Category Archives: Politics

Arizona: A Nice Place To Visit, But You Probably Don’t Want To Live Here.

Posted on by

Aside from our scorpion-eating and finger-wagging governor, our racist anti-immigrant bills and our fear-mongering politicians, there are plenty of other reasons to avoid setting up residency in the Grand Canyon state. For example, as Arizona celebrates its centennial year as the 48th state, look at the people it has chosen to celebrate as part of its heritage.

The entire state pays tribute to the cowboy despite the fact that the term was once reserved for ruffians, rustlers and thieves. Arizona annually pays homage to Wyatt Earp despite the fact that the man was little more than a serial killer who was allowed to write his own history. And many of the Arizona’s most celebrated businessmen were mine owners who lived in luxury while their employees worked in dangerous conditions and were paid so little they could not break their dependance on the company store.

Okay, so the state has an inglorious history, you say. Things surely must be different today.  Not really.

Arizona is home to the Hell’s Angels’ Sonny Barger, founder of one of the world’s most dangerous gangs and largest criminal enterprises. Arizona is home to Joe Arpaio, the self-proclaimed toughest sheriff in America, who forces prisoners to eat the same meal twice a day, 365 days a year; the same man who misspent nearly $10 million of county funds, who failed to investigate hundreds of sexual attacks and who is, himself, under investigation by the US Department of Justice for civil rights violations.

Arizona’s legislature is actually proud of the fact that it invests less money per student than all but one other state. Arizona’s government is proud that it “saved” the state budget by further cutting funds for education and refusing Medicaid to as many as 250,000 poor children. Arizona is the state that proclaimed the Colt revolver as the state gun and rolled back gun control to pre-Tombstone era laws. The state that sold its own capitol building in order to continue cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations. The state where starting salaries for public school teachers are so low they automatically qualify for food stamps and Medicaid.

So please come enjoy the natural beauty of our geography. Enjoy our hotels, resorts and restaurants. Enjoy our warm climate. Purchase lots of trinkets and souvenirs inflated by, in some cases, sales taxes in excess of ten percent. But don’t be tempted by home prices that have fallen over a cliff.

Unless you’re an angry, white, right-wing idealogue, you really won’t enjoy living here.

Separation Clause Doesn’t Apply To Contraceptive Mandate.

Posted on by

The current uproar over mandates that Catholic-owned businesses offer contraception to insured employees seems, at best, insincere.

Ignoring the fact that Catholic Charities receives $2.9 billion of taxpayer money, and that the Catholic Church and other religious organizations own billions of dollars worth of real estate and collect billions in donations without paying taxes, there’s a simple principle at stake. Regardless of its ownership and non-profit status, a hospital or retirement home is not legally a church. It’s a business and an employer. And in order to operate as a business, it must meet a variety of legal and government requirements. For example, it must pay half of FICA for its employees. It must meet OSHA requirements for a safe work environment. It must pay for unemployment insurance and workers compensation. It can’t discriminate. And if it offers health insurance, it can’t choose which procedures or pharmaceuticals it wants the insurance to provide.

Such requirements were put in place to protect employees and our society at large.

Interestingly, Catholic-owned enterprises have already complied with the contraception mandate in 20 states. The Church did not raise a fuss until the Obama administration issued the mandate. Only then did the Catholic Church claim that the mandate violates the separation of church and state. What next? Will the Church claim moral opposition to paying FICA? To paying for unemployment insurance? Will it decide that all pharmaceuticals and medical procedures interfere with God’s will?

If the Church is sincere about separation of church and state, will it stop its practice of campaigning for political candidates from the pulpit? Will it no longer allow its tax-free facilities to be used for political gatherings? Will it refuse to take a position on any political issues?

Some Catholic leaders and, of course, Fox Noise Channel claim the contraception mandate is further evidence of an attack on Christianity. Of course, what organization would recognize attacks more quickly than the church that inspired the Crusades? Or the church that attacked indiginous people in order to force them to accept Catholicism?  Or the church that slaughtered and tortured millions as part of the Inquisition?  Or the church that created an environment for sexual predators in its ranks to attack children?

Ending “Drive-By” Politics.

Posted on by

Over the past decades, I’ve noticed an increasing trend among Teapublicans. They tend to make a snide statement about Democrats or Democratic principles secure in their belief that you’ll either agree with their statement or remain silent.

They say things like, “We’ve got to get that damned socialist out of the White House.” Or, “This president is going to bankrupt all of us.” If you say you disagree with them, or want to debate the issue, they walk away saying, “I don’t want to talk politics.”

Really? They’re the ones who brought it up!

But, according to these Teapublicans, they’re not being political. They’re just stating a “fact.” I don’t know about you, but I refuse to allow them to spout the latest talking points from Fox News Channel and walk away. Certainly they have a right to their opinion, and they have every right to say it. But I have a right to politely refute their statements and debate the issues. I have a right to call their statements as I see them: Drive-by cheap shots.

According to political correctness, there are two things that should never be brought up in polite conversation: Politics and religion. However, for many years, it has seemed that Teapublicans and Christian evangelists have felt free to say whatever they want. For what it’s worth, here is my policy going forward. If someone asks about my religious beliefs, I will tell them it’s none of their business. Religion is a very personal and private matter of faith.

On the other hand, if someone makes a political statement – even as a drive-by – I will not let them walk away without expressing my point of view. I hope you’ll join me. Polite debate of the issues is not only healthy for our nation. I believe it’s our responsibility. We cannot afford to bite our tongues and allow the uneducated, the uninformed, and the misinformed to dominate our political dialogue.

Our silence has made it all too easy for big money interests and their supporters to take over our government.

A True Conservative.

Posted on by

During the Teapublican primaries, we’ve all heard candidates who claim to be true conservatives. But upon listening to their plans, I have come to the realization that the only things they really want to conserve are their own fortunes.

It was during a recent Teapublican debate that I discovered I’m definitely not a liberal – never have been. I’ve been a conservative all along.

I believe in conserving clean air and water. I believe in conserving our forests, our streams and our oceans. I believe in conserving wildlife. I believe in conserving fossil fuels by not using them wastefully. I believe in conserving our natural resources by not subsidizing large corporations to exploit them. I believe in conserving our Constitution. I believe in conserving the Bill of Rights which provides equality and the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. I believe in conserving the separation of church and state.

I believe in conserving lives by only going to war as an absolute last resort. I believe in conserving taxpayer money by eliminating corporate subsidies, off-shore tax havens and no-bid defense contracts. I believe in conserving American middle class jobs. I believe in conserving the American tradition of building things rather than destroying them through vulture capitalism. I believe in conserving the rights of workers to bargain for fair compensation. I believe in conserving our electoral system by banning contributions from corporations and lobbying groups.

I believe in conserving our citizens’ homes and savings with common-sense regulations for greedy financial institutions. I believe in conserving our citizens’ health by providing access to affordable health care. I believe in conserving safety nets such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. I believe in conserving the rights of all people to pursue the marital relationship of their choice. I believe in conserving the rights of women to control their own bodies even if I disagree with some of their decisions. I believe in conserving our future by providing all children with the opportunity to receive a good education.

Finally, I believe in conserving America’s standing as a role model for the world rather than as a bully. And I believe in conserving the idealism that has always driven Americans by focusing on what can be, rather than what once was.

The Civil War 2.0.

Posted on by

For some time, I’ve wondered if the rancor in today’s politics has some connection to the outcome of the Civil War. Sounds crazy, right? After all, the Civil War ended in 1865. Yet Teapublicans continue to say things that evoke the elitism and racism of antebellum America. We’ve heard them refer to President Obama as a fascist, socialist and communist. We’ve seen the signs showing his picture distorted to resemble the Joker. And we’re heard them call the President a Kenyan-born, anti-Christian Muslim.

Is it coincidence that such anger and disrespect are directed toward the first president of African-American descent? Doubtful.

Of course, I’m not the only writer to note the obvious. For example, Michael Lind wrote, “Today’s Tea Party is less an ideological movement than the latest incarnation of an angry white minority — predominantly Southern, and mainly rural — that has repeatedly attacked American democracy in order to get its way.” And Robert Reich stated, “It’s no mere coincidence that the states responsible for putting the most Tea Party representatives in the House are all former members of the Confederacy. Of the Tea Party caucus, twelve hail from Texas, seven from Florida, five from Louisiana, and five from Georgia, and three each from South Carolina, Tennessee, and border-state Missouri.”

Upon reading these comments, I knew I had to do my own research. Here’s what I found:

The Union consisted of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Of the 25 Union states, only three – Kansas, Kentucky and Missouri – voted for McCain in 2008! And it’s important to note that all three were divided during the war. (In both Kentucky and Missouri, pro-secession governments declared for the Confederacy, but never gained significant control of their states. And Kansas was notoriously split with many Confederate sympathizers.)

Now let’s look at the Confederacy. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia all seceded from the United States. In addition, Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma were divided, and portions of New Mexico and Arizona collaborated with the Confederacy. Of the 16 Confederate states, only four – Florida, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia – voted for Obama in 2008! And of those four, only New Mexico could be considered a blue state.

To take it a step farther, many of the states which attained statehood following the Civil War were settled by former Confederate soldiers and Confederate sympathizers who were running away from the federal government. These include Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, and Arizona. All nine voted for McCain in 2008!

Three other latecomers – Colorado, New Mexico, and Washington – already had significant populations prior to the Civil War. Both Colorado and New Mexico had large Hispanic and Native American populations that were indifferent to the war. All three of these states voted for Obama in 2008!

Hawaii and Alaska were not admitted to the Union until the 1950s, so little can be concluded from their votes, especially since President Obama was born in Hawaii and the VP candidate on the opposing ticket was from Alaska.

Despite Teapublican denials, it would seem that the issues of racism and states’ rights are “gifts” that keep on giving.

Patriots? Or Idiots?

Posted on by

Over the past 40 years, Teapublicans have co-opted patriotism and Christianity. They have cloaked themselves in flags and decried liberals and Democrats as socialists, communists, even fascists. They have blindly supported our military while ignoring our veterans. They have implied that anyone who fails to subscribe to their beliefs is unpatriotic. And they have stated that those who support peace, civil rights, public education, science, and economic fairness are un-Christian.

Hmmm…maybe they should read the Constitution and the Bible in their entireity.

It seems these Bible-thumping, gun-toting Teapublican “patriots” have a few things to learn about their nation and their faith. For starters, let’s take a look at how these so-called “patriots” refer to their duly-elected Commander-in-Chief.

Conservative activist, writer and Catholic, L. Brent Bozell III called President Obama a “skinny, ghetto crackhead.” Teapublican cars and trucks are often covered with bumper stickers stating “What an O-Hole,” “B.O. Stinks,” “A village in Kenya is missing its idiot,” “100% Douchebag,” and “Don’t blame me. I voted for the American.” Moreover, Teapublicans threatened the president and Democratic congressional representatives by carrying guns to their public appearances.

These are not the words and actions of patriots. And they certainly do not reflect the teachings of Christ who asked that his followers help the poor and turn the other cheek to violence.

These are the words and actions of a decidedly un-American, anti-Christian mob of bullies and thugs who have convinced themselves of their infallible superiority. They ignore science, re-write history, promote violence, and deny the civil rights of others.

What kind of patriotism is that?

Newt = John Edwards To The Nth Degree.

Posted on by

When it was discovered that 2008 presidential candidate, John Edwards, had an affair as his wife was fighting cancer, he became a national pariah who was vilified by virtually everyone.

Most vocal among his critics were the “Christian” conservatives who decried Edward’s lack of “values.”

But those same “Christian” conservatives now support Newt Gingrich.  Yes, that Newt!  The Newt who sanctimoniously led the cheers for Bill Clinton’s impeachment as the result of Clinton’s indescretion with an intern. The Newt who later admitted to an affair while his first wife was battling cancer. The Newt who had yet another affair while his second wife (and former mistress) was critically ill with Mulitple Sclerosis.  And who, despite the advice of his wife’s physician who told him that stress would be damaging to his wife, asked her to agree to an open marriage so he could continue his affair!

These facts, along with the Newt’s admission of 84 ethics violations as Speaker of the House should make anyone question his “values.” Indeed, they should be automatic disqualifiers for higher office. Yet here he is, the new standard bearer for “Christian” conservatives in the Teapublican presidential race.

After all, according to these pretend Christians, the Newt’s transgressions are in the past.  They don’t really reflect the man the Newt has become today.

No, they don’t. Today’s version of Newt Gingrich is even more ethically challenged. He is angrier, more vitriolic, more vengeful and more sanctimonious. But it seems that is what’s so appealing to “Christian” conservatives about the Newtster. He voices their self-righteous anger about President Obama and liberals. And following ABC’s interview with the Newt’s ex-wife about his affairs, they’re even more angry. Not at the Newt, but at ABC and the rest of the “lamestream” media for dredging up such an unsavory story about their hero.

“Sure, Newt is no saint,” they say. “But he has repented.” Apparently, his repentance has been so complete that he even earned the blessing of the apparent keeper of the “Christian” conservative’s moral compass – Sister Sarah Palin. That should be good enough for anyone. Shouldn’t it?

And what of John Edwards?  The “Christian” conservatives still consider him a pariah, of course.

Masters Of The Double Standard.

Posted on by

The field of Teapublican “presidential” (and I use the term loosely) candidates have proven, once and for all, that Teapublicans are almost completely devoid of ethics. I’d call them hypocrites, but we’re talking about Teapublicans here, so, for their benefit, I’ll try to use small words.

Teapublicans famously fight for so-called family values, yet many support Newt Gingrich who is twice divorced and whose second wife stated that Newt demanded an “open” marriage. In other words, a marriage that would allow him to boink anyone he wanted. So much for the “sanctity” of marriage issue.

Gingrich also admitted to 84 ethics violations while Speaker of the House and resigned in disgrace. Most of these violations were the result of Newt gaming the system to enrich himself. So much for the anti-Washington, anti-corruption issue.

Turning to the front-runner, Teapublicans are furious with so-called “Obamacare.” But what did President Obama use as a model for his health care reform? Why “Romneycare,” of course. You simply can’t be against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and support Mitt Romney. So much for the government health care issue.

Romney is also a “Vulture Capitalist” (Newt’s words, not mine) who led a private equity firm that purchased undervalued corporations with other peoples’ money, saddled the corporations with large management fees then sold off their assests while laying off thousands of American workers. So much for the jobs issue.

In addition, Romney has admitted to “parking” large amounts of money in off-shore bank accounts to avoid paying taxes. And though he has not yet released his tax returns, he estimates that his tax rate is “somewhere in the area of 15 percent.” Given that Mitt is a multi-millionaire, that’s a nice area to be in, especially considering that much of the middle class is taxed at a rate of 30-35 perecent! And, if Romney is elected and allowed to institute his recommended tax policies, his tax rate will dramatically drop while the tax rate for the middle class will remain virtually unchanged. And the tax rate for the poor will actually go up! Moreover, Romney’s tax plan will add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit. So much for the deficit and debt issues.

Voter support for these two only shows that Teapublicans are not really for anything. They’re simply against Obama. And many of them don’t even know why.

Raising Cain.

Posted on by

For those of you who don’t watch The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, you’re not only missing some of the best comedy on TV. You’re missing some of the most accurate news analysis anywhere.

Lately, Stephen Colbert and Stewart have been exposing the absurdity of the decisions by conservatives on the US Supreme Court ruling that money equals free speech and that corporations have the rights of people. To do so, Colbert created a Super PAC called Americans For A Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. Then after he learned that he out-polled John Huntsman in his native state of South Carolina, Colbert created an “exploratory committee” to assess his chances of running for President. (No doubt that he would be better than any of the Teapublican candidates, but that’s beside the point.)

Colbert then turned his Super PAC over to his good friend and business associate, Jon Stewart. Now labeled The Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC, Stewart claims it is keeping him busy sorting receipts for crown polish, first-class airfare and his new diamond tiara, the intent is to show that there are virtually no restrictions on how much money can be contributed on behalf of candidates and how little control the FEC exerts over that money.

Now Colbert and The Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC are asking that South Carolina primary voters vote for Herman Cain. Why? Colbert is too late to get on the primary ballot, and the 9-9-9er has dropped out of the race. So any votes for Cain may be assumed to be votes for Colbert and against the Supreme Court decision.

So, if you’re eligible to vote in the South Carolina primary, please vote for Colbert…er…I mean Cain. After all, if we must have a clown in the presidential race, it may as well be a good one.

The Wisdom Of Iowa.

Posted on by

As a native of Iowa, I’m proud of the common sense displayed by my former compatriots. Iowans (even Teapublican Iowans) tend to be well-educated, relatively well-informed, and compassionate. Despite the media pundits who decry the role that Iowa plays in our national electoral process, I believe Iowa is the perfect place to begin presidential campaigns.

Why?

For one thing, Iowa does not lean overwhelmingly to one side of the political spectrum or the other. (It’s neither a red nor a blue state. It’s a red, white and blue state.) The Iowa caucus system is like old-time politics forcing candidates to face voters, often one-on-one. Iowans are generally unafraid to ask questions and speak their minds. And, except for the far right wing zealots and so-called “Christian” conservatives, Iowans tend to be skeptical of campaign promises (remember, Iowa is next-door to the “Show Me” state).

All of this sharpens candidates and weeds out the worst nimrods. Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich are prime examples.

Despite her Iowa roots, Iowans refused to vote for Bachmann and her wackadoodle politics, forcing her to suspend her campaign. Despite spending millions in Iowa, Rick Perry garnered so little interest he giddyupped back to Texas to “reassess” his campaign. And one-time GOP front-runner, the ethically-challenged Newt Gingrich, left Iowa with his massive ego bruised and his campaign on life support.

My only real disappointment with the Iowa caucuses is the inexplicable elevation of Rick Santorum to co-front-runner status. But I guess the “Christian” conservatives needed to annoint someone as their new political savior.