Oh! NOW you care about granny?

When it is possible to turn the elderly into political fodder in order to win a political majority

After wading through the fluff and nonsense, the nasty attacks, the nastier signs, the screaming and shouting, that has taken the place of any open and honest “debate” on health care reform, it takes a Ms.  Kathleen Parker column to help clarify the issue.  I’ll agree with her on the current language of “end of life care” that if Medicare is required to fund it, it should be an option.  Available only if desired.  But, not mandatory.

That being said, I expect it has taken an act of Congress to even deal with an issue that has actually been going on in this nation for decades:  what happens when you are terminally ill?  Not just an “elderly burden to the family,” which I’ll also address in this blog.  Hospice sprang into existence as an advocate for compassionate “end of life” care.  Not having ever made use of their services, not knowing how much they charge, but what doesn’t enter into the debate—whether one is deliberately disrupting a townhall meeting orchestrated by members of Congress trying to let the public know what’s in the overall health care reform or carrying signs that portray Obama as “Hitler”—is whether Hospice as an “end of life care” organization could get Medicare reimbursement.  Seems we are leaving behind the organizations that might actually do some good in that mad frenzy to unseat the current Dem majority.  Let’s whip of hysteria over what one presumes is in that bill as opposed to what actually is in that bill, vague language that Ms. Parker can rationally complain about notwithstanding.  A manufactured set of myths to cause the crazies to go even wilder and then get their 15 minutes of further exposure on Fox News (The Daily Show with Jon Stewart).  But let us actually forget the actual situation that granny was facing prior to Obama becoming president.

Big Pharma can sure charge a lot for “name brand pills” for every possible “condition” under the sun; even if it is a “condition” that doctors hadn’t heard about and one literally invented by Big Pharma so that they can advertise pills that sure as hell could and will create medical problems for you if you take that “Doctor’s prescription.”  After of course being told to “ask your doctor about…”  As long as Big Pharma “was playing God,” with plenty of advertisements on TV, very expensive advertisements on TV, Cal Thomas wasn’t whining about a “health care” that would usurp God.  But then, he has been very much in the pocket of the get rich quick private sector from the beginning.  We just don’t want a “Dem majority” usurping God.  How about that “Medicare reform” that the GOP pushed through and GW signed that “usurped God?”  I guess that met with Thomas approval.  Because there sure were some wild rantings about the pills that grandma could cut in half (after the “Medicare reform” legislation passed into law, natch); or having to decide between her hundreds of dollars in medicine v her heating expenses.  Or her hundreds of dollars in medicine v her monthly food bill.  But only the (old) left was prepared to actually discuss those particular horror stories, but not the GOP.  While the GOP were in the majority, granny was left to fare the best she could (or not) on her own.  As for Medicare itself, it was an “entitlement” that many a GOP (writing letters to the editor) would rather not pay into.  Even though (like Social Security) they would stand to benefit from such taxation in their elderly years.  In short, “screw granny.”  That is, until “granny” could become useful as a means by the GOP to become a majority party by 2010.  The problem now however, is that it has quite simply gotten out of hand.  Especially when a guy carrying a real threat, a loaded pistol, visits a townhall meeting and then gets featured on Fox News.  The GOP helped break the health care system in this nation by declaring that it was a “for profit” private enterprise and part of the “free market.”  That they don’t want to see changed at all.  But the other problem is, because health care has become a for profit private enterprise, the “death panels” already exist, rationed care already exists; and this nation has only been living with that fact for years.  (With reference to the Spokesman Review blogs.)  It just has never entered the “public radar” until the GOP exploited it for the purposes regaining power.

Consider organ donation, who decides if your grand dad might get a liver transplant?  Bet he could be on a “waiting list” forever until the day he dies.  On a very expensive dialysis machine until the day he dies.  On the other hand, a retired head of corporation with lotsa moolah could step to the head of the line and gets the liver that your grand dad died waiting for.  That looks very “death panel” from here.  Strange that this just never gets discussed by the GOP and the frenzies that they just had to whip into mad fury at the various townhall meetings.  How would I know about the preceding?  The news, of course.  You could indeed apply a “Hitler” face all right, and it would correctly find its way to the free market.  The situation is, the GOP had to know all about what was going on prior to Obama’s election, prior to the Dems gaining a super majority in Congress, and refused to gnash their teeth over it.  After all, private enterprise, “the free market;” that was where they were really at as to party platform and etc.  Until the situation they actually agreed with prior to Obama becoming president and began enacting health care reform could be exploited to destroy any valid attempts at reform and keep already existing “death panels” (for profit in the private sector) and rationed care (courtesy of “health insurance companies”) firmly in their grip.  And your granny can go on suffering.

Now as to the “burdensome elderly.”  Don’t we already have nursing homes for the “burdensome elderly?”  Haven’t they proven highly spendy?  Has there not been puhlenty of horror stories about such facilities?  One could read and watch the news about how much God is usurped when it comes to this issue as well.  But until the GOP could exploit the “burdensome elderly” on the national stage…  You just didn’t see them wasting one breath on the matter.

I regard what the GOP are doing as the worst sort of cynical exploitation and they need to be exposed for having done so.  Speaking of socialism and communism; looks like the GOP are doing just fine as the new lefties making every use of all elements thereof.

Joe Heller cartoon republished in the 13 August 2009 Spokesman-Review, the GOP shackled to the following:  the birther movement, the townhall disruption movement, and the “Christian” crazies shouting that Obama is a Muslim socialist.  Asking for Bill Clinton’s assistance to free them from the kind of people that they only catered to in trying to win elections.  Funny really, for all the intended irony.

The teachable moment

My brother came up from Nampa, Idaho for a class reunion. That being done he spent some time prepared to visit with my mother.  More than once, she brought up the Professor Gates case, the Harvard scolar arrested by Officer Crowley at his own home.  The second time, while we were having a parting breakfast with my sister and her friend at JB’s who had also come up for a visit.  Of course, my oldest brother was all for passing judgment on the President of the U.S., Barack H. Obama for even daring to speak out about what he thought had gone wrong with that arrest of Prof. Gates.  And pitying the poor woman who called 9/11 as being labeled a “racist.”  But then, my brother had only the day before labeled the Christian Obama as a “Muslim,” as in “What can you expect anyway from a Muslim President?”  Speaking of bigot…

So, let me be clear here as to what ought to be a “teachable moment.”  A white Republican president gets word that a white GOP pal out of Harvard gets arrested by an African-American arresting officer.  Seems the GOP prof having traveled abroad and only recently returned from his trip to China is unloading his luggage and trying to get into the front door of his home, finds his door jammed, and trying to get inside soon after faces a visit from the officer in question.  Waxing belligerent at the officer and getting arrested for “disorderly conduct,” as soon as the GOP prof finds the charges dropped against him; cries about his “treatment” to no less than the white GOP prez.

How would the news media react if the Prez said that the arresting officer “behaved stupidly?”  How would the fellow police officers react if the white prez said of the African-American officer that he (or she) “behaved stupidly?”  How might Fox News react?  While I did not go to such in-depth statements with my brother as we left JB’s this morning; I did say to him that if a white man had said exactly what Obama had, that the reaction would be different.  I have no doubts that the reaction would be different.  Just different enough that it ought to tell this country in general, the news media more specifically and finally the thin blue line that is quick to declare where their allegiance may truly lie when any one of their fellow officers might get caught in a wrongful situation.  So yes, it would not surprise me that Crowley’s backup would defend her fellow officer under the circumstances.  Just as it would not surprise me that in a great many questionable situations that Leonard Pitts, jr. has affirmed, very rarely do police officers caught in a serious situation  pay the price.  But the African-American reaching for his wallet and shot numerous times by trigger happy police officers; well, Prof Gates would be as aware of that history without a doubt as Pitts himself.  And Gates over-reacting to a visit from the police, would be highly understandable too.  But then, my brother wouldn’t know all that would he?  He reads “The Drudge Report.”  Until you are on the receiving end of “police behaving stupidly,” you really wouldn’t know what it is like.

Ask Shonto Pete out of Washington state.  A cop behaving stupidly sat at the bar after he was off-duty and got drunk.  That wouldn’t be so bad but he came into the bar armed with his service weapon.  And then used it on Mr. Pete with an after the fact claim that Pete was trying to “steal his truck.”  Not proven.  Or Otto Zehm who finally died as a consequence of police behaving stupidly.  A 9/11 call presuming that Mr. Zehm, a mentally challenged janitor was “behaving suspiciously” around an ATM.  From, “behaving suspiciously” trying to get himself a snack and a drink at the local convenience store and getting thoroughly beaten up in the process and ultimately dying because of it.  Some better than two years later, only now is at least one arresting officer actually facing a federal indictment.

It isn’t wrong to question the ethics and practices of bad apples who carry a badge.  But it would seem that if you are a bi-racial Democratic president with the name of Obama, thou shalt not!!!  Or meet the wrath of the talking heads who want to fan the flames of hatred because the same president made an honest statement about a very questionable situation.  Why shouldn’t he?  Why shouldn’t anyone?  We have blogs where many people can come on board and discuss at length the cops who behave stupidly, even former cops can weigh in.  We can discuss cops behaving stupidly, we can videotape cops behaving stupidly, but the President of the U.S. must be forbidden expressing that sentiment.  Why?  Must be because of his dad’s race.  Which begs the question of just how much this country may have advanced; make that grown up; since the slave owning days.  We advanced enough to put an African-American in the White House, but we seem not to have advanced enough to not hold him in contempt for even opening his mouth and saying something.

Would I say that all parties over-reacted?  Of course.  Would I label the woman who made the 911 call “racist?”  No.  Would I argue that Obama in trying to bring two “warring parties” to the White House and having them talk things over brought closure to this issue?  I’d love to but for those “Muslim hating” crackpots who are highly uncomfortable with the idea that anyone but a White Man ought to occupy the White House.  Or that the White Man ought to be anyone but a Republican.

Seems to me that the news media ought to feel some sense of shame here.  They only did report the many instances in which “cops behaving stupidly” killed the innocent while in pursuit of the bad guy.  If a white president said of the situation above that the arresting officer had “behaved stupidly” in even pushing this sorry situation even further, escalating the incident so that he (or she) could make an arrest, even though the individual stood on his own property and showed all proper ID; would a white president get the kind of strident attacks that Obama had received?  Would a white president even find it necessary to “apologize” for his remarks?  Would the news media raise a racket because of what the white president did?  I am not in a position to answer such questions, but perhaps my readers will.

Health care as Waterloo? Give me a break!

There are good reasons to have some serious questions about health care reform as touted by the Obama administration. Such as its costs. Such ha-huge costs of reforming the system from the ground up. Some trillions of dollars is proposed to reduce waste, provide insurance and etc. I’d balk.  But, I sure wouldn’t play politics with people’s lives just because I (a Republican) just hate the fact that I am a minority in Congress, the Dems hold the majority and the president himself is a Dem.  I sure wouldn’t exploit the misery of patients who face the very real threat of bankruptcy just because of the escalating costs of health care alone in this nation.

Not unless I were a values challenged Republican member of Congress by the name of DeMint(?) who wants to use “health care reform” as an opportunity to get back at the damn Dem in the White House, the one who wishes to push “socialism” on the rest of us and of course “break him.”

Is that all the GOP can think to do these days?  Look for opportunities to “break” the people’s choice for president?  Then let me remind the dude of why exactly he is now among the minority.

Apparently it wasn’t “socialism” when big pharma and the major league insurance industry got the bulk of taxpayer funded “Medicare reform” while the GW administration was still in office.  Apparently, GOP in Congress didn’t really blink much of an eye when the GW administration lied to their collective faces about the ultimate cost of “Medicare reform.”  Nor did they waver in their conviction that big gvt can do great things (as long as it benefits big business after all) at the complexities of “Medicare reform” that wouldn’t have done that much to help any senior citizen who wasn’t wealthy enough to buy into it.  Well now, if it was going to cost billions to “reform” Medicare to the benefits of private enterprise; then it should come as no surprise that reforming an entire health care system would probably cost twice, maybe even 3 times as much.  But of course, the health insurance industry and big pharma aren’t the ones who necessarily get the benefits of such taxpayer funding this time.  Not if Obama wants to reorientate health care as “patient friendly.”  *shudder* That’s “socialism” that the gvt might actually be responsive to the people who demand something from it.  Can’t have that, can we now.

I can have serious questions about health care being brought under any form of gvt control.  But, as with public education; I don’t regard health care as a “consumer based” part of the “free market.”  The very fact that the GOP decided that health care could become a “for profit” type of business meant that a lot of things could happen that went wrong with the whole industry.  For example:  Insurance rates that go higher and higher.  Coverage that goes less and less.  Insurers who refuse to abide by their side of the business transaction when the prospective patient signs on the dotted line.  That is, actually pay out the necessary money when the patient gets sick or injured.  Only recently, did a fellow repeat his headaches of having to deal with insurance companies more into profits than actually doing what they were paid to do, actually provide insurance for the fellow who paid them good money for that very coverage.  Some companies were better than others.  It is because of this that health care reform could even be put on the table.

How about doctors that misdiagnose patients?  Or who won’t see you unless you have insurance money in hand?  Who can’t be bothered with providing “World Class Treatment” in a great many hospitals (where patients are known to die in the thousands each year from any number of complications)—with reference to a recent “patients united” ad?  That too would be cause to put health care reform on the table.

If I happen to have serious questions about Obama’s current plan, it is because he isn’t addressing what is crippling the system from the get-go and that is the attitude that there is a difference between being a patient and being a consumer.  No hospital is in the business of making a profit.  The money that they make from any patient able to pay the bill must go into staff, building upkeep, records, medical supplies, insurance, etc.  The idea that they must make a profit at the expense of the patient should be met with outrage.  Health care is not a business transaction.  It is not my buying a doctor’s prescription in which a $200 bottle of pills ultimately finds a large percentage of it in his, the pharmacist, the pharm company, the store that sells it, pockets.  It is not like a TV set, after all.  Once the pill bottle is emptied and must be refilled, that I am expected to again pay $200 for a refill.  $200 to keep my personal health semi-afloat.  What if I don’t have that $200 to spend?

Then do remember this; there was a time when no pharm company advertised prescription medication.  Anything that did get televised was aspirin vs that other brand.  Mouthwash vs that other brand.  Nasal decongestants vs that other brand.  Stuff that could be bought off the shelf for temporary relief.  At that time as well, health care was far more affordable than it is now.  But then, patients weren’t buying “brand names” such as Cialis or ads for Viagra with money handed over for their prescription medication.  So, give me a break.

The Tale of Two Editorials…and comedians

Obama’s poll numbers are dropping! Obama’s poll numbers are dropping! If you are a new left Republican of course you would be dancing with joy that so soon (7 months now) of Obama entering office as president, he is already going through some very tough times as president.  However, I can expect Obama’s poll numbers to change with the flick of a light switch depending on whom you poll.  What I don’t expect, is that the American government reinvesting billions of dollars in this country with a trillion dollar deficit (as recently reported on the CBS News) to have an overnight or instant success in putting the economy back on track.  Won’t happen.  For anyone with a short term memory loss of the primary season 08; Obama said at the time (on his way to becoming president) that it took years to accomplish a wrecked economy and that it would take years to fix it.  But if you are a news media not in the tank for Obama (after all) and don’t want to refer to what the man said at the time and the facts as they existed then and now then you can do the following poll:  Did you want the stimulus plan to be instantly successful?  Yes Ο No Ο.  If you checked Yes then went on with the next caveat how do you feel about continued job losses?  Upon that would hinge whether or not Obama’s poll numbers would stay in the stratosphere or come down significantly.

What the news media who do such polls don’t wish to recall is that job losses were exceedingly high in this country over the last 8 years.  The jobs growth (?) reported by business interests to the federal gvt as well as the GDP (business profits but not worker productivity) was not one that benefited the American workforce nor those businesses that most depended upon the American consumer.  So, when you willingly go along with the propaganda put out by a Republican administration then there is no question that you can skew so called “random” polling of a few thousand individuals accordingly.  The economy started its downward slide for real (not with the dot com bubble burst) upon the discovery that Enron was exploiting greed and a lack of real regulation and proper oversight of its business dealing to literally cost businesses to go into a state of collapse.  Of creating energy prices so high, along with rolling black outs that greatly effected the state of California…  California wanted a timid Republican administration to do something about the looming Enron caused catastrophe.  But, GW bowed to the pressure of business interests and lobbyists and refused to act.  Veep Cheney was prepared to put the scandal plagued company on a preferred status of getting gvt handouts as part of an energy task force—taxpayer funded—package.  Perhaps if that package hadn’t come acropper at the hands of Congress, it might have prevented Enron’s financial collapse for a little while longer. But, it wouldn’t have prevented Enron from ultimately collapsing from its weight of pure greed…

But it isn’t the prior Republican administration that Cal Thomas wants to point to as “timid.”

However, without a doubt, Bill Maher had this in mind when (Comedy Central 13 July 2009) he had an hour long commentary about “The Decider” and the fact that not only did Congress become a wholy owned subsidiary of varied business companies esp. big pharma, but also the White House itself.  When you are a wholy owned subsidiary of the private sector you are indeed going to be timid in your dealings with them nor will you be decisive in acting on the behalf of the people being hurt by this same private sector.

Enron set the stage for the train wreck that the economy would become.  And it took all of 8 years before the economy reached the point where GW’s “base of support” got to feeling the pinch and a significant number of them simply did not vote for McCain by 4 November 2008.  A timid president is what we had the last time.  Yet, for all of his timidity he had remarkably high poll numbers didn’t he?  Well, if you knew who his “base” happened to be and where they lived, you could indeed keep his poll numbers artificially high, even as our timid president couldn’t be the decider to keep a nation economically healthy.  We could go to war in large part to keep business interests like Haliburton economically healthy.  We could drain the treasury of tax $$$ to fund two wars and keep the very wealthy and the most wealthiest of businesses rolling in even more dough.  We could encourage, couldn’t we, the arguments given by business interests that they simply “couldn’t compete” unless they hired all those illegal aliens or outsourced as much labor as possible, or even imported legal and far cheaper foreign labor.  But the unemployed pay no taxes.  And if they pay no taxes then the states are going to feel the pinch as to the services they can provide, the cut backs that will have to commence, the loss to education, public safety and public health just because of it.  Nor do the unemployed buy anything.  With the net result, that retail chains started suffering because of the drop in consumer spending.  Some small businesses went out of business.  Various mall owners started facing bankruptcy.  Our timid previous president wasn’t concerned with the actual GDP of profit losses that business suffered from because of the increasing lack of consumer buying.  He was all about fudging the numbers.  Of a very creative propaganda about where this nation economically stood when in fact no one could have in reality have been able to paint such a rosy picture.  Because to be actually decisive and tell the truth was a much too frightening prospect.

Where GW stood on domestic matters, you can be just as certain that he was equally timid on foreign policy as well.  Whether it had to do with Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea and Iran.  He could take us to war, all right; but he kept shifting the goal posts on decisively dealing with any of the above nations in a non war capacity.  Only a timid president would do that.

So, where did Thomas come up with the idea that Obama was “timid” in attempting to keep his well-known campaign promises as a matter of foreign policy?  To put it bluntly, Thomas hates the fact that there isn’t now a GOP for president.  That’s the main crux of his argument.  But would a hypothetical President McCain have done a better job?  Not if he agreed with GW 90% or better during the primary season.  And only followed in the footsteps of the previous timid president.  But, McCain wouldn’t have been attacked for 1.) Doing too much.  2.) Not doing too much.  3.) Spending too much.  4.) Not spending enough.  5.) Having the wrong foreign policy.  6.) Not having the wrong foreign policy.  7.) Trying to fix what is broken with the potential for a trillion dollar deficit.  8.) Refusing to fix what is broken just because of a potential for a trillion dollar deficit.  Unless you happen to be a “liberal” of course.  Everyone else, happy to have a Republican in the highest office in the land would have floated on past what went wrong and what went right about his administration.

Barney Frank was on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.”  He explained the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco that ultimately fringe Republicans wanted to hang on him and other Democrats during the primary season and during the general election campaign.  Seems that the GOP wanted Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to finance subprime lending to guarantee home ownership for people who actually couldn’t have afforded that type of mortgage to begin with. He wanted Fannie and Freddie to stick with affordable renting.  So, let us put it bluntly, that if Frank is correct in what he said, then the collapse of housing, Countrywide, banks, and the rise of foreclosures in this nation (after all, part of the taxes taken in by the state comes from property as well) can now be handed entirely to the GOP.  The people who seemed to have fully wrecked the free market they were supposed to be fully in love with.

Kinsley being published a day before Thomas (Spokesman-Review, Spokane, Washington) had quite an argument about what Obama should do to push for health care reform.  Begin only reforming and in small chunks that which was most affordable and therefore most palatable to Congress.

Then again, when watching Bill Maher on Comedy Central last night; he had quite a stand up routine on big pharma.  Correct as far as it goes that big pharma seems hell bent on producing pills these days that might kill you before they can cure you.  And inventing diseases in order to push the pill onto the market.  And inventing those highly spendy national ads to push the pills for diseases that most doctors might never have heard of.  And requiring of the consuming public that they knew better what their symptoms were and therefore should ask their doctor if the recently advertised pill was right for them.  Shouldn’t the doctor tell me?  That was one thing I could find myself in complete agreement with Maher over, ask your undertaker if ___________________ is right for you.

Kinsley did not get into discussing how big pharma could control costs.  Quit introducing fad pills that creates more medical problems than it solves.  Quit advertising those fad pills that results in people getting sick and dying for having taken them.  Of course not.  But a percentage of out of control health care has to do with people seeking profits long before they consider actually helping people with their products.  Let’s put it bluntly, health care as a “free market” attitude isn’t going to put health first.  Nor will costs be controlled while $$$ are at stake.  A lot more would have to be changed than say replacing a faucet on a leaky pipe while the water gushes somewhere else.  Or putting pipe fittings here and there willy nilly.  Attitudes have to change, for the health care system to begin to function again.

Thomas, one of his last comments had to do with the “timidity” of the current president that would allow this country’s economy to go into another wreck.  It hasn’t recovered from the first one.  Nor will it, for awhile.  But while Thomas wants to hang the economy as an Albatross on Obama’s neck, Frank had this to say as well, just how much the GOP were opposed to the extra 40 billion going to the states…  Yeah, the GOP timidity in actually doing anything at all for the people who put them in office.  Sorry, everything can’t be blamed on the current president.

Too many letters, too little thinking

In both the Spokesman-Review and the Coeur d’Alene Press were letters that were either hilarious, irrational, silly or literally beyond the pale. So to try to make sense of it, a little need to discuss them here.

You can’t help laughing at the particular irony of two letters running in two different papers where the main theme is taking scripture out of context in order to “prove” something.  Deborah Solomon is right that you shouldn’t take scripture out of context and ignore those verses in the bible that don’t fit with your world view.  (The same argument that ought to apply to any number of anti-abortion screeds.)  However, in the Press letters is one Jason Hopkins who routinely takes scripture out of context to “prove” that not only is the bible the first word on science, but that it also predicts current scientific laws.  I actually highly doubt that it does anything of the sort.  After all, it wasn’t all that long ago in decades when those of anti-evolutionary views (anti-science to the rest of us) misread the book of Job to “prove” that dinosaurs existed in Old Testament text, as did wooly mammoths.  Uh, excuse me?  But there is no proof that wooly mammoths ever existed in the Middle East since their last known place of appearance is in the Arctic, currently covered by deep glacial ice.  And the Arctic wasn’t exactly known to exist during the time of Job.  On the other hand, it wouldn’t be too surprising if a dinosaur bone popped up in the middle east, as it had in Asia and also in the Americas.  And perhaps on the basis of finding such bones, then the myth of the Leviathan would have been born.  But, only in one scripture out of one book is the Leviathan ever mentioned.  And that is where God chides Job over his presumptions of thinking he can shake a fist at The Lord because of the ills that currently afflict him.  It has nothing to do with either proving or disproving Darwin’s theories.  And meanwhile, “all things are possible with God,” is utterly ignored.  So, Mr. Hopkins takes partial scriptural quotes to “prove” thermodynamics and other current scientific theory.  Making the argument that God’s law is the basis for current scientific theory.  But if I were to turn to each scripture he mentions and read in context, I highly doubt that the scriptures would have “proven” what he claims.

Let’s put it bluntly, that what we now regard as the laws of thermodynamics and others known to exist in the current scientific understanding of things inclusive of the physical universe; scientists did not turn to scripture.  No, they turned to testing, physical observation and etc.  Galileo only physically observed the stars in order to conclude that our solar system in heliocentric—the Earth travels around the sun.  God’s scripture did not tell him that.  Newton watched an apple drop from the tree.  He came up with the theory of gravity.  The bible never addressed gravity.

So, here is a challenge for the readership:  What does each scripture really say put in context with preceding and following scripture?  Isaiah 34:4 and? Hebrew 1:12 and? Job 26:10 and? 28:5 and? 38:24 and? (Remembering that the book of Job was in reality his shaking his fist at God because of what God allowed the devil to do in inflicting injury on Job in order to test his faith.  Now how did that become a serious scientific document?)  Eccliastics 1:6 and?  Jerimiah 33:22 and? Amos 9:6 the water cycle discovered 3 centuries ago.  Which is interesting since that scripture was written some thousands of years prior to that particular discovery; and?  Hebrew 1:11 and?  Hebrew 11:3 and? Coll:17 ???  Now there’s a real pattern here, wouldn’t you say?  A letter writer who jumps from one diverse scripture to another to “prove” what scriptures taken in context wouldn’t be proving at all.  The bible is all about moral authority and guidance toward a more civilized society.  That has absolutely nothing to do with scientific discovery.

When it comes to Gabe Iacobi and his long lament over the new cap and trade legislation:  taxes, taxes, taxes.  But is every small business a polluting industry?  Precisely, one that must fall under new clean air standards?  No.  But it doesn’t stop Mr. Iacobi from engaging in the hysterical broad brush of how much cap and trade legislation would “burden” even non polluting small businesses.  And then engages in the typical hyperbole of how much “going green” would ultimately cost energy consumers.  Uh, has anyone taken note of the twisty flourescent bulbs that have entered the stores in the last few years?  You can literally replace an ordinary light bulb with one that saves energy…  And then can do any other the following:  reproduces natural sunlight, reproduces natural daylight, replicates ordinary house lights.  If you aren’t consuming as much energy (that comes primarily from polluting industries) how would your energy costs go up?  Only if the energy (and polluting) company (such as Avista) insists on raising the costs of operation because it isn’t getting the energy consumption profits from the ratepayers that it wants.  And that is after advertising how to cut the costs of energy (and therefore carbon) use.  Obviously, the studies (inclusive of that from the radical Heritage Foundation) that Mr. Iacobi sites, are going to have their political axes to grind.  The Heritage Foundation in particular will oppose clean air standards promoted by the Dem majority Congress and the Dem president Barack H. Obama.  So?  Bet the next generation however is able to breath a little easier.

Next on the list; Donna Lopez threw a particularly nasty fit at Fiona Gressler for daring to question why the Kootenai County area of Idaho even held a “TEA Party.”  Ms. Lopez’ initial response was that Ms. Gressler didn’t have a right to her opinion.  Now however, Ms. Lopez “apologizes” for presuming that (among other things) she had a right to her opinion!  Let’s put it bluntly, as belittling, demeaning and etc. as before while engaging in yet another nasty attack.  Only now, Ms. Lopez has made herself utterly ridiculous for having done so.  As for Vermont Trotter, I highly doubt that Sarah Palin (soon to be former Guv of Alaska) would ever compare herself to Michael Jackson—an entertainer.  But that didn’t stop Mr. Trotter from doing so.

Randall Jones of the Spokesman-Review:  People knew before they put Obama into office that he would “tax” health care.  Indeed, it was part of his health care proposals while he was running for the White House.  Yes, they did elect him, didn’t they?  He shares his fears of “energy taxes” with Mr. Iacobi.  However, the National Sales Tax wasn’t something mentioned by Obama or the Democrats; but it was the brain child of the “conservatives” Mr. Jones loves to make common cause with.  But it’s “wrong now” if it is adopted by the Dems.  In his great hurry to trash the opposition, Mr. Jones isn’t doing a lot of thinking.

W.C. Miller doesn’t like it that the current administration is trying to “spend us out of debt.”  Well, true enough.  However, why wasn’t he berating the last administration for spending us into debt?  He wants to berate the current administration for ignoring bankruptcy laws and etc. (while trying to get major corporations back on their feet) but fails to berate the last one for ignoring something more major, such as constitutional law.

When it comes to public school policies, in what way has “any” administration “dummied down” math?  Any administration can propose educational standards such as when GW proposed No Child Left Behind and then used that “standard” as an attempt to destroy the public school system; but, what goes on in the public schools as a consequence of the latest political fad where children become nothing more than experiments instead of students, that is the problem of that school district and must be resolved there.

And while he does have some “good points” about high school students, his letter simply rambles from one topic to another rather than being concise.  But here is the laugh riot that comes at the end of his letter, “The government exists only to preserve life and personal and property rights, execute judgment and punish wrongdoing.”  ↔ Got a question for this guy, when was the last time he heard, government is the problem and not the solution?  Reagan.  Essentially, gvt:  loves it, hates it.

At least Russell Brown managed to mention a military coup in his letter about the now ousted Honduran Prez Zelaya.  The guy who wanted the Honduran Congress to rewrite the constitution so that he could serve more than one term.  The answer, he could be forced out of the country by way of a military coup.  I wouldn’t have any idea whether he was “power mad,” a “puppet” of Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez, or even if he was a member of an alliance of international “Communists and Socialists.”  But I do know that Mr. Brown could look a little closer to home and the last administration for a power mad president who went well beyond constitutional constraints and who’s blind followers wouldn’t have minded seeing a rewrite of the Constitution to enable him to serve yet another term.  GW Bush.

While condemning Obama as other prior writers had done; you get the impression that neither does Brown put a lot of thought into his letter.  Would this country be all that accepting if a president asked for a rewrite of the U.S. Constitution so that he could serve more than two terms with the idea that it would be put to a vote by the American people… Only, Congress calls on the U.S. Military to stage a coup against that member of its gvt?  I highly doubt it.  Mr. Brown isn’t exactly holding forth on the sad situation in the Honduras as all that supportive of a democracy.  While arguing contrarily that it is!!!

Maybe Mr. Brown would like to see the same thing happen in this nation where the man he hates the most attained the highest office in a free and fair election with a majority support of the people.  And that is why he’d regard a military coup as “pro democracy” and “anti-communist.”  Who can say?  However, history being any guide, no military coup has ever been pro-democratic in nature.

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.