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 Populist Myth

(Or why this really can not be called conservative, it is an oxymoron.)

I truly think that this should really begin with a PBS News Hour interview with David Stockman, about 30 years after his “Supply-Side Economics” ideology took root in the Reagan Revolution, he literally had to do a 180° on taxes, no less, arguing that they would have to be increased.  Followed up by Charles Krauthammer, republished in the Spokesman-Review, 6 February 2010 where the headline reads that “Liberals” don’t see the errors of their ways.  Followed by finger-pointing by an editorial in the Inlander about David Stockman’s social engineering through supply-side economics from the federal level and what a fiasco that was.  If Robert Herold is “to the (old) left,” he made a lot more sense than Krauthammer, a fellow who’s only claim to analysis is as long as he can thoroughly fault the political opposition.  But, claims of personal responsibility for why the GOP did lose in 2008 and have gone on to play up and seek to exploit the discontent of the public in order to regain in 2010 what they lost by 2008; seems to have gone with the wind or ended up in the dust bin of history when GW entered office after a huge wave of anti-Clinton.  Which is why I ended up rolling my eyes at Krauthammer’s projecting onto liberals, and didn’t read anything further of his editorial.

---

If the first paragraph might seem to be a mish mash, bear with me, it will all begin to make sense soon.  Populism as defined in real life:  of the people.  A populist:  someone in touch with the people and prepared to be a spokesman (or spokesperson) for their concerns or political agendas.  Populism:  at the grass roots, where real movements for change truly begins.  A populist who is therefore a leader of grass roots movements.  Robert Herold’s biggest beef about “conservative” (you’ve got to be kidding me) populism is purely how quickly “conservatives” were prepared to bring up the term without considering just how awkwardly they were on the polar opposites of the whole idea of it.  Populist, populism and demos (the people) are essentially different words with the same meaning.  And to be a “free market” type, or a limited government aficionado, should also be an argument against populism.  For the people are the ones who turned to this democratically elected gvt for redresses of grievances.  What ever throughout the long history of the U.S. those grievances might be.  Whether we are talking about the end of slavery, populism drove the constitutional law against it.  Whether we are talking about child labor, populism drove the laws that would regulate or ban it.  Populism is liberal or progressive.  Populism can even be considered radical, by definition:  as seeking to completely change something fundamental about society.  The end of slavery, after a long and bloody civil war, did in fact fundamentally change the social structure of the 19^th century.  Although it would take the populism of the Civil Rights movement, to correct the racism and racist laws that followed the constitutional law that banned the practice of slavery.  Where it is understood that populism is a left form of thinking or ideology; why would anyone styling themselves as “conservative” claim to be populist?  You can not claim in reality to be both for and against “the people.”  After all, “conservatives” (so-called) only wrote letters to the editors of various newspapers arguing against mob rule that (this is not a democracy but rather a Republic) that only a democracy could provide.  If you are against mob rule, then you have no business claiming the populist mantle.  Mob rule brought us a rebellion against the British…

Which ultimately makes my argument that those claiming “conservatism” who none the less borrow the language of the left, ultimately should be seen as on the left.  How about coming up with something original, straight forward, honest, and entirely your own ideas.  Trying to act like a Democrat, out do the Democrats, while proclaiming to be GOP, simply doesn’t cut it.  Truth in labeling would be to an advantage.

---

In the letters columns since Obama has been elected president of the United States; the anti-Obama types inclusive of the extremely silly “TEA Party movement” whine and cry over Obama either trashing the country, trashing the U.S. Constitution, surrounding himself with socialists such as Hugo Chavez.  Hmmm, wonder why they had no problem with the previous POTUS who only trashed the country and trashed the U.S. Constitution?  When he wasn’t surrounding himself with tyrants, states that harbored or sponsored terrorists, brutal authoritarians such as Putin… all in the name of catering to the business interests that lavished such large sums of money to his campaign coffers.  Oh, that’s right, because he had an R after his name.

Which leads to this letter published on 5 February 2010 in the Coeur d’Alene Press where the author, Jimmy Pappas very brutally reminded the Kootenai County Republicans of all they suffered from at the hands of their own party prior to and up to and including 2008.  If those claiming to be “right wing” can’t provide self-analysis, then their polar opposites will certainly do it for them.  You can be sure that the “TEA Party” isn’t doing any better a job of self-analysis than Krauthammer, let us instead fault the guy now in there for the mistakes of his predecessor.  And that it was a grass roots movement that put an obscure junior senator from Illinois on the path to the White House.  On the other hand, what really do the “TEA Party” think that they want?  Beyond the fact that they oppose Obama and his “socialism,” they haven’t exactly defined where they stand!  But to claim a “populism” mantle in this “TEA Party” and claim “conservatism” at the same time, that has to produce a major gut-busting LOL!  No honest to the Gods conservative pushes change at the grass roots or at any other level.

The “TEA Party” as radical populists I can understand.  Being stung by massive GOP losses in 2008, stung by the fact that public opinion swung hard (old) left in favor of the Democrats, suddenly this is an unorganized group of the disaffected who want to engage in a tug of war with the polar opposition in who should ultimately have the power in Washington, D.C. and who should fundamentally remake the nation.  It just wouldn’t do to have that (uppity) Obama “dictating” from on high.  But, as the Jimmy Pappas of this world serve to remind us, the GOP didn’t exactly serve this nation well with the last POTUS.  Nor did they learn their lesson from the Reagan Revolution.  With reference to The Inlander.

Ultimately, the problem for the latest batch of radical populists, those who could only come out of the woodwork when the Dems enjoyed astounding majorities in Congress, is that they are a little too used to be dictated to on high.  They just want to be dictated to by their own.  They only want the nation back when they are trying to wrest it away from the polar opposites.  And let it slip slide away when  it is being threatened by their own.

“Conservative” populists?  Make that political hypocrites.

Cheesy Faith

Some recent letters to the editor in the Coeur d’Alene Press caught my eye. In one such letter, short and rambling and signifying that the writer didn’t know a thing of what he was talking about. Kennedy’s death was as far as I could tell was being exploited to oppose abortion in particular and the health care reform bill in general.  Never mind that the Senator Elect Scott Brown happens to be pro-choice and supported a Massachusetts health care law much like that before Congress.  Or of another writer, who of course wringing hands over those “millions of dead fetuses…” in order to justify the annual March for Lies.  No, that is not a typo.

Juxtapose their using God as that great big echo chamber in the sky next to the latest republished Leonard Pitts, jr column found in the Spokesman-Review this 25^th of January 2010.  Where the Miami Herald columnist provided the soaring rhetoric needed to argue what ought to be true faith—a lifetime of service to others.  As opposed to expressions of “faith” that was deemed “cheesy.”  Which I will definitely address.  The point to be made between Pitts’ column and the preceding letters (both being found in the Coeur d’Alene Press 24 January 2010, I believe) was that the writers were acting out of hatred.  Hatred, after all, that anyone could dare, dare avail themselves of a legal practice for what ever reason.  Or hatred political, that the voters back in 2008 could dare, dare elect a majority Democrats for the U.S. Congress.  And of course, “God,” must justify that.  Which is why I consider that the Pitts’ column being republished within days of the March for Lies was spot on.  As all anti-abortionists were busy turning “God” into a greater expression of themselves.

Now to the Pitt’s column concerning “The Jesus Guns.”  A manufacturer of gunsights who put coded biblical references onto products sold to the government for use by the U.S. Military.  Pitts’ column describes at length and no argument there as to why he felt queasy about the whole thing.  He also stopped short of the first amendment prohibition of government established religion.  Using taxpayers’ moolah to further one fellow’s “faith” in the field of battle would surely have James Madison and Thomas Jefferson spinning in their graves.  Never mind what non-Christians have to say, what does constitutional law have to say?  Myself as a non-Christian, no I don’t believe in handing out tax dollars to give your “faith” a free ride.  And putting “God” on a gun out of hatred of one’s fellow man isn’t exactly an expression of utmost faith.

If true faith is best described as out of selfless service to one’s fellow man; and most assuredly the Bible verifies that; then why would people need to resort to inscribing the 10 Commandments onto as Pitts put it, rocks?  Perhaps because “faith” is being replaced by idol worship.  It isn’t enough that the 10 Commandments can be found in every bible?  That for those who have one and hold a literal belief in it that the practices thereof would demonstrate far more readily where a person stood in relationship with God or Jesus than inscriptions on a rock.  Or it is a demonstration that we don’t find you welcome, who doesn’t think as we do.  And thus delivering a totalitarian message.  In which case, the actual relationship such a person might well have with God and Jesus suffers that much more accordingly.

A roadside Jesus tells you what?  I haven’t seen one here, but I have no doubt that they periodically pop up in Miami and probably other major cities as well.  Where those of “faith” want to tell the world what they really think of Christ.  Just like the bumper stickers found on cars, where I hold the opinion the car may more likely go to heaven than the driver will.  In all cases that Pitts took the pains to decry, can easily be discussed in scripture found in Isaiah.  Where the prophet complained to the sinners who had abandoned God and were returning to a more pagan practice.  What are your sacrifices, etc. …to me.  And going on to condemn them as speaking Lord, Lord with their lips and keeping their hearts far from them.  Putting scriptures on gunsights, would factually be keeping one’s heart far from God.  Especially where Pitts spoke of this Munson who acted dismissively of “others” legitimate complaints.

When I see an anti-abortion rally, I see a people who exploit a sad situation in order to further their own self-interests.  The collectivist “rights” of the fetus to establish a political faction of “Christianity,” not only at the political table and in the public square, but also as an enshrined “law.”  But, is it in fact a lifetime of “service to others?”  I’d say in this case that it is not.  After all, anti-abortionist Pat Robertson went public with his latest venom against the people of Haiti when a 7.2(?) magnitude earthquake left an estimated 200,000 people dead just in Port au Prince alone.  Their suffering was brought on by historical deals with the Devil.  And yes, I do say anti-abortionist Pat Robertson who verifies exactly why respect for life ends at the time of birth.  In the case of Munson and the “Jesus guns,” respect for one’s neighbor ends the moment a scripture gets put on a gunsight.

In short, my views, opinions and etc. trump all other considerations, inclusive of the bible and constitutional law.

So, March for Lies?  Anti-abortionists focus almost exclusively on the “child not born.”  Never mind that miscarriages make up a large percentage of why “children will not be born.”  That still births are another form of abortion and are also a factor in total abortion figures.  So, how do you criminalize what is outside the control of doctors and women?  Or get gvt to do what God himself won’t?  Like “saving lives” that are destined not to be saved at all.  They call it the Apocrypha of the Holy Bible, scripture questioned as to its authenticity.  However, there are some telling philosophies to be brought out and presented, concerning the fact that all seeds do not sprout…  No, and God would be seen as recognizing that all men aren’t going to have the right sort of faith or to behave correctly 100% of the time.  It simply will not happen and is easily verified in biblical canon.  Because all people aren’t going to engage in “correct faith” that is according to Pat Robertson (?) perhaps, then it would seem to me that the better Christian would leave the judgment to God and simply do his part to fulfill his duties to his fellow man.  That is, if he wasn’t so busy acting in hatred of his fellow man instead.  Anti-abortion rallies are expressed hatred that “my fellow Americans” don’t believe as I do!  According to Christ, hatred is the same as murder.  How do you “march for lives” if you act out of hatred?  Thus, March for Lies.  And as long as you act out of hatred, you certainly can not be for a selfless service to others.

One good reason, Republicans

Why don’t we put it bluntly, ever since the GOP lost heavily to the Democrats they have engaged in nothing but frothing that they are the party out of power and looking for any means to get back into power, even if it means lying a lot. Or going to hot-headed extremes. Or in the case of Jonah Goldberg, accusing the Democrats of hubris. But of greater importance than creating an even greater partisan divide with the Democrats in general and Obama in particular; is this little reminder of exactly why the GOP lost in 2008. In a name: George W. Bush.

GW didn’t exactly present this country with “conservative policies.” Oh yes, he was Mr. Tax Cut and adamantly pro-big business. He was definitely against environmental regulations if it could possibly hurt the bottom lines of big business. And you could even say that GW’s business policies reached the point where his administration absolutely refused to enforce existing regulation and weakened regulatory law. Which ultimately led to the collapse of financial institutions, the closing of banks, and the absorption of mortgage companies into stronger banks. And yes, the bailout called TARP that was enacted in the closing days of the GW administration. Let us also remind the GOP how quickly you were prepared to deny a bailout for the auto industry because of your open hostility to the workforce. People do remember those things come election day, and vote accordingly. Especially when there are home foreclosures and visibly higher unemployment rates. An open hostility toward unions translated into an open hostility toward American workforce in general

But, the question is, just how “conservative” would you argue that GW’s policies were if over a period of eight years, it led to a massive economic collapse and an utter rout of the GOP? And just what is it about history that the GOP refuse to learn? To me a conservative argument has to maintain certain qualifications. If a conservative supports institutions—

• Do not weaken and destroy those institutions by giving them too much of a good thing.
• Don’t decide to engage in economic experimentation such as supply side economics that led to major disasters by the first Bush (41) administration and a taxpaid for bailout of the Savings and Loans.
• Experimentation is how shall we put it? Social engineering. And once you saw how the social engineering of supply side economics did not work, you should have found no cause to repeat it.

They say of the insane that the sufferers continually repeat the same thing and expect different results. I can add to the axiom, that the insane don’t remember their history going back 20 years and well within a single generation in order to repeat the mistakes of the past all the while expecting different results. It was big government intervention after all during the Reagan/Bush years that did see to a melt down in the private sector: farms going under, business mergers and bankruptcies, junk bonds that led to even more economic failures and putting in prison guys like Michael Milliken (sic?). You can’t expect businesses to operate well without regulatory guidelines. You can’t expect businesses to police themselves well without regulatory guidelines. The problem for the GOP in the Reagan/Bush era and again by Bush (43), was essentially marketplace anarchy. With the people most dependent upon a stable capitalistic society—small to large businesses, labor and consumers—only being utterly harmed by that anarchy.

So what should the GOP do to ask for my vote by November 2010? Throwing renegade “TEA Parties” doesn’t impress me. Being “anti-spending” just because the GOP are now in a minority status doesn’t impress me. Engaging in partisan wrathfulness over health care reform when you (GOP) didn’t do any better a job over Medicare Part D doesn’t impress me either. And besides, your stance on health care reform is partisan with the intent to achieve a majority, not because you give much of a damn about those who’s vote you seek. Bottom line: you burned the house down. But you’d rather quarrel with the firemen who came to put out the flames, the home insurance people who came to provide the dollars for new home construction, as well as the home builders who came to rebuild the house—and you expect my vote. Sorry, but unlike the renegade “TEA Party” movement, I have a far better memory about past events than they seem to.

So what should the GOP do that would honestly earn them a majority? Well, how about stopping the partisan bickering. That would be a good start. Say what you are for, not whom you are in opposition to, such as Obama. Don’t do the pot calling the kettle black routine with cries of “socialism” when all I have to do is remind you of the “socialism” of Republican led gvt that could lead the charge for Terry Schiavo, but when it came to Katrina, where was your concern for the victims of a major disaster, well besides GW wrapping an arm around a GOP member of Congress who lost a home because of the hurricane? States rights, until, the states started passing legal use of Marijuana laws and GW’s Justice Dept. was on record of immediately raiding those who set up shop to pass out small amounts of Marijuana for medical use only. Or, GW came down on the side of a husband against his wife where a domestic violence case was concerned. When you are in a lather to regulate individual behavior such as who has the right to wed or be united in a civil union; what would make you any different than the Democrats who seek to regulate businesses? Not really. Do you believe in individual responsibility then at what point would you recognize the limits of gvt? When GW was in charge, he did not recognize the limits of gvt or even that of individual responsibility. If you want the government off people’s backs because of who is in charge now, don’t make it a bait and switch routine to immediately put it back on people’s backs when you are in charge. I won’t vote for people who’s own hubris cost this country heavily economically and otherwise. Who did not have the courage of their convictions to stand up and challenge a left wing Republican by the name of George W. Bush. If the GOP want this Republican’s vote by November, do kindly recognize that conservative consists of the following: The gvt is not the place to engage in social experimentation especially where it proved disastrous in recent history. Your constituency isn’t only the special interests. Quit trotting out Dick Cheney. He is retired out of politics. He didn’t want to run to replace GW, then he shouldn’t try to make himself a power behind the throne to dictate what Obama should or should not do, say or ought not say. If he wanted to remain in the middle of the political stage with the spotlight square on him; then he should have run for office. Recognize that your history of social experimentation in the marketplace didn’t pan out so well and duly inform your special interests about the limits of gvt that should not allow for bailouts if deregulation leads to business failure. After all, didn’t the special interests want that deregulation? Therefore, if they didn’t want the heavy hand of gvt reducing in any respect their profit margins (taxes and regulation, OSHA and EPA), then neither can gvt be there if bad decisions made by the business lead to its going belly up. Of course, it would mean that the GOP recovering their truly conservative roots wouldn’t get the vote of the special interests, now would it? But, they would have mine, and the votes of people angry that Wall Street is getting theirs ahead of Main street.

What it takes to be president

I read through Kathleen Parker’s latest editorial with somewhat greater delight than many of her past contributions republished in the Spokesman-Review.  At last I can thoroughly understand Ms. Parker’s obsession with defending men and their particular quirks most of the time, as she was only the sole girl born among a gaggle of guys.  That being said, what would it take for her to finally acknowledge the unreadiness of society to finally elect a woman to office?  Actually, society is ready to do so.  But society also has to see women who respect themselves enough to take the slings and arrows from the rude and the crude and come back fighting.

Neither Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin were up to the task.

Actually, it wouldn’t bother me if we voted “mom” into the White House.  But “mom” isn’t the sole criteria for why we would want a woman to become president, in fact, “mom” is beside the point when dealing with domestic affairs and the potential for foreign crises.  “Mom” had better demonstrate intelligence, a grasp of the details and a knowledge of the situation to where she as president will hopefully make the best possible decision.  The same argument that we would ask of any “dad” who has served in the White House.  It wasn’t Sarah Palin as “mom” that had me rolling my eyes, but rather that abruptly, Republicans had turned “feminists” who had ridiculed it for many decades.  Or that Republicans could suddenly excuse a degree of lack in family values because after all, “Mom” Palin was making sure that Bristol had her baby.  An out of wedlock baby.  “Mom” is pro-life.  In election year 2008, the GOP suddenly forgot a more than a century of tradition regarding the family.  Pregnant young women safely married to the young men who knocked them up or to give up the child for adoption.  And to oppose any programs that would provide an incentive for single motherhood:  welfare.  And it was left to Democratic women to suddenly remember the set of Puritan values that the Republicans had quickly discarded.  Not exactly.  They questioned the “Party of God” for its hypocrisy regarding Palin by setting a different standard for the vast majority of American women.  As a Republican, I found good reason to question such hypocrisy myself.  After all, if a Democratic woman running for high office had a teenage girl who was pregnant out of wedlock, the news media and the GOP would have treated it as a scandal to immediately knock that woman out of the running for that office.  So excuse me, but the Democratic women had it exactly right.  Having an R after your name doesn’t change the nature of the beast.  There was indeed a lack of family values in the Palin household.

So what would it take for a woman to become president?  Here are some suggestions:

• A political commentator such as O’Reilly on Fox News calls you a bitch.  Go on Fox News and confront him.  Ask him this question; is your mother a bitch?  If he starts frothing and lashing out and declaring his love of his mother, then pointedly ask him this; didn’t you only shame your mother by calling me a bitch?  I would have thought she raised you better than this.
• They make a nutcracker out of your image.  Ask at the next townhall meeting, press conference, etc. if 1.  this means you are quite the “ball buster” or if 2.  you have what it takes to take on guys like Putin, Ahmedinijad, etc.?  And quite frankly, if you vote for me, I’ll prove to you that number 2 is the correct answer.
• Winking and flirting is only done at a bar or night club.  Acting like a drunk floozy in front of a bunch of beer kegs is a poor image to project and sticks out like a sore thumb in the voters’ minds come election day.  Not even male candidates will demean themselves like that, with the exception perhaps of Howard Dean?!?
• Demonstrating that you are informed about local, national and world issues stands you in better stead of being taken seriously than spouting nothing but empty ideological platitudes.
• Whether you have a career in politics or not, but have a fire in the gut regardless to desire to change what you see as a bad situation and only a position in high office may bring about a satisfactory change in that situation, then you stand by your message and depart not at all from it.  Your message is only as serious as you take it to be.
• Don’t whine.  Leave the male politicians to do that.  Instead, see above, make lemonade out of lemons.  As a politician on the campaign trail, you have an infinite capacity to turn  supposed negatives into  positives and turn it to your advantage.  Women possess the gift of creative intelligence, why not use it to its fullest extent?
• People aren’t going to automatically respect you or trust you.  (Reference now President Obama.)  Call it making your resume public as though you were entering a private sector job.  Show people that your public resume has value.  After all, they are the ones hiring you as the person they deem best for the job.

In a great many ways, a woman candidate could run her own campaign much like that of the male.  For people like Bill O’Reilly who are simply too infantile to accept yourself as the next leader of the free world, simply ask him this; who made it possible for you to be born?  For anyone who wants to apply a double bind strategy, ask them this; apparently that was of no importance when it came to your mother?  After all, these are people only declaring how shamefully they view their own lives.  Those who don’t respect themselves will only refuse to respect everyone else.

Harry Reid’s regrettable remarks

It would seem that Senator Harry Reid’s racial remarks resulted in a major onslaught by CNN on Monday, 11 January 2010. Was Senator Reid’s statements racist or racial? I am going to provide my own take on this matter.  I don’t regard Senator Reid’s remarks as excusable.  Yes, he had every reason to apologize for them and did.  President Obama, who was the recipient of these remarks, also accepted this apology.  Now, is this a statement that can  be called a political one day wonder and the news media then moves on?  They should.  And given that this is the off year elections 2010, then Senator Reid’s constituents should decide his fate.

Now as to what would have made Senator Reid’s comments particularly offensive.  Is it pointed out to a white politician that he “condescends” or “panders” to his audience if he drops his Harvard educated speech patterns and talks to his rural audience?  No.  Not typically.  Nor would a white politician get told that he sounds as ignorant as the people he has in his audience (the meaning of white dialect, perhaps).  And even further, would people have voted for Obama if he hadn’t spoken routinely in a well-cultured and educated manner?  Probably not.  Which says of the people who went on CNN, whether GOP or Democrat, that they danced around the issue of race relations.  It is a fact that Obama demonstrated how well educated he happened to be, that he was prepared to be informed on the substance of the issues during his presidential campaign, that won him the majority of the popular vote and a landslide victory in the electoral college vote.  “Negro dialect” simply never came up.  And why would it?  And why should it now?

What has happened is that Reid did denigrate Obama, as Senator (2008 remarks) and as presidential candidate.  But as stated above, the voters should decide what to do about Reid.

Taking political issue with a movie

Yeah, yeah, yeah; I know, a white guy gets to play the part of a cat guy and all racial hell breaks loose.  Normally, I would sympathize with such complaints when in the real world and here on Earth race relations go south.  Such as the Linda Campbell editorial (Spokesman-Review recently) about a racist who makes public threats against non-white journalists including Leonard Pitts, jr of the Miami Herald.  When racial profiling used by cops seems to net the innocent along with the guilty.  But a movie?  Come on now!

Would it make a difference if the Avatar were a non-white human who transforms into a cat and ultimately demonstrates the same liberal sympathy toward the peoples his race is invading?  IE the race card playing critics might not feel so jealous if the “race traitor” were in fact African-American, Indian, Oriental?  Of course, on the other side of the political fence…  Would come the argument of “that’s not fair,” this is a movie that questions our loyalty!

So why do “race traitors” get played more often by white guys than those of any other race?  Bet that’s a political question that doesn’t get asked in this racial rush to judgment about the movie itself.  The thing is, in the very real world of the Civil Rights struggle, race traitors were played by white dudes.  It also cost them their lives.  Or it cost them politically.  Because Caucasians continue to dominate the American landscape, it has fallen to Caucasians to also advance the cause of minorities, religious, political, racial, etc.  To bring change when the cause was just in a time when injustice prevailed.  To be the most politically outspoken when engaging in dissent of what is deemed “socially acceptable” for that time and place.

Courtland Milloy of the Washington Post (republished editorial in the Spokesman-Review 27 December 2009) unfortunately does the same  thing that the critics of Sci-Fi flick “Avatar” do, miss the larger point, that of history.  I’d consider it to be no less than accurate that when those of a “liberal bent” take up the cause of Palestinians over that of the people of Israel—besides the fact that they ignore the state of Israel’s struggle to survive—they are merely engaging in the old tradition that Caucasians must advance just causes, engage in protests of the “accepted;” even if fundamentally misguided.  Of course, I’d hardly regard Jake Sully as “misguided” if he ultimately sought to protect a people from doom.

I have not watched “Avatar” yet.  And do plan on it.  Even if I have to buy the movie.  But suffice it to say, I’d regard “Avatar” as a decent escapist movie to watch rather than attaching politically charged race relationships to it.

There are race relationships involved.  But that is of the human race versus the navi-cats.  The human race that has a very long history of invasion and conquest, of the decimation of indigenous peoples that go all the way back to biblical times.  A very sad history of violence which James Cameron’s movie no doubt accurately depicts.  After all, what we have historically done to our own in the real world on Earth, why would we assume that we wouldn’t do the same on other worlds and to the people’s of other worlds?  Of course we could.  And Mr. Sully so disagreed with that eventuality that he became a race traitor (of the human race) to side with the navi-cats.

Star Trek, after all, showed us the better angels of our nature.  What we as a people no longer as prone to violence—in short, we’d actually grown up and had truly become a civilized people—”Avatar” suggests the grim prospects that we never actually do.  We enter the universe still on the same path of destructive tendencies that we always did have while inhabiting Earth.  Jake Sully then becomes the enlightened dude (even if he did have to fall in love with a native first) to oppose humanities worst devils.

So, who the hell cares what he looked like originally before he became a navi-cat?  Unless you just happen to be a shallow type who nitpicks the fact that Sully was originally white.

Why don’t the movie critics hell bent on playing the race card try this on for size?  Doesn’t matter as to the color of your skin, you are still part of the human race.  When people grow up enough to realize that, then Jake Sully could have been played by anyone of any “race” of the human species and it should actually make no difference.  When he took the side of the navi-cats, he had become a traitor to his own.  Yeah, I’ll see the movie for the escapist flick that it is.

Misinterpreting the bible

There is one thing to be said about the History Channel when it shows biblical “disasters,” how quickly people come out to provide broad misinterpretations of the bible. I am watching “The Nostradamus Effect” where what is featured is a misunderstood “rapture.”  When the bible describes those who will be “taken,” being taken can be described in a great many ways, including that of being taken prisoner in a time of great strife, killed in a time of great strife, sickened, etc.  And while the Apostle Paul may have made certain promises to his fellow beleaguered Christians.  That they will rise in the air to meet Christ.  In short, that it would happen in his time.  Well, hate to tell the true believers, but Paul might have meant that they would become as persecuted and as martyred as Christ himself.  Which actual history does reveal.  And yes, Christians over at least two centuries did face a lot of persecution from those of the Roman and pagan faith.  And no, Christians did not do a disappearing act when facing the brutality of Nero for example, nor did they do a disappearing act when Saint Augustine used the power of the government to drive off the heretics.  Source:  Elaine Pagels religious historian.

So the question is, where does the “rapture” as currently interpreted fit in?

The whole idea of the rapture fits in with a fantasy of the early church; the Earth is only 6,000 years old by the time that Christ is born.  Based on a loose interpretation of the jubilees.  Therefore, “the end of days” would be assured when another thousand years had passed.  Well, to put it bluntly, some 1,800 or so years, give or take a decade or two since that early Christian priest first brought out this fantasy (Bible:  Only God knows the day and the hour…) the history of modern man since he first was able to pick up a quill, dab some form of ink and put it to papyrus, has definitely surpassed that date of Christ’s return to Earth.  No big deal, just keep moving up the date.  Which is what people like Tim LaHaye love very much to do.  And make these political divisions of us v them.  Those people not deemed righteous enough will get left behind to face true horrors.  Do reread the prior paragraph, about Christ or God not keeping the righteous from any sort of terrible tribulations.  Neither of persecutions by Pagans, nor persecutions by fellow Christians.  They were not spared the plagues, natural disasters, wars, revolutions, etc. for almost 2,000 years.  So, having endured true horrors that can be inflicted by man against man, or the terrors that nature can unleash upon man, Christians say, that this isn’t nearly as bad as what must surely come when we disappear in the future.  Not that I would wish to mock such a fervent belief, but 2,000 years after the bible and the presumption that the end times would occur during the same generation of Christ (by the way, yes, history does record that the end times for Israel did occur within the same generation of those who knew Christ) and no, Christians did not “rapture” at that time; and Christians are still fervently believing that scripture and therefore prophecy must apply in the here and now.

Well now, I can think of one thing that can apply to the here and now, the doom of man that arrives like a thief in the night.  In short, that it takes you unawares.  With as much navel gazing by people such as Tim LaHaye who look at the things he wants to see and discards all that (politically) that doesn’t fit with his dogma; I am quite sure that a great deal could take him unawares!  Who defines righteous?  God?  Or Tim LaHaye?  According to Acts, only God can determine who is clean or unclean, it isn’t up to LaHaye to make that decision.  And yeah, even he could be among those “left behind.”

What is also a laugh riot is deeming that the four horsemen of the Apocalypse would include the anti-Christ himself.  Actually, the four horsemen were sent by God to begin punishing the sinful, he’d hardly send out an anti-Christ to then do battle with Christ.  Rather, the anti-Christ was a totally separate and evil entity that rose up among men as a world leader and a claim of messianic fervor.  The sort of world leader who would deceive even the elite (Christians).  Yes, it would help if Christians would read Revelations in context.  In which case, to visit the label of anti-Christ on popes, kings, Hitler, etc. wouldn’t be out of the question or by any stretch of the imagination.  Anti-Christ does mean a truly cruel and brutal dictator who will persecute and destroy any person who does not demonstrate the utmost loyalty to him.  In which case, GW Bush could find himself with the label hung like an albatross around his neck.  Good thing this is a democracy, huh?

Who defines good and who defines evil?  Of the world’s three monotheistic beliefs, Islam, Christianity and Judaism, they all believe they are righteous and chosen to be with God in heaven.  Then who is defined as evil?  I could encourage my readership to think thusly:  evil is to fail to be moral.  Thus, a criminal can be considered evil.  How about other forms of evil?  To lack compassion is to be evil.  To fail to show an humanitarian impulse is to be evil.  To engage in murder because he or she or they is not “of us,” is to be evil.  Did not Christ say, “Love thy neighbor as thyself?”  To claim an association with Christ but refuse to comply with his straightforward teachings can’t possibly be a good thing.  To wash the outside of the pot but to leave the inside of it dirty, doesn’t put a person in the moral spotlight either.  That surely applies to anyone of any religion and “we” aren’t slated to go to heaven if we aren’t living up to biblical commands.  So, how would millions of people disappear across the Earth leading to havoc?  It might be one of those situations where God is told to spare Sodom and Gomorrah if  ten righteous men are found there in.  That could be tough.

---

Reading the other day a Kathleen Parker editorial about President Obama’s Nobel Peace prize in which he used the occasion for justifying America’s continued presence in Afghanistan.  Ms. Parker took the time to finally define conservative as a belief in human fallibility and therefore the necessity of moral order.  She could have quoted St. Augustine himself in which he did push, because of human fallibility the necessity of government.  Well, if that were the case, why do “conservatives” recognize human fallibility as an ingredient to support moral order in all things except the marketplace?  By placing the marketplace in this utopian view of perfection, as an entity capable of self-regulation, that should not face gvt intercession or intervention; also resulted in a global market crash, wide spread famine, the development of new diseases, of massive suffering in this “ownership society,” of a general economic breakdown just in this nation alone.  Apparently, human fallibility is not to be found where great wealth is created, technology and financial institutions do reign.  Actually yes, even there.  Then wouldn’t the restoring of a moral order require regulation just because of human fallibility?  That means, gvt intervention, doesn’t it?  Which puts the “conservatives” of today’s ideology in the untenable position of actually being liberals, or new left radicals.

Dept of Never pay attention to history

Looking at the latest letters between the Coeur d’Alene Press and the Spokesman-Review; I was quite struck with the realization as to the degree of continuity in the general theme of all writers published, a failure to much appreciate history.  Tom Blaschka has an interesting idea, that if we simply build homes (kit houses) in the good old U.S.A. and shipped them to Afghanistan, that the Afghan people would be so grateful for our assistance that they would resist the Taliban’s attempt to destroy it.  In a way, it can remind myself of the naivety of the Bush administration when going to war in Iraq, all we have to do is invade, become responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people, topple a dictator, impose the western version of democracy and the Iraqi people would be so grateful.  Some seven years later and we’ve seen just how that attempt at nation building turned out.  Yes, there is less violence but violence continues.  Yes, Iraq might be seen now as slightly more stable, but not very.  What Blaschka does not take into consideration is that these people can easily build their own homes, but; theirs is a corrupt government, they are 80% illiterate, they are in the vast majority impoverished.  And when we built schools to assist in alleviating some of that problem, the Taliban destroyed the schools, the Afghan peoples did not prevent such attacks, simply because; we would have educated young girls.  An imposition of western values deemed alien to the locals.  If you have known a single type of culture dating back many thousands of years; any kind of change, besides being dramatic, and coming from outside of one’s own culture, would have been regarded as inimical.  Now what would our building and shipping western style homes into Afghanistan do to change a culture and create friends?  If Blaschka can be considered “the left” because he is anti-war, then consider the next published writer.

Joe Bloomsburg is in a major hurry  to refute a “My Turn” author Ken Staley on health care reform.  Among other things, to call the man a liar.  If you pay attention to the short history of the health care debate, the GOP insisted on Health Care Reform as a “Waterloo” for President Obama.  They would use any efforts and pushing real reform as measures to take out a presidency.  Given their very public stance, why should the Democrats invite them into the crafting of the bill in the first place, if the GOP only plan on being obstructionist?  It is what you don’t say right Mr. Bloomsburg, that also constitutes a lie?  Then Mr. Bloomsburg goes on to provide another even bigger whopper, you don’t look for insurance until you actually get sick.  Uh, it is while you are healthy that you buy insurance against the eventuality of becoming sick, so that the insurance itself assists in covering the costs of medical problems.  So perhaps Bloomsburg only expects to buy homeowner’s insurance after his house burns down.  His real whining involves what government will “take away” even as it “gives away” to other people.  Then attacks that Illinois politician (who came from the same state as Abe Lincoln by the way), for his Chicago style politics.  Uh, and GW Bush didn’t have Texas style politics?  Bill Clinton didn’t have Arkansas style politics?  Yeah, I am quite sure that there are many cities inclusive of Chicago that can be considered homes to corrupt politics.  At the same time, it is entirely possible for a politician to rise above past history and become the better man.  Even as the lingering critique (ref Bloomsburg) is to always associate the man with his adopted city and state.  You just have to love the ugly and dirty side of politics in a nation that immediately gives Bloomsburg the right to say it.  Wonder why he simply does not appreciate what he has?  After all, if he were truly living in a tyranny, no newspaper would publish his garbage and he would be arrested for publicly spouting it.

And finally, Christopher Bass getting published in the Spokesman-Review.  His letter was generally thoughtful however, he like a great many others among the new left forget that the Declaration of Independence was the first sounding of the drums of a Revolutionary War against a tyrannical state, that of Great Britain’s rule of the colonies.  It was not a declaration that centuries later, TEA Party activists, militia movements and etc. could then argue that a government run by the opposition party would be regarded as tyrannical.  Or that meeting the needs of the people who elected them should be regarded as tyrannical.  After all, these people know where the polling places are each November.  At no time have they been driven away from such polling places by threats to their very lives.  They can peacefully assemble and vote for their favorite politician.

Bass could consider that at one time, the presidency itself wasn’t obtained through popular vote.  State governments determined who the Electoral College attendees would be and “the people” would simply have to accept the outcome.  In short, this nation was actually at one time less democratic than it is now.  More federalist in the early 19th century than it is today.  What if President Andrew Jackson had not changed the rules on electing presidents, capitalizing on those changing of rules in order to obtain his place in the oval office?  Then shall we argue that Mr. Bass could have a legitimate complaint about  the “tyranny” that excludes his vote when it comes to initiatives, referendums, specific bonds and determining from the local, state, and federal offices who shall obtain a seat there?  After all, we are talking about the federalism of history, what it really meant to the people who fought against it, and Mr. Bass is now the beneficiary of that successful struggle.

What you don’t know about history you are bound to repeat it.  In all cases, the writers demonstrated an appalling ignorance of history.

A few words now about President Obama accepting the Nobel Peace Prize as shown on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” last night; Obama reminds his audience that he is sworn to protect the citizens of the U.S. …  Compare that to the cartoon in the Coeur d’Alene Press this morning that totally misrepresented what Obama had said.  Obama who pushes the troop surge in Afghanistan in the days prior to accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.  He leaves the soldier in the tank out on the street (the slogan on the tank reads Afghanistan troop surge) and Obama informs the soldier, excuse me, I’ll be right back.  Should I remind such people that terrorist attacks in the U.S. where the terrorists had their base in Afghanistan are the reason why we invaded that country in the first place?

Yes, Happy Holidays

It was a letter to the editor in the Coeur d’Alene Press Wednesday 2 December 2009 that really got me riled. Where the writer admitted to wanting to go downtown and spend money freely until seeing something posted that said, “Happy Holidays.” And proceeded to “get upset” that “Merry Christmas” wasn’t being displayed instead. The question that I have for both the writer and the Press, where is your Christmas spirit?  After all, what did Christ teach in his lifetime?  Love thy neighbor as thyself, of course.  Doesn’t sound as though much love was in evidence if the writer could take issue with a sign.

What does holiday mean?  It is a corruption of a two word term Holy and Day.  Holy Day.  In the month of December there are a number of Holy Days and “Christmas” combines much that is pagan in its festivities as well as an honor of and a celebration of Christ’s life and teachings.  It certainly can’t be his “birthday” since he wasn’t born in December.  But, as is an historical fact, “Christians” decided to hold a Mass for Christ on a date near the time of the Roman Saturnalia that over many centuries then came to be understood as “Christ’s birthday” by centuries of religious re-interpretation. Let’s also put it bluntly, that many elements of the Roman Saturnalia can be found in Christmas celebrations today and gift giving wasn’t exactly exclusive to Christians.  Could it be said then that the New Testament had plenty of pagan influence?  Absolutely.  And the fact that the Roman Saturnalia occurred during the time of the Winter Solstice as a Holy Day also put this contrivance of a Mass for Christ as a political agenda in a similar pagan element.

I watched the parade after I got off work on “Black Friday.”  Having the time to pay some bills and get a little shopping done before going to see the parade and lighting ceremony.  Guess what I saw on the lead float?  A Cool Yule!  Wonder if the disgruntled writer managed to miss that one?  Or did she just happen to think that Yule and Christmas are one and the same.  No.  Since Yule celebrations had preceded both Christians and Christmas over a few thousand years.  Yule is in fact a Winter Solstice celebration rather like that of the Roman Saturnalia.  For the first time, the CDA Christmas parade had actually recognized the pagan beginnings of Solstice celebrations.  And whether this writer would like it or not, Christmas is itself a type of solstice celebration.  Especially in how people decorate today.

So, paganism combines with the “Christian” use of the Winter Solstice at this time of the year when “we” are expected to celebrate “Christ’s birth.”  Uh, I understand that the pagan man god Mithras was born at this time of the year and was Christ simply to “replace” Mithras as the new mythological man god?  I am quite sure that Christ in his lifetime would not have approved of being redefined in a pagan manner by “Christians” trying to convert Pagans.  But that is the political history behind this Mass for Christ.  Reference for this history lesson:  Pagans and Christians by Author Fox.

So we have now covered two major Holy Days where at least one combines the traditions of both:  Solstice/Christmas.  Now, how about Hanuka?  That isn’t an important Holy Day or days at this time of the year?  I had to love it when a decade or so back “Christians” came out in droves declaring their “Judeo/Christian” origins and beliefs.  A “Happy Holidays” sign would recognize Hanuka as an important holiday for those of the Jewish belief.  For those taking issue with such a sign as this writer had, also declares that only one Holy Day has any importance, that Holy Day that is near and dear to her faith:  Christmas.  That puts an end as it were to the prior claims of people who demanded the recognition of “Judeo/Christian” morals and values.  Yet, within a matter of time reject the “Judeo” part of their religious traditions when crafting the “victim card” in this “War on Christmas.”  What does “Happy Holidays” say, if not:  We recognize all holidays at this time of the year.  And would be far more Christian in spirit than the letter writer herself was even able to pretend to.  After all, in this pluralistic country filled with religious diversity, not all of one’s neighbors would even be Christian let alone be prepared to celebrate Christmas.  There is in fact more of Christ’s teachings in “Happy Holidays” than could be found in all of this complainer’s  letter about this sign appearing on the float.

“Christians” invented this “War on Christmas” so that they could have some new political agenda to drive a backlash at the society that supposedly forgot its more “religious elements.”  If Christmas is supposed to be a celebration of Christ, then the only people making war on this Holy Day are the very people proclaiming that they are its most “ardent defenders.”  You can’t very well defend Christ or his Holy Day if you aren’t practicing his morals and values.

“Good Night, Good Luck” the movie

I had the occasion for watching a bit of “Good Night and Good Luck” the movie yesterday morning.  Edward Murrow v Senator Joe McCarthy docudrama.  Does anyone recall the Commie scare of the 1950s?  I was born as McCarthy was continuing his hunts for “commie infiltration” into gvt and the U.S. Military and going after anyone who dared to question him.  Where Murrow and the CBS crew at the time was concerned, they were uniquely brave to go on the air and question what McCarthy was doing.  This was a particularly hideous time in this nation’s history, just by being associated with someone who read the wrong newspaper, you were immediately regarded as a security risk.  If you were even married to someone at some point who had in fact attended the wrong sort of meetings, you were deemed questionable as to your loyalty.  Yet, in spite of all this, the news media did its job and questioned McCarthy.  Despite being called “leftists” for asking the tough questions concerning McCarthy’s persecutions of the innocent, ultimately, Murrow and his team were to prevail and McCarthy’s attacks on freedom itself was eventually thrown into disarray.

In an age where newspapers are suddenly reeling from having lost to competitive blogs, TV, a bad economy and etc. perhaps this is a lesson to be learned here.  Murrow faced something far more daunting that truly did threaten freedom of the press and because of his efforts, that freedom continues to exist today.  So, what has the news media done with the freedom of the press preserved for them by the efforts of Murrow?

They spend too much time discussing Michael Jackson rather than dealing with important news developments.  They engage in political partisanship depending upon who enters office rather than taking a broad look and reporting on the problems, failures and successes of gvt as a whole.  They provide fluff pieces over and above investigative work.  Or they may instead kill investigative work if in fact an exposure of a company as sponsor of their program were to annoy or offend their sponsor.  In short, the news media does not operate on courage any longer.

I think that “Good Night and Good Luck” should be a must view for all news media outlets, you could get here today only because Murrow practically single-handedly saved your industry for you.  Now what you do with that gift is up to you.