Most Americans would not be able to point out how failing to raise the debt ceiling would affect them. However, if the regressive plan proposed by Republicans in the House were to become law, every American would quickly be able to feel its sting. The focus grouped, "Cut, Cap, and Balance" bill would require $400 billion in cuts each year for the next 10 years, cap spending at 19% of GDP, (despite Congressional Budget Office projections showing spending will need to rise to 21-22% in the next 10 years) and it would result in the end of Medicaid, (health care for the poor) and Medicare. It is truly a breathtaking proposal, as it would roll back and end the progressive agendas of the 20th century and return America to the Gilded Age of a weak federal government, low or no taxes on the rich and a Grand Canyon sized divide between the wealthy and the working poor.
If you ever wondered what our national priorities would look like if the regressive/tea partiers were to gain the Senate and the White House, it is now crystal clear what their vision of the future contains. The gap between the rich and everyone else would continue to grow. The social safety net would cease to exist. Education would become the purview of those who could afford the rising tuition. Innovation would dry up as spending on basic research drops precipitously. The Pentagon would continue to suck up huge amounts of resources and environmental gains of the past would quickly reverse.
All I have laid out isn't a secret. It has been the goal of regressives since FDR implemented his New Deal. Regressives have been quite vocal about their goals. In 1982, Reagan budget director David Stockman did the unthinkable when he committed truth. Stockman admitted the purpose of Reaganomics was to drive up the deficit and national debt so there would be less money available for social programs. They wanted to "starve the beast" to "cut off its oxygen". By driving up the deficit, regressives could attack socially progressive policy under the guise of fiscal discipline thus avoiding a political backlash among affected constituencies. "Don't blame me, we just don't have the money to fund these extravagances any longer." Regressive anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist says the goal is to starve government down to a size where he can drown it in a bathtub. Just as few people believed Hitler when he laid out his agenda and goals and philosophy in Mein Kampf, regressives have been clear their goal is to return government to how it looked in 1900 rather than 2000. Why don't we believe them? (Ironically, in 2000 America was prosperous, President Clinton turned over a surplus to George Bush and over 8 million jobs had been created during his presidency.)
"Cut, Cap and Balance" is political theater at its best. It has no chance of passing and regressives just want it for political talking points. The proof of the pudding is Democrats in the House tried to pass the budget proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan, a proposal which included the end of Medicare as we know it and contained most of what cut, cap and balance is said to accomplish, but Republican leaders rallied members to vote against its passage. The last thing they wish to do is incur the wrath of voters. They want to slowly suffocate the progressive agenda under the aegis of fiscal discipline. Regressive columnist David Brooks, bemoans the fact Republicans are overreaching. He says they have already accomplished so much. They have blocked any tax increases on the rich, forced Democrats to accept cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, blocked much of the financial Dodd/Frank reform bill from being implemented, stopped funding of regulatory agencies tasked with oversight over industry and manufacturing and agriculture, but are now getting greedy by opposing a raise in the debt ceiling. No truer words were ever written.
If you want to test my theory, just compare President Obama's proposal to Republican and House Majority Leader Eric Kantor's ideas. Obama proposed a $4 trillion reduction in spending over 10 years. He proposed $3 in cuts for every dollar in revenue increases. Kantor wants less than $2 trillion in spending over the same 10 years with no revenue from tax increases and massive across the board cuts, except at the Pentagon, and reducing benefits in both Medicare and Social Security. Kantor does not want to truly get us back on a fiscally sound footing. He wants to protect the wealthiest taxpayers and corporations and end the progress of the last 80 years.
When President Clinton raised taxes on the richest 1% in 1992, not a single Republican voted in favor. Newt Gingrich et.al. predicted the end of the world. Jobs would disappear. The economy would crater. Poverty would increase and personal wealth decrease. Taxing the "job-creators" (a euphemism for the rich) would be a disaster. As we now know, the opposite occurred. Job creation exploded. The economy grew red-hot. The wealthy got richer and the middle class grew and poverty decreased. In 2001, President Bush cut taxes on the richest 1% costing the treasury over $2.3 trillion. He started two wars, which he refused to pay for through increased taxes. Those wars will cost over $4 trillion when all is said and done. For the first six years of his presidency, he did not create a single net new job. The deficit and national debt ballooned. The economy went into a depression not seen since the 1930's from which we still haven't recovered. Between Clinton and Bush we have textbook examples of the effects of progressive vs. regressive policies.
We can’t keep spending at current rates. However, we can't keep tax levels for the rich at 1950 levels either. Anyone truly interested in a solution would embrace spending cuts and tax increases as the best way to put the nation on a good fiscal foot. (However Social Security shouldn't even be a part of the discussion as it doesn't add to the debt at all and pays for itself) Regressives aren't interested in a good fiscal footing which maintains the status quo. They want to end Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security as we know them. They want to eliminate health care reform. They are reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in political contributions from the financial industry, corporations and the uber-rich so they can cut financial reform and regulations under which industry chafes. They are philosophically opposed to the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), Federal Reserve, FDA (Food and Drug Administration), EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), FDIC (federal deposit insurance corporation), FCC (Federal Communications Commission), and any other form of government regulation. They refuse to staff the new consumer watchdog agency. (What is so interesting is how they blithely accept the expansion of the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, TSA, and the DEA, which threaten our privacy and civil liberties. This is despite their constant mantra that the government governs best which governs least).
President Obama is actually drawing a line in the sand for once. He won't accept a short-term debt ceiling increase. He wants to do more. He needs to call the Republican bluff. He should oppose Mitch McConnell's Plan B; which allows him to raise the debt ceiling between now and 2012 and which would give the Republicans ammunition to use against him while they protect the rich from paying their fair share. However, the war on progress will continue unabated until the American people rise up and declare their preference for moving forward not regressing. I have little confidence the electorate will wake up and send the m message progress means life and standing still or regressing is political and economic death. As always, however, I live with hope.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
A SNITCH IN TIME
This month marks the end of the Harry Potter movie saga. I am sorry to see it end, as it was a medium, both books and movies, which opened a world I could share with my children. The arrival of a new book or movie was a moment to contemplate the past, appreciate the present, and anticipate the future. Much like pencil marks on a doorsill, each additional episode of the Harry Potter story marked how much they had grown and encouraged me to consider on how we as parents had changed and evolved as well.
There is a treasure trove of memories, sitting right in front of me as I ponder the release of the last movie. I re-read the final volume to immerse myself again in the world of Hogwarts, wizards and magic. It isn't just a parallel universe. It is a world my family and I journeyed through along with Harry, Ron and Hermione and each memory is as precious as the sorcerer’s stone and as tasty as butter beer.
My dad died shortly before Thanksgiving in 2001. The first volume of the series had just been released in America. I knew almost nothing about it. I was staggered by my dad's death and this would be the first Thanksgiving without him. How do you have Thanksgiving without your dad? On the appointed day, I was once again at St. Anthony's Dining Room for our annual broadcast and the culmination of the Thanksgiving charity drive. Eighteen Thanksgivings were spent in that amazing place of hope and inspiration. It ended about 4pm. I walked out into the waning sunlight drained, tear stained, and morose. I looked up and there was my wife parked at the corner of Jones and Golden Gate. She said get in and off we went. I discovered we were not staying in the City for Thanksgiving. We were driving to Disneyland for a long weekend.
Each child had carved out a space in the car. They each had a backpack filled with books and games and snacks and each was wrapped in a cozy sleeping bag. They were snug and warm in their own personal space. I was sad and melancholy and welcomed switching with my wife and taking over the driving chores. We were on I-5 and she opened a box of cassettes. She inserted the first one and in the darkness of that car, traveling, maybe running from the reality of my father's and their grandfather's loss, we were introduced to the Dursleys and Privet Drive and the world of Harry Potter.
It was magical...as if a true spell had been cast. We were in our own self-contained world and we met Harry and Ron and Hermione and Hogwarts. There wasn't a sound in the car except the rhythm of the road and the sound of each new chapter. At some point, one of the kids sheepishly asked about dinner. Afraid, possibly, of incurring the wrath of the others for stopping our wizarding experience. We ended up stopping and having Thanksgiving dinner at a Denny's. I don't remember much about the meal except for a pervasive cloud of sadness resulting from the comparison between this Thanksgiving and the fifty or more presided over by my dad. I do remember how the kids rushed back to the car, climbed in, wrapped themselves in their cubbies and anticipated the start of the next cassette.
It took 8-9 hours of driving to arrive at our destination, yet it seemed to pass in an instant. The rest of the weekend was fun and it was a good idea to get away for a few days, but until the day I die, I will never forget how close we seemed, how in our own world we felt, how special that time felt and we owed it all to J.K. Rowling and her brilliant imagination.
There are lots of other stories, which feature Harry Potter and our children. One volume came out as we prepared for a vacation in Tahoe. No one was allowed to start the book in the car. We all started at the same time once we arrived in Tahoe and only swimming interrupted the consumption of Harry's travels and travails. On one occasion, my daughter, Darcy, came to work with me. The latest book was to go on sale at midnight. A caller told me we could get it for half off at a Safeway in Strawberry Shopping Center in Marin. At 1:30am, the two of us went and bought two books, went home and stayed up for hours reading. When the Goblet of Fire movie was released, the children and myself decided to go to the 3am showing in 3D at the Metreon. We walked out into a sparkling sunrise so proud we had seen it before almost anyone else and drawn closer again with the shared experience.
I have missed sharing the last two movies with them. It's one more reminder of the consequences of stupidity and an inability to appreciate all I had been given. They are all quite grown now, and a chance to share a continuity of experiences which stretch from their childhoods to the now evolving adults they are becoming, won't be possible ever again. I missed it or blew it or tossed it away without understanding what a rare and valuable gift it truly was.
I and we will always have that night on I-5, speeding through the dark as Quiddich matches, and shopping trips to Dragon Alley and battles on brooms and with wands happened in a universe at once far away, yet as close as the love we felt for each other. Harry was no longer alone and maybe we knew from that night, we would never be either.
I am grateful for the memories, which mark each volume of Harry’s journey to adulthood. Visions of different faces, my son's and daughter's, flood into my senses as I think about each book. I'm grateful to a wife who was committed to exposing my children to reading and stories and who understood immediately the power of this particular story. I miss my dad. I miss my family, but I live in the hope these memories never disappear and we will be re-united one day.
There is a treasure trove of memories, sitting right in front of me as I ponder the release of the last movie. I re-read the final volume to immerse myself again in the world of Hogwarts, wizards and magic. It isn't just a parallel universe. It is a world my family and I journeyed through along with Harry, Ron and Hermione and each memory is as precious as the sorcerer’s stone and as tasty as butter beer.
My dad died shortly before Thanksgiving in 2001. The first volume of the series had just been released in America. I knew almost nothing about it. I was staggered by my dad's death and this would be the first Thanksgiving without him. How do you have Thanksgiving without your dad? On the appointed day, I was once again at St. Anthony's Dining Room for our annual broadcast and the culmination of the Thanksgiving charity drive. Eighteen Thanksgivings were spent in that amazing place of hope and inspiration. It ended about 4pm. I walked out into the waning sunlight drained, tear stained, and morose. I looked up and there was my wife parked at the corner of Jones and Golden Gate. She said get in and off we went. I discovered we were not staying in the City for Thanksgiving. We were driving to Disneyland for a long weekend.
Each child had carved out a space in the car. They each had a backpack filled with books and games and snacks and each was wrapped in a cozy sleeping bag. They were snug and warm in their own personal space. I was sad and melancholy and welcomed switching with my wife and taking over the driving chores. We were on I-5 and she opened a box of cassettes. She inserted the first one and in the darkness of that car, traveling, maybe running from the reality of my father's and their grandfather's loss, we were introduced to the Dursleys and Privet Drive and the world of Harry Potter.
It was magical...as if a true spell had been cast. We were in our own self-contained world and we met Harry and Ron and Hermione and Hogwarts. There wasn't a sound in the car except the rhythm of the road and the sound of each new chapter. At some point, one of the kids sheepishly asked about dinner. Afraid, possibly, of incurring the wrath of the others for stopping our wizarding experience. We ended up stopping and having Thanksgiving dinner at a Denny's. I don't remember much about the meal except for a pervasive cloud of sadness resulting from the comparison between this Thanksgiving and the fifty or more presided over by my dad. I do remember how the kids rushed back to the car, climbed in, wrapped themselves in their cubbies and anticipated the start of the next cassette.
It took 8-9 hours of driving to arrive at our destination, yet it seemed to pass in an instant. The rest of the weekend was fun and it was a good idea to get away for a few days, but until the day I die, I will never forget how close we seemed, how in our own world we felt, how special that time felt and we owed it all to J.K. Rowling and her brilliant imagination.
There are lots of other stories, which feature Harry Potter and our children. One volume came out as we prepared for a vacation in Tahoe. No one was allowed to start the book in the car. We all started at the same time once we arrived in Tahoe and only swimming interrupted the consumption of Harry's travels and travails. On one occasion, my daughter, Darcy, came to work with me. The latest book was to go on sale at midnight. A caller told me we could get it for half off at a Safeway in Strawberry Shopping Center in Marin. At 1:30am, the two of us went and bought two books, went home and stayed up for hours reading. When the Goblet of Fire movie was released, the children and myself decided to go to the 3am showing in 3D at the Metreon. We walked out into a sparkling sunrise so proud we had seen it before almost anyone else and drawn closer again with the shared experience.
I have missed sharing the last two movies with them. It's one more reminder of the consequences of stupidity and an inability to appreciate all I had been given. They are all quite grown now, and a chance to share a continuity of experiences which stretch from their childhoods to the now evolving adults they are becoming, won't be possible ever again. I missed it or blew it or tossed it away without understanding what a rare and valuable gift it truly was.
I and we will always have that night on I-5, speeding through the dark as Quiddich matches, and shopping trips to Dragon Alley and battles on brooms and with wands happened in a universe at once far away, yet as close as the love we felt for each other. Harry was no longer alone and maybe we knew from that night, we would never be either.
I am grateful for the memories, which mark each volume of Harry’s journey to adulthood. Visions of different faces, my son's and daughter's, flood into my senses as I think about each book. I'm grateful to a wife who was committed to exposing my children to reading and stories and who understood immediately the power of this particular story. I miss my dad. I miss my family, but I live in the hope these memories never disappear and we will be re-united one day.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
JOSE CAN YOU SEE?
Writing about freedom and independence when you have neither is an interesting exercise. Yet, the nation celebrates its 235th birthday and the occasion should be a moment to reflect on our inalienable rights and where we are as a people in achieving the vision articulated in 1776.
Baseball, apple pie and Chevrolet's aside, 235 years after its founding, how well is this experiment in republican democracy working? (No, don't freak, I am not saying the Republicans founded the nation or they bear any resemblance to the founding fathers...ok maybe some emerged from John Calhoun’s loins, but that is grist for another mill.) We have a representative form of government designed to make the will of the people the law of the land. Really?
According to Thomas Jefferson, our creator, (note no reference to God with a capital "G") endowed us with certain rights. We are given the right to life. (That cheering you hear is from regressives saying we finally got him...he is now in favor of a right to life). For some Americans, life is getting longer, but for others, particularly people of color, the working poor and those at the bottom of the economic ladder, their lives are stagnant and any gains incidental. It turns out for many so-called "patriots", you have a right to be born but afterwards you are on your own. In almost any metric of childhood nurturing, the United States lags close to last among the industrialized nations of the world. From infant mortality to low birth-weight babies, to pre-natal care and nutrition, we are not exactly leading the pack. If by some unfortunate quirk of fate, you live in Texas, most of the South, or any state controlled by regressives, your right to a life of potential and fullness is in jeopardy. For the second half of the 20th century, you had a chance to live a life with better economic potential than your parents and the belief your children's quality of life could exceed your own. Progress was on the march and the middle class thriving. Today, after 70 plus years of class warfare, what would most Americans say about their progress pursuing life?
Perhaps none of the rights listed by Jefferson is more under threat than our right to liberty. Since World War II, there has been a war against liberty...a war conducted by the moneyed interests, the powerful and the corporatists against everyone else. Whether it was the McCarthy witch-hunts and loyalty oaths, blacklists and faux patriotism, interning American citizens in concentration camps, or an FBI and CIA running amok among average citizens, your liberty was curtailed. The government ran COINTELPRO, a counterintelligence program, aimed at our own people. In San Francisco, the FBI produced a coloring book, which attacked the police, and then passed it off as originating with the Black Panthers to crush a children's breakfast program the Panthers were running for poor people in the Fillmore. The CIA infiltrated peace groups and instigated violence. Even though the Church Commission exposed the out of control nature of the nation's law enforcement and intelligence services, no one could have envisioned how much worse things would get after September 11, 2001. With the passage of the Patriot Act, illegal electronic data mining, wiretaps on email, cell phones and internet activity, national security letters, and expanded FBI powers to come into your home, bug your computer, subpoena your library records all without your knowledge, the 4th amendment has ceased to exist. The first amendment is under siege, the 5th amendment has become window dressing and no nation except for China has more of its citizens behind bars. Cell phones are now designed to track your every move and insurance companies want to bug your car. Along with On-Star like systems, there is nowhere in the nation you can travel in privacy. There is more and more pressure to create a national ID card and laws in Georgia, Arizona and Alabama will require all residents to carry "papers" to prove their citizenship. Can you imagine Jefferson's take on all of this?
Your creator endowed you with the right to pursue happiness. Can we arrive at a definition of what it means to be happy these days? In 235 years, what is the American definition of achieving happiness? In your pursuit of a right given to you by your creator, and so precious it cannot be taken away from you according to Jefferson, do you have the right or can you have the expectation of a roof over your head, food on your table and clothes on your back? (No, sorry that's socialism) In pursuing happiness, should you be able to gather together with fellow workers to petition for a safe workplace, just salary and equal rights for all workers? (The answer is no in Wisconsin and other states where regressives want to end the right to collective bargaining) Can you pursue happiness if constantly worried about an illness, which could bankrupt and destroy your family's economic health? Is a good education a piece of the happiness puzzle? As schools for the middle class and poor fail, (they don't fail in Saratoga, Cupertino, Palo Alto, Ross or Moraga), as college gets more and more expensive, as community colleges turn students away, what are working Americans supposed to do? The corporate media has spent billions over the last 60 years to convince us happiness is best pursued consuming and buying. (2/3 of our economy depends on you spending money you don't have) We will be happy if we have the latest flat screen TV, Smartphone or iPad. We will experience ecstasy if we wear the latest fashions and keep hot pockets in the freezer.
I am a flawed and sinful man. I fell for many of the siren songs of consumerism, egotism and selfishness, which are sold to us daily. I am a cautionary tale to be avoided at all costs. I am not unique, just slower on the uptake than most. However, when studies about happiness and liberty and quality of life are conducted by reputable firms, the United States is never first. It's not even in the top ten. Why? I was once asked by Sean Hannity if America is the greatest country in the world. I responded "for whom?" This comment got me a mention in his first book as an example of a liberal who hates his nation. It really is true; patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. (I wish I could remember who coined that) Real patriotism means you love your country enough to fight for its best notions.
So, on this fourth of July I want to celebrate a nation which enables all its citizens to have a life...a long life, with potential and possibilities...which inspires and enriches...is free of fear and whose only limits are self imposed. 235 years later, I want to live in a country whose citizens won't trade personal liberty for the illusion of security. Liberty should be the third rail of politics, not social security. We should be safe in our person and papers. A politician who won't defend our personal liberty, who is easily stampeded by peer pressure and media hysteria, should hold no office. It's time to stop being afraid of whatever current boogey man the government and media thrust upon us. Nothing can harm you more than waking up one day wondering what happened to the liberties Jefferson envisioned and the Constitution enshrined. Finally, I want to celebrate a nation which defines a happy life as one free from the fear of homelessness, hunger, persecution and materialism and instead encourages pursuing loving relationships, a rising tide lifting all boats, an admission it is in loving and caring for others we receive love and care for ourselves. I want to live in a nation where my children can seek their dreams and achieve more than I ever thought was possible.
As you grill the hot dogs and burgers, smoke the ribs, eat peach cobbler or chocolate cake, I want you to take a moment to remember what Jefferson wrote, what Lincoln fought to preserve, what Roosevelt envisioned in his New Deal and what Obama's election represented and please find a way to fight for it, agitate about it and demand its promise be fulfilled for all Americans...one nation with liberty and justice for all.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA......
Baseball, apple pie and Chevrolet's aside, 235 years after its founding, how well is this experiment in republican democracy working? (No, don't freak, I am not saying the Republicans founded the nation or they bear any resemblance to the founding fathers...ok maybe some emerged from John Calhoun’s loins, but that is grist for another mill.) We have a representative form of government designed to make the will of the people the law of the land. Really?
According to Thomas Jefferson, our creator, (note no reference to God with a capital "G") endowed us with certain rights. We are given the right to life. (That cheering you hear is from regressives saying we finally got him...he is now in favor of a right to life). For some Americans, life is getting longer, but for others, particularly people of color, the working poor and those at the bottom of the economic ladder, their lives are stagnant and any gains incidental. It turns out for many so-called "patriots", you have a right to be born but afterwards you are on your own. In almost any metric of childhood nurturing, the United States lags close to last among the industrialized nations of the world. From infant mortality to low birth-weight babies, to pre-natal care and nutrition, we are not exactly leading the pack. If by some unfortunate quirk of fate, you live in Texas, most of the South, or any state controlled by regressives, your right to a life of potential and fullness is in jeopardy. For the second half of the 20th century, you had a chance to live a life with better economic potential than your parents and the belief your children's quality of life could exceed your own. Progress was on the march and the middle class thriving. Today, after 70 plus years of class warfare, what would most Americans say about their progress pursuing life?
Perhaps none of the rights listed by Jefferson is more under threat than our right to liberty. Since World War II, there has been a war against liberty...a war conducted by the moneyed interests, the powerful and the corporatists against everyone else. Whether it was the McCarthy witch-hunts and loyalty oaths, blacklists and faux patriotism, interning American citizens in concentration camps, or an FBI and CIA running amok among average citizens, your liberty was curtailed. The government ran COINTELPRO, a counterintelligence program, aimed at our own people. In San Francisco, the FBI produced a coloring book, which attacked the police, and then passed it off as originating with the Black Panthers to crush a children's breakfast program the Panthers were running for poor people in the Fillmore. The CIA infiltrated peace groups and instigated violence. Even though the Church Commission exposed the out of control nature of the nation's law enforcement and intelligence services, no one could have envisioned how much worse things would get after September 11, 2001. With the passage of the Patriot Act, illegal electronic data mining, wiretaps on email, cell phones and internet activity, national security letters, and expanded FBI powers to come into your home, bug your computer, subpoena your library records all without your knowledge, the 4th amendment has ceased to exist. The first amendment is under siege, the 5th amendment has become window dressing and no nation except for China has more of its citizens behind bars. Cell phones are now designed to track your every move and insurance companies want to bug your car. Along with On-Star like systems, there is nowhere in the nation you can travel in privacy. There is more and more pressure to create a national ID card and laws in Georgia, Arizona and Alabama will require all residents to carry "papers" to prove their citizenship. Can you imagine Jefferson's take on all of this?
Your creator endowed you with the right to pursue happiness. Can we arrive at a definition of what it means to be happy these days? In 235 years, what is the American definition of achieving happiness? In your pursuit of a right given to you by your creator, and so precious it cannot be taken away from you according to Jefferson, do you have the right or can you have the expectation of a roof over your head, food on your table and clothes on your back? (No, sorry that's socialism) In pursuing happiness, should you be able to gather together with fellow workers to petition for a safe workplace, just salary and equal rights for all workers? (The answer is no in Wisconsin and other states where regressives want to end the right to collective bargaining) Can you pursue happiness if constantly worried about an illness, which could bankrupt and destroy your family's economic health? Is a good education a piece of the happiness puzzle? As schools for the middle class and poor fail, (they don't fail in Saratoga, Cupertino, Palo Alto, Ross or Moraga), as college gets more and more expensive, as community colleges turn students away, what are working Americans supposed to do? The corporate media has spent billions over the last 60 years to convince us happiness is best pursued consuming and buying. (2/3 of our economy depends on you spending money you don't have) We will be happy if we have the latest flat screen TV, Smartphone or iPad. We will experience ecstasy if we wear the latest fashions and keep hot pockets in the freezer.
I am a flawed and sinful man. I fell for many of the siren songs of consumerism, egotism and selfishness, which are sold to us daily. I am a cautionary tale to be avoided at all costs. I am not unique, just slower on the uptake than most. However, when studies about happiness and liberty and quality of life are conducted by reputable firms, the United States is never first. It's not even in the top ten. Why? I was once asked by Sean Hannity if America is the greatest country in the world. I responded "for whom?" This comment got me a mention in his first book as an example of a liberal who hates his nation. It really is true; patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. (I wish I could remember who coined that) Real patriotism means you love your country enough to fight for its best notions.
So, on this fourth of July I want to celebrate a nation which enables all its citizens to have a life...a long life, with potential and possibilities...which inspires and enriches...is free of fear and whose only limits are self imposed. 235 years later, I want to live in a country whose citizens won't trade personal liberty for the illusion of security. Liberty should be the third rail of politics, not social security. We should be safe in our person and papers. A politician who won't defend our personal liberty, who is easily stampeded by peer pressure and media hysteria, should hold no office. It's time to stop being afraid of whatever current boogey man the government and media thrust upon us. Nothing can harm you more than waking up one day wondering what happened to the liberties Jefferson envisioned and the Constitution enshrined. Finally, I want to celebrate a nation which defines a happy life as one free from the fear of homelessness, hunger, persecution and materialism and instead encourages pursuing loving relationships, a rising tide lifting all boats, an admission it is in loving and caring for others we receive love and care for ourselves. I want to live in a nation where my children can seek their dreams and achieve more than I ever thought was possible.
As you grill the hot dogs and burgers, smoke the ribs, eat peach cobbler or chocolate cake, I want you to take a moment to remember what Jefferson wrote, what Lincoln fought to preserve, what Roosevelt envisioned in his New Deal and what Obama's election represented and please find a way to fight for it, agitate about it and demand its promise be fulfilled for all Americans...one nation with liberty and justice for all.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA......
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
AFPAK
By the end of the year, 10,000 American soldiers will be brought home from Afghanistan and 90,000 will remain until at least 2012 and possibly until 2014. President Obama is trying to have it both ways and he cannot. His generals tell him not to withdraw troops quickly because we could lose gains we have made on the ground. Politically, the American people, by a majority of 57%, want it over now and all the troops brought home. He is running for re-election so he is trying to split the baby down the middle and billions will be spent and lives lost in the meantime and, at the end of the day, Afghanistan will still be a broken country unable to control its own fate.
The generals tell Obama to leave as many troops as possible for two more fighting seasons. They point to progress in driving the Taliban out of southern Afghanistan, killing their leaders, and restoring some normalcy to the area. The problem is the Taliban are native to Afghanistan. They wont go away. As long as they can retreat into Pakistan, they live to fight another day. They are being encouraged to join the political process, but there is no indication they will. Even more troubling is Pakistan doesn't want them to negotiate. The last time it was revealed some Taliban leaders were engaging in secret peace talks, the Pakistani intelligence service arrested a number of them. The message was clear. Pakistan sees the Taliban as their surrogate in the fight to keep India from gaining influence in Afghanistan. Pakistan is not interested in peace if India gains because of it. The real war has always been in Pakistan not Afghanistan and American troops don't effect that equation in any real way.
What the generals also fail to mention, is the corruption of the Karzai government negates any military gains on the ground. There is no government to turn over control of the nation to and without popular support, military gains are meaningless. Karzai's's brother is still a major drug dealer in southern Afghanistan. Karzai's's relatives looted Afghanistan's central bank. Just this week it was announced the head regulator of the bank had fled to the United States for asylum out of fear for his life because his investigation showed higher ups in the Karzai administration were involved in hundreds of millions of dollars in bogus loans. He had to get out of dodge or be killed by the people in charge. The same people we will say will run the country after we leave. Karzai stole the last presidential election and is so despised, many opponents of the Taliban joined with them driven to an alliance by the criminal enterprise which is the Afghan government. No matter what our troops accomplish, they have to hand the nation to Karzai and he can't hold it together. (The parallels to Viet Nam are striking here.) Without a solid central government, supported by the people, the military gains are all an illusion which will disappear the moment we leave whenever that is accomplished.
Politically, the President may get away with kicking this problem down the road for the time being. Some of his Republican opponents cover themselves in hypocrisy as they attack him for not bringing the troops home sooner. These are the same members of Congress who had no trouble abandoning the Afghan effort so George Bush could invade Iraq. These are the same feckless wonders that refused to raise taxes to pay for two wars and supported the increase in troops in Iraq. Now these chicken hawks have become deficit hawks squealing about cost as a reason to end our involvement in Afghanistan. (By the way, this is the same Iraq currently engaged in talks with Iran increasing Iran's influence in the area as the U.S. withdraws and Afghanistan and Pakistan are also meeting with Iran and talking about future alliances. We go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran wins. Well done, President Bush.) With the Republicans in disarray about Afghanistan and Libya, the will find it difficult to use either as on issue against Obama in 2012. However, the lack of political courage on the President's part is not attractive.
It is time to bring the troops home. The generals are wrong. The military gains they sight are fool's gold. With little popular support, the Karzai government cannot take advantage of the Taliban's defeats. Pakistan doesn't want peace and certainly doesn't want to see a strong democracy in Afghanistan. A democratic Afghanistan would naturally gravitate toward alliances with the strongest economic power in the region...India. Pakistan has nothing to offer the people of Afghanistan. India can offer economic aid, trade, and an improved life. Pakistan knows this and they will advise the Taliban to wait us out. The extra years, and extra loss of blood and treasure, will be wasted in the end. With the death of Osama Bin Laden, it is time to declare victory and come home. Unfortunately, President Obama is unwilling to take this step for ear of being attacked by the Pentagon and the likes of John McCain during an election year.
If pressed, I wonder how President Obama would answer Cindy Sheehan's iconic question? What cause are American men and women dying for in Afghanistan? Do you think he would have an answer?
The generals tell Obama to leave as many troops as possible for two more fighting seasons. They point to progress in driving the Taliban out of southern Afghanistan, killing their leaders, and restoring some normalcy to the area. The problem is the Taliban are native to Afghanistan. They wont go away. As long as they can retreat into Pakistan, they live to fight another day. They are being encouraged to join the political process, but there is no indication they will. Even more troubling is Pakistan doesn't want them to negotiate. The last time it was revealed some Taliban leaders were engaging in secret peace talks, the Pakistani intelligence service arrested a number of them. The message was clear. Pakistan sees the Taliban as their surrogate in the fight to keep India from gaining influence in Afghanistan. Pakistan is not interested in peace if India gains because of it. The real war has always been in Pakistan not Afghanistan and American troops don't effect that equation in any real way.
What the generals also fail to mention, is the corruption of the Karzai government negates any military gains on the ground. There is no government to turn over control of the nation to and without popular support, military gains are meaningless. Karzai's's brother is still a major drug dealer in southern Afghanistan. Karzai's's relatives looted Afghanistan's central bank. Just this week it was announced the head regulator of the bank had fled to the United States for asylum out of fear for his life because his investigation showed higher ups in the Karzai administration were involved in hundreds of millions of dollars in bogus loans. He had to get out of dodge or be killed by the people in charge. The same people we will say will run the country after we leave. Karzai stole the last presidential election and is so despised, many opponents of the Taliban joined with them driven to an alliance by the criminal enterprise which is the Afghan government. No matter what our troops accomplish, they have to hand the nation to Karzai and he can't hold it together. (The parallels to Viet Nam are striking here.) Without a solid central government, supported by the people, the military gains are all an illusion which will disappear the moment we leave whenever that is accomplished.
Politically, the President may get away with kicking this problem down the road for the time being. Some of his Republican opponents cover themselves in hypocrisy as they attack him for not bringing the troops home sooner. These are the same members of Congress who had no trouble abandoning the Afghan effort so George Bush could invade Iraq. These are the same feckless wonders that refused to raise taxes to pay for two wars and supported the increase in troops in Iraq. Now these chicken hawks have become deficit hawks squealing about cost as a reason to end our involvement in Afghanistan. (By the way, this is the same Iraq currently engaged in talks with Iran increasing Iran's influence in the area as the U.S. withdraws and Afghanistan and Pakistan are also meeting with Iran and talking about future alliances. We go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran wins. Well done, President Bush.) With the Republicans in disarray about Afghanistan and Libya, the will find it difficult to use either as on issue against Obama in 2012. However, the lack of political courage on the President's part is not attractive.
It is time to bring the troops home. The generals are wrong. The military gains they sight are fool's gold. With little popular support, the Karzai government cannot take advantage of the Taliban's defeats. Pakistan doesn't want peace and certainly doesn't want to see a strong democracy in Afghanistan. A democratic Afghanistan would naturally gravitate toward alliances with the strongest economic power in the region...India. Pakistan has nothing to offer the people of Afghanistan. India can offer economic aid, trade, and an improved life. Pakistan knows this and they will advise the Taliban to wait us out. The extra years, and extra loss of blood and treasure, will be wasted in the end. With the death of Osama Bin Laden, it is time to declare victory and come home. Unfortunately, President Obama is unwilling to take this step for ear of being attacked by the Pentagon and the likes of John McCain during an election year.
If pressed, I wonder how President Obama would answer Cindy Sheehan's iconic question? What cause are American men and women dying for in Afghanistan? Do you think he would have an answer?
The Wayback Machine...(An Homage to Mr. Peabody)
Eight of them stood on stage in the hope of being their party's nominee for president. For more than an hour they attacked President Obama's failures, especially his inability to re-kindle a vibrant economy and add jobs to a bleak employment scene. The punditocracy fell in love with Rep. Michele Bachman and made note of the fact no one on the stage offered counterproposals to the Obama strategy. The analysis was self-serving, in the case of Bachman (remember the corporate media need a horserace with controversy to make money), and wrong in their summary of the candidates positions.
Every person on the stage that night in New Hampshire proposed to "roll back", "eliminate", "end", "repeal", and otherwise stop government regulation of everything. It was a consistent mantra from the extreme regressive side, (Bachman, Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, Cain) to the less regressive side, (Romney and Pawlenty). The root of all problems in this nation is government regulation according to the future standard bearers of this major political party. (A recent survey criticized American students for their lack of knowledge of American history. Given what occurred on that stage, America's students have an overabundance of role models to choose among.)
We turn on the "Wayback Machine" to see what we can discover. In the 1930's, President Roosevelt established a series of firewalls between Wall Street and Main Street. He created the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Comptroller of the Currency and the Glass-Steagle Act separating commercial banking from the speculative operations we have become so familiar with. From 1940 on, regressives slowly chipped away at all of this regulation culminating in the repeal of Glass-Steagle in 1999. The result allowed banks to take depositors savings and speculate and gamble with them. The SEC had been neutered by the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington. The Fed was run by a Republican appointee, Alan Greenspan, who loved the anarchist Ayn Rand and did not have a problem with the Bush Administration cutting trillions in taxes while spending billions on military adventure. He hated regulation and he left Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros., J.P. Morgan et. al. to their own devices. You know how this all turns out.
President Bush pushed a $750 billion bailout of Wall Street (with no oversight as to how the money was spent so these same banks didn't have to lend it to main street). President Obama passed an $800 billion stimulus package, which was too small; but which put the banks all back on their feet. We are reaping the whirlwind of the rolling back of federal regulations and we continue to suffer for years to come.
The Wayback Machine is working to perfection and now we can watch President Reagan de-regulating the savings and loan industry. Ah, I remember how that worked out. Taxpayers spent over $500 million to bail them out too. (Do you remember the Bush involvement in Silverado Savings and Loan?)
It is impossible to find a single example of de-regulation where the average gum-chewing consumer has benefitted. The opposite is usually the case. President Clinton de-regulated radio and television in 1996. Over 50,000 jobs were lost. The regressive onslaught of talk radio would never have happened without de-regulation. Limbaugh, Hannity, the Weiner would all be local radio hosts none of whom would be number one in almost any major market. Their competition was eliminated not defeated. California de-regulated energy. The resulting rolling blackouts, loss of billions of dollars and electricity bills ranging from $200-$1000 a month were common and we are still paying the highest rates for electricity in the nation many years later. Lack of regulation has made our food less safe and allowed drug companies to test and monitor drugs which killed people who used them. There is no reason to beat a dead horse, you probably could come up with numerous other examples including how well P.G.& E. was regulated concerning its thousands of miles of gas pipelines.
Capitalism is a simple system. The capitalist wants to invest his or her money and receive a profit in return. Anything which reduces that profit is anathema. Therefore, true free market capitalists long for the Gilded Age. It was the time around 1890-1910, when the federal government was weak, corporate America ruled, the gap between the rich and poor was enormous, the middle class small, no income tax existed and regulations were a communist or socialist plot. The capitalist class opposed unions, minimum wages, collective bargaining and anything which raised their labor costs. They fought any attempt to make the workplace safe and made sure they could dump a cocktail of toxic sludge into any available river or stream. The U. S. Chamber of Commerce, the most evil organization in America today, fought against child labor laws and laws expanding job opportunities. They and their cronies were not called robber barons for nothing. More recently they waged an epic battle to prevent regulators from making autos safer, food safer, drugs safer and to protect the status quo as much as possible.
The true capitalist pines for a product that requires no employees and returns pure profit. Regulations are obstacles to overcome or subvert. Look at how the Bush administration put representatives, of the very industries being regulated, in charge of the regulatory agencies. Watch as the chamber and its allies attempt to weaken regulations governing the financial services industry. Corporate America will always fight any attempt to force it to pay better wages, under safer conditions, without ruining the land. (Have you seen what mountain-top coal mining does to an area?) After the gathering in New Hampshire, it appears they have won at least half the battle. What I don't understand is why Americans would go along with such dreams.
The middle class of this nation exists as a result of actions taken by the government over the last 100 years. Whether it was the right to organize workers, demand better wages, have access to higher education, use an interstate transit system which dramatically reduced the cost of moving product to market or research funded by government grants, the end result was the rise of a robust and solid middle class. Today, as the gap between the rich and poor widens and the middle class shrinks, and there is a direct relation to the weakening and elimination of regulations and laws that forced the capitalists to share more of their profit with average Americans. Yet, those 8 people on that stage in New Hampshire think they can be elected president by asking working Americans to cut their own throats, and past experience says they might be right.
I don't claim to understand how middle class Americans can vote for a party whose most recent leader reminded his supporters how he represents,"...the haves and the have-mores." How do you vote against you own enlightened self-interest? The 8 people on that stage believe you will do precisely that and have to hope you do not have access to a Wayback Machine so you can see what this country was like and will be again if they have their way.
Every person on the stage that night in New Hampshire proposed to "roll back", "eliminate", "end", "repeal", and otherwise stop government regulation of everything. It was a consistent mantra from the extreme regressive side, (Bachman, Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, Cain) to the less regressive side, (Romney and Pawlenty). The root of all problems in this nation is government regulation according to the future standard bearers of this major political party. (A recent survey criticized American students for their lack of knowledge of American history. Given what occurred on that stage, America's students have an overabundance of role models to choose among.)
We turn on the "Wayback Machine" to see what we can discover. In the 1930's, President Roosevelt established a series of firewalls between Wall Street and Main Street. He created the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Comptroller of the Currency and the Glass-Steagle Act separating commercial banking from the speculative operations we have become so familiar with. From 1940 on, regressives slowly chipped away at all of this regulation culminating in the repeal of Glass-Steagle in 1999. The result allowed banks to take depositors savings and speculate and gamble with them. The SEC had been neutered by the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington. The Fed was run by a Republican appointee, Alan Greenspan, who loved the anarchist Ayn Rand and did not have a problem with the Bush Administration cutting trillions in taxes while spending billions on military adventure. He hated regulation and he left Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros., J.P. Morgan et. al. to their own devices. You know how this all turns out.
President Bush pushed a $750 billion bailout of Wall Street (with no oversight as to how the money was spent so these same banks didn't have to lend it to main street). President Obama passed an $800 billion stimulus package, which was too small; but which put the banks all back on their feet. We are reaping the whirlwind of the rolling back of federal regulations and we continue to suffer for years to come.
The Wayback Machine is working to perfection and now we can watch President Reagan de-regulating the savings and loan industry. Ah, I remember how that worked out. Taxpayers spent over $500 million to bail them out too. (Do you remember the Bush involvement in Silverado Savings and Loan?)
It is impossible to find a single example of de-regulation where the average gum-chewing consumer has benefitted. The opposite is usually the case. President Clinton de-regulated radio and television in 1996. Over 50,000 jobs were lost. The regressive onslaught of talk radio would never have happened without de-regulation. Limbaugh, Hannity, the Weiner would all be local radio hosts none of whom would be number one in almost any major market. Their competition was eliminated not defeated. California de-regulated energy. The resulting rolling blackouts, loss of billions of dollars and electricity bills ranging from $200-$1000 a month were common and we are still paying the highest rates for electricity in the nation many years later. Lack of regulation has made our food less safe and allowed drug companies to test and monitor drugs which killed people who used them. There is no reason to beat a dead horse, you probably could come up with numerous other examples including how well P.G.& E. was regulated concerning its thousands of miles of gas pipelines.
Capitalism is a simple system. The capitalist wants to invest his or her money and receive a profit in return. Anything which reduces that profit is anathema. Therefore, true free market capitalists long for the Gilded Age. It was the time around 1890-1910, when the federal government was weak, corporate America ruled, the gap between the rich and poor was enormous, the middle class small, no income tax existed and regulations were a communist or socialist plot. The capitalist class opposed unions, minimum wages, collective bargaining and anything which raised their labor costs. They fought any attempt to make the workplace safe and made sure they could dump a cocktail of toxic sludge into any available river or stream. The U. S. Chamber of Commerce, the most evil organization in America today, fought against child labor laws and laws expanding job opportunities. They and their cronies were not called robber barons for nothing. More recently they waged an epic battle to prevent regulators from making autos safer, food safer, drugs safer and to protect the status quo as much as possible.
The true capitalist pines for a product that requires no employees and returns pure profit. Regulations are obstacles to overcome or subvert. Look at how the Bush administration put representatives, of the very industries being regulated, in charge of the regulatory agencies. Watch as the chamber and its allies attempt to weaken regulations governing the financial services industry. Corporate America will always fight any attempt to force it to pay better wages, under safer conditions, without ruining the land. (Have you seen what mountain-top coal mining does to an area?) After the gathering in New Hampshire, it appears they have won at least half the battle. What I don't understand is why Americans would go along with such dreams.
The middle class of this nation exists as a result of actions taken by the government over the last 100 years. Whether it was the right to organize workers, demand better wages, have access to higher education, use an interstate transit system which dramatically reduced the cost of moving product to market or research funded by government grants, the end result was the rise of a robust and solid middle class. Today, as the gap between the rich and poor widens and the middle class shrinks, and there is a direct relation to the weakening and elimination of regulations and laws that forced the capitalists to share more of their profit with average Americans. Yet, those 8 people on that stage in New Hampshire think they can be elected president by asking working Americans to cut their own throats, and past experience says they might be right.
I don't claim to understand how middle class Americans can vote for a party whose most recent leader reminded his supporters how he represents,"...the haves and the have-mores." How do you vote against you own enlightened self-interest? The 8 people on that stage believe you will do precisely that and have to hope you do not have access to a Wayback Machine so you can see what this country was like and will be again if they have their way.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
THINGS THAT GO BUMP IN THE NIGHT...
It is not lost on me; my rising to anyone's defense, particularly a Democratic progressive, on a sex-related issue could be the kiss of death. It is like Bernie Madoff recommending a financial advisor. Still, I could not let the firestorm over the actions of Congressman Anthony Weiner pass without comment. The reaction to Weiner is disproportionate and reflects a disquiet or fear that is pervasive in our culture.
According to published reports, Congressman Weiner sent pictures of himself to women online in various stages of undress and arousal. We also know he flirted and engaged in sexually themed text messages. We know most of this activity took place while he was single, but some after he recently married. The women involved were all adults. It is safe to assume some of them sent Weiner pictures and engaged in sexy repartee with him in return. Weiner never physically met any of these women. These were all virtual exchanges.
The Republicans have naturally called on Weiner to resign as have most Democrats including the President. The Republicans are just hypocrites. The Democrats are craven. They are mad at Weiner for stepping all over their attacks on Republicans for the disastrous Ryan plan to end Medicare as we know it. Weiner has taken them off message and for this he must go. The same Democrats who defended Bill Clinton, whose transgressions were real not virtual, are screaming for Weiner's scalp. It is not a chapter for profiles in courage.
Weiner should not resign. He should finish out his term and stand for re-election. If his constituents are disgusted with him, they can then turn him out. There is a bigger picture here which is much more interesting. For 2 weeks, there has been a media frenzy. (thus the Democrats anger at Weiner) You couldn't turn on the news without hearing about this scandal. Ask yourself what go more coverage, Weiner or the massacres happening in Syria right now? What dominated the news cycle...Weiner's sexting and tons of Weiner jokes or the fact millions of Americans are out of work, losing their homes and the economy might double dip, China is near war over the South China Sea, the nation faces possible default if the debt ceiling is not raised and speculators have driven the price of oil into the stratosphere? Now ask yourselves why this is happening?
Weiner did nothing illegal and if you want to pick nits about him being married during this activity, isn't that between him and his wife? I seem to remember a series of stories from the L.A, Times about Arnold Schwarzenegger. He was accused by at least 6 women of grabbing them, pinching them, touching their genitals and overall predatory school-boy, locker room behavior. His wife countered the stories did not show what a good father and husband he was and came to his defense. Many of you voted for him. Weiner's actions pale in comparison, yet the Times was attacked for publishing the stories...for trying to influence an election. for printing salacious rumors and innuendo and the media coverage was brief and didn't even make it to the tabloids. The calls for him not to run were few and far between. Why?
I don’t know how congressional Republicans look at themselves in the mirror. Recently, Newt Gingrich stood on a stage in New Hampshire running for President. This is a man who dumped his first wife while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. He dumped his second wife while having an affair with wife number 3 all while leading the attempt to impeach President Clinton for immoral actions. Really? Weiner's behavior is worse than that? Sen. John Ensign of Nevada had an affair with a member of his staff, bought off her husband, broke federal law and did not resign nor did the Republican leadership call for him to do so in any forceful way. He stepped down only because the Senate Ethics Committee was about to refer his case to the Justice Department. Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana has been re-elected despite paying for high priced hookers and despite being poster boy for hypocrite of 2008. He is anti gay marriage, pro birth, regressive evangelical Christian who wears his family values on his sleeve, wants new laws to make divorce more difficult and yet broke the law and engaged in prostitution, actions which were barely mentioned in the media and on the campaign trail. It is not a cliché to say the list is endless.
We live in a culture where everything has been sexualized and we are not comfortable with the freedom associated with this evolution. Catholic University just announced it is returning to single sex dorms because the coed dorms led to too much "hooking up". Their next step will be chastity belts. In some ways, the more open and tolerant we are, the more Puritan some people become. Someone has to stand up and say that the emperor has no clothes and acknowledge something is amiss in our society and it scares the hell out of us.
I can tell you for a fact, millions of Americans go online every night and pretend to be someone else, or assume different personalities and engage in every fantasy, fetish, and fabrication known to man. There is an illusion of anonymity, which creates the sense you can say or do anything because no one will ever find out and it’s all virtual or make believe anyway. You will never meet the person at the other end. Ironically, Weiner wasn't acting anonymously. The women he engaged asked to follow him via his Twitter account. He was more transparent than 90% of all other denizens of the cyber world.
Before he was married, Weiner doesn't have anything to apologize for and since he was married, he and his wife have to figure this whole issue out between them. One piece of advice to him and everyone: If what you are doing online you wouldn't do with someone looking over your shoulder, it has the potential to come back and bite you in the butt.
Weiner says he is taking a leave of absence for "treatment". What on earth is he going to get treatment about? He isn't a serial philanderer like Tiger Woods. He didn't do anything illegal. He showed terrible judgment and he lied about what he had done. He was embarrassed when his activities were discovered. So, is this the new standard now? Anyone who makes these mistakes must resign? Would there be anyone left in Washington or any marriages or relationships left to defend under this new code of ethics?
Maybe this is all a symptom of a fear gripping some Americans. Sex is everywhere. Traditional cultural milestones are going the way of the dodo. Marriage is losing popularity and if people choose to get married, divorce is seen as a convenient way out. People are choosing virtual fantasy and sex over the real thing. The Internet is this black hole of temptation and opportunity where people can put on any identity, be a physical Adonis or Venus, engage in any experiment, communicate anonymously without any attendant commitment or attachment. We seem to be so frightened of what we know is going on...so intimidated by the freedom this represents in millions of homes every day, we think righteous indignation and outrage will somehow bring it under control before the next generation succumbs.
Could it be Weiner is the collective symbol of our own hearts of darkness? (There, but for the grace of God go I.) Perhaps if the powers that be come down hard on the Weiners of the world, the genie can be put back in the bottle. Maybe we wonder what would happen if our darker selves and our less-than-angelic behavior were to surface? Is attacking Weiner the equivalent of a cry to "Stop us before we do this again?"
Funny isn't it? That's what the Puritans thought when they burned witches, banned books, pinned on scarlet letters and tried to control people's private thoughts and deeds. How did that work out?
According to published reports, Congressman Weiner sent pictures of himself to women online in various stages of undress and arousal. We also know he flirted and engaged in sexually themed text messages. We know most of this activity took place while he was single, but some after he recently married. The women involved were all adults. It is safe to assume some of them sent Weiner pictures and engaged in sexy repartee with him in return. Weiner never physically met any of these women. These were all virtual exchanges.
The Republicans have naturally called on Weiner to resign as have most Democrats including the President. The Republicans are just hypocrites. The Democrats are craven. They are mad at Weiner for stepping all over their attacks on Republicans for the disastrous Ryan plan to end Medicare as we know it. Weiner has taken them off message and for this he must go. The same Democrats who defended Bill Clinton, whose transgressions were real not virtual, are screaming for Weiner's scalp. It is not a chapter for profiles in courage.
Weiner should not resign. He should finish out his term and stand for re-election. If his constituents are disgusted with him, they can then turn him out. There is a bigger picture here which is much more interesting. For 2 weeks, there has been a media frenzy. (thus the Democrats anger at Weiner) You couldn't turn on the news without hearing about this scandal. Ask yourself what go more coverage, Weiner or the massacres happening in Syria right now? What dominated the news cycle...Weiner's sexting and tons of Weiner jokes or the fact millions of Americans are out of work, losing their homes and the economy might double dip, China is near war over the South China Sea, the nation faces possible default if the debt ceiling is not raised and speculators have driven the price of oil into the stratosphere? Now ask yourselves why this is happening?
Weiner did nothing illegal and if you want to pick nits about him being married during this activity, isn't that between him and his wife? I seem to remember a series of stories from the L.A, Times about Arnold Schwarzenegger. He was accused by at least 6 women of grabbing them, pinching them, touching their genitals and overall predatory school-boy, locker room behavior. His wife countered the stories did not show what a good father and husband he was and came to his defense. Many of you voted for him. Weiner's actions pale in comparison, yet the Times was attacked for publishing the stories...for trying to influence an election. for printing salacious rumors and innuendo and the media coverage was brief and didn't even make it to the tabloids. The calls for him not to run were few and far between. Why?
I don’t know how congressional Republicans look at themselves in the mirror. Recently, Newt Gingrich stood on a stage in New Hampshire running for President. This is a man who dumped his first wife while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. He dumped his second wife while having an affair with wife number 3 all while leading the attempt to impeach President Clinton for immoral actions. Really? Weiner's behavior is worse than that? Sen. John Ensign of Nevada had an affair with a member of his staff, bought off her husband, broke federal law and did not resign nor did the Republican leadership call for him to do so in any forceful way. He stepped down only because the Senate Ethics Committee was about to refer his case to the Justice Department. Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana has been re-elected despite paying for high priced hookers and despite being poster boy for hypocrite of 2008. He is anti gay marriage, pro birth, regressive evangelical Christian who wears his family values on his sleeve, wants new laws to make divorce more difficult and yet broke the law and engaged in prostitution, actions which were barely mentioned in the media and on the campaign trail. It is not a cliché to say the list is endless.
We live in a culture where everything has been sexualized and we are not comfortable with the freedom associated with this evolution. Catholic University just announced it is returning to single sex dorms because the coed dorms led to too much "hooking up". Their next step will be chastity belts. In some ways, the more open and tolerant we are, the more Puritan some people become. Someone has to stand up and say that the emperor has no clothes and acknowledge something is amiss in our society and it scares the hell out of us.
I can tell you for a fact, millions of Americans go online every night and pretend to be someone else, or assume different personalities and engage in every fantasy, fetish, and fabrication known to man. There is an illusion of anonymity, which creates the sense you can say or do anything because no one will ever find out and it’s all virtual or make believe anyway. You will never meet the person at the other end. Ironically, Weiner wasn't acting anonymously. The women he engaged asked to follow him via his Twitter account. He was more transparent than 90% of all other denizens of the cyber world.
Before he was married, Weiner doesn't have anything to apologize for and since he was married, he and his wife have to figure this whole issue out between them. One piece of advice to him and everyone: If what you are doing online you wouldn't do with someone looking over your shoulder, it has the potential to come back and bite you in the butt.
Weiner says he is taking a leave of absence for "treatment". What on earth is he going to get treatment about? He isn't a serial philanderer like Tiger Woods. He didn't do anything illegal. He showed terrible judgment and he lied about what he had done. He was embarrassed when his activities were discovered. So, is this the new standard now? Anyone who makes these mistakes must resign? Would there be anyone left in Washington or any marriages or relationships left to defend under this new code of ethics?
Maybe this is all a symptom of a fear gripping some Americans. Sex is everywhere. Traditional cultural milestones are going the way of the dodo. Marriage is losing popularity and if people choose to get married, divorce is seen as a convenient way out. People are choosing virtual fantasy and sex over the real thing. The Internet is this black hole of temptation and opportunity where people can put on any identity, be a physical Adonis or Venus, engage in any experiment, communicate anonymously without any attendant commitment or attachment. We seem to be so frightened of what we know is going on...so intimidated by the freedom this represents in millions of homes every day, we think righteous indignation and outrage will somehow bring it under control before the next generation succumbs.
Could it be Weiner is the collective symbol of our own hearts of darkness? (There, but for the grace of God go I.) Perhaps if the powers that be come down hard on the Weiners of the world, the genie can be put back in the bottle. Maybe we wonder what would happen if our darker selves and our less-than-angelic behavior were to surface? Is attacking Weiner the equivalent of a cry to "Stop us before we do this again?"
Funny isn't it? That's what the Puritans thought when they burned witches, banned books, pinned on scarlet letters and tried to control people's private thoughts and deeds. How did that work out?
Monday, June 13, 2011
JEOPARDY 2
Answer: The elites in Washington and the lame-stream media tried to shove their views down the throats of average, God-fearing Americans in order to destroy the right of the citizenry to do whatever they want with their own personal property.
QUESTION: What did Sarah Palin say when asked to explain the Civil War?
Answer: Yes, we did have other leaks and yes, we can't find any records we ever tested the pipes, but it isn't like anyone thought the problem was dangerous.
QUESTION: How did PG&E react to news they had gas pipe leaks in the area near San Bruno and they didn’t tell anyone?
Answer: We demanded longer sentences, refused to build more facilities, provided sub-standard medical and mental health care, and built a system resembling a Soviet gulag...picky, picky, picky.
QUESTION: How did California officials respond to the Supreme Court saying the prison system violates the 8th amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment?
Answer: Paul Ryan is a Democratic party stealth weapon designed to insure the re-election of President Obama by making it look like Republicans want to end Medicare as we know it and throw the elderly to the wolves.
QUESTION: What did the chair of the Republican National Committee say after the GOP lost a special congressional election in upstate New York in a district which has always voted Republican?
Answer: You need a good pair of garden sheers.
QUESTION: What did Hillary Clinton say to Rep. Anthony Weiner's wife when asked for advice about his sexting activities?
Answer: W.W.J.D.
QUESTION: How did the Archbishop of San Francisco respond to voters putting a proposition on the ballot outlawing circumcision?
Answer: It's going very well. I'm here because it's so difficult to deal with the constant demand for autographs and pictures from my devoted fans and followers.
QUESTION: What did Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi say from his underground bunker about how the war is progressing?
Answer: I am a man of humble beginnings, an army brat, who pulled himself up by his bootstraps and I am the perfect person to identify with the struggles and difficulties facing average Americans in this terrible economy (plus my third wife loves bling).
QUESTION: What is Newt Gingrich's new campaign pitch after it was revealed he had a $500,000 tab at Tiffany’s?
Answer: Yes, they are last in health care spending, second to last in education spending, execute more people than any other state, are anti-choice, bring guns to church and don't want Martin Luther King or Caesar Chavez in their history books, but the business community loves them and we could learn a lot from them here in California.
QUESTION: What is the sound of Gavin Newsom selling out by praising the way Texas treats its corporations?
Answer: We brought it on ourselves. Yes, we were greedy, rapacious and didn't care about the consequences. Yes, we played both sides so we made money even if the economy tanked. Yes, we were all too big to fail, and yes, our largest shareholder is now the American taxpayer...Your point is?
QUESTION: What did a spokesman for GMAC say when asked about reports the company is engaging in bait and switch and other illegal tactics to kick Americans out of their homes and have taxpayers pay them to foreclose?
QUESTION: What did Sarah Palin say when asked to explain the Civil War?
Answer: Yes, we did have other leaks and yes, we can't find any records we ever tested the pipes, but it isn't like anyone thought the problem was dangerous.
QUESTION: How did PG&E react to news they had gas pipe leaks in the area near San Bruno and they didn’t tell anyone?
Answer: We demanded longer sentences, refused to build more facilities, provided sub-standard medical and mental health care, and built a system resembling a Soviet gulag...picky, picky, picky.
QUESTION: How did California officials respond to the Supreme Court saying the prison system violates the 8th amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment?
Answer: Paul Ryan is a Democratic party stealth weapon designed to insure the re-election of President Obama by making it look like Republicans want to end Medicare as we know it and throw the elderly to the wolves.
QUESTION: What did the chair of the Republican National Committee say after the GOP lost a special congressional election in upstate New York in a district which has always voted Republican?
Answer: You need a good pair of garden sheers.
QUESTION: What did Hillary Clinton say to Rep. Anthony Weiner's wife when asked for advice about his sexting activities?
Answer: W.W.J.D.
QUESTION: How did the Archbishop of San Francisco respond to voters putting a proposition on the ballot outlawing circumcision?
Answer: It's going very well. I'm here because it's so difficult to deal with the constant demand for autographs and pictures from my devoted fans and followers.
QUESTION: What did Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi say from his underground bunker about how the war is progressing?
Answer: I am a man of humble beginnings, an army brat, who pulled himself up by his bootstraps and I am the perfect person to identify with the struggles and difficulties facing average Americans in this terrible economy (plus my third wife loves bling).
QUESTION: What is Newt Gingrich's new campaign pitch after it was revealed he had a $500,000 tab at Tiffany’s?
Answer: Yes, they are last in health care spending, second to last in education spending, execute more people than any other state, are anti-choice, bring guns to church and don't want Martin Luther King or Caesar Chavez in their history books, but the business community loves them and we could learn a lot from them here in California.
QUESTION: What is the sound of Gavin Newsom selling out by praising the way Texas treats its corporations?
Answer: We brought it on ourselves. Yes, we were greedy, rapacious and didn't care about the consequences. Yes, we played both sides so we made money even if the economy tanked. Yes, we were all too big to fail, and yes, our largest shareholder is now the American taxpayer...Your point is?
QUESTION: What did a spokesman for GMAC say when asked about reports the company is engaging in bait and switch and other illegal tactics to kick Americans out of their homes and have taxpayers pay them to foreclose?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)