46 Degrees North

Farewell until September

2011-05-24T05:21:00.000-07:00

For the past few weeks, I’ve been busy with remodeling projects in and around my house, and those will be ongoing through the summer. That’s one reason I’ve decided to take a sabbatical from this blog for the next three months.

The other is this: There just doesn’t seem to me to be much to discuss right now on the political front. With Donald Trump’s ridiculous little attention-getting stunt over and done with, and Newt in trouble with conservatives for telling the truth, the focus for Republicans for the next few weeks will be on trying to identify a feasible candidate to run against Barack Obama in 2012. With Tea Party extremists ready to “primary” any candidate who fails their “litmus test” for fanaticism, that’s likely to be a painful process for the Party of No. For my part, I’ll leave them to go at it.

In a recent interview, Bill Moyers remarked that among subjects considered inappropriate for discussion in polite company in America is the fact that this country has become an oligarchy—a land in which a minority of the very rich and powerful make many of the decisions for the vast majority of us. With the help of fundamentalist churches, Fox News, and Citizens United, the Republican Party has become their party—of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

For anyone who has closely observed the behavior of Republican governors and legislatures since the last election—from union busting in Wisconsin to takeover of local governments in Michigan to mandatory drug testing of state employees in Florida—it must be obvious what greater consolidation of power in the hands of the GOP would mean at the Federal level. We got a taste of it under George Bush—to the continuing detriment of the U.S. and world economies, among other things. But now—with a Republican Party confident enough in its own power to talk openly about demolishing every social support program in America, from minimum wage to Medicare, I can no longer tolerate the tendency of even well-informed and well-meaning political observers to treat the two parties as equivalent.

The two parties are not equivalent.

One wants to consolidate the power of and influence of the already richest and most powerful—an elite group that includes oil barons, bank presidents, Wall Street CEOs, and owners of insurance companies (like Governor Rick Scott, whose company will be paid handsomely for all those unnecessary drug tests in Florida).

The other, the Democratic Party, works for the well-being and prosperity of everyone—for values like equal and universal education, the right to bargain collectively, freedom to vote, and—yes—access to quality health care for everyone.

Between these two world views, operating from very different value systems, there is little room for compromise (as even the president must know by now) and no moral equivalency at all.

So call me partisan—as I most assuredly am. But I no longer have any patience with batting around Democratic values and Republican lies as though the two are the same. Clearly there is no longer any sense in trying to pretend that the differences between, for example, a John Boehner and a Nancy Pelosi are just a difference of opinion about how things should be done. The differences are between what is right—morally right—and who matters.

Over the next three months, I will decide how to move forward in terms of my new, deeper understanding of the real political dynamics at work in America.

Have a great summer everyone!

When Death is a Beginning

2011-05-03T04:54:00.000-07:00

It’s not often that we in America experience something unique in our long history. The death of Osama bin Laden is such an event.

Mass murderers and tyrants have died before, lifting the burdens of terror and unresolved grief from the shoulders of the people they oppressed. But never before has a single individual been so focused on the destruction of Americans for just being Americans. Never before has anyone committed such atrocities on America’s soil, ships, and outposts. Never before has evil been so personal for us.

Osama bin Laden robbed America of more than our security. In the past ten years, we’ve suffered immeasurable losses, indignities, and moral failures as a result of our government’s clumsy and incompetent response to his actions. We’ve engaged in two horrific wars, lost privacy, and tolerated torture in our name.

Bin Laden is dead, but we Americans have much work to do if we are to reclaim the integrity we lost as a nation after the events of 9-11. Now if we can just get beyond the pettiness of partisan politics and the habit of focusing our national attention on the antics of on nasty, infantile personalities (The Donald comes to mind), perhaps we can make the most of this new day dawning.

Common Sense and the Role of Government

2011-04-22T05:02:00.000-07:00

Starting in August, an airline that loses your bag will have to reimburse you for the baggage fee you paid to have it safely delivered with you to your destination. The airline can’t lose your bag and keep your money, as is currently the practice.

Why will the airline have to refund your fee? Because the government says so.

That’s why we need government.

For many years, Americans have bought into the notion—a common theme among Republicans—that government regulation isn’t necessary because “the market” takes care of everything.

Well, the market doesn’t take care of everything. In the words of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, “Competition has not taken care of these problems. We would not be addressing them if competition had done that.”

Airlines are businesses, and their moral compass is profit. Without pressure of some kind to be fair, a business such as an airline has no incentive to do something that may be inconvenient and unprofitable, such as refunding a fee for a lost bag.

Banks had no reason to stop escalating the already usurious interest rates they charged for credit card purchases, or to refund unfair or unwarranted fees and fines, until the government stepped in and provided some firm, fair guidelines. Without government, processors have no incentive to be sure our foods are safe. It’s government that makes sure no company can dump toxic waste in your back yard—convenient as that might be for the company.

It’s an imperfect system, but it beats saying to a major corporation, “Please, sir or ma’am, I know I’m only one person, and I’m not rich or famous or powerful, but would you please be kind enough to . . . .”

Good luck with that.

Dragons Are Lucky . . . and Other Silly Beliefs

2011-04-18T05:33:00.000-07:00

We all have our weaknesses. One of mine, I confess, is Mahjong. During the past few weeks, while my husband has been laid up after knee surgery, we’ve spent more time at home than usual. Unfortunately, home is where my computer is, and my computer is where I play Mahjong.

This addictive little game simply requires the player to click on sets of matching tiles, arranged in different configurations, to make them disappear. Depending on their location, the tiles may be “free” or blocked by other tiles that have to be removed first. There are 36 sets of 4 tiles each for a total of 144.

It sounds easy, but the tiles are often arranged in such a way that, as you get further into the game, it’s harder to find matching tiles that are not blocked.

With practice, a player develops strategies that improve performance but also expectations that have nothing to do with reality. For instance, I’ve noticed that I’m likely to win if I start a game by matching dragon tiles—or at least I feel that I’ve noticed it, which is a very different thing.

Actually, when I’m thinking with the rational part of my brain—the frontal cortex—I’m absolutely certain that my percentage of wins over time is about the same whether I begin a game by matching dragons or by matching any of the 35 other sets of tiles. But my deep, old, emotional brain—the limbic system—still gives me a little jolt of confidence and satisfaction if, in the first moves of a game, I kill a few dragons.

With all the chatter in the media about politics, no one ever seems to allude to this absolutely critical distinction between intellectual and emotional thinking. Barring a serious brain disorder, most of us use both parts of our brain every day, switching back and forth between using intuitive or emotional “logic” (which can be very useful in some circumstances) and using actual, fact-based reasoning skills—which is the only way to understand things having to do with, among other things, money.

Thus we have a situation in which a goodly number of well-intentioned Americans march off half-cocked to Tea Party rallies, chanting about budget cuts and tax relief. The Pied Piper leading this pathetic parade is Big Business, represented by Dick Armey, the Koch brothers, and others who are either very rich or who have been (like Scott Walker) bought and paid for by the very rich. Relieved (in large part by the Bush tax cuts) of their responsibilities to help fund the government, they’ve convinced a very large contingent of the “little people” that they should panic about the government going broke and make up the deficits by sacrificing their own meager, middle-class earnings and benefits.

Thinking with their emotional brains, millions of Americans now routinely vote against their own interests, victims of years of successful GOP propaganda that says the country is broke and only more sacrifices by the poor and middle class—and even more tax relief for the very, very rich—can save the country from bankruptcy.

In fact, as all reputable economists know and have been saying, spending is good during a serious recession. Injecting more money into the system fuels a recovery by supporting manufacturing, small business, and other vital aspects of the economy. Cutting taxes and increasing revenue for common folk so that they can buy more food, clothes, and cars makes sense. Increasing revenue by allowing corporations and the very, very rich to pay their fair share also makes good sense.

What doesn’t make sense is for General Electric, Exxon, and Wall Street financial firms to suck money out of the economy while paying little or nothing in taxes.

But it’s no use trying to tell that to Tea Party folks. They’re too busy marching off to kill dragons.

Affordable Health Care: One Year Old Today

2011-03-23T17:33:00.000-07:00

My husband recently had knee surgery. (My role as caregiver is part of the reason I haven’t been posting much recently.) He’s mending nicely now, and it looks like that knee might be good for another half million miles or so.

The whole episode might have ended tragically, however. A few days after surgery, the patient woke me up at 2 a.m. It seemed like he was urgently trying to tell me something, but he couldn’t speak. He just kept starting sentences that led nowhere, like “I, . . . uh . . . feeling . . . .” Then he’d start again, without ever telling me what was wrong. Figuring that driving him to a hospital would be faster than calling an ambulance, I got him into the car and off we went. He wasn’t thrilled about going, but I was in no mood to negotiate.

Nurses at the hospital couldn’t get a blood pressure reading at first, but when they did, my husband’s blood pressure was a very dangerous 240/180. Drugs brought it down quickly, and he seems to have suffered no ill effects from the incident. His doctors have two schools of thought on what caused the episode, including the possibility of a small blood clot caused by the surgery that went to the brain. Happily, in any case, he did not suffer a stroke.

We have excellent insurance—partly because I have made quality health care a priority throughout my working life. At various times, I considered the possibilities of opening a small business or doing free-lance writing and consulting work. However, the need to feel secure about health care kept me working for large employers who could offer quality insurance plans. Those decisions might have been responsible for saving my husband’s life the night his blood pressure went through the roof.

People without insurance hesitate to go to a hospital. They know that even a short visit or a minor problem can break their budget for the month, or for the year. A longer stay or a serious illness can mean bankruptcy. So they wait to be sure something is wrong. By the time they are convinced they have no choice but to get to a doctor or hospital, they may be very ill—or dying.

Had we waited to see if my husband’s head cleared the other night, he might have been among the 45,000 known deaths that result every year from our antiquated, inadequate, and often cruel health care system.

The good news is that one year ago today, things started getting better. By the time the Affordable Health Care Act is fully implemented in 2014, no one in America will have to risk death or disability out of fear of getting help when they need it.

Peter King is Right about Radicalization

2011-03-10T07:00:00.000-08:00

For once, I agree with a GOP representative. The danger of violent, “lone wolf” extremists operating in America is real. These are often people with strong but perverted religious affiliations. Examples, unfortunately, abound, including the following:

Timothy McVeigh
Scott Roeder
James von Brunn
Jared Loughner
Seung-Hui Cho

However, King doesn’t need to knock himself out. People with much better credentials than he has study and report regularly on the dangers of radicalization and dangerous extremism.

Those who want to do something about these dangers—rather than simply adding to them by stirring up hatred and paranoia—can donate to the cause here.

How to Increase the Number of Abortions in America . . .

2011-03-08T04:40:00.000-08:00

. . . defund Planned Parenthood.

The nature of my job is such that several times a year, teens or young adults confide in me about unplanned pregnancy. Their fears are many:

What will my parents say?

Will my friends or partner reject me?

Will I be able to continue my plans for school and a career?

Girls worry about pain and physical complications. Boys worry about losing their freedom or figuring out how to provide for a child. Kids in these situations often feel alone, terrified, and trapped. Many consider abortion as a way out of what may feel like an impossible situation.

In my community, probably the majority of young people in this situation find their way to Planned Parenthood for a free pregnancy test. But what they get there is so much more.

First, they have an opportunity to share their dilemma with caring, professional adults who will not judge or condemn them. That often gives them the courage to share information with others, including family and friends. Once their "secret" is shared, the sense of panic subsides.

Secondly, they receive objective, factual information about how to care for themselves, how to care for an unborn child, and how to avoid unexpected pregnancies in the future. Should they choose to continue the pregnancy—and the vast majority do—they get information they need about community services to help them and their child.

Virtually every week, a story hits the national news about the horrendous life or death of an infant or toddler at the hands of tragically unsuitable parents—parents who may be addicts, mentally ill, or abysmally ignorant about a child's needs. If such parents never conceived, the world would be spared a great deal of suffering.

I have no doubt whatever that without Planned Parenthood, there would be a lot more unplanned pregnancies than there are—and many, many more of them would end in abortion.

A Housekeeping Note

2011-03-02T18:01:00.000-08:00

It's come to my attention that comments don't seem to be posting to this blog. We're working to resolve the problem. Please be patient, and please keep track of your comments so you can submit them again as soon as the problem is corrected.

Thanks for your patience!

CJ

Teachers and Unions

2011-03-01T17:09:00.000-08:00

My “day job” is counselor at a public high school. It’s always been gauche to talk about salaries, but I think maybe it’s time in America that we did. After sixteen years with my district, I reached the top of the salary scale four years ago—meaning I can’t get any more raises, no matter how long I work or how many credits I accumulate. My base salary is just over $64,000. (The salary scale is lower in many states, and nationwide, starting salaries for new teachers with bachelor’s degrees average just over $30,000 a year.)

I have good insurance, and my employer helps to make it affordable—but I still pay more than $800 a month. With only twenty years’ experience in public education (despite a good deal of previous experience teaching in colleges and private schools), my retirement income would be only a few hundred dollars a month, if it weren’t for my own investments. I have a master’s degree and enough additional credits for a second master’s and a Ph.D. I have paid for all those credits and educational clock hours out of my take-home pay—which, after taxes and all the various deductions, has averaged about $2,600 a month in recent years.

Compared to many people in the private sector, I do get generous vacations—a week in the spring, two weeks during the holidays, and as much as seven weeks during the summer. However, I’m always as close to my job as the nearest computer and—like the vast majority of my colleagues in education—I have spent many a summer taking classes, working in study groups, and otherwise honing my skills and working to improve education for our kids.

When I chose education as a career, I knew I’d never be rich. But like most people in my profession, I don’t do it for the money.

For the past two or three decades, members of the general public have heard very little good about American public education. Much of what they think they know is untrue. (I urge anyone who really wants to be informed about this topic to read an excellent book entitled The Manufactured Crisis, which is as relevant today as when it was published fifteen years ago.) Lately, one more negative myth has been added to the compendium of public misinformation about public education: that teachers and others who work with kids are spoiled, wasteful, and a burden to beleaguered state and municipal governments.

It’s not true, folks. From what I know as an “insider,” most school districts are about as lean as any bureaucracy can possibly be, and nobody in public education gets rich on the basis of their income. (There is ample evidence, too, for anyone who cares to look, that the same is true of public employers in general, including police and fire departments, public maintenance workers, and local governments.)

What we get from our unions—and it’s well worth the hundreds of dollars I pay annually in dues to my local, state, and national affiliations—is respect. In my district, as in many I know of, the relationship between district administrators and the staff who work with kids (including members of other unions, such as classified and secretarial staff) is an easy, simple, respectful way to communicate our needs, desires, and observations.

If I have a gripe or a good suggestion, I pass it on to my building representative, who passes it on to the local union president, who brings it up in regular meetings with district superintendants. The superintendants, in turn, may consult the elected school board. Questions are asked and answered, compromises are made. As with all compromises, people don’t always get everything they ask for—but they do get a respectful hearing and the opportunity to bargain for incremental improvements in benefits or working conditions. Morale is good, and everyone is able to focus most of their energy at work on the one thing that matters—our kids.

Virtually all the married teachers I know have spouses who also work, and almost all the single ones have second jobs. Education is no way to get rich—unless you’re talking about something other than money.

In general those us in public education get most of what we need to continue to serve kids and communities and very little beyond that. It’s a no frills kind of business. But if it weren’t for our unions, many more of us would get less—perhaps much less—than we really need to be fulfilled—personally and professionally—and to keep the focus where it belongs.

The Biggest Losers

2011-02-27T11:33:00.000-08:00

In cruising my usual web magazine sites for current headlines, I ran across this—not once but three times: "Todd Palin Loses Snowmobile Race."

The Palins seem to be the only family in America getting famous and rich (very, very rich) by losing.

So the husband of Alaska's former half-governor and failed vice-presidential candidate lost a race.

And who won? Who cares?

Victims of Our Own Success

2011-02-24T06:16:00.000-08:00

Since the 1940s, when my father was a stalwart member of the AFL-CIO, membership in unions in the United States has tumbled from over a third of the American work force to somewhere around 8%. The vast majority of union members today, like me, are public workers such as teachers and other school employees, police officers, fire fighters, and transportation workers.

By the time my father joined the labor force, most of the workers’ rights necessary for a productive, civilized society were in place. The right of workers to bargain collectively with employers had been established through the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. By the end of 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act had guaranteed most employees a limited work week with rights to overtime pay, a minimum wage, and some (albeit inadequate) safety requirements.

Like most of his generation, my father knew better than to take these basic rights for granted. After all, he well remembered that his mother—my grandmother—had put in 16-hour days, six days a week, standing on concrete floors and steaming herself over industrial laundry and ironing machines. Twenty years of that enabled her, a young widow, to keep and raise all four of her children. She was lucky—she didn’t work with the toxic chemicals that likely condemned some of her coworkers to an early and painful death.

People forget. People fail to think about things that aren’t immediately apparent. People tend to take their rights for granted—until someone takes them away.

Two generations of comfort and prosperity have allowed the American middle class to forget that the American labor movement created the “middle class” in the first place. Before that, there were the very wealthy few, who controlled business and industry, and a vast ocean of poor people, who basically worked to empower and enrich the already rich and powerful.

Two decades of relentless propaganda from the far right (amplified, in the past few years, by Fox News) has convinced large segments of the American public that union workers—ordinary folks like my father and me—are enemies of prosperity, greedy and spoiled and responsible for the national debt.

Meanwhile, manufacturing jobs by the hundreds of thousands have been shipped abroad, where workers (many of them children) work as virtual slaves. Rights to unionize have been greatly curtailed in many states, and Republicans in Congress rail against the proposed Employee Free Choice Act, which would help prevent employers from intimidating employees who may want to bargain collectively but do not currently have that right.

Middle-class complacency has allowed the interests of big business and industry to virtually extinguish organized labor in the private sector.

Now, however, in Madison, Wisconsin, the battle may have finally begun for American workers to push back and remind the nation of that often repeated but seldom heeded quote by poet George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Why Trying to Talk to Republicans Drives Me Nuts

2011-02-17T05:34:00.000-08:00

Last night, I talked with a woman who is dear to me for a number of reasons. Walking her dog recently, she took a very bad fall, smashing her face against a curb. Besides bruises and gashes in her lip, she suffered serious damage to several teeth that will require oral surgery and orthodontia to fix. She’s in pain, but her main concern at this point seems to be about money. You see, she has chosen to work for decades for a nonprofit agency that offers no insurance plan.

An evangelical Christian and extreme conservative, this fundamentally good woman is well aware of my politics. Thus, she followed this disclosure with the following remark, seething with hostility: “But I don’t want to be forced to buy insurance. I don’t want the government butting into my personal business.” She’s talked to people in her small town, she added, and feels that she’s convinced the city to pay for her dental and medical bills. She thinks they’ll accept liability (perhaps as a way of avoiding a potentially more expensive law suit) because their sidewalk was in poor repair.

Given the number of times I have to bite my tongue when talking to people like her, it’s a wonder I haven’t needed oral surgery myself.

Here’s what I didn’t say.

First, I contend that, at this point, this woman’s choices are no longer just her personal business. They also affect her neighbors, whose tax money will (if she gets her way) go toward paying her bills. It would have been a waste of time to point out that her fellow citizens might have a legitimate objection to having to pay for her clumsy mistake—not to mention her lack of responsibility in choosing not to buy insurance.

Second, there would have been no point in telling her that if it weren’t for the Republicans, no one would be “forced” to buy insurance. Opposed to the very idea of trying to solve this decades-old civic problem regarding health care, the GOP was particularly determined to see that nothing constructive got done under the current president. So they opposed every blessed aspect of the legislation on principle—including, most vehemently, the notion of a tax-based plan like Medicare. Thus, the compromise legislation that emerged—while a great improvement over the inadequate and socially irresponsible status quo—is far from perfect. (It did, however, succeed in protecting the “rights” of the insurance companies—the Republicans’ real constituents—to continue to be obscenely well compensated for sucking the blood out of people with ridiculously high premiums.)

Finally, I didn’t point out the obvious fact that living in community—even a community of two—always involves having to follow some rules. There are just things that responsible individuals have to do for the well-being of everyone —from getting a dog license in some communities to paying their fair share for roads and bridges.

On principle, I believe that citizens of a democracy have a duty to speak out about their convictions. Sometimes, though, when a relationship is important, you have to keep your mouth shut.

The Devil We Know

2011-02-12T16:07:00.000-08:00

Now that the Egyptian people have rid themselves of Hosni Mubarak, the world holds its breath to see who—or what—will take his place.

In America, speculation about what a post-Mubarak Egypt will look like spans the gamut, from President Obama’s cautiously optimistic hopes for democracy to the predictably hysterical babbling of Glenn Beck, whose theory of a plot to establish a world-wide “caliphate” is too much for even Bill O’Reilly to swallow. Many seem to worry about a small minority group called the Muslim Brotherhood, which is dedicated to the notion that all human enterprises—from the individual and the family to nation-states—should be run according to the dictates of the Qur’an.

While over 90% of the Egyptian people profess to be Muslim, by and large they are accustomed to a secular state. The most influential element in the country at this time appears to be the military, which is well respected. Historically, Egyptians have been little prone to seeing blind obedience as a virtue or to elevating religious leaders to cult-like positions of authority. There’s no apparent reason to believe they might start now—or that Egypt is likely to become another hotbed of dangerous religious extremism, like Iran.

But we in America have plenty of reason to worry about extreme fundamentalist religion, and I’m not talking about Islam. Evidence is mounting that the greatest danger to American democracy is a form of radical Christianity called “dominionism,” which has already gained enormous power and is exerting terrifying influence over government in this country.

Dominionism—one of the driving forces behind the conservative movement in America—asserts that Biblical law should be the basis of all aspects of society, from the conduct of individuals to all branches of government. This extremist philosophy was a primary factor in the abuses of the presidency of G. W. Bush and has already deeply infiltrated Congress and the Supreme Court. For those who are aware, its influence is evident in the social agenda of the new Republican House majority, in the rants of conservative talk-show pundits, and in the demands of Tea Party activists to drastically reduce taxes and limit the powers of the federal government

Chris Hedges, author of American Fascism: The Christian Right and the War on America, has this to say about the movement: “Debate with the radical Christian Right is useless. We cannot reach this movement. It does not want a dialogue. It is a movement based on emotion and cares nothing for rational thought and discussion. . . . This movement is bent on our destruction.”

Anyone who thinks this statement is hyperbole—or just a leftist conspiracy theory comparable to the paranoid fantasies so often floated from the right—really should read the book.

Yes, America, we do have much to fear from a radical religious movement bent on the destruction of democracy.

But that has nothing whatsoever to do with Egypt.

Considering the Source

2011-02-07T06:00:00.000-08:00

Apparently Sarah Palin has been critical of the president of late regarding his handling of the crisis in Egypt.

Would someone please ask her: Has she figured out yet whether Africa is a country or a continent?

The Ethics of Debate

2011-02-06T08:32:00.000-08:00

In August of 2008, in Portland, Oregon, a women’s team lost a softball game and gained the admiration of the entire country. When an opposing player hit a home run but collapsed with a knee injury on first base, members of the Central Washington University team carried her around the bases so that she could have the home run she’d earned by hitting the ball out of the park.

The CWU team lost their shot at the season playoffs, but there were no regrets. “We just wanted to help her,” said one of the players who did.

Thus Sara Tucholsky, a graduating senior, was able to experience the first and only home run of her entire softball career. But that’s not what made the story so remarkable. The amazing thing was that young American players would risk losing—because all too commonly, Americans believe in winning at any cost.

America is an adversarial nation. In sports, winning teams are celebrated like conquering armies who saved the nation. In courts, attorneys are judged by their win-loss record—not by how much of the truth of a situation they are able to bring to light. In politics after an election, the losing party is focused on regaining power, not on solving real problems for real people. (Readers may decide for themselves if that hasn’t been much more true in recent years of one party than the other.)

In America, “winning” is all about trouncing opponents—not about doing the right thing.

And so it is with competitive speech and debate. The purpose of the exercise is to win. And debaters who hone the skills necessary—such as persuasion, refutation, and judicious use of facts and statistics—may go on to become attorneys or politicians, writers or news commentators. By the time they do, the heady feeling of winning may well have become an end in itself.

This is where ethics come in. There’s a world of difference between an effective argument and an ethical one—between winning an argument and furthering truth and understanding.

To develop an effective argument, speakers and writers have to consider a number of factors, including audience, thesis, and purpose.

Audience is the group of people for whom a message is intended. An effective message is one to which people (i.e., members of the audience) listen and respond; an ethical one is targeted to an appropriate audience and delivers the same, straightforward message to everyone.

A thesis is a simple statement of the main idea. An effective thesis is one that people believe; an ethical one is based on a genuine preponderance of evidence.

The purpose of an argument is its intended impact on the audience. An effective argument moves people emotionally and inspires them to act; an ethical one enlightens and inspires the audience to act in positive ways.

Americans are busy people, working more hours per week than citizens of any other developed nation. That makes it understandable—if not necessarily right—that typical Americans don’t take the time to follow some issues closely. Consequently, they tend to be inordinately influenced by snippets of speeches they hear on the car radio or thirty-second ads on TV. Sadly if understandably, most Americans often don’t take much time to think.

That’s a fact. What it means is that the American audience tends to be vulnerable to public arguments that may have simple or erroneous theses or purposes that benefit only the wealthy and elite—those who can afford to buy the ads.

Perhaps Americans ought to pay closer attention to politics and public arguments. On the other hand, perhaps a greater burden of ethical responsibility belongs to those who have mastered the art of winning their hearts and minds.

Snowmagedden 2011

2011-01-27T19:31:00.000-08:00

Appearing on CNN today, renowned physicist Michio Kaku explained why—contrary to what we might expect—global warming often results in more snow and rain.

Simply put, warmer air around the tropics results in more water evaporating into the air—only to fall somewhere else as rain. Snow storms occur when warm, moisture-laden air currents collide with frigid arctic air; then the water droplets freeze and fall as snow.

For decades, scientists have predicted that, as the average temperature of the earth rises, storms of all kinds would become more frequent and more severe.

They were right. Just ask anyone from New Orleans, Bangladesh, or New England circa 2011.

Sticks and Stones . . . and Lethal Language

2011-01-22T14:02:00.000-08:00

A year and a half after the murder of Dr. George Tiller, who had been a frequent target of Glenn Beck’s savage rhetoric, a sociology professor in New York seems to be in the cross hairs of this criticism. Now she’s dealing with death threats.

Violent rhetoric can seep into society like poison gas and, directly or indirectly, result in tragedy and death.

The Limits of Debate

2011-01-22T04:32:00.000-08:00

Throughout high school and college, I was involved in competitive speech and debate. My first job after college was as a high school debate coach. Skillful debate requires logic, research, and critical thinking. I think it should be a required subject in schools.

In a debate class, as in law school, students are required to be able to argue both sides of an issue. I remember a year when the national debate topic was nuclear weapons. I got pretty good at arguing against disarmament treaties to limit the number of warheads in the world.

Did I believe governments should ignore the horrific dangers involved in stockpiling nukes? Not for a minute. But regardless if we debated on the affirmative or negative side, debate was just a game. We were arguing for points, not power.

The danger is that people who get good at debate can forget the critical difference between winning and being right—both factually and morally.

Persuasion—making others believe what you’re saying—is an essential skill in debate. It requires appealing to the emotions, as well as the intellect, of the audience. Like any tool, it can be used for different purposes. You can use a hammer to pound a nail—or to hit someone in the head.

As citizens of a participatory, democratic government, we are morally obliged to look beyond the arguments—no matter how logical or persuasive—to see what their effects may be in the real world.

And what yardstick should we use to measure those effects? There can be no other than the impact of policies—the real-world results of successful debating—on individual human beings and the other living organisms that share our planet.

Looking at the impacts of arguments is not part of being a good debater. It’s part of being a compassionate, responsible human being.

Crazy in America

2011-01-21T06:06:00.000-08:00

Major events are always determined by not one but several factors. Since January 8, when 20 people were killed and wounded in Tucson, much of the public discussion has focused on the availability and lethality of weapons. That’s a topic worth debating.

But in a recent poll, more than half the people who responded felt that the “mental health system” in America was a primary cause of the tragedy.

What mental health system? In America, the vast majority of people who are mentally ill can be found in one of two places: in prison or on the streets of major metropolitan cities.

People in the grips of a serious mental illness typically cannot hold a job, so the very limited and convoluted health care system we had until last year has left the vast majority with no resources for getting help.

Public funding for any kind of social programs, including those that help the mentally ill, are constantly being cut from inadequate to nonexistent, thanks to a culture that does not see taxation as a legitimate way to generate the kind of income government needs to fund the programs we need or want.

The American culture is about thirty years behind science in understanding the biology of mental illness. The 16th-Century definition of “insanity” used by the courts means that most anti-social actions committed by people who are mentally ill are treated as crimes. In a truly civilized country, people like Jared Loughner would be confined to a mental facility for the rest of their lives. (As of now, there is no cure for paranoid schizophrenia, and those who have the disorder cannot be trusted to manage it themselves.)

As it stands, however, our choices as a society are to lock the severely mentally ill up in cages with the most vicious criminals, murder them by government, or warehouse them indefinitely until they are paroled or released at some future time. None of those are rational or compassionate alternatives.

It’s very common for psychotic disorders to “present,” or become evident, in the late teens and early twenties. That’s why a Jared Loughner can seem perfectly normal to high school classmates but loonie to those who know him after graduation. Many of the most seriously ill who are dangerous to themselves and others commit violent acts in their early twenties—or at least fail to become independent, productive members of society. I can’t count the number of families I’ve known in anguish because a loved one desperately needed psychiatric help but could not afford it.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, young adults who do not have their own insurance can at least be covered under their parents’ plans until they are 26. That means the Jared Loughners of this world can afford to get psychiatric help.

It’s not a complete solution to the problem by any means—but at least it’s a very good start.

What Sarah Should Have Said

2011-01-20T05:03:00.000-08:00

Sarah Palin’s not the only office seeker guilty of using loaded language (pardon the pun) in recent months. Not once but several times during her campaign, Sharron Angle made the statement that resorting to “Second Amendment remedies” would be an appropriate response to an election that didn’t swing in favor of the Tea Party. And Michele “Locked and Loaded” Bachmann has routinely asserted that it is the right of conservatives to “rise up” against their elected government. These voices, added to those of extreme right-wing media personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, have created a veritable fog of hostile rhetoric filled with violent imagery.

But Sarah is in a league of her own. You’d think a woman whose every twitch and twitter is duly reported by the right wing and echoed throughout the mainstream media would learn to choose her words. But what Sarah thinks, Sarah says.

On her web page, Palin literally targeted twenty House Democrats who were up for reelection by showing a map with their districts covered with the cross hairs of a weapon. Eighteen of the twenty did not return to Congress, and one got shot: Gabrielle Giffords. The headline of the widely broadcast image read, “Don’t Retreat. Reload.” The implication couldn’t be clearer. Anyone naïve enough to think there aren’t people who would take that literally doesn’t know squat about human nature.

When a mentally deranged young man literally put Gabby Giffords in the cross hairs and put a bullet through her brain, Sarah might have expressed some degree of the horror and shock felt by the rest of the country. She might have said something like this:

“It’s clear that there are legitimate questions to be asked and answered about what contributed to this deadly rampage. I do not believe that gun-related images and metaphors alone would inspire this kind of violence. But in the interest of ensuring that violent rhetoric does not spur extremists to commit violent acts, I call upon my fellow gun-rights supporters to be careful of using language that, if taken literally, would suggest that bullets should be used to settle political differences.”

But no. Not a word about toning down what every rational person in America agrees is hate speech. Rather, Sarah cast herself as the victim, a martyr comparable to Jews tortured in killed in the radical belief that they habitually murdered children.

Rather than getting defensive, the former half-governor could have used the occasion to say something socially responsible. But as with every other event that occurs in her world, this event was essentially all about Sarah.

That’s what we expect from many of our superstars. But from our public representatives—and those who claim to want to serve—we should expect a great deal more.

Guns and American Entitlement

2011-01-11T04:16:00.001-08:00

When I was a little girl, my dad sometimes took me shooting. We’d go someplace near the edge of town, set up a row of cans, and use bullets to punch holes in them. On those days, I imagined myself putting every bullet where I wanted it to go (and sometimes it happened that way). I wanted to be Annie Oakley.

I enjoyed spending time with my dad, but somewhere in the back of my mind, I thought the whole exercise was rather pointless. There are lots of ways to hit targets—with arrows and darts, for example. I wondered then, as I wonder now, why so many people are passionate about heavy, noisy, expensive, and dangerous weapons—people who, like my dad, didn’t hunt and had no enemies against whom to defend himself.

I married a man who grew up on the prairie and whose father had some good reasons to carry guns—mostly to defend against coyotes, as well as making a little money on the side selling pelts. My husband’s father was a mechanic who loved anything made of metal that had moving parts—the more complicated the better.

My husband inherited his love of gadgets and became a mechanical engineer, as well as a locally well-known expert on guns. When his first child was a girl, someone asked him if he was disappointed not to have had a son. Bemused by the question, he responded, “Why would I be disappointed? I can teach her to shoot just as well as I can a boy.”

About three years ago, my husband and I went with my oldest stepson and daughter-in-law to an event at a gun club shooting range. Hundreds of automatic weapons were laid out on long tables, and anyone could shoot them for the price of the ammunition. Hundreds of people, mostly men and boys, lined up at every table to take a turn pummeling targets with streams of bullets. I took my turn, and at almost every family gathering since then, someone says, “You know, Mom has shot a Thompson submachine gun.” Only in America would that be a badge of honor more worthy of mention that any of the hundreds of other quirky things I’ve done in my life.

Last 4th of July, my husband and I went with three of our sons and a family friend to a local shooting range. The men in my family all top six feet (some by several inches), and I thought even the range master looked a little concerned as we started unloading armfuls of armaments from the car. He soon relaxed, however, when the shooting started. My husband has seen to it that all his sons learned early how to handle guns, and very few of the hundreds of rounds shot that day missed the bull’s eye (except the ones I fired).

So I understand how integrated guns are in American culture. And I say something has to change.

The slaughter by guns of innocent people is so routine in this country that, unless the victims are famous, it takes at least several deaths to even make the national news. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 30,000 people every year in the U.S. are killed by gunfire, not to mention the additional thousands who are wounded and maimed.

Thanks to the relentless, radical, well-funded defense of weapons by the National Rifle Association, it has been politically incorrect for many years to even mention common-sense controls that might keep guns out of the hands of violent and crazy people (not to mention children). Thanks to the national paranoia created by extremists and conspiracy theorists, a good percentage of Americans hold the irrational belief that the government wants to disarm its citizens in order to control them. Right-wing politicians have succeeded in making issues regarding “gun control” pretty much synonymous with burning the American flag and killing babies.

Enough. This ridiculous, emotional, all-or-nothing mentality with respect to guns in America needs to be examined in the cold light of reason.

Americans, we have to talk.

Culture of Killing

2011-01-08T19:31:00.000-08:00

Today's murderous rampage in Arizona is a historic national tragedy. With six people dead, including a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is in critical condition with a gunshot wound to the head. Thirteen others are wounded.

In the immediate aftermath, much of the national commentary has appropriately centered on the violent rhetoric and frequent allusions to guns that have, all too often, been a part of political rhetoric in recent months. But among the early headlines is also this item, regarding the shooter, who is clearly deranged:

"Arizona Suspect Likely Facing Death Penalty
for Fatally Shooting Federal Judge"

See the irony here?

Good luck, America, with that whole business about scaling back the violence.

2011: Great News for Seniors!

2011-01-01T06:29:00.000-08:00

More senior Americans stand a chance of seeing the new year through to the end, thanks to one of the several provisions of The Affordable Care Act (ACA) that take affect today: help with the infamous and deadly "donut hole."

Last year about this time, my husband and I took a little day trip with a group from our local senior center. Most of the people on the bus were retired and dependent on Medicare for their basic health care expenses. They were worried.

Those taking prescription medications necessary to protect their health—and in some cases, their lives—were now facing a three-month period during which they could afford to buy them, if at all, only with extreme financial sacrifice or help from their families. Medications for heart problems, epilepsy, even cancer were suddenly beyond the means of many seniors on the bus and throughout the country. They were faced with the prospect of not being able to take their life-giving prescriptions during one whole quarter of the year—and in some cases two quarters—because they couldn't afford them.

For most seniors, the cruel and inexplicable complexities of George Bush's prescription "help" plan—a deficit-busting plan crafted with the help of the insurance industry to ensure maximum profits for them—was like giving bread and water to starving people: it couldn't help much or for long, but it was better than nothing.

Happily, the new year begins with real help from the new health care plan so many disparagingly call "Obamacare."

Thanks, Mr. President!

Too True Not to Share

2010-12-23T07:02:00.000-08:00

As the Julian Assange/Wikileaks saga continues to unfold, these comments by Gene Lyons seem relevant. In the face of so many lies, how much raw, unexpurgated truth is too much?

Happy New Year, America!

2010-12-23T05:08:00.000-08:00

Amazingly, the lackluster 111th Congress has made history in the last few days of its “lame duck” session. The list of achievements is breathtaking:

ratification of the START treaty, renewing U.S.-Russian cooperation in limiting nuclear arms

repeal of DADT, arguably the greatest triumph in civil rights since the 1960s

passage of the desperately needed food safety bill

medical help for 9-11 first responders suffering from chronic illness as a result of their heroism

passage of the compromise tax-and-stimulus package that protects millions of Americans from immediate loss of unemployment benefits.

To the public, it may seem that all this occurred in a fit of holiday goodwill that turned even the dour Mr. McConnell into Ebenezer Scrooge after his conversion. Cynics may point out that after whining didn’t work, the Republicans decided they’d have to actually get some work done before they could go home for the holidays.

The reality, though, is that the work had been done, the groundwork painstakingly laid during months of negotiations, through the tough and inspired leadership of two of the most productive (albeit reviled) members of Congress: Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

Like the rest of us, Congress will emerge after the distraction of the holidays with a laundry list of things to be done and resolutions for the new year. We shall follow along with interest.

Meanwhile, though, I wish you all good cheer and happy holidays!

Forecast for the 112th Congress: Soggy

2010-12-15T06:03:00.000-08:00

Much has been said lately about the abundant tears being shed by John Boehner, Speaker-in-waiting of the House of Representatives. He is, as he willingly admits, an emotional guy, and this is an emotional time for him. His counterpart in the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, also tends to cry frequently and with abandon.

There’s certainly nothing wrong with shedding tears, and for many (of us women, anyway) a willingness to express emotion can be an endearing quality in a man.

However, there is nothing endearing about people who make decisions based on emotion, rather than reason. And that’s the trouble with Boehner, McConnell, and a few other very important decision makers in this country—including, not incidentally, John McCain.

Scientists now know that different parts of the brain are responsible for different types of decisions. The limbic system, deep in the interior of the brain, is where emotions reside. Decisions that originate there are often spontaneous, impulsive, and ill informed. (The limbic part of the brain doesn’t think, exactly—it just reacts.)

The part of the brain responsible for logic, reasoning, and planning is the frontal cortex—essentially, the part of the brain just behind the forehead. This is where the tough, complex, and important decisions should be processed. It’s hard for the limbic system (i.e., the emotions) to tell us what we don’t already believe or don’t want to know; it requires a deliberate attempt to put feelings aside and think hard to allow us to reach conclusions based on reason and reality.

That’s one reason why educated people, by and large, make better decision makers (and better politicians) than just your everyday “ordinary Joe”: acquiring an education generally requires frequent exercise of the reasoning skills—which is to say, the frontal cortex.

Michele Bachmann, in her (self-perceived) infinite wisdom is planning to conduct classes on the Constitution for freshman House members. The incoming Congress would be infinitely better served by a couple of good courses on brain science and decision-making skills.

Wikileaks and Freedom of Speech

2010-12-11T04:36:00.000-08:00

I don't often have this feeling of solidarity with Ron Paul, but in this case . . . what he said.

The Tax Deal: Where the Rubber Hits the Road

2010-12-08T05:01:00.000-08:00

Starting in January, my paycheck will be a few dollars fatter. That will be money that’s not currently in my budget—money left over after the bills are paid. That means that for each of the twelve months next year, my husband and I will be more likely than we would have been otherwise to dine out, buy a new pair of shoes, or splurge on a few lattés. (You’re welcome, Starbucks.)

Had the tax deal not been made, my taxes would likely have gone up, reducing my paycheck for each of the next twelve months. That would mean less disposable income for my husband and I to enjoy—and less revenue for local small businesses.

Multiply that by the millions of wage earners in this country, add the money the chronically unemployed will be able to spend thanks to the extension of benefits, and it begins to look as though the president has struck a pretty good deal. This whole thing is good for people and the economy.

Liberals are up in arms because the administration didn’t hold out for the Republicans to “cave” and agree not to continue to give the wealthiest Americans the very sweet deal that GW arranged for them. If these people thought the current GOP leadership was going to cave on anything—especially tax breaks for the rich—then I have just one question for them: Where have you been for the past two years?

See, here’s the difference between liberals and progressives: liberals are likely to stand on principle, whereas progressives are most interested in getting things done.

Both liberals and progressives tend to see government as an agency for serving and benefiting real, flesh-and-blood human beings—not for bowing to business interests in order to simply make the rich richer. So we tend to agree on many things.

In the final analysis, however, we progressives (however few of us there may be) really appreciate a pragmatic president—you know—one who actually gets things done.

Wikileaks: Knowing What’s Right

2010-12-06T06:06:00.000-08:00

For once in my life, I’m really not sure what to think about this whole business about Julian Assange and his alleged attempt to bring the whole diplomatic world crashing down around our ears.

Is it just another attempt by the media to create drama to build an audience—like the pre-Thanksgiving hysteria about protests at airports over security measures? (A tempest in a teapot if ever there was one.)

Or was it a reckless act by a sociopath that could have (but for some reason didn’t) cost lives of diplomatic and military personnel?

Clearly, Assange has made one point abundantly clear: Lots and lots of things are secret that really don’t need to be. That in itself should be an embarrassment to the U.S. government, and it’s something the rest of us have a right to know.

Or have quick action and flawless decision making by Amazon, Paypal, and media sources with access the information somehow managed to mitigate the damage that might have been caused by such a huge data dump?

Frankly, if I have to put my faith in one very smart if quirky young man (Assange) or the media and entire international diplomatic juggernaut to do a good, fundamentally right thing, I’d have to put my money on Assange.

Here’s an interesting article on the subject by Matt Zoller Seitz.

The Third Party in American Politics

2010-12-02T05:46:00.000-08:00

It’s not the Libertarians or Independents, the Blue Dogs or so-called “centrists.” It’s not the Tea Party or its lesser-known counterpart, the Coffee Party. The third “party” vying for the public’s time and attention is the media, and Jon Stewart is the party leader.

And if Jon Stewart could or would be elected to lead the nation, Steven Colbert would be vice president.

And they are the leaders precisely because they're funny.

Ironies abound.

After the October 30 “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear”—the very title of which is a slap at the other two parties—Stewart spent the next few days doing interviews in which he denied any political intentions. Nonetheless, he was criticized by conservatives for being “liberal” and by liberals for being too neutral. Both sides missed the point—as, in fact, Stewart himself may have done: his commentary on American politics cannot be critical (which it is) and neutral at the same time. But that doesn’t mean he has to take sides.

Stewart is not a-political. He and his counterparts (including Colbert, Tina Fey, and the whole cast of Saturday Night Live) are political in that they routinely comment on issues in government and call out idiocy (of which there is plenty in politics) wherever they find it.

Lest we deny the close association between spoofing politicians and being one, let’s not forget that Al Franken went from satirist to Senator in the space of a few short months.

It should come as no surprise that smart, funny people should have great powers of persuasion. A person can laugh and think at the same time. However, as Robert Ingersoll famously said, “Anger is a wind which blows out the lamp of the mind."

This is a lesson some of today's politicians and pundits should keep in mind. Stirring up anger can get people on the march, but once they get started, it's hard to control their direction.

In embracing the Tea Party movement, some Republicans have learned this to their detriment, as the campaigns of some extremist candidates during the last election turned to farce.

On the other hand, as Winston Churchill once said, “A joke is a very serious thing.”

Corporate America Never Had It So Good (Literally)

2010-11-24T19:53:00.000-08:00

To hear the Republicans tell it, American business is afraid to start hiring or lending money. They’re plagued by uncertainty (John Boehner’s favorite word these days). They’re trembling in anticipation of what the allegedly socialist-anti-business Obama may due to their bottom line.

Well, so far their bottom line doesn’t seem to be suffering much: American corporations just logged the best quarter ever in terms of profits—$1.66 trillion.

Members of the GOP and their corporate and industrial sponsors have sold a good many Americans a bill of goods. They’ve got folks believing that the new administration hasn’t helped the economy much; in fact, the measures taken by the new administration have pulled the economy back from the edge of a cliff, where it was teetering precariously on the brink of depression.

American business deserves no sympathy. American industry gets away with murder (sometimes literally, as in the case of Massey Energy) and takes advantage of countless loopholes available to avoid paying taxes.

It’s the nature of business, which is amoral by nature, to avoid oversight and seek to maximize profits. It’s the duty of a democratic government—and the citizens who shape that government through their votes—to ensure that business acts responsibly.

From billions in bonuses to the geniuses at bailed-out banks to the tragedy caused by BP in the Gulf of Mexico, the past year has provided numerous examples of why business bears watchin.’

The myth of the self-regulating market is busted; businesses themselves, however, have never done better. They have much to be thankful for this holiday season.

It’s time that knee-jerk Republicans quit buying into phony doomsday scenarios about how bad things are economically and start thinking about how to make things better for real flesh-and-blood American people.

Quote for the Day

2010-11-18T15:40:00.000-08:00

From Gene Lyons, food for thought for those who think political beliefs are arranged along a spectrum, with “truth” lying somewhere near the middle:

“Sometimes, see, Goldilocks can't find the porridge that's just right. Sometimes, when two sources tell very different stories, the truth doesn't lie somewhere between them. Often, somebody's lying.”

Pork and Political Vegetarianism

2010-11-17T04:54:00.000-08:00

The next few months should be highly entertaining for Congress watchers.

Take an entrenched group of Republicans who haven’t bothered to make any real policy decisions since their last leader left office (unless you call “No!” a policy). Add a starry-eyed group of freshmen officials with the idea they have a mandate to change things. (Some of the latter, like Rand Paul, seem to be devotedly, if misguidedly, motivated by strong opinions of exactly how things should change.) Toss in some “red meat”—one or more of the popular buzz words, the mere mention of which can get Tea Partiers worked up into a froth; specifically, toss in the word “pork.”

Voilá! You now have the makings of a real political free-for-all.

They’re off!

Never mind the wars. Never mind jobs. Never mind foreign policy or increasingly deadly weather patterns or our disastrous dependence on oil. Like a bunch of first graders playing soccer for the first time, they’re off in a pack to chase the ball wherever it may lead them, everybody trying to get in a kick.

Here’s the reality: What conservatives snidely refer to as “pork” is the reason folks in Congress—especially in the House—get elected (and stay elected).

Adding “pork”—also called “earmarks”—to major pieces of legislation is the only way legislators can get Congress to act on the myriad of little things they will never vote on as a body. There will never be a national debate about whether a new bridge should be built to replace a crumbling one in Hoboken. Or whether a port should be upgraded to help the economy of a struggling coastal town. Or whether a small dam should be built in a remote district to allow for irrigation of nearby land.

Collectively, these are the little things that really matter to voters—whether the tiny patch of America on which they live is habitable, or accessible in the winter time, or able to support their children if they choose to continue living in the area where they grew up.

After a good deal of arm twisting, even Mitch McConnell—a 26-year Congressional veteran who has been a staunch defender of earmarks—caved into peer pressure and agreed to support the GOP’s grandstanding gesture of banning earmarks. Of course, neither he nor the others who came out in support of this ridiculous idea have any intention of not trying to get favors for their constituents back home—they just want to be able to say it’s the fault of the Democrats for not going along with the idea.

Bottom line: Earmarks comprise about 1.5% of the Federal budget, or $7.7 billion of this year’s $410 billion budget.

Now, how about those tax breaks for the rich, which would add $36 billion to the deficit next year alone?

How the President Lost the People in 2010: Part III

2010-11-12T05:06:00.000-08:00

In this last of a three-part discussion about the disaffected voters of 2010, we focus on those addicted to hate radio (like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage) and radical TV (namely, Fox News). The rise of these sources of incessant right-wing propaganda is new in America and has dramatically altered the political landscape. Those who compare these media sources to left-wing pundits and public radio are either unfamiliar with the latter or are being deliberately disingenuous: there’s absolutely no comparison in terms of hours of programming, accuracy of reports, and emotional vs. rational appeal of their content.

What right-wing media outlets have in common are people who get rich selling a product—and that product is anger. Together they have built a hostile, negative conservative movement which was first appropriated by—then driven by—the GOP. The people who deliver the messages of fear, hatred, and negativism—the vehicles of anger and rage—are not unlike people who hock cigarettes: in both cases, the products are habit forming, addictive, and unhealthy.

In the late 90s and early 2000s, Fox viewers could be excused for believing what they heard and being sucked into conspiracy theories designed to make them angry. Like cigarette smokers before there was much information about lung cancer, those early viewers were relatively innocent of the knowledge that would have forced them to be aware of what they were doing. However, we now know that, just as cigarette smokers were harming their bodies and those of people around them, hostile right-wingers are doing damage to their bodies and their brains, as well as to their country.

Being innocent of knowledge isn’t at all the same thing as being willfully ignorant when knowledge is readily available.

There’s no shortage of information debunking Fox “news.” For example, the outrageous claims regarding the cost of President Obama’s current trip to Asia—Billions of Dollars! One-tenth of the United States Navy!—reverberated for days in the conservative echo chamber. Never mind that numerous reputable sources quickly pointed out how laughable those claims were—Fox News and its cousins create their own “facts.”

Such “facts” are usually supported by circular reasoning (Fox heard it from Rush who got it from Drudge who got it from Fox . . .). Like poisonous mushrooms, the “sources” for right-wing propaganda have become so numerous (being, as they are, so profitable) that such a merry-go-round of disinformation can keep going for months—even years (such as, for example, the matter of the president’s birth certificate or the off-the-wall theories of the “truthers”).

Outrageous claims and conspiracy theories also find legitimacy when right-wing pundits or politicians write op-ed articles for conservative-friendly newspapers or magazines (such as the otherwise reputable WSJ). Mainstream commentators trying to be what Fox News, tongue-in-cheek, only claims to be—fair and balanced—sometimes treat factual information from the left (such as scientific discoveries about evolution or global climate change) and denialism from the right as being equivalent. (Frankly, her habit of bending over backwards to legitimize wacky right-wing ideas was the reason I started tuning out CNN’s Campbell Brown—and I guess I wasn’t the only one.)

With its new slogan, “Lean forward,” we may hope that MSNBC will gradually become what Fox watchers have claimed for years: a true and consistent voice for progressive ideas and a counterweight to the pernicious Fox News. So far, a few outspoken liberal pundits (Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews) do what they can to present the rational (read “liberal”) side of many national arguments. But it will take many more voices to help make some segments of the viewing public aware that there really are two sides to some of these issues.

It can be said that during the past year and a half, the president lost the people by not staying in daily contact with his constituents (although, in all fairness, the man does have another job to do). However, it’s the duty of voters themselves to make an effort to really be aware of more than one side of the important arguments.

For his part, there are those of us who think the president is compounding his “mistake”—if that’s what you want to call it—by being too accommodating and stubbornly sticking to his bipartisan dream. The Republicans have made it abundantly clear that they have no intention of playing at all until and unless the other team leaves the field entirely. His “turn the other cheek” attempts at bipartisan decision making haven’t worked up to now, nor are they likely to work any time in the foreseeable future.

But that’s a topic we’ll explore another day.

Mean Politics

2010-11-10T04:44:00.000-08:00

After what America has gone through for the past ten years—two wars, the destruction of the American economy, and the two-year hangover we’ve endured since—you’d think the Republicans would want to get something constructive done now that they will have more power in Congress. But no.

Darrell Issa, GOP patsy that he is, wants to have “seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks” to try to discredit the Obama administration. John Boehner and others are saber-rattling about a 1995-style government shutdown.

What’s most instructive about this last proposal is what conservatives have to say about it. It’s all about tactics and power-mongering and nothing about the well-being of the American people (as, for example, in this recent article from the American Spectator).

Is there anyone—anyone—left in the Party of No who actually has a conscience?

Coming soon: “How the President Lost the People in 2010: Part III.”

How the President Lost the People in 2010: Part II

2010-11-09T06:22:00.000-08:00

At a high school reunion in the spring of 2009, I visited with a woman I remembered as being sweet, sensitive, and impassioned about social issues. She remarked that for her entire adult life, she’d always voted for the “pro-life” candidate in every election. The presidential election of 2008 had left her confused, she said, because neither of the candidates seemed to be unequivocally anti-abortion.

In other words, neither candidate promised what so many had promised before: to reverse the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade and, once again, make abortion illegal in America. (No president or politician could possibly do that, but reality is not an issue here. It’s the promises that count.)

This woman’s fixation on a single issue—a complex issue made simple by the clever GOP spin machine—means that she voted twice for George Bush. She seemed untroubled by his two deadly wars (in which many thousands of former babies had been sacrificed), policies of torture and imprisonment without due cause, and failure to provide basic medical care for mothers and babies throughout the land. She also seemed oblivious to the fact that neither Bush nor his advisors ever mentioned the topic of abortion—which was clearly nowhere on their long list of concerns—except during campaigns.

By and large, Americans aren’t deep thinkers when it comes to politics. This is something Republicans understand and Democrats do not.

Gun rights are another wedge issue that the GOP has historically exploited with great success. In the recent elections, there wasn’t a great deal of national news about guns (there being no actual threat to gun rights to report about). In targeted mailings and Internet campaigns, however, the extreme right continually prods hunters and militia types with conspiracy theories, stoking their fears about having their weapons confiscated by . . . somebody. Hence the impression some Alaskans ended up with that Attorney General Eric Holder was out to get their guns. And a number of the faux Palins during the last election made sure to be seen taking aim, “locked and loaded” against any imagined transgression involving their “Second Amendment rights.” (Which reminds me—who’s in charge of watching Sharron Angle these days—the woman who spoke ominously about “Second Amendment remedies” if the last election didn’t go her way.)

On the issue of gay rights, the right-wing coalition has a cozy deal going. Libertarians (who, by the way, tend to actually think about what they believe) and religious fundamentalists (who don’t) are both up in arms about gays. Libertarians are angry because Obama hasn’t exercised his executive power—or waved his magic wand—and unilaterally ended “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” (Never mind his reasoned and repeated arguments about how much better it will be for all concerned if Congress does away with the silly law it created.) The radical religious, meanwhile, are mad about gays gaining support for basic civil liberties, including marriage. While it’s unlikely that either of these camps went out en masse and voted for Republicans for this reason alone, their noisy complaints helped to stoke the nation’s discontent and drown out the few reasoned voices trying to celebrate the administration’s many accomplishments.

Simplistic thinking, conspiracy theories, and intolerance. Take away voters who respond to these, and who do you have left?

People who are well educated. People who read. People who think deeply, trying to consider important issues from several different angles. People, in other words, that the Sarah Palins of the world scoff at for being “elitist.”

People like the president.

One of the things Obama failed to do during the first two years of his administration was to take monumentally complex issues and break them down into small enough bites for the American public to swallow. In a country in which a relative few are willing to do real intellectual work, it’s hard to inform the populace about issues like global climate change, credit reform, and why tax breaks to the middle class stimulate the economy while tax breaks to the rich do not.

It’s hard. But it’s what the president and his advisers must do if they want to win in 2012.

Tomorrow . . .Creeps in Its Petty Pace . . .

2010-11-08T19:42:00.000-08:00

Regarding my promised "Part 2" of the last post, the word "tomorrow" was an estimate. That discussion will continue soon.

Meanwhile, from conservative commentator David Frum, here are some interesting remarks about the GOP's "just say no" approach to health reform.

How the President Lost the People in 2010: Part I

2010-11-06T07:04:00.000-07:00

In general, people who are upset with President Obama fall into one of three categories: namely, those who are

confused and hurting because of the economy (e.g., out of work, in debt, and/or threatened with the loss of their home),

upset about social issues and individual liberties (including guns, gay rights, and abortion), and/or

addicted to hate radio and radical TV (e.g., Rush Limbaugh and Fox News).

In days to come, we’ll discuss the disaffected Americans in Categories 2 and 3—as well as what responsible, progressive thinkers in this country ought to do about the situation. Today we’ll begin by discussing members of the electorate who fall into Category 1: those embittered because they are directly and adversely impacted by the struggling economy.

Like all human beings who are frightened and hurting, people who are out of work, out of money, and out of options will generally vent their anger on someone. As leader of the country, the president is bound to be a lightning rod for some of that anger. It goes with the territory.

There’s not much point in trying to reason with desperate people; understandably, they want to see success, not listen to economic theories. (Nevertheless, many liberals are upset with the president for not doing a better job of explaining things to the public—as though the man doesn’t have another job to do, other than politicking.)

Republicans, well aware of this natural tendency of people to blame the party in power, has spent the past two years trying to ensure that things don’t get any better—not under Obama’s watch.

That’s why, under the shrewd but morally indefensible leadership of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, Republicans have steadfastly refused to say “yes” to anything that might help the economy, including public projects to improve infrastructure, extension of unemployment benefits, and tax relief for those who really need it.

That’s also why they’ve routinely lied about the positive effects of Democratic accomplishments, including

the stimulus (which, by the most conservative estimates, created over 2 million jobs),

credit reform (which ended unfair and dishonest practices, such as arbitrarily raising interest rates on money already spent), and

the Affordable Health Care Act (which, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, “would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010–2019 period”).

To increase their political capital, Republicans in the minority have wanted the economy to stay as bad as possible for as long as possible so people would blame the Democrats.

It worked.

Now that they represent the majority in the House of Representatives, however, the people will expect members of the GOP to say something other than “No.”

As demonstrated by the Great Recession of 2008, the Republican Party has long been bankrupt when it comes to ideas for how to build a strong economy. And by usurping the energy of the Tea Party, they have aligned themselves with many individuals—including some newly elected members of the House, like Rand Paul—whose main concerns are other than ensuring the economic privileges of big business and the very, very rich.

Will these right-wing groups—the fiscal and the social-libertarian conservatives—be able to work together to piece together any kind of coherent national policy? Will they be successful in continuing to discredit the president and blame everything on the Democrats?

It should be fun to find out.

Tomorrow, we’ll discuss more about Obama and the social-libertarians.

The Ultimate Double Standard

2010-11-05T16:51:00.000-07:00

So . . . Rupert Murdock donates $1.25 million of corporate money to Republican candidates and organizations—which, for a publicly traded company, is against the law. The consequence? Tch-tch-tch from a few mainstream media pundits.

Keith Olbermann, as an individual, donates the maximum individual contribution—$2,400—to three specific Democratic candidates. The consequence? Indefinite suspension without pay.

Will Fox News jump to his defense, as they did for Juan Williams (who immediately got a $1 million contract)?

Stay tuned.

The Majority Party Always Loses Seats in Midterm Elections

2010-11-05T06:04:00.000-07:00

Nevertheless, these remarks by Mary Mitchell are worth pondering.

Great News about Jobs . . .

2010-11-05T05:43:00.000-07:00

. . . 151,000 added in October! Economists are saying this is a strong indication the economy is growing again.

John Boehner will be busy all day figuring out how to take credit for that.

Buying Barbados: The $4 Billion Election

2010-11-02T03:37:00.000-07:00

The astronomical sum of money being spent on the 2010 midterm elections in America—at least $4 billion, by most estimates—is greater than the entire GDP of many of the world’s countries, including Barbados, Montenegro, and the Isle of Man. (And we’re closing in on Mongolia.) Virtually every man, woman, and child living on American soil has been exposed to thousands of images, slogans, and arguments—mostly produced by expensive ad agencies—designed to get them to adopt a particular attitude toward a candidate or an issue.

Much has been said—and much more needs to be said—about the ability of the rich to buy elections. But let’s face it: if the American people weren’t so gullible and generally uninformed, it would take a lot more than scary music or a slick slogan to sway them. Politicians and their message machines would have to provide actual information, specific action goals, and coherent plans for implementing those goals. Then they’d have to deliver on those promises.

Regular readers of this column know what I think: I think President Obama and his team have delivered on their promises to America, accomplishing more than anyone could have expected—especially bucking a severe and unrelenting headwind of lies and obstructionism from the Republicans in Congress. From ending combat in Iraq to reforming health care to implementing Wall Street and banking reform, the current administration has done much to improve American lives.

I also think it’s appalling that most Americans seem to have already forgotten what the Party of No accomplished on its watch: two wars, general devastation of the economy, confusion about climate change, a $1.3 trillion deficit.

Be that as it may. Jon Stewart (oddly, given his profession) blames the media for America’s current problems. The Tea Party blames politicians and “elitists”—a category that often seems to include anyone who is well educated, well informed, and experienced in public office (unless, of course, they’re Republican). But it’s clear where the real blame should lie in a Democracy like ours: squarely on the shoulders of those—sadly, the majority—who either cast a vote based on a single bias, remaining willfully ignorant about everything else, or don’t vote at all.

For awhile last January, mesmerized by televised images of profound suffering, Americans seemed to care about the people of Haiti. The cameras have moved on, but hundreds of thousands of Haitians still live in crowded, stinking tents, and hundreds are dying of disease. Think what the $4 billion wasted on these midterm elections could do for them.

Never in the history of human civilization has it been so easy to find out what’s really going on in the world. With an open mind and a good mix of media (including books and articles, as well as radio and television), anyone can learn a great deal in a short time about virtually any subject.

Now that so many billions of dollars have been spent to get their attention, what Americans should do is to continue to learn and to care—not because they’re being prodded by advertising to be fearful or angry, but rather just because being informed is the right thing to do.

James Fallows on Fox and NPR

2010-10-27T11:13:00.000-07:00

From one of America's most thoughtful observers and cogent commentators: "Why NPR Matters."

"There is no center to American Politics"

2010-10-27T04:27:00.000-07:00

From Robert Reich, here is the clearest explanation I've seen yet about the nature of American politics and the profound cultural differences between the two major parties.

I'm particularly intrigued by the notion that Republicans tend to be cynical about politics while Democrats are idealists.

Unlike being gay or straight (a topic much discussed these days by people who haven't the faintest notion what they're talking about), having an attitude is a choice. As citizens, we choose to be cynical, idealistic, or apathetic.

More than just intellectual positions, these are fundamental moral choices with—in this day and age—global consequences.

Rinos and Dinos in 2010

2010-10-26T04:42:00.000-07:00

In the months leading up to next week’s midterm election, the influence of the Tea Party made itself felt by relentlessly going after the few moderate Republicans who were up for reelection. One after another, experienced right-wing politicians—Utah’s Senator Bob Bennett, Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, Delaware’s Mike Castle—went down to defeat in their party’s primary, replaced by extremist “Tea Party” candidates.

In today’s Party of No, anyone who’s ever said yes to anything in Washington—constructive or otherwise—is suspect. With the kind of mindless, knee-jerk decision making that’s all too typical in American politics, the conservative hoards seem to be obeying the libertarian mantra: “Throw the bums out.”

This purging of the right in the interest of some sort of ill-defined ideological purity may well result in sweeping away some of the nominal Democrats who’ve routinely abandoned their principles and their president’s progressive agenda in a quixotic attempt to please powerful right-wing interests.

In Arkansas, for example, Blanche Lincoln seems to be battling into oblivion against Republican John Boozman. I say good riddance to her: she didn’t do her party any good by voting for good legislation, like the health care overhaul, while trashing it publicly to please conservatives back home. Political columnist Max Brantley called her “wishy-washy by nature”—and we’ve got enough of that in Congress already, so long as we still have to put up with John McCain.

Similarly, a recent WSJ article reported that of the 54 “Blue Dog” Democrats (that is to say “Democrats in Name Only”) in the House, more than half are in serious jeopardy of losing their seats in next week’s election. If that happens, as the article suggests, the United States Congress may end up significantly more polarized than it has been for the past two years—or maybe the past two hundred years.

And I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing. It won’t be pretty, but maybe it will be a good thing for both sides in America’s battle for the minds of the masses to get their cards out on the table.

American voters are simplistic thinkers, after all, and impatient with too much analysis. Let’s get the Rand Pauls and the Joe Millers out there, in all their proud ignorance, and have them explain—at length— to the American people why Civil Rights legislation tramples on the “rights” of business owners and why Social Security should be “privatized” (which is to say “turned over to Wall Street”).

Meanwhile, let’s make sure that the Democrats we elect to Congress are “real” Democrats—people able and willing to stand up for the rights of individuals to have security, freedom, and fair treatment from banks, insurance companies, and big business.

Juan Williams and the Budinskis

2010-10-23T10:00:00.000-07:00

My Polish grandmother used to talk a lot about budinskis—people who habitually mind other people’s business instead of their own and express opinions, no matter how little they may know about a given situation.

The word may be out of fashion, but this whole Juan Williams affair has certainly proved (if proof were needed) that the world is still full of them.

In his new role as budinski-in-chief for the GOP (for want of any elected title), Newt Gingrich is calling for Congress to defund NPR! Pundits are weighing in on the situation left and right (and I do mean left and right—budinskiism is clearly not the purview of either major party). Most, like Gingrich, come down on the side of poor, beleaguered and misunderstood Mr. Williams—who, according to the boss who fired him, had been having ongoing problems with remembering his responsibility to be as apolitical as possible in accordance with his role at the nonpartisan network. (Why she didn’t fire him when he first started moonlighting at Fox is anybody’s guess.)

Companies have a right to fire people for any number of reasons—including failure to conform to an image befitting their role in the eyes of the public. Let’s take an example.

I work in public education. Would the principal of my school have the right to fire me if I started working part time as a bar tender? There’s certainly nothing inherently wrong with tending bar, but my principal may—or may not—think the image is in keeping with that of a school professional.

The odds are good that I wouldn’t be fired for that—although such a choice could conceivably generate some conversation with district officials about the need for school employees to be careful about their public image.

Then suppose I became embroiled in a public incident in the bar that generated headlines. Or decided to start expressing my opinions on page 1 of the local paper about matters related to my second job. Or what if, as a representative of the hospitality industry, I started making public statements about lowering the drinking age in our state?

You see what I mean? In such a scenario, I’d be treading dangerously close—and likely sometimes crossing—the line preventing conflict of interest between my two public functions. My superiors in education would have every right to tell me to switch to bar tending as my full-time occupation.

That apparently, is what happened to Mr. Williams. After treading the line for two long, he was given the opportunity to quit his day job—netting a $2 million contract at Fox into the bargain.

Meanwhile, people are still unemployed, the polar ice caps are still melting, and we have an election going on that will profoundly affect every aspect of American life for generations.

So how much more time shall we spend commiserating about the allegedly unfair treatment of poor Juan Williams?

Taking Back Our Country

2010-10-22T02:40:00.000-07:00

Offered without comment, except to say that all Americans need to be aware of who's really behind all the hysteria about "big government" and "bankrupting America"—and why.

To quote Jefferson, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

U.S. Chamber of Commerce: A Danger to Democracy

2010-10-21T06:10:00.000-07:00

The Veteran’s Alliance for Security and Democracy has joined a growing list of civic-minded organizations filing complaints with the Federal Elections Commission and the IRS regarding the illegal and unethical interference of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the current election cycle.

Despite the Supreme Court’s best efforts to allow banks, corporations, and other special interests to use their vast resources to buy American elections, there are still a few laws in place—laws that extremist right-wing members of the Supreme Court have not (yet) managed to overturn.

One of those laws states that nonprofit organizations are banned from making contributions to candidates for federal offices. Another says that no foreign entities, including governments and corporations, can contribute to U.S. political parties or candidates. (Duh. Sounds like a good policy to me!)

Last week alone, the tax-exempt, allegedly “nonprofit” Chamber spend $10.5 million in support of 31 House and Senate candidates—all, of course, Republicans. This money comes from what the Chamber calls its “general fund”—the same pot into which money flows from most of the countries in the world, as well as countless foreign corporations.

How much money? How many countries? Which corporations?

Shhhhhhh. That’s all secret.

The Chamber says, “trust us.” They claim to have an “internal auditing system” that ensures that none of that tainted foreign currency is ever used to influence politics in America.

Okay, let’s use an analogy here. In most jurisdictions in America, people arrested for drug trafficking are likely to have their homes, automobiles, bank accounts, and other property seized by the government. Why? Because those individuals are believed to have profited from the drug trade. It may be that not one single cent of drug money was used to purchase the property in question; however, having access to money allows a person to buy more stuff. Where individuals are concerned, the government recognizes (rightly or wrongly—that’s a whole other subject) that having the money enables the person to buy the house, the car, etc.

But the Citizens United verdict that overturned decades of finance campaign law did not, as conservatives claim, put corporations and other special interest groups on the same footing as individual United States citizens; rather, it gave these groups enormous privileges—even beyond the privileges that money can buy—to do things individuals cannot. One of those special privileges is keeping secrets about their finances.

The outrage many people are expressing about the Chamber’s unwarranted and illegal interference in this election is well deserved. The Chamber doesn’t like the negative publicity, but it’s a problem the Chamber itself could easily resolve.

All it has to do is to open the books.

The Pitfalls of Polling

2010-10-15T04:01:00.000-07:00

Looking back, it seems that election day “surprises” have become the norm rather than the exception.

For the first few decades after television began broadcasting play-by-play forecasts and results of elections, things were fairly predictable. The populace was much less mobile than it is today, and virtually all voters had land lines. In many precincts, the turnout and trends were so stable that pollsters could safely add data from the last election to the tally of the current one without being far off the mark. Votes were cast on a specific day at neighborhood polling places, so exit interviews with people who had just voted could result in fairly accurate estimates of which way a particular neighborhood was going swing. Add the survey results together, and voilà! The result was sometimes a foregone conclusion long before the polls closed.

This predictability was problematic for a number of reasons and very likely skewed the results of some elections. Voters on the West Coast—not to mention Hawaii—often knew the results of national races long before the polls closed in their own state. In such cases, many didn’t bother to vote, knowing it would be a pointless exercise. Getting a mail-in ballot could be harder than it is today to file income tax, so those who couldn’t get to their local polling place on the appointed day, for one reason or another, often just didn’t bother. Without the deluge of ads and information on radio, television, and the Internet that inundates today’s voters, the voters of yesteryear tended to make up their minds earlier and change them less often.

Back in the day, “Gallop” and “polling” were synonymous. Today there are hundreds of polling companies, local and national, many of them dedicated to gathering information specifically for one party or the other. So prevalent have they become that there are now people who poll the pollsters, as well as numerous columns and blogs (such as fivethirtyeight) that do nothing but compare and analyze polling data.

The upshot of all this is that, in contrast to other historically significant elections, no one really has clue as to what will happen on November 2. That fact is undoubtedly giving many candidates serious heartburn.

For us spectators, however, it just makes the races all the more fun.

She's Not a Witch

2010-10-09T19:43:00.000-07:00

She’s us.

And you know what? I believe her.

Christine O’Donnell isn’t me, of course. Nor is she you. But, as she rightfully points out, she is us—plural: a typical American with strong opinions about things who doesn’t pretend to be anything other than what she is.

When asked about some of her more controversial remarks, such as her statement that she once dabbled in witchcraft, she neither denies the obvious facts (as McCain is famous for doing) nor makes excuses. She simply says, “I’m not twenty any more.” And who among us could claim to have said or done nothing in our 20s that we wouldn’t want broadcast on national television?

Of all the wing nuts the tea party has put forth this campaign season, Christine O’Donnell appears to me to be the most likable, as well as perhaps the most sincere.

She doesn’t torture the truth beyond recognition (like Sharron Angle, when she claims that Harry Reid “voted to give Viagra to child molesters”). Unlike Joe Miller, who wants to abolish Social Security and the minimum wage, she may—as she claims—have some empathetic understanding of the needs of ordinary people. And unlike the Mama Grizzly herself, Sarah Palin, she has a gentle, well modulated voice and conciliatory manner that makes it easy to listen to her—no matter how nonsensical her arguments may be.

I like her.

If I lived in Delaware, I wouldn’t dream of voting for her, of course. Being nice and ordinary hardly qualifies a person to be a Senator, any more than being bitchy, negative, and dishonest qualifies her to be Vice President.

Aided and abetted by Fox News, however, the Tea Party has convinced a good part of the American electorate that to be taken seriously, a candidate must be hostile, sarcastic, and positively bristling with Doomsday scenarios.

Sadly, it’s her lack of those negative qualities, and not her lack of common sense, that makes Christine O’Donnell the biggest long shot candidate in the midterm elections.

American Churches and Pay-As-You-Go Politics

2010-10-05T04:55:00.000-07:00

In Minnesota, a few short weeks before election day, the state’s Catholic archdiocese is mailing DVDs to all of its 800,000 parishioners.

Produced by the Knights of Columbus, the video is basically a slick political advertisement in support of a single issue: opposition to gay marriage. By urging political action in favor of the church’s position, the DVD essentially endorses one of the candidates in the state’s three-way gubernatorial election: the Republican, who has made an issue of his opposition to same-ex marriage.

The project is funded by an anonymous “large, private donation.” No telling who or what political entity might have thrown money, via the Church, at the Minnesota’s governor’s race—nor whether the motivation behind it is really social conservatism (as opposed to, say, an effort by business interests to undermine the campaign of another candidate).

Be that as it may, this is just one of many recent examples of intrusion by churches and church leaders into matters of public policy—from the involvement of the Mormon Church in California’s Proposition 8 controversy to lobbying by Catholic Bishops for certain specific language in health reform legislation.

American churches—from mainstream denominations to fanatical, one-of-a-kind sects—aren’t supposed to meddle in politics. But they do. Routinely.

Maybe that’s to be expected. After all—churches are composed of people, and people have opinions. However, that brings up a question: As tax payers, why should you and I subsidize the expression of those opinions by allowing churches to amass limitless amounts of money and property tax free? And why should we allow third parties—anonymous or otherwise—to launder large political contributions by disguising them as tax-deductible, “charitable” contributions?

It’s time we admitted the fact that churches in this country—which can turn out single-issue voters by the hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands to support their particular agenda—are a huge factor in American politics. Let’s just admit it.

Then let’s also admit that it’s ridiculous to continue the indefensible practice of granting tax-exempt status to churches. For those who are justifiably concerned about rising deficits and unmet public needs, church property represents countless billions of dollars worth of untaxed property. Church donations represent billions of dollars worth of income that churches—like the small businesses they are—should pay tax on, just like everyone else.

Those who defend the practice of continuing the tax-exempt status of organized religion in America often use the argument of separation of church and state: they say churches shouldn’t have to give money to the state.

Au contraire: Separation of church and state is one of several excellent arguments for ending the practice of granting special powers and privileges to churches—as well as tax-exempt status to any transactions allegedly conducted “in God’s name.”

American Politics and the Insidious Influence of Religion

2010-10-02T05:45:00.000-07:00

As a child, I watched my practical, rational grandmother disappear from time to time, replaced by a pietistic, emotional, slavishly devoted fan of Billy Graham whenever the evangelist came on television. I remember how she would skimp on groceries to send money for his “work”—the work of using the newly unleashed power of television to inspire more and more followers to send more money.

As a Catholic, I was enjoined from paying much attention to teachings of Protestants or the ravings of televangelists. I couldn’t have known at the time that I was seeing the first volleys of a culture war that would derail American progress, threaten the world economy, and even lead America (with a born-again president at the helm of the nation) into a war of aggression and other atrocities.

Frank Schaeffer spent most of his childhood at l’Abri, his parents’ religious compound in the Swiss Alps, which became a mecca for those seeking salvation through magical thinking and simple, absolute answers to every human question. Many who found their way there (including the indomitable Billy Graham) returned to America as founders of the “religious right”—the movement that, more than any other, has made America vulnerable to the influence of extremists and opportunists.

Schaeffer’s book is entitled Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back. In it, he argues that the religious-right leaders who infiltrated American government during the last half of the twentieth century—and who exert enormous influence over it today—were not and are not just political “conservatives” but rather “anti-American revolutionaries.” Far from wanting their nation to succeed, these fanatics were (and are) “gleefully betting on American failure” in order to turn their own dire predictions into self-fulfilling prophesies.

“In the crudest form,” Schaeffer explains, “this was part of the evangelical fascination with the so-called end times. The worse things got, the sooner Jesus would come back. But there was another component: the worse everything got, the more it proved that America needed saving, by us!”

In a nutshell, this explains why the minority party in Congress today—who, with the exception of a few eccentric secular libertarians, almost universally profess to be “born-again Christians”—have been not only betting on the failure of American government but doing everything in their power to ensure that it happens. Under an administration that they can’t control, their only objective is to snatch back the reins of power so they can continue their “work”—the work of subverting religion to serve the interests of the rich and powerful: to make the rich richer and the poor subservient to the wishes of those who claim to know best (because God speaks to them directly).

After decades of secrecy, the influence of religious, right-wing extremism on American government is beginning to be exposed by a few courageous journalists and writers. Responsible voters will take heed and question the motives of any political leader who claims to speak for God.

Power to the People

2010-09-28T11:36:00.000-07:00

No one’s polled me lately about my attitudes toward government, but if they did, they might erroneously chalk me up as yet another dissatisfied citizen ready to arbitrarily “throw the bums out.”

The pollster would be partially correct. I’m an angry voter, too. But I’m selectively angry—angry at most of the members of the General Opposition Party (GOP) for the irresponsible and dishonest tactics they’ve used to try to discredit the president and reclaim the power to run America they way they want to. (That is to say, for their own enrichment and that of their wealthy and powerful patrons like banks, insurance firms, and oil companies.)

I’m angry at members of Congress who vote in lockstep with their radical and dishonest leaders to prevent government from functioning properly and progress from being made—just so they have something to blame on the Democrats. I’m angry, for example, when Republicans use the filibuster (once an extreme and unusual tactic) to block debate on virtually every issue, from extending unemployment benefits to appropriating funds for the military.

And yes, I’m angry at the president and many of the Democrats in Congress for being so polite about all this. It was the liberals, after all, who invented the notion of “politically correct,” and with a few notable exceptions (Anthony Weiner and Alan Grayson come to mind), Democrats tend to avoid the blunt and edgy rhetoric (not to mention the outright lies and innuendos) that the other side routinely employs. And I’m really tired of fair-minded Americans sighing and pretending that it’s “just politics” and that all politicians (and both parties) are equally at fault. That just ain’t so.

Is there an “enthusiasm gap”? Sure there is. For those of us who’ve been paying close attention, it’s become very depressing to watch what’s been going on in the political arena for the past 21 months or so. Conservatives, getting their “information” from the likes of Sarah Palin and their “values” from the likes of Christine O’Donnell, have been leaping after one distraction after another from the real business of politics. While we still mass produce filthy automobiles and Los Angeles swelters and melts on the hottest day in recorded history, while we’re feeling our way through a war and trying to recover from the worst economic disaster since 1929, conservatives (now synonymous with “Republicans”) are nattering about the president’s middle name and whether or not he attends church on Sunday and a proposed mosque in Manhattan.

I’m also angry at the American electorate—or at least the vast number of them that allow themselves to be led around by the nose by the likes of Glenn Beck. Even many who are not mesmerized by the propaganda on Fox News tend to be passive about politics. They go to the polls, do their civic duty by casting a vote, and wind up a new government like a clock. Then they go on about their business for two years or four years while the clock ticks down, expecting the government to run according to the people’s interests and complaining when it doesn’t seem to do that. Then they emerge, look around, vote for the first side that gets their attention, and go back to living their lives.

I'll vote, and I'll vote responsibly. But the marching and cheering ended after the last presidential election. Now is the time for work. And I hope that Republicans and Democrats alike will do the real intellectual work required to understand complex issues, avoid being influenced by mindless emotional manipultation, and figure out how to work together toward what our Constitution calls "the general Welfare."

Survival of the (Un-)Fittest

2010-09-22T08:12:00.000-07:00

Watching the GOP primaries during the run-up to this year’s elections has been much like watching a National Geographic special on predatory pack animals. Like wolves or hyenas, Republicans appear to work together like a single organism in pursuit of what they see as a common goal—such as yesterday, when GOP Senators unanimously voted against even debating this year’s Defense Authorization Act because of a single amendment.

The pack works together in marvelous harmony. However, should any of their number be perceived as weak or wounded, the others turn instantly, savagely tearing apart and devouring their former pack mate.

Thus, as Lisa Murkowski fights for her political life in Alaska, her fellow GOP Senators have turned against her, making sure she pays a heavy political penalty for dodging politics as usual and making a play of her own.

Never mind that Joe Miller, Murkowski’s opponent and the now-official GOP nominee, is an extremist of the first order—an addle-pated states’-rights idealist who believes that unemployment compensation is unconstitutional and that the government “steals” money from people’s paychecks to pay for Social Security. The Tea Party-backed candidate, endowed with the blessing of Sarah Palin, has won the primary, and the pack is by-God sticking with him.

Murkowski has a long record as a devout Republican who worked hard for what she believed to be the best interests of her state. Having served in both the House and Senate since 1998, she has experience in how to get her way in Washington. Like any reasonably sensible member of Congress, she sees her role as finding a balance between the interests of her state and the interests of the nation.

To hear Joe Miller tell it, each state should be sovereign unto itself and each citizen a totally autonomous entity with no responsibility to contribute to the common good. (Click here for a somewhat sanitized version of his position statements.)

In terms of demographics, Alaska is a strange place, as most Alaskans would proudly admit. It’s a land of fiercely independent, rough-and-ready survivors, some of whom come out of the frozen Alaskan wilderness only once or twice a year to get supplies. In a state roughly equal in population to that of the city of Portland, Oregon, one vote goes a good deal further than it would in a more populous state. (Sarah Palin, for example, was elected governor on the basis of just over 114,000 votes—a mere 17,500 more than her Democratic opponent.)

In normal times, what plays well in Alaska wouldn’t necessarily play well in the rest of the country. Alaska has always been a place of extreme individualists, suspicious of government and determined to break everything down to the simplest terms. But in today’s Tea Party nation, notions that used to sound crazy are beginning to sound “normal” by virtue of repetition.

Thus we have a situation in which Joe Miller, an extremist even in a land of extremes, is poised to become one of a select 100 individuals who make decisions daily that have great impact on the lives of each and every American. Rather than contributing to our common interests, his goal is to destroy the very structure that makes it possible to pursue those interests. For all his frequent references to the Constitution, he’s not a man who knows or cares what it means to “promote the general Welfare.”

Together with other extremists and simplistic thinkers—Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, Christine O’Connell and the like—Joe Miller has emerged in this unique period of American history as a viable candidate for national office. Unless sanity prevails in the next election, he and others like him, who are unfit for national office, could set this nation back another generation in terms of growth and progress.

Philosophy vs. Ideology

2010-09-16T04:13:00.001-07:00

At a Minnesota fund-raiser, Bill Clinton put his finger on the reason it's so hard to discuss politics or achieve consensus in the U.S.—too much dogma and too little philosophy:

"If you have a philosophy, it means you’re generally inclined one way or the other but you’re open to evidence. If you have an ideology, it means everything is determined by dogma and you’re impervious to evidence. Evidence is irrelevant."

This is a very interesting distinction, and one which pretty well sums up the great political divide in America.

People who subscribe to similar philosophies may argue the finer points of their world view, although they tend to agree on the basic premises. This requires real intellectual work and enough integrity to admit to doubts and uncertainties.

Ideologues, on the other hand, gloss over differences and march together in lockstep, espousing a particular point of view regardless of all evidence to the contrary. They put forth their own version of truth—be it "truth" about climate change, creationism, or the Constitution—and evidence be damned.

Sadly, the ideologues have a real advantage in politics. They can always speak with complete conviction, regardless of the truth or falsehood of their arguments. Thus, John Boehner can falsely claim that the Bush tax cuts created jobs and stimulated the economy; in fact, they added $38 billion to the deficit (one of a series of missteps by the Bush administration that turned a $128 billion surplus into a $490 billion deficit).

It's hard to talk to ideologues. They tend to be firm in their (sometimes literal) conviction that God is on their side and evidence that supports another view is the work of the devil.

How can any rational person argue with that?

How Can Anyone Not Love Politics?

2010-09-15T05:14:00.000-07:00

Why buy a movie ticket when some of the most interesting characters on earth are constantly performing on the national stage?

America has certainly produced its share of kooks during the past couple of years (and some of the old ones, like McCain, have become decidedly kookier). But this business about Christine O’Donnell winning the Republican primary for Joe Biden’s old Senate seat in Delaware—well, it just goes to show you that anything can happen.

In education, I’ve run into my share of outsiders though the years—including legislators and school board members—who think they know much better than professional educators how the job should be done. As an engineer, my husband dealt often with clients whose attitude was, “I’m paying for that [dam, bridge, radio tower—insert your own device], and by God I’m going to tell you how to build it!” I guess most of us have encountered people from time to time who think so-called “common sense” should triumph over knowledge and experience.

But the Tea Party movement has honed to a science the art of elevating amateurs to the level of experts, and Christine O’Donnell is just the latest in a long string of examples—Rand Paul, Sharron Angel, Joe Miller—who know nothing about major issues and think shouting, sniping, and waving American flags is the same thing as governing a nation.

Ignorance does not equal innocence. And—at the risk of generating yet another fatuous comparison to Hitler—history has shown repeatedly that crazy people can be dangerous when they gain real power.

In any case, we’re now in a situation when a good percentage of voters in numerous states are happily marching off to political cliffs in the wake of minor celebrities whose only qualification for office is a nasty attitude toward government in general and Obama in particular.

So now we’re set for one of the most interesting—and also potentially catastrophic—midterm elections in American history.

Will the inmates take over the asylum? Stay tuned.

9/11: A Time When Character Emerges

2010-09-12T15:34:00.000-07:00

Yesterday afternoon in my town, I saw a man standing on the island in a busy intersection waving a sign that said, “Islam is a peaceful religion, and they’ll bomb anyone who says otherwise.”

The “they” he was referring to was obviously all of “them”—the approximately 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, including the several million who are law-abiding and productive citizens of the United States. Among these fine citizens is an outstanding social studies teacher I know, as well as a local imam who is as tolerant and peace-loving as any man I’ve ever met.

A minuscule number of fanatical Muslims plot murder and mayhem. Fanatical Christians do, too. In recent months, we’ve seen examples in the murder of Dr. George Tiller and the planned execution of police officers by a Christian militia group in Michigan. Both were despicable acts planned by Christians in the name of their religion. But what kind of idiot would stand in the middle of traffic with a sign accusing all Christians of murder?

Fanaticism is our enemy—not Muslims or Christians. The man on the corner was a fanatic—a sterling example of the kind of thinking that undoubtedly starts some murderous terrorists down the path to destruction.

It was sad and disturbing to see raw hatred and intolerance so blatantly broadcast on a public street. But I was heartened by the reaction of the driver in the car in front of me, who happened to get stopped by a red light right next to the man with the sign. The driver rolled down his window and said, “I’m sorry you chose this day to try to stir up more hate in the world. Let me ask you, fella, is this what Jesus would be doing today?”

From first ladies Michelle Obama and Laura Bush to ordinary folks in Manhattan, many people found much better ways to commemorate the tragic and unforgettable anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center. In his own small way, perhaps the driver who confronted the sign carrier made the world a tiny bit better by choosing to speak up rather than be silent in the face of hate and fanaticism.

What I chose to do was to respond to an email I had at home with a small donation to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which does more than any other organization I know to fight hatred and promote tolerance.

If each of us chooses to respond to the messages of hate in the world with acts of service and messages of kindness, perhaps we could help reverse the tide of bitterness and animosity that seems so evident right now, here and in nations around the world.

Democrats and the Alleged “Enthusiasm Gap”

2010-09-10T04:55:00.000-07:00

It’s sometimes amusing to watch the way a catchy phrase becomes a story and, through repetition, the story becomes established fact in the public mind. One such story lately has been the supposed “enthusiasm gap” pollsters think they see between Democrats and Republicans leading up the fall elections.

What is “enthusiasm”? Emotional engagement? Overt expression of emotion? Hysteria? If you see a madman raving on the street about an imminent Second Coming, I guess you could fairly say there was an “enthusiasm gap” between him and the calm, rational people passing him by on the sidewalk.

From the “Republican Revolution” of 1994 to 2008, I was among the many who watched in dismay while the party in power systematically dismantled much that was good about the American system of government and much that had been accomplished previously.

In terms of economics, debt rose astronomically and, unchecked and unregulated, banks and credit card companies started engaging in a number of shady and lucrative practices that brought the world economy to its knees in 2008. Good, effective regulatory agencies like FEMA, the EPA, and the FDA were gutted, defunded, and disempowered; then “government” in general was blamed for its lack of effectiveness in every national crisis, from food contamination to Katrina. America launched a pointless war in Iraq that destroyed countless lives and failed (spectacularly) to make the nation safer. Torture became American policy, and by the end of it all, America was despised the world over for its arrogance, aggression, and lack of responsibility toward the world and its environment.

How do people feel after a long, debilitating illness? After a tragic accident in which lives and limbs were lost? After the tragedy is over, and the rebuilding has begun, there may be relief, hope, and determination. However, these feelings do not amount to “enthusiasm”—not with so much work yet to be done.

And, in the case of America today, not with a good proportion of the country’s so-called leaders standing around with their arms crossed, refusing to pick up a shovel, determined to prevent any progress from being made unless they can be the ones calling the shots. (Yes, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, I’m talking about you.)

Given all this, it might be fair to say that Democrats like me aren’t feeling “enthusiasm.” And sure, many of us are disappointed that we as a nation haven’t been able to accomplish more in the past two years. Most of us would have liked to see a stronger health reform bill. We might wish we were further along the road to a clean, responsible energy policy, or that “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” were history by now. But we know how much has been accomplished so far, and we also know who-all is responsible for the lack of progress. (Hint: It’s not the president, nor is it most of the Democrats in Congress.)

So we Democrats won’t go marching off to the polls, shouting and waving American flags. Unlike many Fox News fans, we’re not perpetually pissed off—just quietly disappointed that people who want to do the right things for America have to work so darn hard to get them done.

We may not cast our votes with enthusiasm, but we’ll vote, and we’ll vote responsibly for sane, rational, forward-looking candidates who will work hard for America, regardless of who’s in charge.

Meghan McCain for Congress

2010-09-08T19:33:00.000-07:00

A young, intelligent, Republican voice making the case for moderation and inclusiveness. What hope!

Racism and Intolerance: America’s Bitter Heritage

2010-09-08T05:15:00.000-07:00

Clearly, there have been times in American history when, as now, the country was so politically polarized that opponents of the two sides could barely speak civilly to one another—much less have a conversation.

Since the Revolution—when “loyalists” maintained allegiance to the King and viewed the “patriots” as traitors—the great divides in this nation have had much to do with race. In the hundred years between the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act, the cultural “Great Wall” in American was approximately the Mason-Dixon Line. The conservative extremism so evident in today’s American South owes much of its fervor to the not-so-long-ago struggle over integration.

Now another racially charged political line has been drawn in the sand in Arizona, where that state’s accidental governor, Jan Brewer, thrust herself into the national spotlight with her sponsorship of the draconian anti-immigration bill SP 1070. And yet another in Manhattan, where many Americans—most of them far, far away from New York City—have decided that building a community center and mosque is somehow a desecration of “hallowed ground.”

The presence of a peaceful center for those of the Islamic faith in Manhattan can and should be viewed as a triumph of American values, including freedom of religion, and a repudiation of any claim terrorists might have on being sanctioned by their faith. Real Muslims hate terrorism as much as real Christians—or real atheists, for that matter.

Sadly and ironically, however, the rhetoric of hate has been focused on this peaceful and well-established Manhattan community instead of on the real interlopers—Pastor Bill Keller and his so-called “Christian Center,” characterized by bigotry and intolerance.

These controversies have much to do with race, as well as the instinctive, primal fear that ignorant people feel about “the other”—whoever that may be.

Unscrupulous and irresponsible people—from Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh to Pastor Keller and Reverend Terry Jones—deliberately use racism and bigotry to stoke hatred in the fevered minds of the ignorant and the angry. They get rich and famous doing so.

These loudmouths and fanatics put a burden on those of us who know better to talk sense. But it’s a burden we must accept. If silence implies consent—and we know it does—then it is up to every “real American” (to borrow a phrase from Sarah Palin) to speak loudly and clearly in favor of tolerance, acceptance, and social responsibility.

Kathleen Parker for Congress

2010-09-06T05:36:00.001-07:00

With groups as with individuals, real character shines through when they’re under pressure. Since it lost control of both Congress and the White House, today’s Republican Party has been under pressure, and the results have not been pretty.

GOP strategies for trying to discredit the president and any other Democrats with influence have ranged from petty lies and innuendo to stubborn, indiscriminate obstructionism on every issue. The radical right has set the tone for the whole party, as GOP leaders like John Boehner and Eric Cantor display the same strident, sarcastic attitudes as wing-nut commentators like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.

Those not enamored of Fox News have to wonder if there are any sane, rational people left on the right. There is at least one: Kathleen Parker, whose straight-forward and reasonable remarks on many subjects are worth considering.

While most conservatives have embraced the evangelical images of Palin and Beck as though they were real, Parker has been willing to tell the unvarnished truth: Palin may be cute, but she’s ignorant and Beck is messed up. Since they usurped the message and became standard bearers for right-wing radicalism, it’s been hard-to-impossible to have any public discussions in this country on matters of substance—from the economy to government oversight of industry to the posture of America in international relations. The strategy of the GOP is to create a lot of distracting white noise—a task the Palins and the Becks of this world are extremely good at doing—and prevent any meaningful dialogue until Republicans are in charge again.

Parker, however, just keeps talking reasonably about those things that really matter. Since she is a conservative and I’m a progressive, I disagree with much of what she has to say, of course. But then again, I often see her point. I respect her for her honesty, optimism, and thoughtful analysis of the issues.

Nobody really wants a one-party state. In a democracy, there’s a good case to be made for “loyal opposition.” Most of the GOP officials currently serving in Washington may be described as oppositional all right, but hardly “loyal.” And thanks to the Tea Party, some of those waiting in the wings to take their place are even worse: it’s hard to imagine that progress could be made or deep problem-solving could get done in a Congress that contains the likes of Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, and Joe Miller.

Today's problems require thoughtful and rational analysis and good-faith cooperation among people with differing views. While both the mainstream GOP and the right-wing Tea Party fringe seem to have little to offer, there is evidence that there are, in fact, rational conservatives among us. It is my fondest hope that a few of them will consider running for political office.

The Political Climate: In Defense of Truth and Progress

2010-09-01T04:36:00.000-07:00

I confess to being hooked on crime novels and mysteries. One of my favorite authors is Michael Connelly, creator of Harry Bosch, a Los Angeles detective with a conscience.

In City of Bones, for example, Bosch investigates the twenty-year-old murder of a boy. On two separate occasions, the case focuses on suspects who could easily be convicted of the crime—the kind of people whom society routinely dismisses and who would be unable or unwilling to participate in their own defense. The department wants the case closed, period, and Bosch is under a lot of pressure to stop looking as soon as he finds a suspect that could be convicted.

There’s only one problem: in the case against each of the suspects, something doesn’t add up. The detective’s highly developed intuitive instincts tell him something just isn’t right, and he refuses to stop looking until he finds the truth. He refuses to be satisfied with an answer that simply fits the narrative he wants to defend.

In politics and in American life, we need more people like Harry Bosch—people who won’t bend—or even torture—the truth to fit the narrative they want to defend.

For example, as convenient as it might be for the right, the current president is not a socialist, communist, radical, or Muslim. He’s a decent, honest, idealistic man who is morally sensitive, persuasive, and wickedly smart. He’s a complex man who’s motivated, at least in part, by a profound desire to improve lives and ensure that America, the most powerful and influential nation on earth, acts responsibly. He’s lived a very public life, and anyone who wants to know the truth about him could easily find it out.

Those who disagree with his principles or beliefs can argue them. For example, there are those who are genuinely convinced that an unfettered market can be benign or even altruistic—an assertion that many conservatives believe but most of the rest of us do not.

But to pick at the president’s religion, deny his birthright as an American, and viciously demonize him and those who agree with him (including Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) is simply wrong—intellectually and morally wrong.

In this land of political correctness, it’s fashionable to say that all politicians are the same, that both parties play the same games. But after seeing the way Republicans behave when out of power—especially during the Clinton administration and now in the past two years—it’s very clear to me that conservatives will win at any cost—any cost—and the truth be damned. From death panels to “raising taxes” (e.g., allowing the Bush tax cuts for the very rich to expire), lies have been treated as simply a tool in the anything-goes world of furthering the conservative agenda.

In trying to find consensus in the Senate, on one issue after another, the president has come up against a wall. Clearly, when they’re not in control, Republicans are simply not going to play—much less play fair. I’ve learned a similar lesson in trying to find common ground with my conservative friends. There comes a time when there’s just no point in talking to people who reflexively deflect every argument in favor of the narrative they’ve chosen to believe.

So in terms of politics, I guess I’ll try to spend my energy talking with people who habitually look for narratives that have the ring of truth. I’ll try to focus on how, not if—that is, how to use the power of government to improve lives and get a few things done, regardless of the obstacles others throw up in the path.

Getting things done: that, after all, is the meaning of “progressive.”

New Orleans: A Lesson in History

2010-08-31T06:54:00.000-07:00

During the past few days, anyone in America who tunes into the news has had a chance to revisit the horrific catastrophe that befell New Orleans five years ago. There’s no two ways about it: government failed the citizens of that great city before, during, and after the tragedy.

Sadly, many citizens take from this the wrong message. They say government was the problem. That’s like blaming the house for a leaky roof: Whose responsibility is it to maintain the integrity of the house?

In the case of America, it was the Republican Party—actually, a saner, less radical version of today’s extremist GOP—that was in charge of America’s house for twelve years. They were the homeowners who failed to invest in the infrastructure of the Gulf Coast, disaster preparedness, and oversight of agencies like FEMA—investments that could have averted much of the damage and suffering caused by Katrina and its aftermath.

I’m not going to debate this with those who get their attitudes and information from Fox News—those who echo the talking points of extremist conservatives and scream about Obama in the same strident, snarky tone as Sarah Palin. You know who you are.

America needs a citizenry that recognizes propaganda when they see it (as in the network whose founding father recently donated $1 million to the Republican Senatorial Committee). We need voters who know that the government of America is all that separates us as a nation from countries like Iran and Bangladesh. We need a government that’s strong, efficient, respectful of individual liberties, and responsive to the needs of people as individuals.

We’ll never get—or keep— such a government by accident.

America, we bought this house two years ago. Let’s not be discouraged by the enormous amount of work needed to put it in order. If those formerly in charge want to continue to weigh in on the decisions that have to be made, let’s insist that they work with, instead of against, those who want to make the necessary repairs.

Glenn Beck and the “Restoration of Honor” Rally

2010-08-27T03:47:00.000-07:00

At this point in American history, it’s entirely fitting that a celebration entitled “Restoration of Honor” be held in Washington D.C.

America is, indeed, in the process of reclaiming the right to hold its head up among nations. Torture is no longer a policy sanctioned and openly practiced by the national government. We’ve essentially ended the unjustifiable war in Iraq. Science is once again replacing superstition as a basis for public policy. The nation’s real leaders, in general, are seeking justice and telling the truth. We’re on our way to health care for everyone, fair banking practices, safety in the workplace, and energy policies that don’t strip the planet of clean air and water. We have much to celebrate.

It’s farcical, of course, that such a meeting should be convened by Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, unscrupulous entertainers who have helped to turn a major American political party into a propaganda machine for the purpose of enriching them and their various corporate sponsors.

I’m sure Beck and Palin are hoping to orchestrate a riot, ginning up baseless anger among their constituents—as they and other conservatives did with considerable success last year over the health reform debates. They’re hoping for a riot.

But a great man who gave an historic speech in the same place, and on the same day in 1963, had this to say about rioting: “It invites defeat. It involves an emotional catharsis, but it must be followed by a sense of futility.”

Fox News and Misinformation about "The Mosque"

2010-08-26T05:19:00.001-07:00

Here's an outstanding article about the lies, distortions, and fear-mongering that continue to characterize the "news" about Fox News' current conspiracy theory.

Mainstream Media: Stooping to Their Level

2010-08-22T08:49:00.000-07:00

The so-called national “debates” this week on the Manhattan mosque and Obama’s religion have almost accomplished the impossible: getting me to agree about something with Sarah Palin. At least on this occasion, I think the cable and network news organizations live up to her snarky appellation of “lamestream media.”

It’s not surprising that commentators at Fox News (which may be “lame” but is not “mainstream” in any sense of the word), have fallen on these non-stories like crows on a carcass. It goes right along with their consistent efforts to discredit the president by any means possible, as well as to distract viewers from the fact that the party of choice for most of them has had one simple message for the past two years: “No, no, no!”

With Congress and Wall Street on vacation, national news of substance can be a little thin in August. But journalists of integrity should be asking themselves: Should we really chase after any little piece of gossip anyone throws out there, regardless of its merit?

Anyone who followed the 2008 elections should remember that there was some controversy at the time over the pastor of Obama’s Christian church—a congregation he had belonged to for many years. Anyone who bothered to read his books should know that his only religious affiliation has been mainstream American Protestantism.

As for the Mosque in Manhattan, as far as I’m concerned, if you don’t live and work in that particular area of New York City, you don’t have a say. If Idaho potato farmers or bankers from North Dakota want to protest a mosque—or a cathedral or, for that matter, a pet store—in their neighborhood, I say more power to ‘em. But people who have absolutely no connection to New York City—and who don’t understand the differences in demographics between major metropolitan areas and the American heartland—should have the wisdom to withhold judgment about an issue that’s none of their business.

In case anyone hasn’t noticed, there are plenty of serious issues to discuss and a great deal riding on the upcoming midterm elections. Let’s get on with talking about some of the things that really matter.

Iraq: An Historic Moment

2010-08-19T03:05:00.000-07:00

In the wee hours of yesterday morning in Iraq, a convey carrying the last American combat troops pulled over the border into Kuwait. From there, those troops will head back to the U.S., thus officially ending that war. “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” the seven-year occupation of Iraq by the U.S. and its allies, has taken a terrible toll on the world.

In Iraq, up to 5 million people have been displaced from their homes, one-third of the children have been orphaned, and the fragile new government cannot provide its citizens with the most fundamental protection or services. Best estimates suggest that about 500,000 Iraqis have died as a direct result of the war. Perhaps most importantly for the entire region and the world, the chaotic new environment in Iraq now provides fertile ground for nurturing the world’s most radical terrorist organizations.

About 4,500 American troops died in the war, and over 30,000 suffered horrific injuries. A huge number of Americans who served—many of whom endured multiple deployments—have suffered serious psychological injuries. As the surviving veterans of the Vietnam war enter the last decades of their lives, many are still crippled by effects of the trauma they suffered on foreign soil. Now we have added a new generation of warriors who will struggle with the life-long symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, which often include anxiety, depression, sleep disorders, drug and alcohol problems, erratic behavior, problems in relationships, and a high risk of suicide.

The entire economy of the U.S., as well as its structure of government, has been dramatically changed by the seven-year war, and direct costs to the treasury measure in the trillions of dollars.

The Iraq War and all of its effects are the legacy of George W. Bush.

This is why politics matter in America. This is why it matters for whom we cast our vote.

The Devil's in the Details

2010-08-16T03:48:00.000-07:00

Late summer 2010 finds Americans facing many of the same problems they faced last year and the year before, including crime, homelessness, and pollution, as well as the increasingly heavy social and economic burdens resulting from global climate change.

Meanwhile, conservatives natter on about an Islamic center in New York City—where none of the loudest critics actually live—while idealists on the left complain that progress isn’t being made fast enough on Guantanamo, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I guess the heat makes everybody cranky.

Progress in America—for those who actually want progress—often does seem to inch forward at a glacial pace. But that’s not the fault of the government. Nor is it really the fault of the political parties—which, after all, exist only at the whim of their constituents.

Rather, lack of progress—or even of a vision of what real progress should be—is the fault of individual voters who, collectively, tend to be short on attention and analysis and quick to respond to emotional triggers. As voters, we seem to have unlimited tolerance for allowing ourselves to be manipulated.

Also, we’re not very strong in the area of self-knowledge—specifically, in understanding what we know and what we don’t know.

For this reason, I think Malcolm Gladwell’s 2006 essay “Million-Dollar Murray” should be required reading for every American voter. (It can be found here and in Gladwell’s recent book entitled What the Dog Saw.)

Basically, the essay shows how “power-law solutions”—those that focus on the minority, the stubborn few cases that cause the vast majority of problems—applies to human problems. Using specific examples of homelessness, police brutality, and auto emissions, Gladwell shows how our inability to really solve these problems is tied to our national obsession with what feels right (rather than what is right):

“Power-law solutions have little appeal to the right, because they involve special treatment for people who do not deserve special treatment; and they have little appeal to the left, because their emphasis on efficiency over fairness suggests the cold number-crunching of Chicago school cost-benefit analysis.”

It’s not natural for most of us to focus on the few rather than the many—and in America, it tends to violate our deeply ingrained feelings about being politically correct. But looking at the “big picture” is often the wrong approach to trying to solve problems. The devil’s in the details.

Word for the Day: Tentherism

2010-06-22T17:53:00.000-07:00

First, dear readers, I should mention that I’ll be traveling and busy with other projects for the next four weeks, so posts may be infrequent. As always, however, I appreciate your comments and read them with interest.

We shall have much to discuss as the summer progresses, however, as political opponents prepare themselves for battle during the late primaries and fall elections. Many of this year’s contests may be, shall we say, amusing.

It’s always interesting how the cultural shifts brought about by new technologies or new movements seem to spawn new vocabulary over night. In the past decade or so, the political “right” in this country has lost its center and shifted toward what used to be regarded, even by traditional conservatives, as the extreme. This has resulted in the creation of some new terms and the popularization of others, such as “birthers,” “anchor babies,” and “Blue Dog” Democrats—not to mention tea parties, tea bags, and the like.

A word that seems to be used more and more often is “tentherism,” the belief that the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution can be construed to greatly limit the powers of the federal government. The amendment reads as follows:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

As anti-government sentiment and right-wing extremism continue to grow, more and more people are beginning to ascribe extreme interpretations to some parts of the Constitution, including this one. Extreme “tenthers” interpret the Tenth Amendment in such a way as to essentially invalidate most, if not all, powers of the government that the document as a whole created.

This is one of issues at the root of all political discourse in this country: Are we Americans first? Or are we New Yorkers, Arizonans, Californians, or Floridians first? To what collective body do we most owe our allegiance?

Joe Barton: In His Defense

2010-06-20T05:37:00.000-07:00

The horrific human and environmental tragedy now entering its third month in the Gulf of Mexico is reminiscent of a world at war: no matter how unusual or frightening or surreal the situation, people get used to it as a condition of daily life.

Like people do who have a chronic illness or who are in poverty or in prison, we adapt. Human beings have an amazing capacity to adapt. As a species, that is both our strength and our weakness.

It’s our strength because, being adaptable, we’re not easily defeated. Individuals can be broken, physically and psychologically, but communities tend to be tough and resilient. The people of the Gulf Coast endured the ravages of Katrina and were well on the way to recovery when this new catastrophe began. We admire their courage and fortitude, as some of the toughest and most defiant among them are paraded every evening in human interest segments on the national news.

But being adaptable is also our weakness because, once we get over the initial shock of a major tragedy, we tend to get used to it as just part of life. Our sense of outrage tends to fade as we become immersed in the reality of the situation and spend part of each day thinking about the unthinkable. We get the idea that we can tolerate this because we are tolerating it, and we may forget our moral obligation to do everything we can to ensure that it can never happen again.

Thus could a naïve but fundamentally honest man like Joe Barton, forgetting about dying pelicans and idle fishermen, slip and say something outrageously incorrect from a political point of view. While many segments of the American public were demanding the scalp of BP’s politically inept CEO Tony Hayward, Barton had the audacity to apologize to him for tough treatment he and his company were allegedly receiving on Capitol Hill.

The Republican establishment, in the person of House Minority Leader John Boehner, immediately trounced on Barton and forced him to apologize for his apology—which he did with all the enthusiasm of a school boy being forced by the teacher to apologize to the class for being late.

The statements Barton made, according to a quick public statement released by Boehner and other GOP leaders, were “wrong.”

But they weren’t wrong. What Barton said was simply a reflection of the truth as he sees it: that big business—and, more specifically, big oil—should be exempt from liability or accountability for its actions. As a good capitalist, Barton was merely expressing an honest opinion held by many if not most of the leaders of the Republican establishment: that so long as businesses make money and a lot of it, they should be beyond the criticism or interference of mere mortals acting in behalf of mere insignificant, inconsequential, individual human beings.

Barton was factually right in stating a position that is at the crux of the philosophical divide between the two major parties in America: When there is a perceived conflict between what’s good for individual, flesh-and-blood human beings (and other living creatures) and what’s good for corporate America and the very rich, damn the individuals.

Barton’s position may be morally wrong and, for the moment, politically incorrect; however, unlike more cunning members of Congress—like Boehner, Cantor, and Pence—his comments came from the heart.

Obviously, the extraordinary devastation of the Gulf oil spill can be embarrassing to those who’ve most enjoyed the benefits of the oil companies’ financial support and contributions. Undoubtedly there are many in Congress who’d like to see America forget about this whole messy business so they and their friends in the industry can get back to business as usual.

Thanks to Joe Barton for the timely reminder that, while the pain of this man-made catastrophe is endured by individual living creatures, there are powerful forces working to protect the status quo.

To Laugh or to Cry

2010-06-11T03:10:00.000-07:00

Early in the G. W. Bush years, when red-blooded American conservatives were jumping on the bandwagon in support of invading Iraq, some decided the name "French fries" unjustly honored a nation that refused to back the war. In an effort to keep the cholesterol coming, some restaurants renamed the product "freedom fries." At the time, I thought the whole thing was silly.

Eight years later—after well over 4,000 Americans died in Iraq and another 30,000 were maimed or wounded—it was hard to see the humor. But apparently, as this slide show illustrates, Americans aren't the only ones inclined to use gastronomy to make silly political points.

Bon appetit.

A spot of tea with your freedom fries, anyone?

The Convenience of Chemistry

2010-06-09T02:45:00.000-07:00

In a salon a few days ago, I watched the stylist at the next station giving a young woman a prom-like hairdo for a graduation party. The two women laughed and chatted while the cosmetologist sprayed strand after strand of the customer's long hair with sticky spray. The cloud that surrounded them made it appear that one or both of them were smoking. I found myself imagining those molecules of hair spray being sucked into both sets of lungs with every breath.

On the way across town afterward, I passed several people spraying for weeds. A pair of young men were working on the parking strip in front of an apartment house, shouldering large tanks of herbicide while aiming the business end of the hoses at the ground around them. Each was working in a cloud of vapor, and neither was wearing gloves or a mask. Further on, a man with bare feet was spraying weeds in the cracks of a driveway, undoubtedly dousing his skin with poison.

At this time and place, in America, there's a product to solve pretty much every little problem. Through the convenience of chemistry, we keep the little things in our lives tidy and neat. For a few pennies per application, we keep chemicals on hand to kill bugs, freshen upholstery, and banish headaches. Many of us scoff at precautions like washing fruits and vegetables, and those who pay extra for "organic" products are sometimes regarded as fanatics.

When Rachel Carson published Silent Spring in 1962, the public was stunned to learn of the horrific environmental effects of DDT and other common chemicals, as well as their risks to human health. Thus began a decade of awareness that, unfortunately, has now faded into cultural history. People are nothing if not adaptable. We get used to things. We become complacent. We get lazy. We convince ourselves that a little exposure here or a little risk there won't hurt anything.

We forget about the effects of accumulation over time. The weight of a penny is trivial; however, if you put a penny a day in a jar, by the end of a year the accumulated weight of the pennies will be over two pounds! Things add up. How much hair spray, I wonder, would accumulate in a woman's lungs after a year inhaling it on a regular basis?

Incidents of many types of disorders, from Multiple Sclerosis to autism to certain kinds of cancers, are inexplicably on the rise. Could there be a connection?

As a culture, too, we get used to things. After the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska, the cultural and political will of the country (and, indeed, of the industrial world) was such that reparations and changes were demanded. Standards were improved for the structure and integrity of tankers. Meanwhile, however, offshore drilling became a new national pastime. As for reparations, Exxon played the waiting game well, using its boundless wealth to delay just payment for damages until conservative courts would take pity and limit their liabilities.

Now, twenty years later, we find that the oil industry has invested little-to-nothing in improving technology for stopping leaks and cleaning up spills. From booms to toxic chemical dispersants, we're pretty much stuck with the same alternatives that existed in 1989.

In our individual lives, sometimes chemical accidents occur that cause immediate and permanent damage. Far more often, though, we just live life complacently, not thinking about the cumulative effects of habitual carelessness. The thing we can't know is just how many assaults the body can take before its defenses are overwhelmed—before permanent and irreparable damage has been done.

The same can be said for the planet.

The area around Valdez, Alaska, and its people have not recovered from the damage they suffered in the disaster of 1989. With every passing day of the current oil-spill debacle, it seems more likely that large areas of the American South will never be restored to what they were a few short weeks ago. Lifestyles, livelihoods, the wetlands that protect great cities like New Orleans, and whole species of animals may disappear forever.

Complacency—simply not thinking about the things we don't want to think about—is convenient and comfortable. In an increasingly complex world, though, it's a luxury we really can't afford.

Texas, Textbooks, and the "War of Northern Aggression"

2010-06-01T05:00:00.000-07:00

Maybe we should all learn more than we did in school about the Civil War. As this excellent article suggests, there were issues involved that still reverberate today in the public discourse—not least of which is federalism itself and the balance between the states and the central government.

Respect for the Uniform

2010-05-31T09:57:00.000-07:00

Within the past month, one of my students mentioned that when his grandfather got off the plane from Vietnam in his soldier’s uniform, somebody spit on him at the airport. That’s the kind of memory that lingers, even to the third generation.

In retrospect, most thoughtful people now agree that Vietnam was a pointless war, waged for political purposes. Many of us believe that, too, about Iraq. But thankfully, the mood of the country is now such that every serviceman or –woman is considered a hero and treated with respect.

Not all are really heroes, of course. A friend who earned his Purple Heart as a Marine in Vietnam once said to me about those he knew who had died, “Some died because they were brave, some because they were cowards, and others because they were stoned. Some just happened to be in the wrong place.”

No doubt the same may be said for today’s “fallen heroes,” but they all come home with the same flag draped over their coffin. Like the rest of us, some are more worthy than others, but who are we to say?

The mood of the country today is to salute the flag (not burn it), tear up during the National Anthem, and say thanks to the men and women who serve.

But let’s not forget that moods are emotions, and emotions are fickle. Let us resolve never again to confuse a soldier with the mission he or she is sent to carry out.

Your Depressing Fact for the Day

2010-05-30T19:36:00.000-07:00

According to a CNN interview with Louisiana's Senator David Vitter, there are 5,000 oil wells operating in the Gulf of Mexico.

Five thousand.

I've been unable to find out how many are operated by BP, but evidence is mounting that none of them should be. BP's safety record over time indicates that they should clean up their mess as best they can, fold up the tent, and liquidate their business. Undoubtedly, there are individuals in the company that should either be criminally prosecuted or should never be permitted to work in the oil industry again—or both.

Anyone taking bets on the odds of those things happening?

America's New National Security Strategy

2010-05-29T03:01:00.000-07:00

This article does a great job of summarizing the current administration's comprehensive approach to national security, from closing Gitmo to ending the war in Afghanistan responsibly.

Now if only Congress and the American public could take the long view instead of a reactionary, knee-jerk approach to international affairs, perhaps we could begin to look forward to the possibility of real peace and prosperity.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell . . .

2010-05-27T12:19:00.000-07:00

. . . me Republicans want to vote NO on that, too!

The military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is so 1990s. Who cares any more if anyone is gay or straight? To those already in the military--officers and enlisted alike--shooting straight is a lot more important than being straight. In fact, a recent CNN poll indicates that almost 80% of Americans are in favor of repealing that pointless and antiquated piece of legislation.

Yet, true to form, Republicans continue to proudly carry their banner of obstructionism, pledging to oppose appeal of the policy.

And the beat goes on.

Palin, Obama, and the Gulf Oil Catastrophe

2010-05-24T05:15:00.000-07:00

The headline in my ultra-conservative local paper this morning alludes to Sarah "Drill Baby Drill" Palin's latest nonsensical stab at Obama: that he's somehow in bed with the oil industry and therefore not as responsive as he should be to the regional and global disaster now unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico.

The only topic Palin should be quoted about is the one on which she seems to have some real authority—fashion. She could also make credible comments about shooting wildlife, should one be so inclined. By now she could certainly qualify as an expert on travel tips. But when it comes to the big questions, editors should confine themselves to quotes from educated people with the depth and intelligence to say something meaningful.

Regarding the shortcomings of the administration with respect to the mother-of-all oil spills, here's some interesting commentary by Thomas L. Friedman.

BP: Too Big to Fail?

2010-05-23T09:25:00.000-07:00

It’s been over a month since 11 men lost their lives when the Deepwater Horizon exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, setting off an environmental disaster of biblical proportions.

Like a slow-motion nightmare, the whole situation just becomes more ominous and tragic by the day, as thousands of people try and fail to contain the damage or stop the gushing of oil and other contaminants into the most productive fisheries in the world.

Cable news networks snag environmental scientists, government officials, and oil company executives for in-depth interviews. Each guest, however, can only take one bite out of the elephant: this is a big, big story.

The little, one-minute human-interest pieces on half-hour network news shows really do a better job of giving people a sense of what this calamity is all about. It’s not about tons of oysters and shrimp that will never get to market or billions of dollars in lost revenue and cleanup costs. It’s not about numbers.

This story is about a woman who will soon file bankruptcy on her seaside restaurant, which now overlooks a gooey slick of toxic chemicals instead of a pristine beach. It’s about a tough-looking good-ol’ boy choking back tears as he tells of finding a young turtle of a highly endangered species gasping for air. It’s about third- and even fourth-generation fisher folk watching the only world they and their families have ever known disappear, for decades if not forever.

This is about fast, permanent, and measurable degradation of the planet by human actions. But mostly it’s about immeasurable suffering and despair. There’s human suffering, and there’s the suffering of millions upon millions of birds, sea mammals, fish, turtles, and countless other creatures—some of which will undoubtedly become extinct as their tiny, unique ecosystems are destroyed.

This is also, of course, a story about power, greed, and arrogance.

Is there anybody out there who still believes that the market is self-regulating and that companies can have the wisdom to protect their own interests, along with that of people and the planet? If so, which “planet” are they living on?

Clearly, when we get finished cutting some of the megabanks down to size, it’s time to consider whether there aren’t a lot of companies, too, that are “too big to fail.”

WH Security: Gate Crashers Still a Problem

2010-05-23T07:31:00.000-07:00

Rats! It happened again.

Rand Paul and a New Dialectic

2010-05-20T05:46:00.000-07:00

As the winner in Tuesday’s Republican primary in Kentucky and a viable candidate for the Senate, Rand Paul has now taken a place on the national stage. Although generally regarded (even by his supporters) as a bit eccentric, he appears to be more articulate and media savvy than his father, Ron Paul, whose candidacy stirred things up during the 2008 presidential election.

This is likely to get interesting.

Less than 24 hours into his candidacy, the younger Paul was already facing tough questions about a remark he made to Louisville’s Courier-Journal regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964: namely, he said he was concerned about the part of the bill that required “private businesses” to desegregate.

Pundits and commentators spent the better part of the day, it seems, trying to get the candidate to say whether or not, had he been a Senator at the time, he would have voted for that bill. To his credit, Dr. Paul (who was all of one year old at the time) refused to answer the question directly and become snared in that trap. He passed the first exam in Candidacy 101 with flying colors.

But this whole question of “private” vs. “public” business is critical to some of the central issues being debated in this country right now:

Where, exactly, should the line be drawn between “public” and “private”?

When does a local issue merit national concern?

What should be the role of the federal government in protecting the interests of individual citizens?

As a spokesman for at least a segment of the libertarian community, which has been credited with launching the Tea Party movement, Rand Paul may stimulate frank and focused discussion of questions that, until now, have been merely undercurrents that inform attitudes but not understanding.

Let the games begin.

Arizona and Immigration: Popular Sentiments

2010-05-18T06:08:00.001-07:00

In college, I spent a semester doing an internship in a middle school. At the time, I wasn’t all that many years older than the children around me, but it was already quite clear that there was a world of difference between young adolescents and adults. Whereas adults tended to respond to things as individuals, the middle school kids operated in packs—groups of friends, large or small, whose attitudes and emotions could turn on a dime. Like little schools of fish, they instantly shifted direction every time the currents changed.

Hate, adoration, shame, guilt, sorrow, curiosity: once touched by a feeling, kids of that age suddenly embrace it with an all-consuming intensity. Their emotions are raw and instinctual. Adults working in middle schools are constantly confronted with a fool’s dilemma: whether to try to reason with the little critters when they get caught up in their emotional storms or just wait for those storms to pass. In general, it’s best to pick one’s battles.

Some psychologists believe that all the people we’ve been in our lifetimes still reside within our brains—that under the right circumstances, we can revert to any stage of development, feeling and reacting as though we were that age again. I believe it. Ever since my brief sojourn as an adult in a middle school, I often see people in society revert to the same kind of emotional populism—and with the young adolescent’s disregard for reason, truth, or justice.

Since the ill-advised anti-immigration law was signed in Arizona, my electronic mailbox has been filling up with forwarded hate mail—some aimed at immigrants, some at people in government, some at anyone who might disagree with the “in-crowd.” The tone of these messages ranges from spiteful to vicious, with the “us-against-them” stance so typical of the middle-school mentality. (Mind you, I have asked each of these individuals, some of whom I’m related to, not to forward political or anti-government emails my way. The people who are still doing it, however, have a very different understanding than I do about what these messages stand for.)

There’s the one about a Mexican, an Arab, and a woman in a bar. In the punch line, the good ol’ American gal shoots the two men, saying, “In America, we’ve got so many immigrants that we don’t have to drink with the same ones twice.”

Charming, right? Humor can sugar coat the most bitter sentiment and get people to swallow it before they even realize it’s poison.

I received that hate message twice, by the way: once from a retired third-grade teacher and once from an engineer.

Another—from a sweet little man who looks like he wouldn’t swat a fly—purports to be from someone offering tickets to an event at a county fair. The message says that Robbie Knievel, son of Evel Knievel, “is going to try to jump over 1,000 Obama supporters with a Caterpillar D-9 bulldozer.”

Then there’s the one forwarded by a nice, middle-aged lady who often sends me gorgeous photographs of flowers and sunsets and cute little puppies. The visual part of the message consists of six photos of trash strewn in a narrow gully—the same kind of ugly mess any of us can see within a mile or two of where we live. (What can I say—some people are pigs.) Titled “Arizona Super Highway,” the message expresses outrage at the “illegals” who allegedly dumped “water containers, food wrappers, clothing, and soiled baby diapers” along a 1/2-mile section of a trail. (No barrel cactuses are visible in the photos, which could have been taken anywhere, and one has to wonder how impoverished “illegals” would be able to afford bottled water and disposable diapers.)

I’ve seen some ugly things just stepping out of my car along the highways of America—including bloody syringes and used condoms—so I was not particularly impressed. But the image of the trash functions like any subliminal message, including the images of rats so skillfully embedded by Nazis in films about Jews: it creates a feeling of disgust that is linked in the mind of observers with a target population. Never mind truth and logic—it’s the feeling that matters.

There’s ugliness afoot in America, all right. But it’s not coming here from across the border.

A Note to My Readers

2010-05-18T06:06:00.000-07:00

As you may have gathered from my recent silence, I've been just a tad busy lately. However, I've been reading your comments with interest, as always, and will have a few remarks soon. Meanwhile, please feel free to continue chatting among yourselves. Thanks for stopping by!

The Circular Firing Squad: Republicans and the Tea Party Populists

2010-05-09T05:46:00.000-07:00

In the past ten days, the Republican Party has allowed two of its most experienced and dedicated politicians to be shoved out of the nest by extremist, doctrinaire Tea Party candidates.

Charlie Crist, long-time state politician and current governor of Florida, deflected a strong challenge from a Tea Party opponent by declaring that he would continue his campaign for the U.S. Senate as an Independent. And yesterday, Bob Bennett, a third-term Senator from Utah with impeccable conservative credentials, lost the opportunity to run again in 2010 when his state’s Republican convention ousted him in favor of two ultraconservative and entirely inexperienced Tea Party candidates.

Apparently Crist’s fatal errors as far the lunatic fringe of his party is concerned were 1) treating the President hospitably when he visited the state in February and 2) expressing support for the federal stimulus package—a bill that greatly mitigated the effect of the recession in Florida and literally saved public education there.

There was a time when politicians were expected to be diplomats—cordial to allies and opponents alike—and to vote their conscience on matters of extreme urgency. Not any more—not in today’s GOP (General Opposition Party). According to today’s conservative armchair observers, many of whom keep their radios and TVs tuned to incessant right-wing propaganda, the only right attitude is a cynical one and the only right answer to any matter of public policy is a resounding “NO!”

They say Bob Bennett’s crime was voting in favor of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)—the infamous Wall Street “bail out.” Indeed he did—along with 30 other reluctant Republican Senators and a good many reluctant Democrats. An unhappy President Bush signed the bill into law. Nobody wanted to bail out those bastards on Wall Street, but it had to be done—just as the European Union now has to hold its nose and bail out Greece. The economy of the country was threatening to implode into a black hole that could have taken the whole world with it; drastic measures were required.

So Bob Bennett appears to be a victim of his times—a true conservative who had the misfortune to be in Congress at a time when he had to make a correct but unpopular decision.

There’s been a lot of chatter on television lately about how conditions may be right, come November, for a great Republican revival. At the rate things are going, though, Democratic candidates might just as well wait as long as possible to step into the fray. Most of them are well advised at this point to save their advertizing dollars and stand by, while the opposition candidates bicker among themselves and pick each other off.

Chaplains: Religion vs. Science in the Armed Services

2010-05-08T04:39:00.000-07:00

Apparently there’s been a controversy brewing for some time now that, until today, escaped my notice: the question of whether military chaplains should be paid to proselytize to members of the armed services. It’s a case of being blind to things that are so familiar we take them for granted.

All the chaplains I’ve met or known personally have been kind, courageous people. I knew a Catholic priest with the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job when it came to human frailties. After eight years as a Navy chaplain, he served in the reserves and was recalled to active duty during the first Gulf War. When a favorite student of mine was in a coma after a car accident, the hospital chaplain was the very personification of peace and the courage we all needed to get past denial and accept the inevitable. I have nothing but admiration for those who lend their humanity to others in times of crisis.

What good chaplains use to help others in need are the same psychological tools that counselors and psychologists use: unconditional positive regard, active listening, reframing, critical incident stress debriefing (CISD), and various other techniques for individual and group counseling. Having this kind of intervention available in times of extremely fast change, crisis, and anxiety is known to be one of the best ways of preventing long-term psychological harm, including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). It is entirely right and proper for the United States military to employ people able and willing to provide personnel with timely, appropriate psychological services.

And if they want to pray, too, fine. But praying—or proselytizing— should not be what they get paid to do.

In the aftermath of 9-11, two psychologists I know—a husband and wife team who own and operate a local clinic—went to Ground Zero as volunteers for a Red Cross trauma team. Working day and night for two weeks, they immersed themselves in the pain and trauma of surviving firefighters, witnesses, and recovery workers until they, themselves, were saturated with grief and horror and in need of psychological care. Then they were extracted and debriefed, while others skilled in crisis intervention took their places.

Although they are not religious, the work this couple did in Manhattan is no different from the work done by chaplains on a battle field. With academic degrees in psychology and counseling, as well as specific knowledge of how trauma affects the brain, they may have been more aware and deliberate in their use of crisis intervention strategies than a chaplain without similar training. But people who successfully help victims of trauma and crisis, regardless of their background, are using the same skills.

Anyone can pray. But not everyone can employ the skills and knowledge required to provide psychological services. Call them what you will, it’s those skills and that knowledge for which counselors and crisis intervention specialists should be employed by the military—not their religious orientation.

Immigration: A Personal Story

2010-04-30T12:09:00.000-07:00

For the past twenty years, I’ve had the privilege of working in a school with a large immigrant population. Average per capita income is low, but the culture is rich and diverse. About 30% of our students come from Spanish-speaking backgrounds, but at any given time, we may have smaller populations whose first language is Bosnian, Russian, Vietnamese, Farsi, or (most recently) Somali. As you might expect, I have a few thoughts on the subject of immigration. These thoughts are informed by stories I’ve heard and people I’ve met.

For ten years, I had a classroom in a building lovingly cared for by a custodian named Pedro. He spoke such broken English that when we first met, it took me awhile to understand everything he said. I got plenty of practice, though, because Pedro was a talker. He talked while he worked, and he worked very hard. Our building was always immaculate, and if any little thing needed repair, all it took was a word to Pedro, and Presto! Everything would be quickly and expertly made right.

Although his shift usually started in the afternoon, Pedro happened to be in my classroom one day during 3rd hour, when announcements are read over the intercom. As the students stood up to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, Pedro clamped his hand over his heart and recited it more loudly than anyone else. I thought I heard his voice crack near the end, and glancing over at him, I saw that tears were running down his cheeks. When the pledge ended, he wiped his eyes, made the sign of the cross (the universal gesture of Catholics profoundly moved with emotion), and resumed his work. He loved to pick the brains of history and social studies teachers and was extremely knowledgeable about American history and government. He tended to cry easily when those subjects came up. Pedro was absolutely the proudest, most patriotic American I’ve ever known.

As the years went on, I learned a lot about Pedro and his family. (As I say, he was a talker.) Virtually every weekend, he completed jobs that would take most men a week or more—roofing a house, rebuilding a motor, plowing and planting. Gradually I learned that some of the properties on which he worked belonged to him, some to family, and some just to people he knew who needed a little help. The man was a demon for work. He had raised six children every one of whom completed at least a four-year college degree. More than once, I saw him in deep conversation with young men who needed a little advice about respect and responsibility—and believe me, they listened. I’ve never known anyone more deserving of respect.

Pedro was not an illegal immigrant. In fact, he was not an immigrant at all. He was born in a small Texas border town where his ancestors settled before the United States became a country. Unless you happen to be Native American, Pedro’s pedigree as an American is a good deal longer than yours or mine.

If the despicable new law just passed in Arizona goes into effect, can you imagine what the impact would be on a proud, honorable man like Pedro—a working man with a rugged face and heavy accent? Either he’d be stopped and asked for papers every time he set foot in public, or else every cop he encountered would be in violation of a law that requires them to check the documents of anyone they might reasonably suspect of being illegal.

That’s not all that’s wrong with the Arizona law, but it’s enough.

Imagination: A Citizen's Responsibility

2010-04-25T06:22:00.000-07:00

Years ago, someone remarked to me that the difference between a good driver and a bad driver is a good imagination. In a democracy, the same is true of its citizens (who, after all, are ultimately the ones driving the bus).

A driver with a good imagination can look beyond the immediate circumstances to what could happen. In a residential neighborhood, a child could pop out between two parked cars, chasing a ball. A good driver proceeds slowly, “seeing” the child that isn’t there. On the highway, a car or truck just ahead could blow a tire, swerve to avoid an animal, or just suddenly and inexplicably slam on the breaks (a situation that I witnessed on a freeway some years ago). A good driver anticipates the unexpected, leaving plenty of room between vehicles. Without regular servicing, tire changes, and other maintenance, a good car could become a menace on the road. A good driver takes steps to maintain the vehicle, even when it’s running well.

Just as good drivers are deeply aware of our shared responsibilities on the nation’s roads and highways, a good citizen is conscious of the effects of government action and inaction. After all, we’re the ones who choose the leaders who act in our behalf. We hire the drivers.

Compassion is nothing more than applying the imagination to the circumstances of others. In the recent interminable health care debate, good citizens were moved by the stories about people who lost their lives, their livelihoods, or their homes because of lack of insurance or escalating premiums. Putting themselves in someone else’s shoes, they took into account the 40 million Americans who so desperately needed insurance (and will now get it). In discussing social programs, good citizens take time to consider life from the perspective of those members of society least able to help themselves—children, the poor, the disabled and mentally ill.

By the same token, good drivers are calm, rational, and realistic about the world outside their windshields. They don’t deny what’s there (like bad weather—or climate change), no matter how convenient it may be to ignore them. Good drivers know their limitations and don’t assume they know more than they do about the road ahead or what might be waiting around the next bend: if the sign says slow down, they do so, trusting that engineers and highway planners may have known something that the driver cannot. Good drivers know that they themselves don’t know everything, but they expect and demand that the experts they hire know what they’re doing.

My experience in living through the previous administration was like being a white-knuckled passenger in a car driven by an emotional driver. That driver had the power to fill all jobs involving highway safety and maintenance, and he did so regardless of the employees’ qualifications and motivation for doing the job right. All that mattered was that they displayed a suitable loyalty to the driver and his policies and beliefs.

Determined to finish his daddy’s war, the previous president didn’t focus his constructive imagination on the real problem: defeating al Qaida (which, at the time, was not operating in Iraq). Ignoring the feelings of others, he apparently didn’t bother to imagine what it’s like to drown—denying until the bitter end that water-boarding is torture. Getting richer and richer, like his cronies, he refused to pay attention to economic warning signs that the road ahead was washed out. The examples of recklessness and incompetence could go on and on.

From the time of the Revolution, Americans have tended to be distrustful of government. That distrust is built into our cultural history and maybe even our genes. After many years of irresponsible government, it’s no wonder that many people have given up all together on government as a tool for solving human problems and ensuring prosperity.

But this president is different. His administration is filled with people who have true expertise in their areas of responsibility. The vehicle is finally being maintained. Many Americans have decided that if they can’t have their old, familiar driver back—regardless of his incompetence—they’d just as soon walk.

Those of us now studying the map and enjoying the ride are thinking about the possibilities that lie ahead and what we can do with this newer, safer, well-maintained vehicle of state.

Why the Volcano is Erupting in Iceland

2010-04-20T05:45:00.000-07:00

According to Rush Limbaugh, because America passed health reform.

According to an Iranian cleric, because of extramarital sex.

No word yet from Pat Robertson or any of the folks at C Street.

Spirit Airlines: Siding with Industry on This One

2010-04-19T15:59:00.000-07:00

The ever-ready sense of American outrage was aroused last week when Spirit Airlines announced a plan to charge for carry-on bags.

Reacting to the public’s irritation (as politicians are wont to do), Senator Charles Schumer and others started making noises about legislation to limit convenience fees that airlines may charge. Several other airlines, in response, pledged not to start charging for carry-on bags (at least in the short term).

Now, there’s an urban myth that says that if you put a frog into hot water, it’ll jump out, but if you put a frog into cold water and heat it, the frog will stay put, ignoring the changing conditions up to the point of death. (In reality, frogs aren’t that dumb, but that’s beside the point.) Hence the expression that says if you want people to accept changing conditions, you should “cook the frog slowly.”

So here’s my perspective. I’m not a frequent flier. I probably average no more than one or two flights a year, the most recent one being last August. So—like the frog dumped into hot water—I may be more likely than people who fly all the time to notice changes that have occurred over time. On my last several trips, I’ve noticed that it takes a long, long time these days to get on and off a plane. Also, if you’re not among the first to board, the overhead bins will already be stuffed to capacity.

It’s only human nature to push our limits. If we weren’t like that, we certainly would never have planted flags at the North or South Poles, much less on the moon. So when airlines started charging for checked bags, passengers naturally started cramming as much as possible into carry-ons and carrying more accessories. Whereas boarding passengers used to toss their duffel into the overhead and sit down, they now have to

Stow the duffel

Get the computer out and stow the bag

Find places to tuck any of the special-needs items that airlines usually allow as a courtesy (diaper bags, strollers, crutches, etc.)

Strip off four layers of clothes and stuff them in the overhead compartment

Stick the handbag or purse under the seat

Stash hand-held items, such as books, magazines, and cell phones, into the compartment on the seat in front.

All this takes time, while people downstream stop and stand, stop and stand. People sitting on the aisle are battered by the edges of things as newly arriving passengers clamor down the aisle, bristling with all these appendages.

It simply takes much longer to board or deplane than it used to—and the whole process can be annoying as hell.

Questioned about his airline’s new policy, Spirit president Ben Baldanza was unapologetic about being “the Wal-Mart or the McDonald's—not the Nordstrom's—of the airline industry.” He observed that under the new policy, passengers who choose not to carry a bag on board won’t be paying a surcharge for those who do.

Makes sense to me. And for those who don’t like it, there are other airlines and other modes of transportation.

The Simplicity of the American Mind

2010-04-17T07:45:00.000-07:00

It’s just a small detail embedded in a larger story, but it irritates me no end.

In Florida, the NRA weighs in on Charlie Crist’s bid for the Senate race, pledging support for the governor whether or not he runs as a Republican. In the words of one of the organization’s top lobbyists, “We support where a candidate stands on our issue, based upon their record on our issue.”

Don’t get me wrong. As Republicans go, I happen to like Charlie Crist. One of the few truly bipartisan, high-profile politicians in this country, he seems to be a guy who really is thoughtful, well-informed, willing to listen to others, and courageous enough to vote his conscience—even when it might cost him political capital. We need more people like that in Congress.

What irritates me is when people narrow their political focus to one over-simplified, isolated issue and vote accordingly—whether that issue is gun rights, abortion, gay rights, or legalization of pot. People who have no sense of how their sacred cow or their pet peeve is embedded in the broader fabric of society are doing the country a disservice when they cast a vote—a vote based on ignorance and bias.

Clearly, one of the biggest reasons for the animosity and blind partisanship so prevalent in this country is that all too many Americans are one-issue voters. They hitch their wagon to some organization that does their thinking for them—be it the NRA (pro-guns), Tea Party movement (anti-tax), or their local church (anti-abortion).

If all you are is pro-this or anti-that, then you’re not a good citizen.

Thoughtful, responsible, involved Americans certainly have points of view that guide their thinking. Everyone has a philosophy. Yours may be that government should be limited in its power, or that political decisions should be made locally whenever possible, or that the market should be free of government regulation.

I may (and I do) disagree with all those positions, but I respect them. My guiding philosophy happens to be the notion that government should protect the rights of individuals. I thoroughly enjoy and often learn from people who respectfully disagree with me.

A position based on a thoughtful, nuanced view of the world takes into account many related issues, not just one. Holding such a position requires intellectual work, the courage of being uncertain about some things, and enough respect for others to keep an open mind so that beliefs don’t harden into dogma.

I’m preaching to the choir, here. Readers and contributors to this blog tend to be thoughtful, well-informed, and unlikely to be motivated by a knee-jerk reaction to a single, isolated issue.

Those who are so motivated, however, are sludge in the engine of society.

Why I Don't Watch the Sunday Talk Shows

2010-04-11T08:10:00.000-07:00

Sarah, Sarah, Sarah.

They say she failed to win the straw poll at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference because "the base" doesn't think she's ready—yet.

Yet?

And just what is the former half-governor of Alaska doing to get "ready"—besides raking in money and sharpening her already formidable sarcastic wit?

Ms. Palin has the media skills to become a personable commentator on any number of subjects about which she is qualified to speak. If she would just stick to firearms, moose, and maybe the rapid disappearance of the Arctic ice pack, I may not agree with her, but at least I'd give her credit for knowing something about her subject.

What John McCain has unleashed on America is a snitty attitude with a great pair of legs.

Star Parker: A Welfare Success Story

2010-04-10T08:01:00.000-07:00

Recently a reader kindly referred me to an article by the Christian conservative writer Star Parker. President of a right-wing think tank with the benevolent name of Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE), Ms. Parker maintains that providing subsistence to poor people is tantamount to slavery, with Uncle Sam cast as the master who “welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation.” As a teenager and young mother, she was on welfare, and she apparently views herself as one of the escapees from the “plantation,” a woman who climbed the capitalist ladder to independence and affluence.

She did climb that ladder and now appears to be thriving and enjoying her role as an advocate for free-market economics. But here’s the fly in the ointment of her argument: It was the (allegedly) insidious “welfare state” that threw her that ladder. While on welfare, Parker was able to raise her children and attend college part-time, eventually obtaining a degree in marking and the writing skills she now uses to disparage public support programs.

I’ve worked with needy families throughout my career as a counselor and educator. I know two things about poverty: 1) it’s always determined by a complex of factors, and 2) people are seldom if ever able to pull themselves out of it without assistance. (It’s hard to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps” if you have no boots.)

One of the things that used to contribute to poverty was a family culture of dependence that could allow people to continue getting public assistance without getting the education and job skills necessary to work their way out. The welfare reform act signed by President Clinton in 1996 provided a much more nuanced, constructive approach to public assistance, giving recipients new incentives and opportunities—punching some new exit holes in the walls of the welfare system and giving poor people more ways out of dependence on social services.

As I go about my daily business, I see former students and clients all over town whose families were once on welfare—nurses, teachers, and small business owners who are making wonderful contributions to the community that gave them the tools they needed to succeed. Like Ms. Parker, they are a tribute to a society that combines compassionate “socialism” with the economic opportunities of capitalism. It’s neither one nor the other of these basic approaches to public policy that makes for a great country—it’s a rational balance of the two.

Show me a Star Parker who somehow made the leap from poverty to affluence without the help of any social supports, and I’ll be glad to listen to whatever he or she may have to say about the evils of “socialism.”

America's Sharp Right Face

2010-04-08T05:26:00.000-07:00

In high school, I participated in speech and debate, which forced me to do some research into current events. The public arena was full of social and political problems and disagreements, but in those days, America’s problems—the Cold War and nuclear proliferation; internal struggles for social equality, free speech and expanded roles for women in society—were “our” problems. The “enemies” were abroad; at home, there really were two ways of looking at many issues, each side having some validity.

In college, a friend who was a poli-sci major informed me that I was a Democrat, based on my tendency to reason from the perspective of the well-being of the individual. Over time, I began to realize that was mostly true—more often than not, I tended to agree with Democratic candidates. But labels simply weren’t that important in those days. The left-right spectrum was shaped like a bell curve, with most people milling around and rubbing shoulders somewhere toward the middle.

My basic attitudes and beliefs haven’t changed all that much. I still think people are more important that things—including banks, businesses, and corporations—and that collective entities should serve the needs and respect the rights of real flesh-and-blood human beings. I believe that every human being has fundamental, inalienable rights that should be protected at all costs. But like General Colin Powell—a Republican whom I very much respect—I find that I although I’ve stayed pretty much in one place, America has shifted to the right.

Along with this rightward shift have come other changes that have greatly altered the public discourse. One obvious one is the greatly expanded role of the media in shaping people’s attitudes and values. It’s so easy these days for people to punch a button or turn a dial and get 24-hour reinforcement of what they already believe—or what powerful and skillful special interests want them to believe. A related issue is the rise of libertarianism, which in a way is a product of new media technology, as well: libertarians convene mostly on the Internet. One result of all this is that most of what passes for political discussion these days is really the right talking to the right, the left to the left, and libertarians to libertarians—all parties thereby simply getting more entrenched in their own belief systems.

The rise of libertarianism has changed the American political landscape in more ways than one. Although relatively few in number, libertarians are often smart, well-educated, and influential. Individualists by nature, they tend to view government as a problem—at best, an infringement on individual liberties. Libertarians like to view themselves as being above the fray—neither Democrat nor Republican, neither left nor right. However, like it or not, their anti-government stance ends up greatly supporting the interests of the right, which for different reasons, has a vested interest in limiting the power of government. Thus we have the unholy alliance that’s become known as the Tea Party movement. (I must admit to getting a good deal of amusement out of watching right-wing leaders try to steer that movement—a task that will inevitably be analogous to herding cats.)

Finally, the relationship of Americans to their government has been greatly impacted by the unprecedented involvement of churches in matters of state. Roe v. Wade gave the right a chance to harness the power of the pulpit, using abortion to get churches to weigh in on political matters of all types, often endorsing candidates who profess to be “pro-life”—regardless of whether they know a damn thing about anything else. Thus we’ve had two generations in which a healthy percentage of voters have marched off on election days to cast their votes the way their priest or pastor said they should—completely overlooking the facts that 1) no one person has the power to change the law and 2) morality has many aspects. It’s nothing short of a miracle that the whole complex business of health reform didn’t get mired down because of the essentially unrelated issue of abortion.

Thus, the media, libertarians, and the churches are among those who have, albeit sometimes unwittingly, contributed to the rightward movement of the Republican Party—a movement that has many observers wondering aloud whether there are any “moderate” Republicans left in public service. Oh, of course there are also extremists on the right—those who habitually criticize the president for not “going far enough” on issues from health care to gay rights—but they are relatively few. Most democrats today are what used to be called moderates, and most Republicans are what we used to call extremists.

The biggest change in the American landscape in my lifetime has been the shift from respectful, if sometimes spirited, dialogue to a public discourse characterized by rage and contempt. Perhaps that’s because we’ve been a long time without a war of the kind in which the enemy was clearly and unmistakably evil and the objective was saving America from the invasion of foreign powers. (Terrorists succeed in killing a few Americans at a time, but never have they posed a threat of total annihilation or a hostile takeover of the country.)

As a culture, America tends to be pretty feisty. When aroused and focused on a common enemy, as we were during World War II, we’re a force to be reckoned with. But could it be that in times of relative peace with our neighbors, we tend to become the sleeping dragon that, in its restlessness, devours its own tail? Perhaps as a nation, we’re sort of like a hyperactive child in search of any kind of distraction. Perhaps we need to grow up, set lofty goals, work on developing our true potential, and learn to cope with peace.

The End of America as You Know It

2010-04-05T05:16:00.000-07:00

After well over a decade of living in an America tailored to serve the needs of the very, very rich and powerful, I for one am more than happy to be witnessing the end of America as we knew it. In that America

People without insurance went bankrupt and lost their homes when their children got sick.

Retired people skipped their life-saving medications three to six months of the year, during the quarters when Bush’s nonsensical (and unfunded) prescription plan didn’t pay at all or paid too little (the infamous “donut hole”).

America sanctioned and subjected people to torture.

America was fighting a war in Iraq that was justified by lies and conducted for private, not public, reasons. (No one ever attacked us from Iraq, and there were no “WMDs.”)

Nobody understood the miniscule writing on sheets of tissue paper sent to us by banks and credit card companies, but people became indentured servants because of those obscure clauses.

Until the end of that era (when even President Bush could no longer deny the science of climate change with a straight face), the U.S. denied any responsibility for preserving the habitability of the planet.

Based on the flimsy assumptions of supply side economics (i.e., no rules and no accountability for the very rich), the economy teetered and collapsed.

Fewer young people were aspiring to higher education because of its escalating costs.

Viewed as arrogant and irresponsible, America was universally despised abroad.

No progress was being made on making the world safer from nuclear disaster perpetrated by either rogue countries or terrorists.

So-called regulatory agencies—e.g., EPA, FEMA, FDA, OSHA—had long-since quit “regulating” matters pertaining to public safety and were generally headed by people who were philosophically opposed to the purpose of their own agencies.

That was America as we knew it. For once, I hope Glenn Beck is right and that this new America will live long and prosper.

Human Brutality, Part II

2010-03-31T08:37:00.000-07:00

For almost all of human history, right up until the 1990s, motivation—why we do what we do—was a matter for philosophy. Reason was the only tool available for trying to make sense of human behavior.

Do we always act in accordance with what we perceive to be best for ourselves (“maximizing utility” in the words of the theorists)? Or are we sometimes moved by sheer, objective altruism to do what’s best for others? Are we usually aware of why we do things, or are we motivated by deep, unconscious desires? Are some people born evil, or is there some good even in people who commit the most heinous acts? These and many others are questions that thinkers have pondered for millennia.

And now, to the dismay of those who like things neat and tidy, it turns out the answer to most of these kinds of questions is, “All of the above.”

New knowledge of biochemistry and the nervous system is beginning to unravel the secrets of the human brain, which turns out to be a far more sensitive, adaptable, and complex organ than anyone had previously imagined. As we absorb data through our senses, the brain is not only processing and making sense of it but also responding to what we perceive. We now know that the brain physically changes throughout our lifetime in accordance with our habits of thought and what we experience (a quality neuroscientists call “plasticity”).

Thus, when people lose one of their senses—becoming blind, for example, through illness or injury—the area of the brain once devoted to processing that sensory input is taken over by brain cells devoted to other functions. The area devoted to hearing, for example, may expand into the area once devoted to sight. So when a blind person develops more acute hearing, it’s not just a matter of the person’s attention having shifted from one type of stimuli to another; rather, their brain has changed to better respond to new circumstances.

Moreover, different parts of the brain can be used to process the same information in different ways. Take language processing, for example: studies with functional MRIs (fMRIs) show that different parts of the brain are active depending upon whether the subject is reading, listening to, or writing the same text. This helps explain why people who stutter when they speak can usually sing the same words with perfect fluency—different parts of the brain are in charge of speaking and singing.

Imaging techniques like fMRIs show us that our attention is like a controller at a switch board: whenever we shift our attention from one thing to another, energy instantly shifts to a different part of the brain. You’re driving down the street, listening to music and thinking pleasant thoughts: you’re brain’s behaving one way. Someone cuts you off and almost causes an accident: the world changes in an instant, and your thoughts, feelings and actions are entirely different than they might have been otherwise.

The limbic system is the “emotional” part of the brain; most rational thought and planning ahead occurs in the frontal cortex. When we choose to think rationally (a choice many people aren’t’ even aware they can make), we’re really deciding to process our experience through the frontal cortex—which can be hard work—rather than turning it over to the more automatic and impulsive “emotional” part of the brain.

We often make the shift unconsciously from thinking with one part of our brain to thinking with another. When something makes us uncomfortable, for example, we may literally “turn off” one part of our brain and shift to another. That’s why some people are better than others at staying cool in a crisis: they’re more skilled at turning off the part of their brain that would react with panic or anxiety and shifting to the part that allows them to just do what needs to be done.

Some things are best handled by the limbic system; if a bear is after you, there’s no time to think. It’s best to listen to your limbic system if it tells your body to run!

Other things—including most matters of public policy—are best handled by the frontal cortex.

In a perfect world, we’d all know about how our brain works and whether we’re reacting to something emotionally or intellectually. But new knowledge can take generations to become widely understood within a culture. So as things stand now, it’s mostly scientists and geeks interested in brain science who are aware of how the functioning of the brain affects decision making.

Consequently, the public can be gullible, and people can be easily manipulated. In recent years (and especially in recent months), we’ve seen this gullibility used to advantage by people who—instinctively, if not scientifically—know more about human behavior than the average person.

If you want people to think and feel a certain way, there are basically two ways to do it: by emotional manipulation or by persuasion—in other words, by targeting either the emotional or the rational part of their brains.

Regular readers of this blog know where I’m going with this. The great divide in terms of political discourse in this country right now is between reason and emotion. There’s a struggle going on between those who want people to think and those who want them simply to react. Among elected officials, there are those who do the hard intellectual work of analyzing situations and solving problems and those who simply emote. There are those who want to whip their constituents into a frenzy of emotional anger and those who want them to understand some of the complexities of the problems that face us all, in this country and on this planet.

Angry people are easy to manipulate. They form mobs and follow the person with the loudest voice or the cockiest attitude. However, they’re also unpredictable and—after a certain point—notoriously hard to control. They follow their passions, and sometimes they destroy things—even the things and people they love the most.

Those who are deliberately using fear tactics, incendiary language, and misleading arguments to “stir up their base” do so at their peril—and ours. The recent arousal of the American vigilante movement—largely fueled by irresponsible political rhetoric from the extreme right—is a much more real and present threat to this country than anything Osama bin Laden may try to dream up.

Human Brutality

2010-03-30T07:11:00.000-07:00

One of my childhood memories involves the day my mild-mannered little Polish grandmother lost her temper. Big time.

After my grandfather’s death, Grandma had moved in with my mother and me and rented her home to a German woman who had a daughter my age. Every month, Grandma made a practice of taking me with her when she went to pick up the rent. The two women would sit in the kitchen nursing a pot of tea while we children played.

On this memorable occasion, the other child and I suddenly heard a lot of noise coming from the kitchen. We ran to the doorway and found both women on their feet, shouting at one another in a mélange of languages. Although the German woman towered over my grandmother, she looked frightened—and not without reason. When Grandma was mad, she had a tendency to take a broom to the object of her wrath, and it’s a good thing she didn’t know where her tenant kept the brooms.

Grandma had the last word in this bitter exchange: “Out!” Needless to say, that was the last I saw of the German woman or her daughter.

The woman’s transgression? She had said to my grandmother, “Hitler was a good man.” It was the wrong thing to say to an old woman who, although born in America, had family abroad who had disappeared during the Holocaust.

This incident may have been part of the reason why, when I was getting a degree in counseling many years later, I chose to write my thesis on the experiments of psychologist Stanley Milgram. I wondered, as Milgram had, how it was that in the Germany of the mid-1900s, ordinary, everyday people could be turned into monsters who not only sanctioned persecution, torture, and murder but even participated in them. Was there something wrong with the German character—or was it the human character?

In America in the 1960s, Milgram conducted a series of experiments in which subjects—ordinary people recruited off the street—were asked to participate in research about "learning.” Each subject was paired with a person whom they believed to be another volunteer but who was, in fact, an actor. The actor was strapped into a chair and connected to electrodes, then asked a series of questions. Whenever he answered incorrectly, the real subject was told by the white-coated director to deliver electrical “shocks” of increasing intensity.

As the experiments continued, the “learner” began asking, then pleading for release. Mild complaints escalated to anguished cries and eventually silence that suggested that the learner might be seriously injured or dead. Nonetheless, almost all the subjects continued—despite their own emotional anguish and confusion—to deliver the phony shocks on command.

The book in which Milgram wrote about the “shocking” results of his research (pardon the pun) was called Obedience to Authority. He assumed that the presence of the researcher—wearing a white coat and perceived as being a doctor—influenced the subjects’ decisions. As in Nazi Germany, he reasoned, subjects were able to shrug off their own responsibility for abhorrent actions because they were “just following orders” from someone believed to be in a position of authority.

This is what’s so troubling about very similar experiments recently conducted in France on national television: the context was completely different. A game show host—neither a military leader nor a perceived “expert” on anything—was the one giving the orders. Nevertheless, in that context (as in Milgram’s experiments), about 80% of the participants displayed their willingness to torture and even kill a fellow human being.

What does all this tell us about people—even about ourselves?

First, it suggests that even the “nicest” people may—given the right circumstances—be capable of insensitivity, cruelty, and even murder. Secondly, we tend to behave very differently depending on the context in which we find ourselves. And finally, we are social creatures who tend to slip quickly and comfortably into almost any kind of hierarchy: when we perceive that someone’s in charge, we have a tendency to follow along and believe pretty much anything that person says.

Tomorrow: some implications for America about these very human tendencies given the current political landscape.

Happy 91st Brithday, Lawrence Ferlinghetti

2010-03-24T16:54:00.000-07:00

from his poem "Constantly Risking Absurdity":

the poet like an acrobat
climbs on rime
. . . the super realist
who must perforce perceive
taut truth

What a Difference a Year Makes

2010-03-24T04:01:00.000-07:00

It was just last spring that America began hearing about the allegedly "grass-roots" Tea Party movement, which seemed like a joke at the time. Here’s what I posted in April 2009:

“Say what you will, this idea is such a pleasant diversion from screaming and hate mongering that I think we ought to encourage it and play along. . . . I propose that we Democrats reciprocate by giving conservative members of Congress a good “grounding” (as in the expression, “grounded in reality”). We could send coffee grounds to some of those who really need to wake up and smell the coffee!”

Now that we've witnessed ignorant and angry adherents of the Tea Party movement shouting racial and homophobic epithets at their duly elected representatives—not to mention deliberately disrupting the political process and threatening violence—it's not so funny anymore.

The increasing polarization of America—as evidenced by the sometimes ludicrous lies and shenanigans the Republicans used to try to defeat health reform—is no longer humorous. The rational among us seem to be at a loss as to how to stop it. Thus, I was intrigued by some constructive, down-to-earth solutions offered by Thomas L. Friedman in yesterday’s op-ed. Read it here.

Local Facts

2010-03-23T07:03:00.000-07:00

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
—Daniel Moynihan

It takes years to develop a textbook. Five million is a lot of consumers. There are five million school children in Texas. As Texas goes, then, so goes the country—at least in terms of textbook adoption.

In her 2004 book The Language Police, Diane Ravich documented in frightening detail how political pressure groups have learned to take over local and state-level school boards so as to dictate what children learn. This year in Texas, that means extreme right-wing conservatives—ten of whom have infiltrated the 15-member state school board—are deciding what children throughout the nation will learn.

In with Jefferson Davis, out with Thomas Jefferson (who had the audacity to pen the phrase “separation of church and state”). In with Phyllis Schlafly, out with Ted Kennedy. In with creationism and the NRA, out with evolution and animal rights. Ronald Reagan saved the world, and ol’ Joe McCarthy wasn’t such a bad guy, after all.

According to the pictures, Americans are almost universally white, and a woman belongs in the kitchen (and not with a briefcase in her hand).

The problem isn’t so much that the right wing is propagandizing school books. (In fact California, the other state with the largest student population, has a tendency to skew some publishers’ textbooks to the left.) The problem is that education shouldn’t be about politics, and facts shouldn’t be subject to vote.

As the great ship of state now turns to the problem of reforming educational reform, perhaps it’s time to have a serious discussion about national curriculum standards. It’s not healthy when a handful of people with no expertise in a subject area decide how that subject will be taught to the nation’s children.

It’s time we got over the notion that “all politics are local.” Truth is not.

Duties of a Patriot

2010-03-22T05:06:00.000-07:00

The un-American, un-patriotic Michelle Bachmann is at it again—encouraging her misguided admirers to ignore their civic responsibility to pay their rightful share of the costs of living in a free and affluent society. And the reliably inane and insane Glenn Beck is encouraging Americans to break the law by ignoring their legal duty to fill out a census form.

Once every ten years, we Americans have two opportunities in April to act responsibly and do a little something to earn the privilege of living in this great nation: we can stand up and be counted, and we can pay our fair share. I, for one, will do both with pride.