Whimsical Worrisome Words

I grew up opposing racism, because I was born in a country that had not come to grips with its own issues about race.

I have been blessed with daughters and granddaughters and wanting the best for them, I speak out against sexism.

As I have gotten older, and seen people of the baby boom generation pushed to the sides in the name of progress, I have become sensitive to agism.

Various  isms are used to divide, desensitize and compartmentalize people. Some people bank on the premise that if you are not part of a group under attack or subject to ridicule, you will not care about such things or might even join in.

I thought long and hard about what I could write about the bumper sticker campaign that attempts to twist the "N-word" in a free-speech protected statement against President Obama's reelection effort.

It has already been labeled racist, but I think it is just a symptom of a broader backlash of bigotry being embraced for political reasons.


There are some who would harness the collective anger of individuals who have somehow convinced themselves that a coalition of formerly underprivileged or disadvantaged classes are out to take away their rights.

If you do not enjoy the same institutionalized advantages that your father or grandfather enjoyed, then you might consider attempts to equalize the rights others as a reduction of your own.

The bumper sticker flap from March 15 triggered some interesting comments, particularly as some people I know tried to get others to at least admit the bumper sticker, the idea behind it and the language used as racist.  They included two responses from the same guy, whom I know is a broadcaster in Texas:

"Ever since 2004, the prevailing sick reasoning is that it's some kind of crime to be a conservative. And we "allow" it by not fighting back." He also said "The thing that bothers me most is this constant barrage from the Left that conservatives are "racist". And yet, I've never seen a more racist person than Al Sharpton. No one calls him on it. He gets the proverbial free pass from the MSM."

I am not clear about the motivation for this feeling of "persecution" as it was put to me. But I have heard it before. It strikes me that this unapologetic conservative is willing to defend the promotion of various isms, by what he perceives as acceptance of isms by the so-called mainstream media and by inference a broader society hell-bent on destroying conservatism.

Could that be just excuse to buy into bigotry?  It's funny that just a few decades after America laughed at the outdated bigotry of Archie Bunker and George Jefferson on popular  TV sitcoms, we now have the far less funny  nastiness of Talk Radio.

The things heard daily on the air provide the angry with outlets to buy into bigotry they that don't get much anymore.

Most people don't go around using words like "honey, baby or sweetie" on the job because they are considered sexist.  Uttering various ethnic, or racial labels that were once commonly heard on the streets of most cities can carry perilous consequences. It is considered tasteless to refer to the physically or mentally challenged as "cripples" or "retards"  today.

 There are now sections in a lot of school systems "codes of student conduct" that make use of many of these terms grounds for discipline.

At many jobs there are policies in place that recognize that such language can create an uncomfortable work environment. People who say them or display them are likely to hear from the boss, the human resources department, or attorneys representing an offended party pretty quickly.

Discouragement of use of the "N-word" is something something some of us have worked for in recent years. These days, we are seeing a backlash from those who likely once used such terms without consequence.
Some smirk smugly through their denials of racism, sexism and xenophobic commentaries.

No matter how often they smile and say "I am not a racist," or "I am not a sexist," or "I am not an agist," the realities of their words, and the tolerance and acceptance of the sentiments means they may be a bigot.

The question is, who will they dislike next, and is that something most of us want to easily accept?

Lest You Be Judged

One thing I learned in thousands of Sundays sitting in lots of pews in lots of places. Most Christians believe that sin is sin. Many Christians believe in original sin. That's the one traced back to Adam and Eve and paradise lost.

There are also mortal sins and venial sins.  Somewhere in the mix are all the lies, thefts, murders, and slights against God, woman and man that most of us could ever imagine.

Still, I have always believed in a forgiving God. A God, who knows exactly what types of imperfect beings he created, and like the best of parents loves us anyway, flaws and all.

As much as I have learned through the years about the separation of church and state and how it is central the democracy in the United States, I am struck by the growing overlap between prayer and politics.

People are being judged, not for the way they live their secular lives, but essentially, how some, who call themselves people of faith believe they should act or live, according to them.

It wasn't long ago, maybe the 1980s, when some folks used to be accused of wrapping themselves in the flag. Back then, it was common to suggest that some people were stronger on defense than others, and even worse, to say some we would roll over for our enemies.

Today, the ranks of the military are filled with the sons and daughters of basic blue collar Americans. Wealthy people do not go there. While the last administration got us involved in Iraq (not to fight terrorism, it turns out) and Afghanistan, the current administration has been tough on Al Qaida and has found ways to make us safer.

Questioning the patriotism of the opposition was bad, but that's become difficult. Still, questioning the faith of many is even worse. It is tiresome to have people speaking out against what they think you may believe, when many do not live what they profess they believe.

Rush Limbaugh is the the pope of the Republican Party. He has awakened a lot of rage in the moderate middle, a very large group of Democrats, independents, and moderate Republicans. This childless man labeled someone's daughter a harlot and a loose woman. Her alleged sin? Offering to share her personal story with Congress as it looked into a woman's health issue.

Many of those of us with daughters were offended by the nastiness of the labeling. Many of us with daughters would go completely off if such attacks were aimed at members of our own families.

I am reminded of Matthew 7, verses 1 and 2. I think it puts it all very clearly:

 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

So, as this political season continues, and people are tempted to use the ideals they strive for to judge, candidates and voters, think of Ms. Fluke, and remember the words of John 8, verse 7: "Let the person among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

Like I said in the beginning, "sin is sin."

Too Many Witnesses

Have you noticed that the only presidential candidate really talking about making the nation better is the incumbent?

While there is an awful lot of nonstop campaigning for the Republican nomination going on, the men seeking the nod all like to blather on and on about "taking our country back," or "returning the nation to what the founding fathers intended," or in some way or another "restoring the freedoms we have lost."

But, really, there are too many witnesses who know firsthand about the shortcomings of the past to want that as a future for their children and grandchildren. I am not talking about slavery, sweat shops or child labor.

Those are all documented historic facts reflecting conditions in the United States that were sanctioned as official policy for decades or centuries. Yet, most of the victims of those systems are gone.

I'm talking about protective covenants in housing; glass ceilings and discrimination in hiring, promotions and other personnel matters, funding inequities in education and health care; discretionary law enforcement in cases of rape, sexual abuse, domestic violence and other crimes; racial profiling, lending and finance and the provision of basic services for socially, physically, or economically disadvantaged populations.
 
There are still millions of people alive who can speak first-hand of such injustices.

The founding fathers had the wisdom to ensure that an independent judiciary would have the final say on all constitutional matters.  Federal judges, and by extension, the Supreme Court have the right and the obligation to periodically reexamine laws and issues to determine whether, based upon reason and the times, certain aspects of American life warrant institutional review, revocation or change.

The problem is that freedom and equality have not always meant the same thing in this country. I've written before about property rights, voting rights, and human rights. People are entitled to all of these things whether they agree with you politically, morally, socially or not.

Religious freedom is not just for Christians, Jews and Muslims, it's also for Buddhists, Wiccans and Satanists.  Local standards and majority customs cannot define who can participate nor can any group force any individual to keep their own beliefs silent in the interests of not offending the majority.

Public education is not just for the gifted, the average and the able-bodied. It is something that is supposed to be universally offered and provided. Yet, more times than not, the courts or advocates have to fight tooth and nail to make sure that some children have access to the programs and services they need.

Women are still fighting for the right to maintain control over when and if they become pregnant, even as some would deny them the choice of whether to become parents.  We are taught that women have the right to say no and expect it to mean no. Now, some politicians are saying "I don't think so." 

Equal access in the job market remains a real challenge for many.  Growing numbers of men and women have learned during the Great Recession that the playing field is not level, and age, race, body type, sexual orientation and other factors can mean the difference between getting or keeping a job, and waiting for calls that never come.

Those who would seek to reign in courts, deregulate business, and limit the rights of the small to challenge the mighty do not offer a free and equal world. Instead they offer an America stripped of many of the protections that have gradually shifted us toward being a nation of greater universal freedoms.

They also promise their would be supporters a future they envision that those who have ever lived with the indignity of exclusion simply cannot allow. If justice is not blind, it is good to have laws and courts to offer her guidance.

 

A More Perfect Union

Before the American Revolution people on the colonies would speak of the rights of Englishmen.

The great leap the founding fathers were willing to make with the U.S. Constitution was support of a paternalistic system that did not deem property as the great legitamizer for voting and other privileges.

Germans, Scots, some French, free Africans and varied people of mixed races gained their rights by helping to create this nation.

Still, it took more than a century for women to constitutionally evolve to full personhood. It has taken twice as long for various ethnic, racial, religious and immigrant minorities to approach that status, and for many, it remains an elusive goal.

You do not hear many people who appreciate egalitarian ideals talking about class struggles, reigning in the courts, or restrictions of hard fought and hard won rights.  People who remember being ignored, structurally underserved, and socially subordinated to the privileged do not look back on those times fondly.

The Irish rose out of their service in the Civil War. Women gained theirs through suffrage movements over 50 years, and grew it through liberating actions of the 20th Century. Italians and various Eastern Europeans emerged from  two World Wars with a bit more of it. Jews gained it through horror, hardship and determination.

Negros who became African-Americans and then just black, native Americans from Florida to Texas and New York to Alaska, Asian and Latin American immigrants and the disabled are still fighting for the incremental gains that lead to it. As are those of  those of nontraditional sexual orientations.

I'm talking about the basic right to be an American. It represents full citizenship .The total sum of rights and privileges that add up to no one attempting to limit your opportunities based upon bigotry, professed gender superiority, or other absurd traditions.

If what once was, conceptually represents something unfair, that should never be resurrected.

I cannot imagine my daughters or granddaughters living under the system my mother or grandmothers were forced to accept.  I do not want any of my young people, male or female,  to work in an economy where standing is determined by color, familial relationships or social association.

I won't embrace a time when contraception availability was a political or religious choice decided almost exclusively by men.

So-called social conservatives often speak of returning the nation to how it once was.  What they seem to desire is a vision of America where the will of a fortunate few is foisted on the many.

America's freedoms continue to evolve. Looking backward to a romanticized past does not mean more freedoms for all. Instead, it is a false hopes that somehow, conforming to the visions of a privileged few.

Anyone who thinks back to the pain of those who had to fight for rights and basic freedoms cannot possibly embrace that vision. America moves ahead and gets better as it evolves, those who long for the past want something that is not good for the rest of us.

Policies and  laws limiting any of us, deprive each and every one of us.That is the true and real threat to our freedoms and our democracy. It is not about returning America to anything it once was, it is really about a future no freedom loving person in their rational mind could ever truly want for themselves or for anyone else.

Life's Choices

Roman Catholics are not required nor do they ever pledge obedience to the pope, prelates (bishops) or priests. A basic foundation of the Roman Catholic Church is the free will of all men and women.

It is the cleric community, ordained priests, nuns and brothers of the order(s) who pledge their obedience.
Yet, there would be no scandals if the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience were followed succinctly. It follows that they too, maintain their free will.

Catholic teachings also take comfort in a forgiving God. While the Church remains Pro-Choice, cradle Catholics and others, note that policy is not doctrine.

It follows that one's views on choice can remain a matter of conscience and a subject open to the individual. While some are passionate, one way or the other, there are still those who do not presume to decide matters of passion or parenthood on behalf of others.  Their nonjudgmental stance is their right and their choice.

With that in mind, one's actions are to be sorted out with their God and not subject to the judgment of man, no matter their views.

Political Change

Political change is never easy.  Sometimes there are so-called velvet revolutions where the people in power weigh the risks and simply decide to get out of the way. 

But more times than not, there are demonstrations and protests, followed by riot, terrorist attacks, assassinations and then ultimately, full blown rebellions, revolutions or civil wars.  Add sectarian violence to the mix and you have the chaos that most often brings about significant change. 

A year ago, we had the Arab Spring.  While some longtime leaders fled or accepted house arrest, others fought on, only to face retribution sparked by the anger of their persecuted subjects. 

No one knows how things will play out in Syria.  Bashar Assad is not his father, even if he uses the same tactics.  Whether he can quell a restive population and avoid ouster remains to be seen. 

What other Arab countries are willing to do for the people could influence the outcome, but it could also come down to how many Arab fighters from more than a score of nations opt to join the fray. 
 
In Iran, the Persians in power have their own problems.  Besides a young population weary of the stifling rules of the ayatollahs, there are also outside pressures designed to destabilize the aging regime.The Islamic Revolution was a long time ago, and even still, there are a lot of Iranians inside the country and abroad who wouldn't mind a good dose of western culture. 

In the emirates and kingdoms, there are calls for democracy, women's rights and economic opportunities.  The ruling powerful are rich, but many of the people do not share in the oil and mineral wealth of their countries and are facing high prices and shortages of basic goods. 

When you think about the early years of any nation created or rebuilt following political upheavals the images are the same. Struggle, euphoria, thoughtful efforts at lawmaking, disastisfaction, disillusionment, conflict, destruction, and reconstruction.

In Western Asia, there are nations in varied states of getting there. With so many outcomes now uncertain watchingm waiting and deciding later who to help makes an awful lot of sense.    

One More for the Team

President Obama's reelection campaign will need a lot of volunteers.  

Some will be involved in get-out-the-vote efforts, others will dedicate their time to fundraising. But tens of thousands will be use their talents to support the Truth Team. 

The campaign wants to recruit as many as two million people to pursue a single goal: combatting the misinformation pushed out consistently by the opposition.

"People don't just want tl hear from campaign statements ans ads-- they want to hear from family and friends they trust," said Stephanie Cutler, deputy campaign manager for Obama for America. 

This sounds like the kind of volunteer work I might enjoy.  You sign up online and then start joining the effort to stamp out bull _hit. 

The team will be divided into three parts.  Each unit will have its own Web portal: 

Attackwatch.com will combat basic and over the top nastiness:

KeepGOPHonest.com will challenge Republicans who lie about their records;

And KeepHisWord.com will promote the president's record. 

All of this is necessary because the opposition is willing to say and do anything to win the Whitehouse, retake the Senate and keep control of the House. 

One thing I've learned, over the years, is that you do not edit the president. Once an individual is elected leader of the free world, what he says, everything he says, is a matter of public record.

Honest communicators to not paraphrase, distort or mislead their readers or their audiences with words presidents have not or do not say. When the quotes are available, they simply provide the quotes and let the readers or their audiences form their own conclusions.

Since all sorts of positions, policies and statements are routinely attached to the president and repeated as though they were facts, the need for a Truth Team is obvious.  I think it's a very good idea. I wish them well.

What Exactly Do They Mean

There are huge differences between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.

Fiscal conservatives often whine about domestic spending.  Public education, taxpayer supported health care, job training and economic development are generally bad ideas.

Social conservatives talk a lot about freedoms even as they try to force their views on the rest of us.

They want to peek inside your doctor's office and dictate what services you can get.  They want to put certain material into the classrooms and revise textbooks to eliminate realities they find objectionable.  They want to look into your bedroom and tell you who and how to love. 

Some of those desires may seem peculiar or invasive, even to people who live really dull lives.  But social conservatives are scary for other reasons.

All this talk about returning America to the values that the founding fathers intended. They draw their loudest applause when they talk about restoring, not creating, freedoms we've enjoyed in the past. They contend these things were never intended by the founding fathers.


They insist they love the U.S. Constitution, yet they object or condemn some of its most wonderful tenets.  They consider the role of the federal judiciary, by its very mandate, charged with interpreting the constitutionality of federal laws, reactionary and warranting restrictions and greater controls.


The question numerous pieces of legislation designed to ensure constitutional protections for all parties, both citizen and visitor. And they lament actions taken by Congress and affirmed by majorities of the legislatures of the states which alter the laws of the land and grow our Constitution as a living document.

When they talk about returning the nation to some unidentified past, what do they they really mean? Could it be they want a time when most if not all supervisors and people of power were white and male?

Are they seeking a time when women of any color or nationality had no real power and even their rights to property were based upon the whims of their fathers or husbands? Do they long for a time when immigrants, documented or not, were subject to exploitation and had few opportunities to seek relief in the courts?


Perhaps they wish to return to those times when law abiding people of varied backgrounds could be denied their franchise or dispossessed because of their race, gender, ethnic origin, religion, physical impairment or sexual orientation?


The danger here is that no one ever really explains what they mean when people considered the most promising conservative politicians start waxing nostalgically about the values of the past.  That's scary!

Opportunity in America is far less exclusive than it was even a few short years, and definitely a couple of decades ago. What may be the good old days for some seems like a return to a past with limited choices for a heck of a lot of Americans.

Gradual Shakeout

We already know the Democratic presidential candidate will run on his record.     

 The Great Recession ended under his watch, and despite congressional gridlock, the nation's economy is slowly turning around.

Whether the incumbent is opposed by Mitt or Newt, we will hear loads of promises about job creation, lower taxes and increased opportunity. The problem with that is neither has a track record of making that happen.

Selling off the assets of floundering companies may create limited profits, but it does not put people back to work.Instead, people with jobs are declared surplus, and the machines they used to run to turn out products are shipped abroad for use in sweat shops.

Deregulation that makes outsourcing easier takes away the incentives for domestic growth as quickly as raising taxes.  Contract workers cost about one-third less than permanent staffers and have none of the protections of employees.

Luckily, private sector job creation  is up, and first time unemployment claims are down. All the negative ads and campaign talking points in the world cannot change reality.

Against Their Interests

 "History repeats itself." That adage is familiar to most of us. It can often explain why people who otherwise should have "no dog in a fight" will risk everything they have by taking up a cause that is not their own.

Terms like "class struggle" and "politics of envy" are being used to paint a curious picture of the wealthiest Americans as victims of some unfair conspiracy designed to strip them of their hard-earned riches.

The logic is that "fair-minded people" will see this as a great crusade to redistribute their wealth and rally to their aid by voting for candidates who won't allow such injustices to occur.

The way the last few years have shaken out, we have expanding poverty and we also have expanding wealth. While the number of poor in this country has grown, the richest Americans have seen their net worth expand.

In the center, is the so-called middle class. Most statistics indicate that they have lost ground. Some of them have slipped back into poverty and others have hung on, marking time and hanging tough against the battering waves of  economic  turbulence.


America has been this way before. History tells us that the Civil War nearly destroyed the union. Ninety years after the birth of the nation, more than 618,000 people died in four bloody years of fighting. Slavery and economics were central causes, and rhetoric about states rights fanned the flames and passions between North and South.

Yet, only 7 percent of southerners owned slaves in 1860. That slave owning class represented perhaps one or two percent of the total population of  the nation. Still millions marched off to war willing do die to defend the rights of a very exclusive club.

Now, as then, we have inflammatory rhetoric, enraged passions, and dramatic struggles for support of divisive causes. On the one hand, there are calls for social and economic justice, on the other, there are  demands that we return to or preserve the values and institutions of the past.

 The nation is gripped by the words, voices and images of politicians, the admonitions and warnings of orators and the harsh realities of economic uncertainty. The world is changing and those who prospered most under the old system seek to maintain or restore it, even as others call out for something more.

In such times, it is the extremists whose voices rise above the fray, but in the end, the decisions rests in the hands of the center, and where they choose to stand and fight when their comforts are at stake.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." 

-- George Santayana, U.S. Philosopher, 1865-1952

Pragmatism? Pshaw!

Nancy Brinker built a movement to save lives and honor the memory of her sister. Her idea was simple, "helping women beat the risks of breast cancer is a good." People bought into it and raised tens of millions of dollars.

Somewhere along the line, Nancy Brinker allowed idealogues to divide, and possibly doom her organization. If only for a few days, she turned her back on the poor.

Pragmatism embraces practical solutions without consequences. If you pack a board with people who believe certain things, then they can change the rules, take a vote and end alliances that were crucial to maintaining broad appeal.

In picking funding for Planned Parenthood, or an end run to eliminate it, a faction of the Komen Foundation selected a powerless target. The poor women, very young to premenopausal, who go to clinics offering services at no - to low costs.


Brinker and others did not realize that these women have a reservior of goodwill out here that would not sit silently by as donated dollars were used for exclusive purposes. The money did not come from any one group of people who believe certain ways, it came from lots of people willing to do something for women's health.

The Komen Foundation allowed its intentions and its brand to become  pawns in a political power play. We now live in a time when people, charities and institutions may find themselves offered up for pragmatic reasons. That means that those who would abandon all reason and compromise in favor of any single goal
will roll the dice, consequences be damned.

In this case, they were willing to let poor women, those who lack insurance and generally seek out the only preventive screening and other services within a busline, languish in uncertainty about their health or get sick and die.

There was no talk of alternative care and no true notice that vital breast screening provided at Planned Parenthood would no longer be part of a very fragile safety net.

Pragmatism puts no stake in consequences. It is built on concepts or statements repeated by rote without regard to any waivering thought.

Declare it right, label it just, and disavow anything that falls outside that narrow view. This time it was women and breast screening, last time it was "the poor" and food stamps, or faceless immigrants and a backlash against a 21st century Bracero program.

Pragmatism could lead to protective covenants, discretionary work rules and worse. These are dangerous times, and we should be very concerned about the poor.

 If you are outside the narrow view of pragmatic thought, perhaps you should also be concerned about the rest of us too.

Play to Win

Some people play politics with a deep understanding of the rules.  They know the differences between what is illegal and just fundamentally immoral.

They are more than happy to mobilize an army of lawyers to defend any and all questionable behavior.  They will vote early by the thousands to be available to watch polling places targeted solely because they are strongholds of their political opposition.  The goal here is voter suppression undertaken under the guise of "discouraging fraud."

There are many other techniques used to reduce participation in elections by many who have the most to lose by staying home.  Challenging the benefits of motor voter laws; Repeating the often wrong idea that convicted felons lose their voting rights forever; phoney flyers and leaflets; misleading robo-calls, and outrageous commercials and ads paid for with soft money from distant SuperPacs.

Then there are the legislative measures designed to carve out political advantages thru redistricting. It often takes years to sort these things out, and in the interim, stays often allow elections to take place "to maintain access to full participation" while the matters are resolved.

A friend suggested recently that we consider registering as independents in large numbers so we could choose unelectable candidates in the opposition's primary.  While that is legal, it is also under the heading of dirty tricks.

Richard Nixon manipulated an election 40 years ago.  12 years ago, lawyers found allies in the Florida courts and we wound up with eight years of Bizarre World non-leadership.

In 2012, you can bet that every tactic listed above will be used by candidates and their supporters committed to winning at any costs.

More than one million black men of voting age, perhaps eight percent of the population have been removed from the coting roles due to felony convictions.  What many do not know is that once they serve their time and complete any court ordered supervision, they could be eligible to have their voting rights restored. Challenged by poll watchers and election judges.

I'm very sensitive about voting rights. Perhaps it is because I remember relatives who could not vote because of poll taxes, literacy tests and other games that were totally legal before 1964, and survived out in the countryside into well into the 1970s.

Because I am pushing 60, I expect my generation to show some guidance and leadership on this issue. We remember the fight for voting rights firsthand. many of us went to college or spent time in military service in areas where we could not vote locally. We also know first-hand the dangers of having no political power in places where we have to survive.

So, giving some thought to the dangers of dirty tricks, I've got a few suggestions:

1) Talk often to anyone and everyone above the age of 17 about the importance of being registered to vote in time for the primaries in your state, or at least in time for the general election.

2) Understand the rules for franchise reinstatement in your state, and be able to explain them to any friend, relative, or runnin' dawg of your children or grandchildren's who may have had a fall in the past and may not know they could be eligible to have their voting rights restored.

3) Stick voter registration cards (available in most libraries, every department of motor vehicles office, and at your city hall and county courthouse) in the glove compartment or console of every vehicle you own, pay insurance on, or make the payments for. Ladies, get in the habit of carrying a dozen in your purse and men, stick three or four in your pocket because you never know when someone might need one.

4) Talk about politics as much as you talk about sports, reality T-V shows, the latest jam, or who's got the best deal on purses or hair. If you've got a church family, and your pastor is not active in civic affairs, talk about politics over social dinners. Commit to getting people fired up about local, national and world affairs one at a time, and touch different people each week or month to make a difference.

Even if you know you can count on them to vote for your presidential candidate, tell them who is running for Congress or your state legislative district. Tell them why they deserve your votes and tell them why the other guy could cause problems for their families and your neighborhood.

5) Don't accept the negative: Even if you do not say "all politicians are crooks, they are all crooks." Remember that can become an excuse for tuning out the whole process.

We know and remember so many people who voted for bigots and even campaigned for candidates they knew would do absolutely nothing to make their lives better. They did all of that because they knew there were even worse bigots and insensitive SOBs laying in the cut trying to seize as much power as possible.

Family members we respected cast their ballots holding our hands in the voting booths and never talked about the weaknesses of the people they voted for. They did it out of hope for better futures for us and our children. Many of us have known politicians who are not crooks. Consider the danger of accepting the fallacy that they all are.

6) Volunteer: You don't have to walk, or even show up at a phone bank anymore. Commit to sending a dozen e-mails, pass on an issues paper, or spend a few minutes talking to a grandchild and their friends about the importance of participation. Do any of those things and you can chalk them up to honoring the generations that fought and died to make those things possible. 

A friend says I live and breathe politics. That's not exactly true. For many years I dealt with politics as a trained observer. While people speak about the "liberal media," I can tell you that there are thousands of professionals covering politics every day who check their personal opinions at the door each day before they do their jobs. It is never easy, but their livelihoods depend upon watching and listening and reporting only what they observe without shading it in any direction.

I can tell you that lots of dumb things happen during political campaigns. Still, most newspeople do not go out of their ways to derail anybody's aspirations for high office.  I do not live and breathe politics. I just have a good idea of what can happen when people tune out, or fail to tune in early enough to really make a difference.

Let's Remember How We Got Here

While Republican hopefuls have been campaigning for months, and conservative pundits have been indoctrinating the impressionable for years, the President of the United States has been cleaning up a world class mess. 

When Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, the U.S. economy was in pretty good shape. Then we had eight years of leadership straight out of Bizarro World.  Tax cuts and deregulation were the watchwords for better government.

The Sept. 11 attacks occurred, and we justifiably went to Afghanistan.  But somewhere along the line, Iraq became our first priority. Rather than going in to win, the president decided to fight his daddy's war.  That made Iraq a short-term limited conflict.  Even though he declared "Mission Accomplished!"  U.S. troops kept serving and dying there for ten more years.

On housing, President Bush unveiled his Blueprint for the American Dream in 2002.  That initiative led Fannie Mae to pursue a goal of helping six million first time homebuyers, including about two million minorities purchase homes before 2014.

Then, in love with the free market, the Bush Administration failed to act on what by 2006 was a looming economic course adjustment of worldwide proportions.   The results included massive job losses, the near collapse of the banking system and stalled manufacturing that prompted the disappearances of a number of great brand names that had been around for most of the last century.

While it all cannot be blamed on George W. Bush, there is no doubt that the economy was a basket case in January of 2009.  We know that TARP and TANF were ideas pushed through to stave off economic Armageddon.

Conservative revisionists may try to put those programs on President Obama, but that is revisionist nonsense.

In the three years President Obama has been in office, most of the TARP money has been paid back, American manufacturing is in the rebound, and private sector jobs are up by more than 3 million in 22 months. We are also out of Iraq, Osama Bin Laden and dozens of other top terrorists are dead and the Taliban are ready to talk about peace.

Now we have the 2012 presidential campaign. Vying for the Republican nomination are one man who made millions picking the bones of troubled companies. The other major GOP candidate is made big money lobbying for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and mouthing off for conservative media outlets.  The State of the Union is behind us. The choices are already relatively clear.

At Risk: 75 Years of Progress

The 2012 elections are about the future. There are alternate versions of that future that could well be determined by one national election and 468 House and Senate races. 

People really need to think about what the vision so-called fiscal conservatives have for the nation. They do not see a role for Social Security, Medicare, Head Start, or universal access to health care. They envision a nation where people can do business with whom they choose, have different pricing structures for different types of customers and refuse to serve areas for any reason they choose, even without explaining it.

Some of them speak openly of limiting or even eliminating the rights of victims to turn to the courts for justice and relief when they've been injured through negligence or circumstance. Some would even shift control of federal money, raised through taxes we all pay into the hands of people in the states, and try to limit the ability of federal judges to intervene under the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Already, we are hearing candidates label such jurists as "bad judges" because some of their rulings consider Equal Protection central to U.S. laws. They would reduce or eliminate Pell Grants , in favor of loan programs that would turn our children into indentured servants for decades to come. They would privatize Social Security, and look coldly at those whose future security was lost in a system rife with marketplace flaws.

In the age of Super PACs, with unlimited corporate money flowing in to support candidates who would place business ahead of fairness, we have to do more than just focus on the presidency. The prevent defense that's stifled work on Capitol Hill in recent years could be on the beginning. We could see a new "Contract With America" that winds up being a contract on the working man.

Thirty years ago, President Reagan led the charge to turn community block grants over to the states. Now some of those cities that used to receive them contain residential dead zones. They are entire neighborhoods, of abandoned houses, broken glass and decaying streets that rival the brownfields of long-dormant industrial sites we've been dealing with for decades.

Between 1980 and 1997, 27 percent of the nation's public hospitals closed, eliminating 66,000 beds. As Baby Boomers age, Medicare, becomes our problem. Free market healthcare could well jeopardize any retirement we are able to salvage from the Great Recession, and frankly, most of us do not have time to build a financial cushion to protect us from that risk.

Rest, assured, there are many problems, and of course there are limits to what the taxpayers and the nation can afford, but when it comes to programs I know my parents and grandparents depended on and found comfort in, I am just not willing to risk everything on a crapshoot with the profit mongers and speculators.

Who occupies the White House and who does the work on Capitol Hill could well determine if more of that is part of America's vision of the future. Everything from FDR's New Deal to Lyndon Johnson's Great Society is hanging in the balance.


They may say "beating Obama is the most important thing," but believe me, they've got bigger plans than that, and if their vision of "returning to American values" does not include you, then finding that out in 2013 could be a truly costly mistake.

The Great Recession: We Survived

The economic downturn that began in 2007 statistically ended in 2009. While the human suffering and the struggle to recover has continued, somewhere along the line, that two-year period became a defining era.

The Associated Press, arbiters of journalistic style, and the hardest working collective group of 4,500  journalists in the world now refers to the period as the Great Recession. That means it is on a par with other benchmark events of the past 160 years. Those include the Civil War, World War I, the Great Depression and World War II.

When you look around the room take pride in the fact that despite your diminished circumstances, your derailed retirement plans and the assorted boomerang children you may still be harboring, the fact of the matter is that you survived.

Seventy-five years from now, when people start reviewing the personal data of the 2010 U.S. Census, the details of your survival will become more than statistics. It will be part of the historic record and available to anyone who cares to look.

One of my brothers is a retired journalist who has used his talents for genealogical research in recent years. He has been able to look back on census date from 1930 and learn a lot about how my own family weathered the Great Depression.

It turns out that my maternal grandfather once was a member of my maternal grandmother's father's household. While I only knew my grandfather as an old man and great provider, he was once a young man dependent upon his wife's family for his very survival.

It's funny what history and official documents will be able to tell future generations about you and the people in your life. Very few of us will look back upon the Great Recession as "the good old days," but it is likely some of our children will remember it as a time when people of all types rediscovered the meaning of family.

Climbing out of the misery, and slowly watching people we care about find jobs and hope for better futures, some of us can look back at the spiraling collapse of the first decade of the 21st century. As we turn our thoughts to God and all the strength he helped to pull from deep within our souls, we can give thanks, smile inwardly and breathe the fresh breezes of relief.

Confronted with the all too real hardships of the Great Recession, we survived.

Where Will the Money Go?

Mitt Romney is filthy rich.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.  But it appears there are huge differences between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.  One type is preoccupied with tax policy, deregulation and spending as little on the public as possible. The other often wants government to define, restrict or codify its beliefs. 

While so-called liberal Democrats provide the muscle and the people to get their candidates elected, the liberal leadership understands that there is no money without the progressive wing of the party.  Wealthy Republicans have always been able to count on the party to ensure that a relatively moderate speaking candidate survives to carry the party's standard. 

This time, you have Romney seeking the nomination against several remaining candidates that many believe appeal to social conservatives. 

Romney is being branded with the "L" word.  The man believes corporations are people and admits to getting a rush from firing folks. 

Some wealthy Republicans believe he might be good for business.  They are reportedly not too clear about the prospects for candidates who would spend too much time on issues like civil unions, abortion, and creationism. 

When you think about the last ten Republican presidential nominees, win or lose, none of them did much to change national policy on those issues. From Eisenhower through McCain, not much was said or done beyond the lip service to the language in the party platform.

So, how much money will fiscal conservatives be willing to spend on those sideshow issues?  My guess is not very much with any enthusiasm if they think it is bad for business. 

South Carolina may be the battleground for now, but don't look for it to be the final meaningful battle.  Those with the deepest pockets are now fighting for the heart and soul of the Grand Old Party. If Romney cannot pull off a slam dunk, you can bet Republicans with money will try to bring a voice of reason to the nomination fight.

Wait for it, WAIT FOR IT... “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." --Barry Goldwater, July 16, 1964

The preceding quote helped make The Great Society possible.

Three for Tuesday

The United States is a big country, and the political positions of the people who live here run the gamut. What plays well for Republican voters in South Carolina may completely miss the mark in neighboring Florida. 

This campaign season is shaping up to be full of outright lies and gross distortions.  Some people say all politicians lie.  I'd say that's sad. 

We are not talking about campaign promises here.  Those can be dismissed as hopeful agendas that don't materialize because of time and circumstances.  What I'm talking about is misleading statements about the historic record that many people won't take the time to investigate. 

Campaigning in the age of digital coverage could be different.  Instead of poring over old clippings and microfilms, anyone can sit at home and pull up a candidate's statements as he dashes from one state to the next, altering his position to suit the audience. Truth should not have a regional perspective. 

Speaking of truth and regionalism, Congress gets back to work today. 

The current approval rating is 13 percent.  Since any member of the House not planning on retiring is now in full blown campaign mode, don't expect much meaningful legislation to be passed.  Instead, we will see members posturing for the folks back home. 

They want to say they've been in Washington looking out for your interests.  If nothing gets done, it's those other guys' fault. Or "I worked overtime to keep them from doing that to you." 

The professional protesters will of course be active.  They come in all shapes, sizes, colors and embrace a plethora of causes.  They have a role to play in the system. They are the bones to which the flesh and muscle of dissent adhere.

In America, this is what democracy looks like.  It may not be a perfect system, but at least most of us can play.  Get in the game before those you disagree with run up the score.

Thinning Field

There is an ideological struggle underway as a back story to the race for the GOP nomination.

On the one-hand, you have very angry voters who have dug in their heels behind a vision of America where the people they disagree with do not matter.

On the other hand, you have Republicans who still perceive themselves as moderates. They control a lot of Grand Old Party money. They control a bunch of Political Action Committee donations, and they like to think they control what happens at the Republican National Committee Convention, especially when there is no incumbent seeking the nomination.


In the past, it was this faction of the party that deep-sixed the presidential aspirations of Pat Robertson and  twice got rid of Patrick Buchanan. They assured the first nomination of Ronald Reagan, brought us the compassionate conservatism of George Herbert Walker Bush, and financed the unsuccessful White House quests of Bob Dole and John McCain.

As the battle for the GOP nomination plays out,  the struggle between the angry wing of the party and its wealthy supporters will produce excellent drama. Some candidates will head out on the stump with varied speeches that seem to ask "who are we gonna hate or blame this week? Others will smile and talk about their electability and having the "best chance of beating Obama."

Neither of those themes offer much in the way of new ideas. As we watch the thinning field, just remember that it took the first 12 years of the 21st century to bring the nation to this point. What has happened in the last three was essentially just a few steps toward righting the mistakes of the previous decade.

Voters may be impatient for change, but life is not a sit-com or a made-for-TV movie. You cannot wrap up huge problems into a tidy solution in the last few minutes of a half-an-hour, or the final scenes of DVD.  That means whatever happens Nov. 6, we will still be in the midst of correcting a floundering course. 

So even if you don't have much interest in the opening act for Campaign 2012, tune in to the game from time to time. It will produce some great one-liners, a few interesting quotes, and hopefully, a lot of insight into what these people really think.

There Will Be Blood

 

“Thou shalt not speak ill of any Republican. Henceforth, if any Republican has a grievance against another, that grievance is not to be bared publicly.” Gaylord Parkinson, Chairman of the California State Republican Party-- 1965 

Six men are running for the Republican presidential nomination. They are now in New Hampshire and looking ahead to South Carolina. 

Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon were fond of using variations of the Parkinson quote I  used today. 

Political campaigns used to be civil and even cordial, because politics used to be considered a gentleman's game.

Now, it is a no-holds-barred, free for all between small men with huge egos who are desperate to claw their way up from the bottom.  

The talk on the campaign trail is expected to get nasty, and the ads we are likely to see in the coming weeks may be  filled with charges and counter charges as hopefuls struggle for the spirit of the Grand Old Party. 

Republicans like to call themselves the party of Abe Lincoln. It appears that they are not even the party of Ronald Reagan anymore.

Who Knows the Time?

It's 2012


“Wait for the Lord; be strong and take heart
and wait for the Lord” – Psalms 27:14
--
I have no Mayan friends. Yet, I know the world has a fascination about academic translations of their ancient calendar. I am always open to learning and the older I get the less I dwell upon impermanence. I focus more on living life and enjoying the moments, hours and days that I breathe.
--

“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” – Matthew 24:36

--

So, I will not live as though 12-21-2012 shall be “the end of days.” I will simply live. As I do it, I will try to be a better person and share compassion and understanding with those who cross my path.

--

“They ask you, [O Muhammad], about the Hour: when is its arrival? Say, "Its knowledge is only with my Lord. None will reveal its time except Him. It lays heavily upon the heavens and the earth. It will not come upon you except unexpectedly." Qur An 7:187

--

I can strive to win, I can enjoy the companionship of family and friends, I can lead to move my family forward. I can also accept the opportunities arising from the impermanence of all things.
--

Thus shall ye think of all this fleeting world: a star at dawn,
a bubble in a stream; a flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
a flickering lamp, a phantom and a dream. -- Sakyamuni Buddha

--

No, I know no Mayans, but I know many types of people with many varied beliefs. So when the winter solstice of this waning year arrives, I will greet it hopefully, as I look ahead toward a future yet to be. DEH 01-01-2012