Category Archives: Current Events

Since Most Americans Want Compromise, Why Elect Those Who Don’t?

Posted on by

A variety of polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans want their elected officials to compromise. Yet the US House of Representatives is controlled by those who view compromise as a weakness.

Speaker Boehner can’t even bring himself to say the word!

As a result, President Obama was forced to sign an order implementing the most ill-advised, ham-handed budget cuts in history. $89 billion will be indiscriminately cut from every federal program except critical national defense and Social Security. If allowed to stand, these cuts will have devastating effects on our nation – especially those who are out of work, the working poor and others struggling to survive.

These cuts have been made because traditional Republicans are afraid of the Tea Party nitwits within their own party. They’re afraid to end tax loopholes that allow multinational corporations to stash money offshore. They’re afraid to end tax loopholes for the wealthy who are enjoying tax rates that are near historic lows. They’re afraid to compromise with the president for fear of being “primaried” and replaced by even more teabaggers. 

Although, I admit the prospect of even more angry teabaggers in Congress is frightening, it’s time for traditional Republicans to grow a pair.

It’s not that President Obama hasn’t reached across the aisle to avoid sequestration. After stabilizing our economy in the first year of his administration, the president has cut the deficit each year. In fact, we have already seen the largest deficit reductions since the years immediately following World War II. Yet that isn’t enough for the extreme wing of the Republican Party. Teapublicans have refused offers of $2 to $3 in cuts for every $1 of revenue created by eliminating tax loopholes.

Still there is no compromise from the radical right. They refuse to negotiate with the president and they refuse to listen to the American people. Of course, they won’t suffer as the result of their actions. We will.

I hope voters remember that next election.

Arizona Tea Party Patriots Es Muy Loco.

Posted on by

I recently received an invitation to a meeting of the Sedona Tea Party “Patriots” for a “one-time” showing of Behold A Pale Horse.

Based on the title, one assumes this movie will prepare us for the coming political apocalypse. The movie “stars” Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, a leader of the Family Research Council, which has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for defaming gays and lesbians.

The film also includes country music star, Charlie Daniels. Once acclaimed for his music, Daniels jumped on the wagon to Crazytown when President Obama was elected. He accuses Obama of trying to change America into a European-style socialist country, saying that “America will never be America again.”

Of course, the movie isn’t enough crazy for these self-styled “patriots.” The meeting will also address the “looming threat” of United Nations sovereignty, the threat of the UN taking our guns, a mysterious constabulary force that can be used against American citizens, the UN Agenda 21 conspiracy, and more.

After researching these supposed threats, I’m not ready to grab my Bushmaster AR-15 and jump in the bunker quite yet. I am, however, concerned about the coming shortage of tin foil which these “patriots” will need to make their hats.

Scalia And Thomas Bring Court’s Ethics Into Question.

Posted on by

As the highest court in the land, judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States should be beyond question. The Court’s decisions should not be influenced by partisan politics, and there should be no lingering doubts that they were the result of undue influence. Yet Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas transparently allow their ideologies to enter into their every decision.

Thomas has also displayed an utter lack of concern for the appearance of impropriety.

When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, was placed on the Court docket, many expected that Thomas would recuse himself from deliberations. His wife, after all, had been paid large sums of money to lobby against the law. Yet despite Justice Elena Kagan setting an example by recusing herself from the case for having previously served as Solicitor General with the Obama administration, Thomas refused to show the same sense of ethics. He joined in the deliberations as if there was not the slightest hint of a conflict of interest.

In another display of questionable ethics, Justice Scalia made his distaste for the Voter Rights Act obvious through his obnoxious and racially insensitive remarks.

And in a case yet to be heard, Bowman v Monsanto, Thomas has again declined to recuse himself despite the fact that he once served as counsel for Monsanto.

Most local clubs, HOAs and school boards show a better understanding of ethics than that! 

Buying Elections.

Posted on by

Americans have long been opposed to the notion of candidates buying elections. But we’re just one step short of unfettered vote buying.

In 1976, while upholding a law which set limits on campaign contributions, the Supreme Court made it possible for candidates to spend unlimited amounts on their own campaigns. In essence, the Court ruled that money equals free speech.

Then in Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission, supported by the GOP, a conservative-leaning Court ruled that corporations had the rights of people, unleashing massive expenditures of corporate money in support of candidates through PACs and Super PACs.

Soon, the Court will decide yet another case, McCutcheon v Federal Elections Commission, which is being supported by the GOP in order to remove limits on direct campaign contributions to candidates.

The good news is that this may well spell the demise of PACs and Super PACs. The bad news is that multinational corporations and billionaires such as the Koch brothers will able to funnel billions into campaigns for candidates who promise to be subservient to their demands.

When that happens, the needs of ordinary Americans will be further overwhelmed by big money. The wealthy and powerful already control most of the lobbyists, and therefore, the political agenda. Imagine what will happen when they can actually buy elections.

Supreme Attack On Voting Rights.

Posted on by

Today, the Supreme Court took up a challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1964 which was renewed in 2006. If you’re not familiar with the Act, it was passed by Congress to prevent many of the states of the old Confederacy from denying African-Americans representation and the right to vote.

For many years, in the Jim Crow South, blacks were denied the vote through a combination of literacy tests, poll taxes, outright violence and intimidation. To end, or at least reduce, those practices, Congress demanded that southern states present any changes in voting procedures and redistricting to the Department of Justice for prior approval. Frustrated by the restrictions, Shelby County, Alabama challenged the law in court with the backing of the Republican Party.

It’s no surprise that Republicans would want to repeal the Voting Rights Act so they can better gerrymander congressional districts and suppress minority votes. After all, African-Americans voted overwhelmingly for President Obama.

Why wouldn’t they? Barack Obama is the first president with African-American heritage in our nation’s history. Moreover, since the Republican Party embraced the Southern Strategy, it has consistently supported policies that discriminate against minorities. GOP economic policies have been particularly damaging to minorities.

According to a new study by the Brandeis Institute on Assets and Social Policy, the wealth gap between blacks and whites has accelerated since the early days of Trickle Down Economics in 1984. Over a 25-year period, the median net worth of white households has grown to $265,000 compared to just $28,500 for black households!

If Justice Scalia has his way in deciding the Voting Rights Act, things are bound to get worse.

During oral arguments before the Court, Scalia said the act represents the “perpetuation of racial entitlement!” Say what? Exactly how does this pompous right wing apologist think African-Americans are entitled? Entitled to less representation than they already have? To be denied the right to vote? To even less wealth?

After hundreds of years of slavery and discrimination, it is likely to take many more generations of protections for African-Americans to level the playing field. At the time of emancipation, very few were literate and most had no property or assets of any kind. They were denied adequate wages for back-breaking jobs. They were segregated into slums with inferior schools. They were denied the right to vote. More recently, they have seen multinational corporations ship their jobs overseas.

Unfortunately, African-Americans and other minorities still need help to end the cycle of poverty and violence. They still need help achieving equal representation. And they need help to fend off win-at-any-cost politicians from marginalizing their representation and denying them the right to vote.

What they don’t need is a fat white man in a robe making insensitive and racist comments before voting to limit the few protections they have.

Criticism Of Oscars Says More About Us Than Hollywood.

Posted on by

It’s the day after the Academy Awards and the Web is filled with questions and snarky critiques of the proceedings. Was Heidi Klum’s dress too revealing? (Yes, she has breasts. She’s a woman!) Did the darts in Ann Hathaway’s dress look like nipples? (Only if you have difficulty telling fabric and flesh apart.) Why was the First Lady invited to appear via satellite? (Why not?) Did Seth MacFarlane live up to Billy Crystal and Bob Hope as emcee? (Seriously?)

What if the tables were turned?

Maybe you could imagine how critics might have torn apart that prom dress you bought, then tried to return the next day. Maybe you could imagine how critics might have analyzed every word of your gig as emcee at your high school’s variety show. Maybe you could imagine what it would be like to have critics analyze your every move and everything you wear. Maybe you could imagine a complete loss of privacy with paparazzi blinding you with camera flashes everywhere you go.

Our treatment of celebrities seems cruel at best and insane at worst. Why not just admire them for their talents? Period.

Why do we have to build them up only so we can delight in tearing them down? For what purpose? Do we really need to have someone to criticize to make us feel better about ourselves? Here’s an idea: As an alternative, why don’t we put that time and effort into self-improvement? Why don’t we simply ignore which celebrity is wearing what? Why don’t we ignore what or who they are doing outside of their chosen field?

There’s nothing wrong with criticizing someone’s performance. But it’s better to look for the things that are good.

If we all spent more time being positive, maybe we wouldn’t feel so bad about ourselves that we feel the need to tear others apart.  

Are We Really So Different From Australia?

Posted on by

In 1996, a madman used an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle to kill 35 people and wound 21 more at an Australian tourist site.

The Port Arthur massacre led the newly-elected prime minister to implement new gun law proposals to ban most handguns, semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic shotguns, even pump-action shotguns. Guns are still available to competitive target shooters, farmers and ranchers and others who can demonstrate a need.

Since the Australian government could not legally seize private property, it instituted an aggressive buyback program that resulted in the destruction of hundreds of thousands of weapons. This in a country that has a gun culture nearly as ingrained as that in the United States.

The result of these new measures? According to former Prime Minister John Howard, gun murders in Australia have dropped as much as 89 percent since 1997! In addition, suicides have been dramatically reduced.

Interestingly, the Australian people still have access to the same movies and video games as Americans. There has been no significant difference in the way Australians treat mental illness. The only thing that changed is Australian’s access to guns.

Remember that the next time you hear NRA leaders and their Teapublican enablers blather on about how the only way to reduce gun violence is to increase the number of guns! 

What Does It Take To Make The NRA’s Enemies List?

Posted on by

Although I have been a gun owner since my parents gave me a single-shot .22 rifle for my 13th birthday, I have been writing about the insanity of this nation’s gun culture for many years.

Yet I recently learned that I was left off the enemies list published by the National Rifle Association! Naturally, I was horrified!

What have I done to deserve such indifference? Haven’t I made it clear enough that I think the NRA leadership is a group of thugs and dim-wits? Must I do more to point out the unnecessary slaughter of innocents in this country? Must I send even more letters and emails to my elected officials asking for bans on military-style weapons, high-capacity magazines, and all semi-automatic weapons? Must I again point out the fallacy that guns are useful for self-defense? Must I call attention to the fact that, if we had universal background checks to ferret out criminals and the mentally unstable, Ted Nugent and many of the Tea Party members would be denied weapons?

Many of the people I know and admire have made the enemies list…writers, celebrities, corporate leaders, pastors, educators, union members…even cartoonists. Why not me?

Obviously, I lack the fame, power, money, air-time and printing ink to attract the attention of the NRA. But I’ll keep trying. 

Teapublicans Can’t Have It Both Ways.

Posted on by

Upon reviewing a leaked document purporting to be the White House plan for immigration reform, Teapublican boy wonder Senator Marco Rubio issued a response stating, “It’s a mistake for the White House to draft immigration legislation without seeking input from Republican members of Congress.” He went on to call the plan “half-baked,” “seriously flawed” and “dead on arrival.”

This comes from the same party that has denounced President Obama for taking a hands off approach to legislation. They accuse him of a lack of leadership. They have said that he needs to provide Congress with clear direction…that he can’t just sit in the corner and wait for Congress to do its job.

So Teapublicans want the president to provide proposals. Then, when he does, they accuse him of overstepping his role? That seems about right.

After more than four years of obstruction and backstabbing; after the president was overwhelmingly re-elected; after polls showing Congress is less popular than cockroaches, Teapublicans show no signs of letting up. They show no signs of willingness to do anything that will benefit the nation and our economy for fear that it might make the president appear more successful.

They have shown they are going to continue to abuse the filibuster…even to filibuster one of their own. They are going to oppose tax reform and tax fairness. They are going to oppose attempts to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. They are going to oppose any attempts to help the working poor out of poverty. They are going to continue to oppose women’s rights and gay rights. They are going to continue to suppress votes of minorities and the poor.

Teapublicans seem prepared to ride the same old horse into the sunset of oblivion.

A Rare Slip Of The Tongue By Sen. McCain.

Posted on by

It doesn’t happen often, but last Thursday, a nugget of truth slipped between the lips of the self-described maverick.

Appearing on Fox News Channel, he stated that the reason for the filibuster of former Sen. Chuck Hagel’s nomination for Secretary of Defense is Hagel’s statements regarding former President Bush. McCain said, “it goes back to there’s a lot of ill will towards Senator Hagel when he was a Republican, he attacked President Bush mercilessly and said he was the worst president since Herbert Hoover and said the surge was the worst blunder since the Vietnam War, which was nonsense. He was anti his own party and people – people don’t forget that.” 

So that’s it. That’s McCain’s reason for taking the unprecedented step of voting to filibuster the nomination of the Secretary of Defense? McCain cares so little about our soldiers in Afghanistan that he would block the nomination during a war? Apparently, if you’re a Teapublican, political payback is more important than patriotism. It’s come to a point that, if you’re a Republican, you can’t tell the truth about your own party if that truth is negative.

As it turns out, you don’t dare turn your back on them, either. Not even a kevlar vest could protect you from a back-stabbing like this.