready to name the committee.

As for the bailout itself, he's been against it, then for it, and then against it again. To put it bluntly, he's "quick to respond," but has no brain behind it. The most insightful comment he's made on the economic crisis is to admit that he knows little about economics.

Obama may not have majored in economics (actually I believe he majored in international relations at Columbia), but his quick intelligence is partnered with measured consideration of a situation before committing himself. I see that he has advisors who are considered experts in economics, and he’s obviously discussed the situation with them. I think his comments and suggestions are not taken from McCain at all. They may have some genesis with the Congressional Democrats, but he has put it together in a coherent, cogent manner that makes sense.

The four points are well taken.

Have You Also Had Enough?

2008-09-20T13:12:00.000-04:00

If I hear one more accolade about McCain’s prisoner of war "bio" one more time, that will be it. And he's so "modest," they say. So much so that we must hear over and over about his POW experience of over 40 years ago as if it were yesterday. Does he think we owe him the presidency because he "sacrificed" for his country? His bad luck was to get shot down. Our bad luck is that he’s now running for president.

My definition of hero has always been someone who saves someone else's life. He only managed to save his own. Yeah, he served his country and he served his time in the Hanoi Hilton. But there were over 600 other guys in that prisoner of war camp, and McCain was no better and no worse than anyone else there, but lucky to live through it as most of the others did.

Now McCain has suddenly, after 26 years in Congress become a "reformer." How ridiculous is it to talk about cleaning up Washington when your own party has owned it for so many years? Does McCain imagine we can make ourselves believe he had nothing to do with the last 8 years? I guess he does. He is confident he can disassociate himself from Bush. At 72, his memory may be failing more than ours. And so he gives us all the old platitudes, some vague promises of cutting our taxes (was he talking to his wife on that particular subject?), and a degree of pandering to the far right that makes me wonder how we could possibly expect anything better than what Bush gave us. It could even be worse. A 72-year old man who's had four bouts of cancer—with an eager, ambitious Palin on the sidelines. Yikes!

What is most troubling about McCain right now, aside from no one recognizing any resemblance to a McCain some people once liked, is that he is so hungry for the office that I think he would do just about anything to get it. Palin is part of that. Having so many of the Rove people around him in addition to the many big-time lobbyists, is another. His campaign is playing dirty as only the religious right do, and I only hope that brains can trump this time around. McCain reiterates that he would rather win a war and lose an election, but his actions attest to the fact that he would rather win an election and lose a country.

Top Ten Jobs for Which Sarah Palin Would Be Really Qualified

2008-09-20T10:47:00.001-04:00

10. CIA operative, particularly in Saudi Arabia, where she could cross her shapely legs and seductively troll for information from sheiks who don’t usually get to see their wives’ knees on a daily basis.

9. Tour Guide for hunters who want to bag a moose or bear and help Alaska rid itself of those pesky protected species getting in the way of oil drilling.

8 Pilot for hunters who want to do their shooting from a Cessna. Another way to clear the place. Might even get in a shot or two while on autopilot, using an assault rifle of course.

7. Sunday School Teacher preaching Creationism to all those kid who might have missed learning about it in their Alaskan classrooms.

6. Television talk show host since Sarah loves to talk. She may even stop to listen to guests once in a while.

5. Newspaper advice columnist, Dear Sarah, offering advice on relationships, family, sex and raising children. Sarah could also reach a wider audience for her abstinence before marriage message – and perhaps come up with solutions when it fails (shotgun wedding?).

4. Soap opera actress. Her life already is a soap opera, and she learns lines well.

3. Lobbyist. Let’s face it: a woman with her face and figure could convince a lot of people (make that “men” people) to change a vote. And I bet she would work very hard at doing her convincing.

2. Used car salesperson. Maybe planes too. Since they don’t always move on eBay, she could be a private sales agent selling used cars (and planes). Should she include bridges? Umm.

1. Finally! The job for which Sarah may be truly best suited: Hold your hats, folks! Community Organizer! Yes, you heard correctly. Community organizer! Her controlling personality combined with persistence, pushiness, (hey, sarcasm too!) could be directed toward getting relief for poor people in communities.

Why Doesn't Anyone Care?

2008-09-20T10:45:00.000-04:00

There is one aspect of Palin’s campaign yet to be mentioned, and it surprises me. If the Democratic vice presidential candidate were a governor who was being investigated for abuse of power and had an investigation hanging over his head, there would be a hue and cry for him to step down. Republicans would be the loudest and most vehement. Even independents (where are you people?) would be thinking that it seems quite unwise to elect someone who may yet be found guilty of abusing her gubernatorial office. Since Sarah considers qualified for everything in the world without even having to think about it, obviously someone else has to bring this up. For the interest of the country, we should not even be considering electing another tainted official. Are all the men afraid of hurting the little lady’s feelings? Hey, guys, she should be getting the same scrutiny a man would receive in her position.

Dear Sarah

2008-09-20T10:42:00.000-04:00

Dear Sarah,

You have a five-month old baby with Downs Syndrome, and I understand you were aware of the condition of the fetus before giving birth. I must commend you for undertaking the care of a child with special needs with four children already at home and a full-time job. I can only assume you have the means and resources to deal with your extraordinary situation. Not everyone does.

You made a decision for yourself, and I am sure you feel it’s the best decision for you. That does not mean this would be the best decision for anyone else. I have no business telling anyone what she should do in such a situation. But then neither do you. That’s the point.

It is a medical and personal determination that must be made. Whenever someone tells me that abortion is murder, I realize that person is not talking about a medical or personal choice but about religion. And religion should be a private matter in this country. That is the American way, we are told, though not lately by the evangelizers who seem to have waded quite deeply into politics. But if our Constitution is to have validity, such a very private and personal medical matter must remain in the realm of being decided by a woman. Certainly with advice from her physician and input from the baby’s father, if that’s germane. But not the government!

Sarah, I must admit that there are things about you I find perplexing. You are proud of being a strong woman, forceful—someone who speaks up for her rights. So why are you so willing to give up another woman’s right to decide for herself what can or cannot be done with her body? It seems a giant contradiction to me. The only answer I can come up with is a religious one. But if that’s the answer, then as a political figure, you should be pledged to allow others to follow their own conscience, as you have followed yours. To want others to believe as you believe does not offer the freedom of expression, the freedom of religion promised in our Constitution.

Yes, this is a complex issue, and every decision to have or to not have an abortion can be complicated. For instance a planned pregnancy can result in a woman becoming ill, and the physician recommending an abortion for the health of the mother. Or because of the compromised situation of the fetus. Or a woman may desperately want an abortion because of rape or incest! Or perhaps you may consider it not a worthy reason if a woman becomes pregnant because of the failure of birth control, or the failure of a vasectomy or other procedure. Whatever the reason, these are not my reasons, or your reasons, but we must respect that all women have the right to be fully informed of their options—and that must include the option of abortion.

Women must not be held hostage to politicians making the most important personal decisions for them. We are in the 21st century. Aren’t we?

Please give the matter some thought. I hope that ambition does not cloud your vision. I’d like to believe you when you said you went into politics to help people. Right now, I am having difficulty accepting that concept in light of your fiery defense of upholding a stand that has no respect or regard for women.