Crossing the threshold, at long last

It took some several days to finally come up with a desire to post an item to this blog.  Call it, I am still recovering from a high voltage election cycle fully of fury and drama.  The drama was that Senator Barack H. Obama won the election with 52% of the vote; and also got a blowout of 368 states to presumptively, Senator McCain’s 174.  That is considered landslide material compared to GW in 2004 especially for a little known African-American (bi-racial) Senator.  Let’s also put it bluntly, that Senator Obama managed to feed a cop’s words back to him when he yelled out at the crowd about Barack HUSSEIN Obama and how on November 4^th the voters should leave the Senator in the dust wondering what had happened.  Well, we all know what happened, don’t we?  The Senator is now President elect Obama.  And this country, regardless of its political leanings, managed to move beyond race.  The next time, it may also be able to move beyond sex.

Of course, there are going to be foul mouthed GOP wondering why it was that an unquestionably liberal Senator won over that old white guy who in their world view happened to be a “real” American.  Had these GOP voters paid attention, there were a lot of reasons McCain didn’t win, a lot of it had to do with the economy, GW poisoning the political well for any GOP successors, two wars, and McCain making the sort of bold promises that called for lots and lots of gvt to cure all that failed in this society.  If McCain was going to end up sounding a lot like a Democrat, why not just vote for the honest to the gods Democrat and be done with it?  Post election, from what I heard, the GOP stayed home and the Dems, the moderates and the independents came out in droves.  Blogs that speak truth to power do serve some useful function now don’t they?  And McCain wasn’t honest about where he really stood.  Now no one can say that any politician can ever be fully honest, that Obama himself had his moments, but McCain suffered a lot of campaign dishonesty that came from flip flops, a continual change of position from one day to the next, one week to the next.  An intellectual dishonesty from a dude that was supposed to pride himself on “straight talk.”  But only after the fact did any news source from CNN to Washington Week begin to break down why McCain did not win and discuss it at any length.  While McCain was in the race, he was given quite a free pass.

Given the situation now on the ground, President elect Obama is the much younger man who can likely shoulder the sort of burdens that McCain perhaps can not.  Because he is liberal, he is flexible and a fellow who can listen to what others have to say.  Because he is liberal, he is not going to shy away from utilizing government to be put back on the side of the people.  For the sour grapes eating detractors though who are out there, President elect Obama brings only the worst possible political situation to his new office; yes because he is going to resort to government being the answer for society’s biggest problems.  But who forget, while these detractors are sniping, that they too wanted government as an answer to their own special interests.  After all, look at the gay marriage ban in California.  Or unmarried couples who now can’t adopt kids in Arizona.  An extreme law that anti-abortionists tried to pass in North Dakota to give full legal rights to conceptions—but what if the woman miscarried?  Yes, in all cases, initiatives that called for gvt to do something.  How about that.  Gvt intrusion and social engineering, how about that.  And locally in Kootenai County, taxing initiatives to build a new jail and locally build and repair roads.  We probably did need all of that, but the state of the economy also says, how we also couldn’t afford it.  Yeah, taxes to not only spread the wealth around but conceivably how we would benefit from such an investment.  But, we couldn’t afford to invest because of the economy.

Which brings to mind a letter to the editor published on 8 November 2008 of the Spokesman-Review print edition.  The writer puts in a rant that is most unbelievable as to his accusations, the utter silliness as to his diatribes and finally, his assertion that because we did not vote for big government McCain, now we can cease to call ourselves American.  No, we voted out the big government of GW, who was personally intent on relegating that antique called the U.S. Constitution to the Smithsonian, never mind a congressional convention.  We decided we did not need a fellow who made it quite clear on the campaign trail that he would be more than happy to carry on many of GW’s policies that have essentially cost this country heavily.  And sought to further excuse the greed of business interests that solely on the basis of taxes, were Americans losing their jobs.  Which was never true.  And who would have promised the sort of gvt activism through the U.S. Supreme Court the essential overturning of the first claust of the first amendment as it pertained to the non-establishment of religion:  re abortion.  We can expect that President elect Obama will not satisfy anti-abortion demands for more gvt intrusion and social engineering in the private lives of families.

Now a word of advice for the GOP, if they want back in power, the core principles of conservatism means that if you say you are for limited gvt, then gvt can not be there for religious activists.  Gvt should not satisfy every whim of business lobbyists.  If the U.S. Constitution provides strict guidelines for what Congress can and should not do, then even special interests among business and the religious should bear that in mind, that the Constitution does not allow gvt to do all and be all for their specific agendas.  Even President elect Obama recognized that gvt can’t solve every problem.  So instead of attacking one’s fellow Americans as did the above mentioned letter writer, do this country a favor and consider what conservative should mean.  Literally, if it ain’t broken, don’t plan to fix it.

The Ricci case

Call it the tale of two editorials;  Charles Krauthammer dismisses much of the affirmative action argument that lay behind Justice Sotomayor’s decision in the Ricci firefighter testing program and Courtland Milloy of the Washington Post apparently did some research.

These days, I tend to take much of Krauthammer’s arguments with a grain of salt.  But I do find it down right laughable that he would argue “racial discrimination” to ameliorate racial discrimination:  IE Affirmative Action.  Just in case Mr. Krauthammer forgot, but Affirmative Action as it was originally proposed was to end discrimination against this nation’s minorities; discrimnatory practices that were put into place by the white majority in power.  Since Affirmative Action was put into place, the challenges to it have entirely come from people (white) claiming to be “victims” of Affirmative Action discrimnatory policies.  Ahhhh, you mean, they actually have to compete with racial minorities now?  That education, employment, etc. is no longer an exclusive club for whites only?  Isn’t that so sad.  Well, excuse me, but there are many reasons why I am not now a Harvard graduate as someone who is mostly Caucasian.  But I don’t regard “racial discrimination” as the sole reason why I never attended Harvard.  Call it instead; the lack of money to attend such a prestigious university.  But, after that intentionally off the wall aside; but Caucasians in this society have always had far more opportunities to advance further in this society than minorities.  And it was always their choice to either make good or to be losers instead.  If you are a minority however, you might make good if someone gives you a hand up.  But if someone instead slams the door of opportunity in your face; you are more than likely to not do so at all.

And thus, the Milloy Washington Post column.  The author goes to great lengths to describe the sort of discrimnatory practices that lie behind the tests that apparently minority firefighters couldn’t pass and therefore wanted tossed out.  Discrimnatory tests that on the other hand, Krauthammer declared did not exist owing to the “impartiality” based on race of the various testing boards.  Really?

Remember the tale of the 3 blind men trying to describe an elephant?  One found his way to the elephant’s tale and described that the elephant must be a rope.  The second blind man found one of his legs and disagreed.  The elephant was a tree trunk!  The third blind man found the elephant’s trunk and described it accordingly.  But of course, being blind; it was totally impossible for each blind man to see the entire creature.  We can excuse the blind for not having the capacity to “see” everything.  But can we excuse partisan blindness that refuses to see everything?  There is one thing that I have to applaud Milloy for as to his final thoughtful analysis of the white fire truck and the minority fire truck.  Both that stop at the corner because that is where the fire is.  Both that must work together to put the fire out.

On the other hand; Krauthammer’s concept of “color blindness” is to assure that minorities can’t really compete or whites will simply run and whine to some government authority—mainly SCOTUS—for “unfair treatment.”

You have to wonder if Krauthammer has “come a long way.”

How about listening to Muslims?

Leave it to the GOP such as Charles Krauthammer, Bill Bennett, Senator McCain and etc. to pay absolutely no attention to reality as they use the situation in Iran to look for political attacks on President Obama.  And leave it to “The Daily Show” with Jon Stewart” to come up with the one rebuttal that counts.  Stewart invited onto his show one Reza Aslam(?) who certainly understood the situation in Iran far better than the sour grapes eating GOP did, the moment the U.S. took sides on the Iranian issue, it would become a death sentence for the revolutionary movement.  And when you think about it, the fellow is entirely correct.  A 30 year history in which the U.S. meddled in Iranian affairs not necessarily to the better.  The U.S. also became the perfect foil for dudes such as Khomeni to rail against in his lifetime.  For Ahmedinejad to run against in the “elections” now being protested.  Aslam said that he didn’t think that McCain, et al had Iran’s best interests at heart.  That would be just as correct.  What is at the heart of Krauthammer, McCain, etc. bitching and moaning is that they are only looking for political leverage here on the home front to further target Dems as weak on… yada, yada, yada.  So a question for my readership, you can certainly respond if you wish; what ever happened to “no to foreign entanglements?”  Or for that matter, what ever happened to a people’s desire to bring about change by their own will?  Interference not asked for could in fact kill a nascent democratic movement instead of helping it to survive.  And I am sure that Bennett and etc. doing so much bleating about Obama’s “cowardly response” really aren’t concerned about that either.  As long as they can get at a party and a president that bested them on 4 November 2008.  How about that.

So, why not listen to the Muslims?  Maybe they do know a thing or two about the sort of future they would like.  The ones in Iran finally got very tired of oppressive state religion which determined whom would become president as opposed to the vote of the people.  Literally, a totalitarian dictatorship.  Why not listen to the ones in Iran; they took to the streets because they didn’t like to outcome of Ahmedinejad’s being put back into office long before the final votes were counted?  Their opposition was entirely homegrown.  And that was despite charges that Great Britain and the U.S. was “meddling” into Iranian affairs by Khamenei in his recent speech.  Actually, the U.S. had not meddled, as Aslam noted.  So, does McCain, Bennett, Krauthammer and etc. actually believe in human rights for Iranians being constantly beaten for assembling and speaking out against injustices?  Or are they more interested in seeing a GOP president and a return of a GOP majority?  Excuse me, but only such self interested political agendas would make the party not now in power totally tone deaf to the rest of the world.

And maybe they want an Armageddon so that Christ will finally come down from the heavens.

---

On the birther front; yeah, yeah; the people who throw out lawsuits left and right in various states trying to overturn a legitimate election; trying to remove a sitting president from office over a birth certificate…

One such “birther” adherent has pushed the issue for months since the 4 November 2008 election.  If Obama would just show his “real” birth certificate.  He did.  What Sarah Obama was reported to have said through carefully edited transcripts.  What some fellow signed an affidavit to assert that he “heard” her say that Obama was born in an Mombassa hospital.  Which one?  There’s Barack Obama sr and Barack Obama jr.  Maybe Sarah gave birth to her son in a hospital in Mombassa, but to the best of everyone else’s knowledge who went ahead and did the research; the grandson was born in Hawaii.  But of course, those who did the research are not to be believed.  On the other hand, those who have been engaging in the birther scam and who haven’t to date come up with something valid to hang a lawsuit on; they can be believed.

If Obama would just show his “real” birth certificate, it would all go away.  Obama showed his real birth certificate and that was how it got started.

At some point, the “birther” radicals are going to simply have to accept the fact that Alger Hiss stories of rags to riches; the poor who can pick themselves up by the bootstraps and make some claim to fame; can equally apply to minorities and those of mixed race.

As it is, I can think of nothing better as a weapon against the GOP by the Dems in the next election cycle.  See all these birther guys wasting taxpayers’ money with all these ridiculous attempts to unseat a legitimately elected president?  And just look at who they are supporting now! Can you really trust that GOP contender for the White House with such an anti-democratic faction working on his behalf?  Only the birthers could do the most to discredit what remains of the GOP.  Which is also why the GOP esp. and the so-called “conservative commentators” in particular fail to discuss them.  If they are ignored, will they just go away?  Not yet.

What it will take is for the group to be publicly ridiculed and questioned as to why they are motivated to question Obama’s legitimacy to be in office.  It must be because he isn’t “white enough.”  No other president has ever had that kind of challenge presented to him; even those who were first British settlers by descent before they became American by Revolutionary war.  Pretty sad.

Criticisms, criticisms.

I figured that this letter, funnier than hell ought to get a wider audience before discussing David Broder. (At least it’s short.)

TEA PARTYProtesters form political spectrum

In response to Fiona Gressler’s “Tea talk absent during Bush spending” on June 12, your answer is: “We the people” were happy that (1) We were kept safe; (2) we had a Republican president to balance the Democratic Congress; and (3) we still had the right to express our opinions without being called “racial” and “radical.”
If you watched any real news or attended a “We the People” tea party, you would see that there are just as many Democrats as Republicans protesting the ridiculous spending by our congress and president. Trillions of dollars are a far cry from millions!

Donna Lopez
Athol

Libby, Montana; that is the town where the asbestos mine formerly run by W.R. Grace is located, a town that is now dying from asbestos contamination.  During the last 8 years, as this saga of Libby, Montana was unfolding (as also reported by “The Inlander”); the GW administration dragged its heels on even helping the townspeople because I suppose that GW’s EPA was more for protecting the interests of W.R. Grace than seeing that justice was done on the behalf of that company’s employees, families and etc.  Only since the Obama administration has the EPA begun to take the initial steps toward rectifying a very bad situation there.  (Source:  Spokesman-Review editorial, “The Inlander”)  If letter writers such as Lopez were to dismiss totally the situation at Libby, Montana then yes, she could certainly argue that the previous Republican president “kept us safe.”  More accurately, GW didn’t hold accountable those business interests that were only interested in their profit margins as opposed to their customers and employees; let alone their neighbors.

Polls are tricky things, and David Broder wants to use polls as a rationale for attacking Obama on spending and etc. much like Lopez in that.  Well, according to the latest bright light on the horizon toward future economic recovery; Coeur d’Alene, Idaho is among those 6 metropolitan areas that is most likely to bounce back from the current recession by the end of 2009 (Source:  Coeur d’Alene Press and Spokesman-Review).  Well, that heavy deficit spending in the area of “trillions of dollars” flowing into the pockets of the American people that Lopez and other TEA Party goers carped so much about seems to have done some good.  Whereas the spending by the previous administration was either flowing out of country (Iraq) or solely into the pockets of the haves and have mores.  Only because Obama seems to have put a safety net under the American people to prevent any further free falling to hit with a hard bump way down there some where, do those polled find themselves “increasingly critical” of his domestic policies in particular.

Well, let’s put it bluntly; if Obama wants to try to save GM, Chrysler, the banking system and etc.; he is first looking toward jobs and the American people even before he shores up those same businesses with billions of dollars.  Who else is going to take over the American manufacturing of automobiles if in fact GM disappeared off the free market map?  Precisely, an American company that would be able to start from scratch, have the investors lined up, have the factory ready to go, and produce the car of the future?  One doesn’t exist! They were called “The Big 3″ automakers for a reason, they managed to squelch all start up companies in this nation and were only forced to compete with one another until foreign automakers began exporting far better manufactured cars into the U.S.  So, unless a foreign automaker takes over an American company; as was apparently the case with the Fiat and Chrysler deal, letting those companies bite the dust wouldn’t be an option.  This nation would have ultimately lost even more of its manufacturing base and this nation would become even more dependent on foreign manufacturers.  Which says a lot about the underlying ignorance of those polled.  Just as it says a lot about the underlying ignorance of Mr. Broder.  Obama must spend trillions to try to shore up a nation, its marketplace and a people that GW had allowed to decay over the last 8 years.

And in my estimation, Donna Lopez suffers short term memory problems, there was only a real Democratic Congress in the last two years; but enough GOP existed in that threadbare majority to block thoroughly any Dem initiative out there.  And when the GOP had ascended to a solid majority; they went as wild on the spending front as GW was more than happy to sign a blank check for them.  If that will tell you anything.  And by the way, tax cuts, tax breaks and any other subsidy also constitutes spending.  So, GW spent some trillions of dollars including the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, while in office.  And the people of Libby, Montana would disagree with Ms. Lopez’ assessment that GW had “kept them safe.”  GW’s d0mestic policies kept no one safe.

After the killings

George Tiller being gunned down in his church by a hate-filled Scott Roeder. Von Brunn killing an African-American security guard at the Washington, D.C. Holocaust Museum. And within days of extremism leading to violence, the Spokesman-Review publishes “Outside voices,” of selected excerpts from various (3) newspaper editorials all attacking the violence of the last week. And Leonard Pitts, jr. Who had his own chills up the spine moments of having to recount the hatred that has led to such terrible tragedies.  You most certainly could not call it anything else.

Of one such editorial in question, the author suggested a “change in the language” in order to reduce the incidences of hate-filled violence.  Well now, wouldn’t that be nice.  However, hate-filled rhetoric that comes from the various punditry that tends to populate certain “news shows,” esp. on Fox News Channel; is how they get their ratings.  And even if (as in the case of Bill O’Reilly) were to admit that such hate-filled rhetoric as calling an abortion provider a “baby killer” before a national audience did lead to the unhinged doing something about it; I highly doubt that the O’Reillys, the Hannitys, the Savages would do anything about “changing the language.”  Why would they “drive away a customer base?”  After all, anyone who’d listen to inflamed anti- this or that rhetoric is likely to be that unfortunate percentage of the people for whom hatred of this and that has never really gone away.  And they, in the 10s of thousands, to maybe a few million strong will look for an outlet, someone willing to listen to their venting, and lead them by the nose to ever more fervent extremism.  The tip of that iceberg is ultimately violence.

By visiting various message boards, chat rooms, blogs and etc.; I do know that hatred is alive and well in this nation.  When the Spokesman-Review posted a blog about the Dr. Tiller murder and the Operation Rescue(ing themselves from boredom) reaction to it; the thread came alive with those who wished to hold the woman solely accountable for her pregnancy and the death of the fetus.  Or who couldn’t quite find it within themselves to condemn the killing of the doctor.  Or who could indeed defend the woman’s obtaining the legal abortion service.  But the thread of hatred also appeared in printed letters to the editor which the Spokesman-Review had also published in its print edition.  The 10 to 1 argument that there is something wrong with you if you defend abortion rights.  The 10 to 1 argument that even though the death of Tiller being wrong, what he did was so fundamentally worse.  The self-righteousness, how so much more I am morally superior to all the rest of you benighted souls.  But in each and every case, the claims of “moral superiority” came with a caveat.  Precisely, that even if an anti-abortionist can say that abortion for reasons not relating to medical emergencies (and in some cases rape and incest) is murder; hatred is their underlying cause toward activism.  Hatred of the woman for rising above her aloted station.  Hatred of the doctor who’d willingly perform the procedure.  Hatred of the SCOTUS decision that made the procedure legal.  And in the teachings of Christ, hatred is the same as murder.

Most assuredly, hatred led to extremist behavior. And then onto murder.  I can certainly sympathize with Pitts wishing that after the civil rights struggle it had just all gone away.  It actually never did.  Whether as this morning’s editorials pointed out, Hispanics being held responsible for the souring of the economy.  Correction:  you can’t hold them responsible for the souring of the economy; but you can most certainly hold employers of illegal aliens accountable because they prefer cheap labor to a more expensive and American work force.  Just as you could also proclaim greed as a viable factor in why much of the economy ultimately went south.  But that it took years, decades; before the economy began to crumble under the weight of it.

But instead of being honest; the hate machine would rather deflect to anyone else but the people I have advocated for, the Bernie Madoff’s who definitely “made off” with millions billions of wealthy people’s money in a Ponzi scheme that I; the advocacy of less gvt wouldn’t have cared to hear that guys like Madoff could take advantage of lax regulations.  Instead, even though guys like Madoff become a reason  for greater gvt regulation; I must fear its “socialist power.”  Even though companies such as GM made itself anti-competitive by looking to gvt to delay and delay yet again seeking out and making use of the cutting edge technology that other companies in other countries such as Japan were willing to employ to ride out ever increasing gas prices that ultimately had consumers dumping gas guzzlers and seeking fuel efficient cars; I must only fear the Obama administration that offered federal bankruptcy protection to GM.  In short, in such hatred is a real lack of soul searching.  Not the cause, not the effect, only the consequence.

Reactionary is a word found in the dictionary.  Reactionary is an opposition force.  However, while one may be a “reactionary force” to defend something, one can also be a “reactionary force” out to destroy something as well.  Reactionary being applied here to all of the above:  is a behavior or a conduct applied to a situation “after the fact.”  Not to a situation as it occurred, or is on-going, but after the fact.  After the fact of Obama becoming president, only then are tea parties held.  After the fact of Obama and a majority Democrats assume control at the federal level, only then must cries of “socialism” begin to resound from sea to shining sea.  Never mind that the other reactionaries; those who flocked to the polls in droves; tired of a broken health care system, tired of no longer being the preferred work force here in this country, tired of the wealthy getting wealthier at their expense and etc.; put the Obama administration in by a majority vote.  What does that say?

What it does say is that the 25% or less of the populace who employ extremist language hates the country, the people and the democratic process that put an African-American into the White House and a Dem majority in Congress.  That many haters.  And they were on full display during the general election of 2008.  They also lost.

The general summary of such people:  they failed to grow up.  It is solely because of them that the GOP has become a minority without an inspiring leadership.  And through their extremism, they will continue to remind people as to why they ought not vote for the party that catered to such extremism during the last 8 years.  Nor is there a moral imperative in such hate.

“Changing the language,” would need to be only one of the starting points to end such destructive behavior.  Actually accepting one’s moral obligations to one’s God, one’s spiritual leader (Christ in this case) and the rest of society would have to be the rest of those factors.  Until the O’Reilleys, the Hannitys, the Savages and etc. begin to recognize that for themselves; it ain’t gonna happen.

The Dr. George Tiller Death

In the days after the shooting death of Dr. George Tiller, who has performed “controversial late term abortions,” the latest Kathleen Parker editorial. And you do have to hand it to her, she has no problem calling a spade a spade.  Precisely, Randall Terry of Operation Rescue(ing themselves from boredom) as well as Alan Keyes whom in Parker’s most correct view tend to muddy up the message.  And as Parker herself declared in her republished to the Spokesman-Review (Spokane, Washington) editorial, “makes her want to write checks to Planned Parenthood.”  Yeah, that bad.  Essentially, an editorial that argues, the messenger becomes the message.

As Ms. Parker also correctly notes; the GOP continuously catering to what becomes an extremist faction also tends to drive away what she regards as the more moderating voices to tone down the strident.  However, I should offer a correction to the claims that the wackoes are “right wing.”  I know what “the right” meant during the Reagan era:  limited gvt, individual liberty, constitutional constraints on gvt, a hands off free market view, anti-Communism, pro-military might, personal responsibility, against “collective rights.”  But during the Reagan era and beyond, those whom the GOP attracted with their guns, God, the fetus and gays screed; can’t be called “the right” by any stretch of the imagination.

In the Reagan era, gvt was against the individual rights of men.  In one of Reagan’s speeches can be found these words, “Government is the problem and not the solution.”  In the 1980s, this was defined as the epitome of conservative thinking.  Fresh off active duty Military; having seen for myself the danger of totalitarian thinking (I had paid a visit to the 1K zone that existed at the time between a divided Germany); I was greatly attracted to much of what was then called conservative thinking.  Too much gvt can be a threat.  The U.S. Constitution initially drafted by its framers and ratified by the people, ultimately the same done with the Bill of Rights, those amendments that put even further constraints on the power of gvt, ought not be superceded.  A people who truly believed in self-government would presumably be more self-reliant, more self-sufficient and therefore demand less from gvt.

However, with the guns, God, fetus and gays crowd; the only way such special interests could justify their existence is if they demanded more from gvt; when they weren’t waxing hysterically their fear and hatred of it, depending on whom was in power.  Wackoes, yes; but “right wing” is a bit more problematic.

Conservative as generally defined during the Reagan era (which mantra is now mostly taken up by the Libertarian party) seemed to be legitimate enough at the time.  But “conservative” seems to have become a catch phrase for arguments adopted since that time that once would have been absolutely unthinkable during the Reagan era.

• Limited gvt coupled with self-government:  Apparently, the limited gvt argument was only applicable to those other interest groups:  feminists, labor unions, minorities obtaining equal rights.  But when it comes to “my” agenda, I am all about demanding that gvt fulfill my expectations.
• Personal responsibility:  Not really can I trust you to recognize right from wrong, so I am going to impose my own version of the nanny state.  Such as demanding laws that define who can marry, such as making certain abortion procedures illegal, such as attempting to ban any form of fetal research.  Even more than this, I am going to demand money from your wallet so that I can employ my religious affiliation as an act of charity (the GW era); or insist that you hand over your tax dollars so that I can have that redistribution of wealth in the form of a tax voucher for my private school.  In short, “personal responsibility” as imposed by the state.

To put it bluntly, James Madison famous for his tax protests of church deacons being able to dip into the public purse for private income (that in fact only their specific church congregations should be providing) would be rolling in his grave.  The Republican party after all complained heavily (and no doubt with an eye to political gain) about the Democrats who held that the more gvt the better, the more regulations the better, the more people who could depend on a “kindly despot” of a gvt, the better.  At the time, it was a legitimate complaint.

But since that time who is it that now wants more gvt, more regulations, more people who can be dependent upon a “kindly despot” of a gvt; at least as long as it is in the hands of Republicans, oh you got that right, the guns, God, fetus and gays crowd.

Families have managed to survive or not for a long time without specific laws defining that marriage must only exist between one man and one woman.  If they survive, it would have been because an ernest effort was made by the families themselves toward surviving intact.  In short, gvt wasn’t needed to dictate whether and how families survived.  But gvt seems to have been needed when it came to families that would not survive; thus the no-fault divorce laws.  And in reaction to that, the “God” crowd who felt that “no-fault divorce” made it far too easy for families to simply break up.  And therefore, we must set in motion all efforts that through gvt we can force people who married to stay together “for the sake of the kids,” natch.  We might fear too much regulation (that favors labor unions and consumers); but we are expected to replace it with the regulation of the individual (fully contrary to the conservative idea of individual liberty).  From imposing by way the of gvt concepts of “family” onto the general public, to opposing abortion, stem cell research, and ultimately gays obtaining the most equal of rights inclusive of marriage; the social engineering religious activist apparently does not believe in self-sufficiency, self-reliance, gvt is the problem and not the solution, not if the gvt can be used to advance his agenda instead.  What would make him different from the Democrats and the special interests who hung like barnacles on the Dems’ boat?  Not really.  Not when such an individual or such a group doesn’t actually employ a conservative attitude once defined under Reagan.  In short, I can’t be bothered with actually doing it myself.

Hard work and the satisfaction with a job well done seems to have been replaced among the guns, God, fetus and gays crowd with our rallies, our hostile and hystrionic attacks, our TEA parties, and etc. to effect not the direction of the country, but of the government.  The gvt that has been wrested away from the GOP and placed through the democratic process firmly in the hands of the hated Democrats.  Our rallies, hostile and hystrionic attacks, our TEA parties, and etc. are a rejection of the fact that the American people made a choice on 4 November 2008 that made the GOP a decided minority.  Our hostile and hystrionic attacks, our TEA parties and etc. states categorically that when the people rose up and demanded change, our partisanship was on the greatest display declaring how unacceptable it was that the democratic process could actually exist in the first place.  Especially if it could put in place a Dem president and a Dem Congress.  We no longer had the gvt we desired, and so we shall engage in shrill attacks against the one we have now.

And now for the man with the gun.  Scott Roeder it seems is a fellow with plenty of certitudes.  Described at the time as an Old Testament kind of guy.  Well, the Ten Commandments declare all right that thou shalt not murder, but murdering in the name of the “child,” seems to be quite all right in Roeder’s world.  Problem with Roeder’s thinking:  an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, is this matter of personal injury.  Roeder isn’t and never was personally injured by the choice of a woman, any woman to have an abortion or to seek out Dr. Tiller for his services.  Which says what, exactly?  Precisely, that Roeder never believed in personal responsibility, individual accountability, his Christian limits (you can swing your fist as hard as you want but that it must not hit another person’s nose) when it came to a person who did not live as Roeder would have preferred he do so.  In short, Roeder happened to be of a totalitarian mindset that led him to kill an “abortion doctor.”  Isn’t that the crux of the matter?  The guns, God, fetus and gays crowd are totalitarian in nature.  Calling it “right wing” is to lend it legitimacy that it doesn’t deserve.

Racist and sexist

8 years ago, Judge Sonia Sotomayor made what has now become a most infamous speech, it involved these 32 words in which she described herself as a wise Latina woman who might just make decisions as a judge better than a white male. 8 years ago, that was back in 2001.  So, 8 years ago, where was Rush Limbaugh whining about the racism and sexism of this Latina and Roman Catholic judge?  (Source:  “Smart Bombs” Gary Crooks of the Spokesman-Review.)  I guess he wasn’t.  But then Judge Sotomayor wasn’t in the running for the U.S. Supreme court and the last president to nominate her to the federal bench anywhere, was a Republican by the name of George H.W. Bush.  Apparently, one can give quite a pass to Judges put on the bench by GOP presidents.

Gary Crooks mentioned in his latest “Smart Bombs” a Latino and Roman Catholic judge that the GOP wanted for SCOTUS and the Democrats protested vigorously.  Of course, the GOP made this argument that there must be something wrong with the Dems for opposing a minority for that position.  Well now,  the Democrats probably had a reason for opposing this Roman Catholic Latino judge, and it had to do with his politics. So 8 years later, Judge Sotomayor has been nominated to SCOTUS by a Democrat and abruptly her “unfortunate use of words” gets dredged up and jammed in her teeth.  Isn’t that amazing?

In the same paper, same day, a republished Kathleen Parker editorial about the same judge in question.  This time, Ms. Parker is literally chastising the wrathful among the “GOP faithful” for their particular attacks on Judge Sotomayor.  How about that, Kathleen Parker who is not known for giving much in the way of kudos to the Dems at any time, does have a few nice things to say about Obama’s pick.

I think I have my own chastisements for Limbaugh and etc.  It is this little matter of lacking in consistancy.  So, McCain lost, get over it.  White men don’t always make good decisions nor are they always wise.  After all, the last White Man to hold the highest office in the land made a known series of very bad decisions.  People who make bad decisions pretty constantly aren’t “wise.”  And when they go into denial about their bad decisions, that’s not wise either.  So, Limbaugh, are you still hurting that no matter how many tricks you pulled on the airwaves prior to 4 November 2008; McCain still lost to Obama?  Did it really flabergast Limbaugh to have misread the American mood that completely?

Kathleen Parker did mention the purveyor of white hot anger, Limbaugh as being among those who should back off on instant judging of Sotomayor.  Well, he should.  A Latino Roman Catholic who might have entered SCOTUS except for the Dems fierce opposition to his politics; and the GOP played no less than the race card when castigating the Dems for not simply caving in and fully approving a fellow despite his extreme positions, based of course on race; also have no leg to stand on when it comes to rendering a judgment on Sotomayor’s words.  According to one GOP member of the Senate declared that “she was no better than the rest of us.”  That’s quite a put down.  It suggests of the Senator that he feels utterly intimadated by that Latina Jurist.

---

On KREM 2 News this evening, some wild-eyed anti-abortionist took aim at a doctor who provides the procedure and killed him within his own church.  Anti-abortion=pro-death.  Guess we don’t need to see some of that God is Love rhetoric, forgiveness, leave the judgment to God as long as there is a cause.  And a reason to take a life.  Sad.  Very sad.

The not so successful party

In the 18 May 2009 edition of the Spokesman-Review an “In their words” quotation:

“Notre Dame is arresting a priest. Why are you arresting a priest for trying to stop the killing of a baby? You’ve got it all backward.”—The Rev. Norman Weslin founder of the Lambs of Christ abortion protest group, addressing police who arrested 21 people, including a priest, at a disruption Friday to protest President Barack Obama’s weekend commencement address at Notre Dame University.

On one of this week’s “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” a depiction of one of these “Lambs of Christ” literally verbally attacking the President with shouts over and over again, “Baby killer,” “baby killer.”  So how do shouts of “baby killer,” save a child’s life?  Or for that matter, prove how “Christian” a person is?

I do believe that on the same show Jon Stewart had as a guest, Newt Gingrich.  Of course Mr. Gingrich former Speaker of the House engaged in the usual partisan hack job.  But the reason for his being on the show had to do with his writing a book.  But for about 10 minutes Gingrich vented about Obama as a “socialist,” of course and Stewart had to pointedly remind him of what had taken place in the last year of GW’s presidency.  Such as the gvt under GW taking over AIG.  Which now brings to mind a most pertinent argument about what ought to be called “socialism,” an accusation that is only valid when you aren’t the party in power.

Newt Gingrich had to make at least one concession, where the GOP had begun to act too much like Democrats in the spending dept at least.  And as far as Gingrich was concerned, when the people voted on 4 November 2008, why vote for the GOP who behaved too much like the Dems when they could simply vote for the real thing.  How about that.  But it wasn’t just the spending that McCain was promising.  Even he was promising too much gvt.  But only Obama can be accused of “socialism.”  But after such a concession was made, Gingrich still seemed to have a problem wrapping his head around a particular reality; and that was, that the last administration set the stage for the economic fiasco that this nation now faces.

You ever hear of giving someone too much of a good thing?  On “The News Hour with Jim Lehrer” this evening, I managed to catch an episode of “Common $en$e” where the fellow doing the reporting discusses what happens to bad banks for example and what solutions might be had to make them solvent “good banks.”  This evening, he showcased a fellow who managed to get himself deep into debt.  And this guy was actually a reporter for the New York Times.  He’d gotten a couple of mortgages on his new home and ran up a massive credit card debt besides.  He should have been smart enough to “know better” right?  He even admits to it.  At the same time he informed the PBS viewership, he got a green light all the way.  Well yes, GW’s infamous “ownership society.”  To live large, spend, spend, spend and keep the economy working during a time of a War on Terror.  It broke the bank all right, this same New York Time employee finds himself facing foreclosure and is 7 months behind on payments of his debt.  He wrote a book and hopes people will buy it to enable him to pay his way out of debt.  In a truly conservative world, any mortgage broker would want to make certain that person applying for the loan actually had the finances available to pay it back.  That is, to exercise caution before okaying such a mortgage.  But, as was documented, even the mortgage company threw caution to the wind while waving a lot of green stuff in the guy’s face.  Then I don’t think you can call what happened in the last 8 years, “conservative.”  For the gvt to finally have to take it over; well, I suspect it is inevitable.  And a little late for the GOP to suddenly want to return to their “private enterprise” roots.  Deregulation helped to create this mess.  The anarchy that followed created the sort of situation ultimately documented on “The News Hour.”  Either you are pro-anarchy—in which case you really can’t call yourself “conservative,” or you are supportive of reasonable rules and regs that keeps the marketplace humming healthfully along.  Which would mean that some amount of gvt is going to be necessary.

Now back to the abortion issue that had a priest on camera screaming “baby killer” at the President of the United States.  Yeah, Obama is pro-choice, how about that.  He also made some comments to the graduating class of Notre Dame very remnicient of former President Clinton, of making legal abortions rare and providing women with other options than just abortion.  Yeah, pro-choice.  For what he said, he was still attacked as a “baby killer.”  If that can tell you anything, the disruptive priest (probably the one who ultimately got arrested) seemed to have become extremely hard of hearing as he chose to listen to his own strident screams over that of the POTUS address. Yeah, I guess he could be arrested.  Too bad there isn’t a criminal charge out there for misrepresenting one’s own belief.

Communism on the mind

The Spokesman-Review publishes once a  week, “Outside voices.”  a compendium of selected editorials from various newspapers.  Of the one editorial that I wish to address today, this is from Newsday and a column published on 7 May 2009.  Seems that Representative Joe Barton, R-Texas did not like how post-season bowl games were set up and broadcast on TV.  According to this editorial, he declared that it was like communism and totally unfair to smaller colleges.  So, in a session of Congress, seems Rep. Barton wants to set up rules for deciding what can truly be a legitimate championship bowl.

Not typically would I write about sports.  I have no interest, I don’t even much watch the games on TV, let alone being willing to shell out the big bucks for a game, pre-season, during the season, or even post -season.  However, to write about this, the implications to be had in the Newsday editorial, goes even beyond what Newsday itself was prepared to say, at least  in the published excerpt.

TV and College sports are part of the entertainment business, and yes, it actually is a business.  I will even further add that as a business it faces far more severe regulations than any other.  Nor do the GOP in particular find regulations of entertainment to be particularly offensive as they might where polluting industries get shackled by environmental laws.  Or mining companies get shackled by work place safety laws.  Or construction businesses who feel they can only be competitive if the home you buy wasn’t built by American labor.  Or you are convinced that the food you buy would “cost more” if picked by an American work force.  In the above cases, those industries at least should have as few regs as possible to encourage their competitiveness and continued operations.

So, I found it to be extraordinary indeed when Rep. Barton, Republican of Texas decides that he is going to take away from private industry the right to set the rules on how, when and whether they will cover post-season games or championship bowls.  And here is why:

I am sure that at one point Gonzaga U. of Spokane, Washington was a little known private college.  But the sports team and head coach spent a lot of time, energy and invested money toward making the football team there into a contender that could play against better known colleges and universities.  They did so on their own initiative, with a lot of effort and got the necessary respect and the television coverage to go with it; as they began to consistently win their games in various regional play offs.  They have fallen short, certainly, but they have been good contenders none the less.  Shouldn’t any lesser known college make use of the same initiative and all out effort to earn the same recognition without gvt setting the rules of coverage and etc.?

On the other hand, why make the effort if gvt does force the entertainment industry to cover their teams, no matter how poor they may be and how unlikely their teams might be to even enter regional play offs let alone championship bowls.

These were the implications that Newsday didn’t appear to get into.  Gonzaga U. might be considered a “small college” in comparison to other well-established colleges and universities.  But it didn’t need federal help to get proper television coverage.

Private enterprise:  Wouldn’t Barton have been among those GOP who would have waxed incensed that the Obama administration would simply fire GM’s CEO—by calling it Communism?  Or the federal $$$ flowing into the nation’s banks—by calling it Communism?  But here he wants to force some kind of “equality” among how college sports are covered and etc. by the rules that he personally writes through the legislation that he personally introduces.  As I understand this, a gvt that sets up these rules personally, that dictates how a private business  operates and how it personally works (the entertainment industry as an example) with labor and customers or even affiliated businesses; and in this case college football and what will constitute legitimate championships as defined by law; is deemed a command and control economy.  At least, that’s what the GOP were prepared to charge when the Democrats were in majorities in the House and Senate.  But now, we are seeing from this Republican member of Congress a willingness to add a dash of command and control so that small colleges, those lesser known will have an “equal shot” at post-season bowls.

Newsday was entirely right to ask why, with more pressing issues on Congressional plates why college football as “big business” would take priority over more pressing issues.  They could have gone further.  They could have asked why a GOP who would have argued against the collectivism of unions, minorities, and feminists; would suddenly be for the collectivism of minor league colleges.  This should have entered the lexicon of Ripley’s Believe it or Not.

…you have to be kidding… Part 2

A day after I posted a screed on the identity crisis facing “conservatives” in general and the Republican party in particular; you almost wonder if Leonard Pitts, jr. goes blog trolling once in a while to find ideas to work into his latest columns or if the guy is really good at reading minds.  In his republished column found in the Opinion pages of the Spokesman-Review, Pitts gave his readership some examples of Christianity gone awry.  Christians who for the most part stood silently by when those not like us—Nazi led holocaust of the Jews for one, tortures and killings of civil rights workers for another—took place in their name.  And Pitts then went on to use such examples, why he wasn’t surprised, by a poll concerning the use of torture being justified at least part of time.  That when you broke it down by religious affiliation, those most ardently affiliated (my words, not his) were more likely to approve of torture.  Really?  Those most ardently affiliated who didn’t want a branch of the gvt, namely the courts, to allow hubby Schiavo to pull the plug at long last on his wife.  Who pushed GOP into office with the condition that eventually the courts would rule in their special interest favor of overturning Roe v Wade.  None the less, they are prepared to believe that torture is justifiable some of the time.  For a people hell-bent on not wanting human life to be demeaned, they sure seem to want human life demeaned.  Well, as long as it is the other guy.

Which is why I continue to have a problem wrapping my head around why this is supposed to be somehow “conservative.”  You don’t stand around condemning that pro-choice Dem where the “choice” supported leads to the abortion death of a fetus; but have no problem wanting to see someone’s child inflicted with pain, misery, even to the point of death if it will achieve some illusion of security.  It is still a life.  It also matters on how you would end up looking to others when it comes to your image on an international level.

Yes, terrorists have kidnapped and tortured our fellow Americans as well as foreign members of the press in such war theaters as Iraq.  Without a doubt, nothing will persuade them to act more decently or civilized.  But the Christ whom Pitts referred to as that Middle Eastern man who was imprisoned, tortured and finally put to death…  That he found it ironic that such followers of the Middle Eastern man who suffered such a fate would none the less wish it inflicted on others…  That same Christ in the book of Luke argued that perfect love was to include even your enemies.  Let me just add here concerning “The Golden Rule:”  Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.  If you didn’t wish to be subject to “enhanced interrogation techniques” yourself, why would you subject others to them?  Apparently, “The Golden Rule” can be just as selectively applied as any other biblical teaching.

So, let me remind my readership of a few important matters.  What does “strict construction” mean when it comes to biblical passages?  What does the belief that the bible is literally true mean?  Then let us again refer to Luke where “he” had penned that the followers of Christ were to love even their enemies and here was why, because of the blessings that God gave to the righteous and sinners alike.  If the bible is literally true then no bible believer would believe in torture.  For torture itself would go against the grain of Christ’s teachings.  So shall I say that instead bible belief or strict constructionism is a matter of political expediency?  Where those who make such a claim in order to wrap about themselves a “conservative” fig leaf  to demonstrate what makes them legitimate as a social and poltical force are however unwilling to recognize that the biblical instructions from Old to New Testaments aren’t exactly options; they are moral obligations.  So, what’s a “value” if you think the other guy should uphold it, whether abortion, stem cell research, what defines marriage or what defines a family; but that you don’t care to uphold it yourself?  A “value” dictated but not practiced is certainly hypocrisy.  But what would make a hypocrite “conservative?”  The religio/political activists never had a problem wanting gvt to be there for them and their special interest agenda.  Who didn’t want the competition from “collectivists” of say minorities, feminists, the impoverished who also felt that the same gvt should address their needs.  But the same social activists who wanted the country and the gvt as well as the U.S. Constitution all to themselves; still had to live with the not so friendly reality that the country isn’t and never will be made up of just them.  A conservative would accept that reality.  Because that is the way things are.  A conservative would have to accept that in a democratic nation there are going to be many interest groups vying for the attentions of gvt.  The gvt that acted against one group in order to favor another might at the same time no longer work for the nation as a whole.  And what conservative would want that?  Pitts made his column about “Christians” in particular, the Christianity that isn’t.  He’s right.  While religio/political activists have demonized the opposition as “those liberals” who are for everything that supposedly the religio/political activists are against; the same activists desperately need the “liberals” to legitimize their own moral failures.

In the you have to be kidding Dept.

There is no question that the Republican party in general and the so-called “conservatives” in particular are currently suffering a major identity crisis. But to blame Senator Arlen Specter who returned after many decades to the Democratic ranks, is to miss the point entirely.  None the less, Cal Thomas makes the attempt and ends up veering aimlessly all over the road and finally ends up in a ditch.

In fact as history has proved many of the so-called “conservatives” of today saw it as in their own best interests to migrate from the Southern Democratic party, decimating it in the process, to that of the GOP, decimating what had been a centrist to moderately (old) leftist ideological position held for a long time in that party.  But of course, Mr. Thomas wouldn’t be inclined to recall that important bit of history now would he?  But that bit of public fact had been published in news magazines decades ago.  But as ideologies migrated from one political party to another, polar extremes that fed upon themselves, began tilting the parties too.  For any centrist observer, who wasn’t afraid to call a spade a spade, both parties had now been made up of ideological special interests.  Both parties had the cause to serve only their own base instead of a country.  None the less, for anyone who’d laid the claim that there were viable alternatives in variously named third parties, those third parties have not gained traction.  Nor will they until the American public sees both Democrats and Republicans seriously imploding.

At this time, the focus is on the GOP and why they are out of power.  Throughout Thomas’ entire column—examples are to follow—he seems to look for all kinds of reasons why the GOP lost in 2008.  RINO, Republican in Name Only:  This is applied to any member of the GOP who seems to be a bit squishy ideologically.  In short, to not be a RINO you must be 1,000% in agreement with that particular special interest, whether religious or business, or in ideological opposition to the political opposition.  The problem with thinking in terms of RINO as a means of achieving political purity; you end up with a situation that isn’t conservative at all.  And RINO to outside observers not afraid to say it, is comparable to “capitalist roader” in Soviet style societies.  What you have instead is commie think.  A mentality that is radical in its approach to ideology and what is acceptable governance.  In short, there can not be diverse opinions in any one political organization—except that Thomas demanded that the Dems give prominent positions to anti-abortion Dems in Congress; before the GOP should consider watering down their own—for to hold them would “weaken” the strength of what makes it possible for that ideology to win.  As Thomas flails around looking for solid ground to hang future GOP opportunities to regain power in Washington, D.C. on; he at the same time exposes the lie of what has been called “conservative” over the last two decades.

When you are out of power, then it is easy to declare why we need to see a more limited gvt.  (1) Selectively pointing out burdensome regs—those that specifically help labor and consumers—while failing to point out other gvt involvement in the private sector—protecting business interests from foreign competition as an example—is to hold a utopian view of a “free market” that actually does not now and probably never did exist in this country. (2) Personal responsibility—that does not extend to the final fate of say a Terry Sciavo.  The hubby wants to pull the plug on his blind and brain dead wife, her parents are in constant denial about the fact that she materially died 15 years earlier.  Her “physical life” is maintained through a feeding tube.  Anti-abortionists literally make a circus out of protesting Schiavo going to heaven.  As long as her heart can be forced to keep on beating, then she is “alive.”  And Congress must of course meet to protect this poster child of ideological “culture war.”  Passing a law to force the independent branch of gvt, the judicial system, to act in favor of Schiavo.  They refuse and are then called “activist” by an activist president, GW Bush, who wanted to dictate literally the behavior of the courts in the Schiavo case.  Of point 2, Thomas upbraided the GOP as “masquerading as liberals” in order to be liked.  The GOP were playing to their base that never did oppose an activist gvt, only that activist gvt controlled by the opposition party.  And without a doubt, the GOP did aply an activist gvt on the behalf of any other special interest with the money to buy their time and legislative efforts.  (3) If we have financial systems on shaky grounds today it is because the anti-regulatory GOP shoved through this concept of “conservatism” that demonstrated an ignorance of history as to what useful purpose those regulations served to keep financial systems (banks, mortgage companies) both healthy and stable, and therefore depended upon.  Remove those regulations, and they cease to be a guiding principle by which those same financial institutions can continue to operate in the black and not collapse under a pure weight of greed with a house of cards constructed on quicksand.  Wouldn’t principled conservatism keep what works?  Obviously, deregulatory madness, while it may have taken decades for its true costs to be known, has still replicated in some ways the panic and crash of 1929 and the great depression that followed.  Why would you repeat what history says failed and created untold suffering?  Those who grew up during the great depression understood the necessity of frugality of not spending beyond one’s means.  What has been just as obvious, is that business interests have recently been headed (within the last few decades) by a greed at all costs mentality.  And we need gvt to give us a green light.  Those who head these business interests and their lobbyists couldn’t be bothered with the lessons of history.  Frugality and discipline in business would have kept Washington Mutual a healthy bank.  And definitely not one forced to merge with Chase (2008).  80 years later, and change agents (masquerading as conservatives) found out what havoc was wrought by their utopian ideals.  And the people turned to the only other party that understood how to help consumers and labor, the Democrats.

Exactly what “principles” did so-called “conservatives” actually have that would have won them elections?  The principles they threw aside when the GOP achieved effectively one party rule by 2002.  And began losing ground on after 2004.  Let’s put it bluntly, gvt isn’t supposed to be there to ratify specified religious canon.  That is an activist gvt.  Nor to use various public institutions to dictate a specific brand of “values;” inclusive of public education.  That is a demand for more and more gvt involvement.  If people want “educational alternatives” to public schools based on ideological opposition, isn’t personal responsibility then inclusive of then you must be prepared to pay the cost of private education instead of sharing the costs (through taxation) with others in your same school district as is done with public education? But no, seems these same people want taxpayers taking up some of the burden of their child getting that private and ideologically correct education through tax vouchers.  The same taxpayers who may deem that public education is quite good enough for their own kids.  From my perspective, if you don’t want your kid in the public school system, then it is your responsibility to pay in full the costs of your child’s private education.  Not mine.

If ultimately this might explain a few things; at best, the so-called “conservative base” never operated on conservative principles to begin with.  That was for “the other guy” to do.  And the identity crisis for the GOP really started with the Reagan revolution and not the Obama blowout of 4 November 2008, when he won a 365 electoral college vote.  Too bad that Thomas couldn’t have been honest about this.