An Immodest Proposal

(with apologies to Dean Swift.)

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

The power to tax may well be the power to destroy, but the power to tax unfairly is the power to do worse--it's the power to enslave. With the increasing concentration of the majority of the country's wealth into fewer and fewer hands (2% of the population of this country now holds over 50% of its total wealth, and is moving to amass ever more), America is being turned into a fundamentally unfair economic oligarchy, not the government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" which the Founders envisioned.

Yet we seem paralyzed to do anything about it. Republicans want to keep cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans, claiming that that's what will spur job creation and get the economy moving again, and that spending cuts will balance the budged. Democrats say that continuing to cut vital social programs will place the majority of the burden of government costs on the backs of those who can afford it the least, and that if we're going to cut spending, we must cut in areas like huge contracts to defense contractors, not areas like Head Start.

It is axiomatic that spending cuts alone will not balance the budget. The cuts the GOP wants merely nibble around the edges and are not big enough monetarily to dent the burgeoning interest obligations we have on the debt we've already incurred. Those cuts will, however, cause a great deal of misery for a great number of Americans, who are not looking for a handout, but for a hand, given that while income for the richest 2% of Americans has increased at least 20-fold in the past 15 years or so, income for the other 98% of us has remained stagnant (or even declined, in real terms, once inflation has been adjusted for) for the past 40 years.

Revenues must be considered. Revenues must be increased. But the current US tax code is a virtually impossible labyrinth of exemptions here and deductions there--in short, social engineering run amok. We seem to be at a stand-off. We've been at a stand-off for decades now, and positions are only hardening. People seem less and less willing to give a little to get a little. I include myself in that group, because, frankly, I do believe that "if you give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk."

I honor the notion of compromise. I do believe it is the genius of our system and that it is what has made America work for as long as it has. But the problem with compromise is that everyone has to play with the same understanding. If you define "compromise" as "getting 100% of my own way," well, that's not compromise. And alas for us, President Obama has been "compromising" with a GOP which does define "compromise" as "my way or the highway." Yet even he has his limits, and he has shown rather more backbone of late. The GOP, of course, calls that partisanship. Face it: it is impossible to reason with anyone who thinks they should have things 100% of their own way and the rest of us can go hang.

Yet if we don't want the country to collapse into anarchy, we urgently need to move the discussion into productive channels instead of continuing to hash and rehash and re-rehash the same stale, non-productive rhetoric. Hence the following immodest proposal:

Median annual income in this country is now $35,000 per person. Under the new system I propose, that first $35,000 will be entirely exempt from taxes. Every penny above that will be subject to tax at the rate of 1% [or 1/2% even--whatever will increase net revenue without being so high as to be seen by any rational observer as objectionable. Look: we have to have some taxes, just as we have to have some government. Justice Holmes was right. Taxes ARE the price we pay for civilization--Ed.]. No exemptions. No deductions. No subsidies. No exceptions. Corporations would pay the same. They were so insistent on being treated as "people" for purposes of campaign financing, and a bare-bones majority of the US Supreme Court was so accommodating to them in its Citizens United decision, that they have no valid grounds on which to complain. Fifteen to 20 percent of all such revenues will be set aside to fund Social Security and Medicare and will be untouchable by anybody in government for any other reason.

The net result will ripple throughout the government. Without all the subsidy programs, the Dept. of Agriculture can shrink, thus greatly reducing its long-term operating costs. The Internal Revenue Service can shrink, too, as it will no longer need such an extensive enforcement arm as it now maintains. Even the Social Security Administration can reduce its size, as it will no longer need so many people to work in conjunction with the IRS to get and process its revenues in the first place. Individuals and corporations both would still have more than enough income to go about their daily "lives."

There is no downside to this proposal. The only reason for opposition would be greed, plain and simple. But it has the proverbial snowball's chance of getting enacted. For every exemption, deduction, subsidy, or perk in the present system [except for those few still remaining for real, individual people of modest means--Ed.], there's an army of lobbyists in Congress ready and rich enough to defend it to eternity. That's sad, and more than a bit frightening. Why are people so willing to be against their own government but totally pro-big corporate power? With government, at least in our system, you have recourse if you are done wrong. But with a corporation, if it does you wrong, you are essentially SOL . . . unless you have access to a governmental entity with enough teeth to protect you. I surmise that greed rules here, too. Everyone seems to think he's going to become the owner bee and not be a worker bee. Ain't gonna happen, folks. The 2% of the people in this country who hold more than 50% of the total wealth of this country will make sure of that--but they'll dangle the hope of its happening in front of you until you are mesmerized by it and stop paying attention to what they're really up to, which is amassing ever more money and power unto themselves and taking it all away from you.

I am inspired to this day by John F. Kennedy's call to "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." THAT is what America is, and should be, about. And by my "country," I mean my fellow citizens. And if that means "Social Security," great! I'm all for helping the vast majority of us, the 98% of us who wield increasing less power and influence as real money is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. I'm not alone, either. Tom Toles had an editorial cartoon in Friday's Washington Post wherein a 6-lane interstate, under a highway sign saying "what you can do for your country" was totally devoid of cars--while a two-lane exit ramp, labelled "ask not," was jammed to a standstill with cars overfilling both lanes. I'm not the only one who "gets it," as it were. But we seem to be in an infinitesimal minority. Nonetheless, we have to keep trying. For unless we can change the terms of the debate and start offering new solutions, workable solutions--unless everyone is willing, for the sake of the country, to give a little--we are too soon going to be pledging allegiance to the Corporate States of America. And that will mean the end of the American Dream.

Egypt and the Lessons of History

The resignation on Friday of Egypt's President Hosni Mubarek confirms at least three of the great lessons of history--and human behavior. Lesson the first: the forces of reaction are often at their most virulent and loudest insistence immediately before they collapse in the face of true popular sentiment. Less than a day before Mubarek officially resigned, he said he wasn't going to go--at least, not before the scheduled elections in September.

This leads directly to point the second: people in the know should keep their mouths shut. CIA Director Leon Panetta told a Congressional committee on Thursday that Mubarek would be leaving on Thursday night. In his speech Thursday night, as has been noted, Mubarek said he was not going. I suspect Mubarek's original plan was to announce his resignation on Thursday night, but once the word got out about Panetta's testimony, Mubarek decided he did not want to leave with even a whiff of a hint that he was going at the behest of the United States. I'm willing to bet (and I do not gamble) that Mubarek would confirm, if asked, that if Panetta had kept his mouth shut, Mubarek would in fact have announced his resignation on Thursday night, instead of denying it Thursday and waiting until Friday to make it. The man held a lot of power for a long time; he has his pride. I do not have to agree with him or with his policies to understand why he'd not want to be seen as jumping instantly on the heels of some American governmental official saying "jump."

Point the third: supporting dictators who are friendly to American foreign policy objectives, just because they are friendly to American foreign policy objectives, is NOT a wise idea. That the "Egyptian Revolution" has so far been mostly peaceful is more a matter of luck than design, for we weren't so much supportive of Mubarek as we were of Egypt's peaceful coexistence with Israel. We've been giving Egypt a lot of foreign and military aid and training (as has much of western Europe) in exchange for Egypt's maintaining the peace treaty with Israel--which came in under Anwar Sadat. Mubarek, of course, took power upon Sadat's assassination, and it's lucky for us that he saw the wisdom in Sadat's having signed the peace treaty in the first place.

To say that this change in Egypt is bad for America is to make many unwarranted assumptions, and even to fly in the face of America's long-term and oft-stated foreign policy goal of making real representative democracy the world-wide norm for governments. One of the things the radical right never seems to grasp is that genuine representative democracy is not ONLY for "people who think like we do and who agree with us." The radical right usually expresses itself on this score by telling capital-D Democrats to "love it or leave it" (or whatever the 21st century equivalent of that sentiment is). What the radial right doesn't seem to understand is that true representative democracy is risky--because it means that there's a real chance that people who DON'T think "just like us" can come to power. The beauty of real, American-style representative democracy is that EVERYBODY involved, even those who don't "think just like us" agrees that the system works, and that even when out of power, those who don't "think like us" still participate, that elections are held regularly, and that transitions of power are peaceful . . . and that the pendulum will swing in both directions as long as we all agree that the system works and that we ALL have a vital interest in maintaining the system. After all, "We the People" ARE the government in this system, and if a genuine majority says it wants something, it should have it.

I wish Egypt well. Recent events there and in Tunisia may mark the beginning of something wonderful for the entire world.

Yet Another Modest Proposal

(and with still more apologies to Dean Jonathan Swift)

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Mr. Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Obama,

You are correct in asserting both that compromise is the heart of our system and that your job as president is to do what's best for all the American people. However, this deal you brokered with Republican leaders in Congress is neither a compromise nor in the best interests of the American people.

It may look like a compromise when people at both ends of the political spectrum in this country are angry about what's been done, but detailed analysis demonstrates that in this case, looks are deceiving. A compromise is typically defined as a "meeting in the middle," but this deal started out so far to the right of center that what in reality is the middle has been moved so far to the left as to seem dangerously radical. Look: the far right is going to be angry at you no matter how much you give, because they are not angry about the substance of the issues--they are angry that YOU, as a black man, are the president. Nothing you can do will change their anger, so you might as well stop trying to appease them. They deny that they are racists or bigots, but if what they say they want about fiscally responsible political leadership is true, they would have voted all the Republicans OUT off office this past November, not voted more of them in. The disconnect between their proclaimed beliefs and their behavior should be telling you something.

Many on the left, however, are angry at you because you are starting to the right of center, which makes an agreement truly embodying the center, by definition, impossible. We all know that progress is slow, that we can't always get what we want, and that real progress in this country typically happens incrementally. Your behavior since you took office has been to start at the true center and move to the right, however, unlike your soaring rhetoric of hope and change promised during your 2008 campaign. By starting where you've been starting in every discussion so far with the GOP, you aren't giving even incremental progress a chance. I know you're in a tough position, and I know you have an eye to history, but as a fellow academician, I also know that your instinct is to expect people to respond to reasonable behavior by behaving reasonably themselves. In politics, however, that doesn't happen.

Your assertion that you got the GOP to concede several benefits to ordinary Americans that the GOP wouldn't otherwise approve may be true, but is meaningless. A "compromise" that gives 13 months of bare-bones sustenance to the millions of Americans who are the long-term unemployed while bestowing additional billions on the already ultra-rich in this country for 24 months (if not longer--it seems clear that in 2012 we're going to have deja vu all over again about what's happened during the past few months)--billions that will be added to the entire nation's fiscal deficit--is emphatically NOT in the best interests of the American people as a whole. Several analyses of the other terms of this "compromise" say that it will actually increase the burdens on the already-strained middle class instead of helping them. And adding nearly a trillion dollars to the long-term deficit by extending the tax cuts to the ultra-rich does not help the 98% of the American people who have seen their true earning power and purchasing power stagnate (if not downright erode) over the past 40 years.

The ultra-rich seem to have forgotten (if they ever knew) that people without secure, well-paying jobs do not spend money, and since spending money is what drives our overall economic growth, you'd do better by giving no more than a pittance (at the most) to the ultra-rich and bestowing the bulk of your fiscal largesse on us "regular" people. When the economic crisis began, back in 2008, I said that a real economic stimulus plan would devote itself 100% to putting people to work on improving our infrastructure and putting money in our pockets, not to giving money to those who did not need it and who would not spend it. History has borne me out--the rich are even richer than they were when the crisis started, the big ("too big to fail") Wall Street firms are even bigger than they were before 2008, infrastructure improvements are not being done on a big enough or fast enough scale, and the rest of us have become in a real way invisible. Indeed, in 2008, if you simply would have handed a million dollars to every single American, you'd have done more to help the vast majority of us than the stimulus plan as passed ever could, while increasing the long-term deficit only about half as must as the actual stimulus plan did. But the GOP would never have stood for that. (Millionaires and billionaires must be kept a small, elite group. The vast majority of Americans need not apply.) And no, I am not saying by this that you should engage in a short-term, unwinnable political fight. I am calling on you to do in fact what you claim you were doing in the first place, to wit: looking out for the best interests of the American people as a whole.

Listen to and study everything Sen. Bernie Sanders said in his most powerful and fact-laden oratory of December 10th. He is exactly right about it all, but the oligarchic few with most of the money have the power to thwart the will of the real majority of Americans at every turn. You said yourself, correctly, that the vast majority of the American people were aligned with you about not extending tax breaks to the millionaires and billionaires. Yet you still gave in to GOP intransigence and signed off on this "compromise" that gives way more to the ultra-rich 2% than it does to the 98% rest of us. The ultra-rich and their allies were playing a cosmic game of "chicken" with you, Mr. President. You blinked first. There is still time, however, to undo the damage this "compromise" has done.

Before I make my "modest proposal," however, let me tell you a little bit about myself, so that you'll understand the strength of my conviction about my idea. I am a life-long non-smoker who got a lung disease; I now must have, around the clock, 6 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen just to function. At that rate, a portable oxygen tank lasts maybe 2-3 hours, so I am effectively prevented from working outside my home. My sole sources of income for the past several years have been approximately 1/3 of my ex-husband's military retirement pay and Social Security disability payments (note that my 3 highest years of earnings were when I lived outside the U.S. to be with my now ex-husband in connection with his military duties, and so my income from those years does not count toward my benefit, leaving me getting less than half the average disability payment). Because of the austerity measures you've already implemented, this will be the second year in a row that I have not had any COLA at all. However, my cost of living has increased measurably over that period, so in real terms, my income is declining, not staying steady.

Nevertheless, I think you should scuttle this "compromise" you made with the GOP and let ALL the Bush era tax cuts expire at the end of the year. Not only will that fulfill the promises that were made at the time those tax cuts were first enacted, it will restore some modicum of fiscal responsibility to the ultra-rich in this country. The Reagan/Clinton era tax rates (which are the ones that will return once the Bush era cuts expire) did not demand from them a true "fair share" of the burdens all Americans bear for their country. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes himself noted that "taxes are the price we pay for civilization." Thus, letting the Bush era cuts expire would be better than extending them for another 2 years (or more). And if letting the tax cuts for the middle class expire at the same time is the price we must pay, so be it. The cuts never made a huge difference to most of us, anyway, so ending them isn't going to make a noticeable difference in the other direction, either. The only thing that this "compromise" has done is to let us stall getting our fiscal house in order--again. Letting all the cuts expire in 20 days will be the wake-up call we need to start dealing with our real problems now, instead of sniping at each other while the problem gets bigger and bigger and bigger.

Extending unemployment benefits can be brought up as a stand-alone bill. House Speaker-elect John Boehner is on the record as having said--tellingly, before the deal you brokered with the GOP--that not even the GOP would fail to extend unemployment benefits at Christmastime. What would really do this nation good is to scuttle the "compromise," force a vote before the end of the lame-duck session on extending unemployment benefits alone, and talking to the American people about what the true costs to all of us will be of continuing to give in to the GOP's notion of "fiscal responsibility." If you don't, Dean Swift's "modest proposal" about solving the Irish problem may become applicable here.

Sincerely,

A Very Concerned Citizen

What's Wrong With This Picture?

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Let me get this straight. Americans are very unhappy with the state of the economy, the level of federal debt, and fiscal irresponsibility in general. The GOP has spent much of the past two years doing 3 things: (1) blocking the Obama administration's attempts to address these issues: (2) diluting to virtual ineffectiveness that which it could not block; (3) lying about the results when the dilutions didn't work and administration initiatives actually did a lot of good. Yet voters yesterday overwhelmingly gave the reins back to the GOP, largely on the grounds that "the country was moving in the wrong direction." Huh?!?!

I take no comfort in the fact that most of the craziest of the crazies (Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Carl Palladino, and Joe Miller--though that last is not yet official) went down to sound defeats. A full third of the voters yesterday still voted for those textbook examples of nuttiness.

And the official pronouncements of those GOP members poised to take over say with one voice that their first goal is to repeal the health care bill, the one they derisively have named "Obamacare." A bill which, admittedly, most people hate when asked about it as a whole, but which, when asked about it feature by feature, an overwhelming majority of people like.

The financial bailouts (which people say they hated and also cite as a reason for the way they voted yesterday) happened under President George W. Bush, REPUBLICAN, but voters yesterday also cited bailouts as one of the reasons they voted for the GOP to retake control of the US House of Representatives. Said voters also hated the alleged governmental take-overs of the US auto industry, but Ford didn't participate, and both GM and Chrysler have roared back to health, and the interest the government bought in those companies is already being sold, the companies having paid off their debts--ahead of schedule.

The level of federal debt owes at least a trillion dollars of its total to President Bush's (and a GOP-controlled Congress's) war spending, which the GOP kept off the books. It pre-existed the Obama administration, but because President Obama kept one of his promises by putting that debt back on the books--where it belonged in the first place--Obama is being blamed for excessive spending.

We are in the worst economic crisis we've seen since the days of the Great Depression, yet the stimulus package, as watered down and weak as the GOP could make it, has kept things from being much, much worse . . . and yet the perception is that the stimulus "failed." Or so the GOP keeps saying. If a lie is repeated long enough, it seems no longer to be a lie, I guess. So I say again, "Huh?!?!"

Wherever H.L. Mencken is, he's laughing his head off. I'm not laughing, however. I'm crying. We've just given the car keys back to the idiots who drove us into the ditch in the first place. The late 19th century has been dubbed "The Gilded Age." I suspect our current time may go down in history as "The Stupid Age."

The Two Most Basic Errors Of Libertarian Thought

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

US Senate candidate Rand Paul has been saying in public since at least 2002 that his Libertarian beliefs mean that while he personally would abhor anyone who ran his/her business by discriminating against others on the basis of race or skin color, the government should not be able to stop them from doing so, all for the sake of the sanctity of private property rights. So even though he says he supports the aims, goals, and passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if it had been up to him, the title in that act which ended the ability of businesses engaged in interstate commerce to discriminate would never even have come up for a vote, let alone get passed.

And this perfectly illustrates the first basic error in Libertarian thinking [and I use the term "thinking" loosely--Ed.]--for what it does is elevate the rights inherent in property ownership above and ahead of the rights of individuals. That is exactly backwards. Since the earliest days of the English common law, the rights of people have trumped the rights of property. While you are allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself [or someone else--Ed.] against the use or threat of deadly force against you, you most assuredly are NOT allowed to use deadly force to protect your property from someone posing a threat to it. And if you should choose to use deadly force to protect your property, you will be held responsible for the consequences of your actions, be it under criminal OR civil law. People matter the most under the law. Period.

It is also tempting to go into a long diatribe about how that's in essence the same objection to the entirety of "states' rights" claims, but I'll leave those details for another post. And even if my assertion technically were not true, the outcome of the US Civil War decided it contrary to the Libertarian/states'-righters position anyway. I raise the same argument to those who cite carefully selected excerpts from the Federalist Papers to support such views, by the way. Maybe some of the Founders did intend such topsy-turvy interpretations to be the law of the land. Nonetheless, the outcome of the Civil War [including the passage and ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments--Ed.] changed everything. We no longer live in an eighteenth-century, rural, locality-based world and economy. While the intent of the Founders is important to discern, it is literally impossible to implement 100% of that intent in the 21st century. I, for one, think the Founders would recognize that, were we able to ask them.

Thus the second basic error in Libertarian thinking: they have taken the adage, "the government that governs best, governs least" as their own, but too often have used it to force the government not so much to "govern least" as to "govern not at all." If they were pressed, I think most Libertarians would admit that at least SOME government is necessary. But they seem to have an abiding faith in either the notion that individuals will do the right thing or the notion that whatever anyone does is no one else's affair. The whole of human history illustrates the folly of both those notions.

I confess to having some sympathies favoring the Libertarians' position, at least in regard to an individual's right to privacy, but the absolutest stand most libertarians take against the role of government is impossible to implement in the real world. It would be anarchy. Let's face some facts: governments exist to do the things that people want or need to have done but which they cannot do by or for themselves. Setting out that framework is what the Founders intended in creating the Constitution in the first place. They had tried the much weaker Articles of Confederation, and scrapped that experiment as soon as practical experience with it showed that it was too weak to do what America needed to survive as an independent country.

No one will be in 100% agreement with anyone else 100% of the time. But without some framework that's sturdy enough to say what is to be done when disagreements arise, and to enforce that procedure on those who disagree issue by issue, there is no government but chaos. And chaos is no government. If you doubt this, consider the essential IN-action of the US Senate during most of the past year-and-a-third. Yes, some things, some important things, have been accomplished, but at what cost? In the US Senate, a minority of ONE can hold the will of the vast majority of American voters hostage . . . and for what? To protect British Petroleum from having to pay for the immense damage its own reckless behavior has caused? T'ain't right, Magee.

I confess to fearing I am on the losing, even though correct, side of this issue, the philosophy of governmental power. When I see US Supreme Court decisions such as the one in Citizens United, the campaign financing case, and I see people on all bands of the political spectrum nodding seriously and giving more than due consideration to the concept of "states' rights," I marvel at how such things could have come to pass in America. Have we learned nothing from the Civil War, the Great Depression, the paroxysms of the Sixties, and the other traumas we have suffered throughout our history? America today, with all its emphasis on corporate welfare and the rights of artificial "persons," evokes the melody of "The World Turned Upside Down" and the sarcastic observation in Animal Farm that "some are more equal than others." Yes, George Orwell was railing against communism, but his words are equally applicable to modern corporate power. Control and repression of the individual are the same whether the one doing the controlling is Stalin or Goldman Sachs.

One Quick Question

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has raised a loud voice decrying the lack of federal involvement and initiative in cleaning up the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the oil spill that is now fouling Louisiana's precious and fragile coastal marshlands. Governor Jindal is a Republican. Governor Jindal delivered the GOP response to President Obama's first address to Congress after Obama's election (the non-State-of-the-Union State of the Union speech). Governor Jindal in that response decried the overreaching scope of federal government and said we need less government in our lives, not more.

What's wrong with this picture?

I Don't Care If It's the First Act of Henry V

Yes, that's the punch line to the old joke about recognizing "the last act of a desperate man." I hope that will be history's take on the continued uproar by the self-styled Tea Partiers and the entire spectrum of far-right nut jobs. I haven't seen such a spate of juvenile name-calling and bullying since junior high school . . . only this is even scarier, because this time the bullies have guns.

The behavior and tactics of these people [and I use the term both loosely and advisedly--Ed] consist of willful denial of facts, delivered loudly, and now not just overt threats of violence [anyone remember the Tea Party rally sign "We came unarmed--this time"?--Ed], but actual incidents of brick-throwing and other acts of violence against their perceived opponents, including increasingly overt threats involving guns.

To its great shame, the "mainstream" wing of the GOP has been encouraging this increasingly apocalyptic reaction. Sarah Palin has tweeted her followers that it's "time to reload" and has posted a map online targeting selected Democratic-Party-held House seats through gun sight cross hairs. This must stop before we wind up with a totally Balkanized nation. Palin and her ilk can disavow overt acts of violence all they want, but whether they admit it or not, they are morally responsible for encouraging the hyper-extremists in their increasingly unstable behavior.

I try to comfort myself with the knowledge, based on history, that this is what always happens when the forces of reaction realize they are losing 100% control of any given situation. It's akin to the notion that the darkest hour is just before the dawn. But the race to the bottom seems to be not just on, but in full swing. I am afraid that this time there will be even darker hours before that new dawn breaks.

Cough, Choke, Wheeze, HACK!

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

The US Representative for the 2nd District of Nebraska, Lee Terry (R), announced last week that he's running for re-election--again. This will be his seventh campaign, so he's held the seat for 12 years and wants to keep it for at least two more. I make special note of the length of time he's been in Congress for two reasons:

(1) When he ran the first time, and in his first two (or so) re-election bids, he flat-out promised that he would "serve" no longer than he'd be able to under a term-limits law, which he said at the time was a maximum of three or four terms at the most. He said he'd not keep running even if no term-limits law were ever actually passed. No term-limits law ever was passed . . . but he's still there. You do the math.

(2) The article in the Omaha World-Herald announcing the opening of Terry's most recent re-election bid headlined the puff piece by saying Terry was going to continue to work to accomplish "core issues." Well, if he hasn't gotten anything accomplished toward implementing his core issues in the last 12 years, why in the world should he be given another two?

My problem with him is that he's a total party hack. He spouts the GOP line chapter and verse, and just ignores facts that contradict the lies he's spreading. I can live with "my" Representative in the House being of a different political party--hell, I have lived with it, for far too long, frankly. But whomever "my" Representative is, I wish fervently that he or she would have a brain and USE it instead of being a corporate ventriloquist's dummy.

There Is No Joy In Huskerville

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Before last night's Big XII Championship Game between the University of Nebraska Cornhuskers, winners of the Big XII North division, and the University of Texas Longhorns, winners of the Big XII South division (undefeated, and consensus #2 NCAA Division IA team in the nation after Alabama upset Florida yesterday), the general attitude in these parts was that Texas would probably win, though it was going to be closer than most national pundits would expect. And that's exactly what happened. Texas won the game 13-12, coming from behind with a 38-yard field goal with literally only one second on the clock.

So why does everyone in Husker Nation this morning feel rotten? Probably because two Nebraska errors (one poor execution, one 15-yard penalty) in the last one-and-a-half minutes (or so) of the game are the only reasons Texas was in a position to win at all. Nebraska scored a field goal to take the lead, 12-10 with about 1:40 left on the game clock. On the ensuing kick-off, instead of burying Texas deep in its own half of the field, the NU kicker flubbed it, and the ball went out of bounds short, giving Texas excellent field position near its own 40 yard line. And then a Nebraska defensive back, in trying to minimize the damage of a nineteen-yard-plus passing
gain by Texas, made a horse collar tackle on the receiver . . . giving Texas another 15 yards on top of the gain, and another first down.

A couple of plays later, Texas QB Colt McCoy stopped the clock by throwing an incomplete pass so that there was only 1 second left on the official game clock--a play that had to be reviewed because several (including ALL the Cornhuskers) thought time had actually run out and Nebraska had won.

As it was, the Texas kicker was less than a yard away from missing the kick wide to the left. And at least 2 NU defenders were within inches of getting their hands on the ball and deflecting the kick.

The loss feels so especially awful because it's a classic case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. No one gave NU a serious chance in the game. The Huskers were a 14-point (if not more) underdog. And they came out firing on all cylinders, because they seemed to realize they had nothing to lose and everything to gain. On their first offensive series, they went for it on 4th-and-1. They didn't make it, but they were fairly deep in Texas' territory, and it sure sent the message to the Longhorns that the Huskers were not intimidated and that they'd come to play.

The old saying that "offense wins games but defense wins championships" is true . . . to a point. Defense can get you close to winning championships, but you have to score more points than the other guy to win. The Husker defense did its job. It held the vaunted Texas offense, which until last night had averaged 43 points per game, to only one touchdown. But NU's offense has had its ups--and downs--all season long. The most common term I've heard to describe the offense is "non-existent." They couldn't score even one touchdown against Texas last night. I do not mean to diss the Longhorns' defense. They are excellent--among the top 5 in the nation. But the Huskers had plenty of chances. They just couldn't capitalize on them, be it due to interceptions, penalties (some of dubious merit), or some questionable play calling.

I thought it was brilliant that NU head coach Bo Pelini put All-Universe defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh in as a fullback on more than one key third down play. I do not think it was brilliant that Suh was used as a blocker for the ball carrier in those situations. The entire Texas defensive line keyed on Suh--I can but wonder what would have happened had the Huskers put Suh in, let Texas go after him, and run the ball carrier on a counter, up the other side of the field. Methinks THAT would have gotten the Huskers some serious offensive yardage, as long as they didn't run such a play more than twice.

So the Huskers finished their regular season at 9-4, which would have been unthinkably awful 10 years ago, but is an improvement after the debacle of the Pederson-Callahan years. And the season could have been much better than that. They could have beaten Virginia Tech (lost by only one point, again, on a last minute bit of brilliance by Tech); they should have beaten both Iowa State (lost that game by 2 points after making a record-setting 8 offensive turnovers) AND Texas (as we've just discussed). The only superlatively bad game they had was the blowout they suffered at the hands of Texas Tech. Still, coach Bo Pelini and his staff have done well in this, only their second season.

The moral of the story is that having some hope often feels worse than having none. With some hope, one can be tormented by the "coulda, woulda, shoulda"s. With no hope, there are NO "coulda, woulda, shoulda"s. With some hope, even a loss that everyone else said was inevitable feels worse than a loss when there never was any chance to win. A loss like last night's leaves one feeling that "we wuz robbed!" even though that's not what happened. Putting that one second back on the clock was the correct call, as the replay showed. Besides, blaming the loss on that last play is like everyone bleating about how the GOP stole Florida in the 2000 presidential election. What happened in Florida would have been 100% irrelevant to the outcome if Al Gore had only managed to win his own home state of Tennessee. Had the final Huskers' kick off put Texas deep in its own territory, even if the horse collar tackle had still happened and been penalized, Texas most probably would not have been able to get close enough to try that last-second field goal in the first place.

Let's just hope that the Huskers learn the right lessons from this season's ups and downs, and that Pelini works as hard and as diligently on preparing the offense for next year as he did the defense for this one. Oh, and that the Huskers win big in their upcoming bowl game.

Is This What Obama Is Really Up To?

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

I have struggled, mightily (for the past several weeks especially), to figure out why the heck President Obama is being so passive about his stated goal of passing real health care reform to fulfill a promise he made to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Even more, I've tried to figure out why the heck the president has backpedalled so much on all the other major promises we thought he made during last year's election campaign. The Justice Department is going to investigate not the people who violated our Constitution and laws by authorizing the use of torture and other crimes--it's going to investigate ONLY those who violated even the illegally-relaxed standards the Bush Administration put in place to begin with.

Even though he got the total dollar amount he said he wanted in the economic stimulus bill, Obama allowed 40% of that total to be calculated by tax cuts--cuts that are much more responsible for the truly horrific deficit numbers we're facing than would be anything engendered by passing health care reform which includes the public option.

Obama said he was going to get us out of Iraq and close the Guantanamo Bay detention facilities by the end of this year--and he's trying, but the process has been slower and less comprehensive than expected. He said he was going to undo the previous administration's excessive claims of executive power, but his administration has been, to date, just as secretive and arrogant as his predecessor's in terms of not releasing White House visitors' lists, using executive signing statements, and arguing FOR Bush administration positions in legal suits brought against the government for violations of the Constitution and laws of this land.

The president is maintaining his stand that the Afghanistan war is the necessary one, which he will prosecute to a successful conclusion . . . even though many experts are now saying that our initial reasons for that war [getting Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida, for example--Ed.], while correct at the time, have been rendered moot by events, and that maybe it's time to pull out . . . instead of doing an Afghan version of the Iraq War surge, which seems to be his current intention.

None of it has made sense to me, especially given my impression that President Obama has a tremendous grasp of politics as "the art of the possible." In every instance I've cited, he's settling for much less than what's possible. He has tried to hang this on the desire to change the way things work in Washington, to promote real bipartisanship. The problem with that notion, however, is that the other side has to be willing to play--and so far, the GOP has not only been not willing to play, it's decided that naked political advantage is more important than what's really in the best interests of the country, which is paralyzing the process even more than it had been before Obama was inaugurated.

But I think I finally figured it out. Now that Ted Kennedy has been laid to rest along side his brothers Bobby and John, Obama's policy backpedalling and missteps have got all three of them rolling over in their graves--at so many RPMs that all Obama has to do is hook up 3 sets of jumper cables from Arlington National Cemetery to the nation's power grid, and: Lo! Behold! Our nation's energy crisis has been solved . . . for free!

I usually agree that any bill or other governmental action that disappoints the extremists on both ends will, as a rule, succeed. By definition, it has found the middle ground, that vast, blessed area wherein most of us live. However, the preceding 8 years tilted things so far to the far right that just getting back to the center is going to keep things tilted too far over to the right. [You want proof? GOP legislators are trying to undo Reagan-era laws and regulations because even they are "too restrictive"--Ed.]

Count me among the incredibly disappointed in the behavior of the Obama administration to date. I still think it's a far sight better than anything the GOP has to offer, but that, too, will be rendered moot if the GOP manages to prove that outright lies, when shouted often and loud enough, still control the terms of the debate. It's time for this administration to start fighting fire with fire. Obama so far has been acting like most of us are educated and intelligent and will do the right thing . . . but the ones with their hands on the real money in this country, the ones who don't want to give up even one penny for the greater good, have discovered that they can exploit the fears and hatreds of just enough of us to stymie the rest of us.

Unless, of course, the president starts showing some real leadership. Bill Maher was right--as much as he hates Dubya's policies, he admires Dubya's backbone and single-minded purpose in sticking with his plans no matter what anyone else said. Obama needs to show some more of that to be the leader those of us who voted for him hoped for and expected that he would be.

You Can Kiss That Good-Bye

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

United States Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) died late last night, according to a statement released by his family early today.

The ironies of Kennedy's life and death are many. He, who was very, very rich, championed the causes of the less-well-off. He, the youngest son of his generation of "America's Royal Family," of whom little was expected until his older brothers died or had been assassinated, had the most direct and lasting impact (through all the legislation he worked for over the decades) on America. He cared about reforming America's broken health care system; he died of a brain tumor. He was expected by his family to "carry the torch" and become president [which he didn't want to do, and which explains all the stupid things he did over the years to sabotage himself . . . --Ed.], but the most important thing he did towards the end of his life was pass that torch to Barack Obama.

I am hoping against hope that the current health care reform bill, with the public option, will pass--and quickly--as a tribute to the "Lion of the Senate." After all, it was his most cherished cause. I fear, however, that Kennedy's death means the end of any shot meaningful health care reform for the foreseeable future.

I've read any number of online comments about the news, and the haters are out in force. The venom spewing from "the people" is, frankly, not just vile, but shocking. I'll bet if you asked most of those hatemongers if they considered themselves to be good Christians, they'd say "of course." In a heartbeat. And never see the contradiction between their behavior and their expression of faith.

John and Robert Kennedy both appealed to Americans' better natures--they encouraged us to strive, to be better, and to do better. Ted Kennedy spent his life and his time putting those aspirations into effect for the benefit of all of us. I am ashamed that so many Americans see fit to spit on his life and his work, especially so since he did the work he did for them and their benefit--whether they are capaple of or willing to recognizing it or not.

Count Me Among The Somewhat Disappointed

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

I just listened to President Obama's prepared remarks and answers to questions at an Organizing For America event that was held in Washington DC and streamed over the Internet. As always, I continue to be amazed at how comfortable the president is in his own skin; how he's not afraid to engage in a little pointed humor; and how he speaks clearly and directly--and gives a straight answer to a straight question. Most of the time.

My biggest concern about the current health care reform legislation is that no reform that passes without including the so-called "public option" will have sufficient teeth to put the bite on the current excesses of the private, for profit, health insurers and the other big industry insiders (like the pharmaceutical companies) which have raked in obscene profits while literally bankrupting hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans.

But the president will not commit to the public option. He says "it's important" but that it's "only one component of real health care reform." From everything I know about the issue, and presuming that a true single-payer system is not even on the table, however, the public option seems to be the sine qua non, the linchpin, the very foundation for all the other reforms he's advocating.

So why won't he just come out and commit to it? In the past, I have expressed great admiration for his grasp of politics as "the art of the possible." I still hold that to be true. I think, however, that he's being overly cautious in his estimation of what is, in fact, possible. I cannot escape the suspicion that on this issue, the American public is way, WAY ahead of everyone in Washington. I have seen reported the results of poll after poll after poll, all showing that over 76% of Americans support the public option when its terms are described accurately. On the other hand, several other credible polls show that as the dog days of August have come and gone, public support for the "public option," when called by that name, is decreasing.

Maybe the problem really is with the term "public option." Maybe the powers that be, the ones which do not wish to see their profits drop even one red cent, have managed to poison the well. Maybe they've so polluted the waters about what a "public option" is that the president is trying to get away from the term while retaining its substance. Or maybe I'm just blowing smoke--though I doubt it. I'm a lifelong non-smoker, remember?

My own experiences with both the public and private health care industries have taught me that all the alleged dangers of the public option are already occurring at the hands of private, for-profit insurers. And that the public option [assuming that it will be structured similarly to Medicare, as the currently-proposed legislation has it--Ed.], while capable of wrongfully denying coverage, at least will have an appeals process in place--which may be slow, but will be unbiased. Wrongfully denied coverage decisions can be overturned. Furthermore, you can't be held liable for paying for the costs of the treatment(s) in question while your appeal is in process. Nor will you lose your coverage, either because of your condition or because of your appeal.

As it is now, however, if your private insurer drops you, you're dropped. Period. Yes, there are steps to appeal that you can take, but they are not just slow--they are expensive. The insurers can afford to wait you out. Assume that you have something seriously wrong with you that is treatable, but expensive [and note that the longer it goes untreated, the worse and more expensive both it and its treatment will get--Ed.], and your coverage is denied. You can choose to appeal, and spend whatever other funds you have on the costs of pursuing that. Or you can choose to pay out of pocket for the medical treatments you need and forgo any appeal--you will never get reimbursed for what you spent on treatments for wrongfully-denied claims, by the way. Or, if you can't afford either of those options, you can just spend what little money you have on your everyday expenses, and die while that which was dire, but treatable, becomes fatal due to the lack of treatment and care you were wrongfully denied in the first place.

Let's face it: all that insurance is, is a wager. Further, you are betting on yourself to lose, for that's what will trigger the release of funds from the insurer. [Why do I suddenly hear Beck singing "I'm a loser, baby, so why don't you kill me"?--Ed] And the bet is rigged, for even if you lose, the insurer always has tons o' fine print to cite to justify its refusal to pay your claim. We are collectively being had, people. It's not just time for a change; it's overdue for a change.

But is a real change going to happen? I wonder, when I hear the president saying only that the private option is "important." I know his motive is to encourage both political parties to work together to find solutions. And while I agree that bipartisanship is a worthy goal, I also recognize that it isn't going to happen unless both sides want to play. Right now, the GOP seems more concerned with doing everything it can to mess up the Obama administration's efforts for the sake of its own presupposed electoral gains next year than it seems concerned with doing what is really in the best interests of America's citizens--all of us.

I just hope I'm the only one falling victim to issue fatigue, and that there are still plenty of people out there with the health, the strength, the energy, the vision, and the will to see genuine and substantial health care reform enacted. Because if I'm not the only one succumbing to issue fatigue, we're all SOL.

Some Man Wrote That Editorial

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

I was reading the editorials in today's Omaha World-Herald, a paper whose editors frequently make Attila the Hun look like a reasonable person, when the following (reproduced in its entirety) caught my eye:

It was a strange scene when U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer of California cried foul during a recent congressional hearing. Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh referred to her as "ma'am" during his testimony, and she pointedly directed him to refer to her as "Senator."

In this age when a traditionalist mind-set sometimes collides awkwardly with a progressive one, the term "ma'am" has become an oddly divisive term in certain situations.

To many progressives such as Sen. Boxer, the term evidently is a symbol of retrograde thinking, a throwback to the day when married women went dutifully by their husband's name ("Mrs. John Smith").

To Gen. Walsh on the other hand, the term "ma'am" was merely one common in formal military usage.

In any case, the general's intention clearly was to show respect. By no means did he deserve such a hard-edged, public reprimand.

Although the taste of self-righteousness was no doubt satisfying to Sen. Boxer, it is excessive for a U.S. senator to make such a show of taking offense when obviously none was intended.

On such matters, the senator should beware of leaping to be so judgmental. It would help if she would raise her consciousness and devote more energy to appreciating cultural diversity.

There are so many errors of logic in this that it is difficult for me to know where to begin. One thing I will admit up front: I did not see the hearing in question, so I have no idea whether the World-Herald editor's description of the event is even accurate.

Is it possible that Sen. Boxer had, at some point prior [either before the proceedings began or earlier during them--Ed.] politely asked the general not to use "ma'am" and he ignored her request, which caused her to make the more pointed comments she made (presuming the editorial recounting is correct)?

Is it possible that the editor's description of the incident is not totally accurate? One person's upbraiding is another's mild request--especially when it's a woman speaking to a man.

What would the World-Herald editor have said if the tables were turned? I have had the personal experience of being excoriated by a judge for calling him "sir" instead of "Your Honor." But the judge was an older, white, male, in charge of the proceedings, and I was merely a participant, the child and spouse of career Air Force members, trying my darnedest to be polite, but getting the protocol wrong. No one thought the judge was out of line. Maybe Sen. Boxer wasn't, either.

How does the World-Herald editor know that "no disrespect was intended"? Did the editor call the general and ask? Words reduced to writing and descriptions of events (once reduced to paper) have an odd habit of sounding neutral. Why, this is the very stuff of diplomacy, to say the meanest thing in the nicest way, so that the other diplomats get the point but the general public does not. The editor was awfully quick to ascribe noble motives to the general and evil ones to Sen. Boxer. Maybe she didn't intend any disrespect, either, but she just wasn't as subtle about making her point as the general apparently was in making his.

Besides, even though "ma'am" is a term "common in formal military usage," the general was not in a military setting. In this country, the civilian authority controls the military. Hasn't the World-Herald editorial staff ever heard of "When in Rome, do as Romans do"? He was testifying before Congress. Yes, he is a military officer speaking in his official capacity. But he is speaking to his employers, the American people, via their elected civilian representatives. His military duty is to show them the respect THEY expect, not force them to accept his version of same.

Of course, the key to the entire snide little piece is the use of the word "evidently." Using it lets the editor ascribe all sorts of nasty motives to Sen. Boxer, yet deny nefarious purpose because the editor was only "speculating." He doesn't really know. Since many people do not read editorials with the skeptical care they should, they forget the "evidently" and go on about their lives believing that Sen. Boxer is a bad, bad, bad--liberal--bad, bad human being. Even if that's not "technically" what the editorial said.

The editor even got careless: "married women went dutifully by their husband's name"? Unless the World-Herald offices are a hotbed of fundamentalist Mormonism, it should have said "married women went dutifully by their husbands' names." Good grief! The World-Herald could use some better copy editors.

Not to mention that the closing line about "cultural diversity" is entirely irrelevant, and contradictory to the main point of the editor's comments. He was defending the use of traditional terminology by a traditional wielder of power against the exercise of a protest to same by a female, non-traditional wielder of power--who actually was the one in charge in that situation. The only cultural diversity the World-Herald seems to accept is the cultural diversity of white males.

The World-Herald editorial staff could do much worse than to take its own advice: "Although the taste of self-righteousness was no doubt satisfying . . ., it is excessive . . . to make such a show of taking offense when obviously none was intended. On such matters, [one] should beware of leaping to be so judgmental."

You may ask me why, when it exasperates me so much, I continue to read the World-Herald's editorial tripe. All I can say is, "keep your friends close--but keep your enemies closer."

Still, I may have to quit reading the paper in any event. I don't know how much more of its official hypocrisy and stupidity my blood pressure can stand.

Gross. Simply Gross.

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who was missing for about 5 days, finally reappeared yesterday and admitted he was in Argentina, seeing the woman with whom he has been having an affair. His wife was not at his side as he held his confessional press conference. Indeed, it turns out that she had known about the affair and had asked him two weeks ago to move out of their home.

Bad enough that he, a conservative Republican, trashed his marriage vows. Bad enough that he was away from his four sons over Father's Day weekend. Bad enough that he didn't tell anyone on his staff how to reach him. [And worse, that his staff felt compelled to make up a story that he was hiking in the Appalachians to cover.--Ed.]

Worse, that he was so cavalier about his official duties and responsibilities as governor. Worst of all, that he used public resources to travel to his tryst.

Failing to turn executive power over to his lieutenant governor while he was not just out of the state, not just out of the country, but on a different continent, amounts to gross dereliction of official duty. His use of a state police escort vehicle to get to Atlanta's Hart International Airport so he could fly off to satisfy his ____________________--you fill in the blank: lust, emotional vacuum, ego, whatever--amounts to misappropriation of public funds. It also raises the question of how his plane tickets and the other incidental expenses of his travel were paid for. And not just on this occasion, but on prior trips he apparently made to be with his lady-love.

Not to mention the several questions his leaked email love letters raise: did he send them while he was supposed to be in his office, seeing to South Carolina's business? From which computer(s)? On a public account or a personal one?

In short: who was minding the store?

Sanford has resigned his chairmanship of the Republican National Governors' Association [apologies if I did not get the name of that august body exactly right--Ed.]. He has not expressed any intent to resign the governorship, however. Indeed, he's implied he won't, saying that now that the truth is out, "let the chips fall where they may."

Well, if he does not resign, he ought to be impeached, convicted, and removed from office. Not for the affair per se, as disgusting as it is. After all, Sanford belongs to the party that claims to be THE defender of family values and morality in this country. [The hypocrisy of that stand is a topic for another day.--Ed]

No, not for the affair per se. But for the gross dereliction of his official duties, and his cavalier use of publicly-paid for, government-owned resources to do it--YES, absolutely.

One wonders what the next instance of governmental self-destruction will be. Lord knows, there's more than enough to go around for members of both major parties.

Still More Lack Of Clarity On The Concept

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

In Wausau, Wisconsin, a woman was just convicted of negligent homicide. She and her husband and her prayer group did not seek medical help while her ll-year-old daughter lay dying . . . until it was too late. The woman's husband, who is scheduled in July to face trial on the same charges, decried the verdict and claimed this meant the end of freedom of religion in America. He says he'll appeal the case all the way to the US Supreme Court if necessary.

Here's a small news flash: the man is wrong. Freedom of religion has not died in America. In America, anyone is free to believe--or not--as s/he wishes. What anyone is NOT free to do is to endanger someone else's life while acting out those beliefs. There exist an uncounted number of Supreme Court decisions over the decades which establish that. The most famous case, the first one taught to law school freshmen, is the infamous "snake-handling" case. A particular stripe of fundamentalist Christians believed that handling poisonous snakes was a necessary part of their religious service, a demonstration of their faith that God would not let them suffer harm. The Supremes said the believers were perfectly free to believe that handling poisonous snakes was a necessary demonstration of their faith, but they were not free to do it. For one thing, children were present. For another, the snakes could escape and put non-believers at risk. Not to mention the risks to any medical personnel who would be called to the scene if a church member were, in fact, bitten.

In short, the Court determined that there was a larger, overriding public good in preventing the church members from putting their beliefs into action. They were still free to hold their beliefs; they just were not free to endanger themselves or others to act them out.

What appals me most about this Wisconsin case is that any attorney would raise the smokescreen of "freedom of religion" as a defense. It has been thoroughly repudiated by an unbroken string of Supreme Court precedents. Yes, every defendant is entitled to make the state prove its case. Yes, every defendant is entitled to the most zealous representation possible. But to take money for using such a thoroughly rejected argument borders on the unethical. Once again, the attorneys are unclear on the concept. "Zealous representation" is NOT the same as "going along with whatever your client says s/he wants." Sometimes, "zealous representation" means making the realities of the situation plain to the client, and working out the best possible plea bargain.

Still, I shouldn't be surprised that so much fuzzy thinking is still going on in the world of the law. After all, the governors of several states are suddenly talking about secession again. Excuse me for throwing water on you, governors, but the Civil War established once and for all time that secession is not an option in the American system of government. You lost. One-hundred-and-fifty years ago. Get over it, already!

But why do I waste my electronic ink pointing out such obvious truths? I keep hoping that reason and rationality will win the day. However, there are too many people out there who do not want to be confused with the facts, as they have already made up their minds. I understand from the published quotes of several Republican politicians and fund-raisers that they've already put together a package condemning whomever President Obama nominates to replace retiring Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter. They're just waiting to fill in the name.

If that's a joke, it's not funny--for any number of reasons. Despite the oblique reference to Groucho Marx in Horse Feathers ("Whatever it is, I'm against it!"), it's not funny. Despite the ludicrous implication that everyone Obama nominates will have the identical and specific set of negatives to expose, it's not funny. Despite that fact that it makes a mockery of the US Senate's duty to investigate and confirm (or reject) presidential nominees, it's not funny. Despite the fact that the GOP claim to be ready to do battle was said with a perfectly straight face, it's not funny.

Then again, these are the same people who think they lost last November because the GOP was not far enough to the right. They've completely lost sight of reality. Reality is that no one who cannot attract moderate and independent voters can win a national election in this day and age.

So the GOP is flushing itself down the proverbial toilet. But that's not funny, either. That the party of Lincoln has sunk to this is just plain sad.

Really Unclear On The Concept

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

So the GOP is trying to change the subject--again. Instead of recognizing that "who knew what, when" is a problem for the entire country when it comes to waterboarding, Republicans in Congress are trying to taint Democrats with the same dirty brush. "They knew and they did nothing, so leave us alone!" seems to be the gist of their defense and their justification for what truly is unjustifiable.

News flash: this is NOT about partisan politics. It is about the good of the entire nation. As far as I'm concerned, any Democrats who knew that waterboarding was going on and who did nothing about it are just as guilty as the Dubya Administration toadies who authorized it and used it. Those Democrats, too, should be punished for their transgressions of the law and of treaties to which the US is a signatory.

Period.

So stop trying to change the subject; stop trying to skew the discussion; stop trying to argue that since "everybody else knew," it's not wrong. Face up to facts, and let all the facts come out. And let EVERYBODY who shares responsibility face the consequences of their actions--or non-actions, as the case may be.

Idiots.

Mr. President, You're Wrong Again

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

News reports this morning say that President Obama has decided to change his mind and not release additional photos of detainees being tortured at Abu Ghraib. Back in February, he said he would release the photos, but now, his administration is going to fight their release.

I understand the shrewdness of his move from a political standpoint. Federal courts have uniformly ordered (in prior cases) that such photos be released. He's going to lose in court, and the photos will be published widely. In the meantime, however, he curries favor with those segments of our body politic which did not at all like his release of the CIA's torture memos. He also can tell US soldiers that he stands in solidarity with them.

So for him, it's a win-win. But as a matter of principle, it looks B-A-D. And some principles should never be compromised, period. "We will die as a nation, to preserve who we are." The minute we start compromising on who we are, we have killed ourselves and that which makes America unique in all the world's history. And then the terrorists have won, indeed.

Distressed Signals

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

I was saddened last year when John Edwards abandoned his bid for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. I was sickened to learn of his betrayal of his wife, Elizabeth, by having an affair while Elizabeth was battling resurgent breast cancer. I am distressed and disgusted to learn that Edwards is now being investigated for misusing campaign funds.

I still think Edwards has some marvelous ideas. He was the only candidate from either major party who had the guts to make eradicating poverty the centerpiece of his campaign. Having failed to become the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, he'd have made a fine Attorney General. He understands how the rich manipulate the legal system for their own ends; he'd have been a wonder at cleaning up the mess in the Department of Justice that Dubya's minions made.

Still, on balance, I am angry with him. His confession of his affair literally made his wife sick. [I can identify with that, even though my then-husband didn't have the guts to tell me to my face. Elizabeth Edwards said she felt as though she was going to vomit when John told her what he'd done. I couldn't walk into what had been my husband's and my bedroom for nearly a year after he left--with no advance warning to me, by the way--without puking. Good thing the bathroom was only 3 or 4 steps behind me.--Ed.] It destroyed his credibility and availability to participate in the Obama administration. It made it too easy for enemies of his ideas to trash the ideas because of who said them, not because of their own merits or demerits. It also made it impossible for Elizabeth to take a leading role in the upcoming fight for health care reform. She would have been a powerful and extremely effective voice for change.

People have commented that what Edwards did in his personal life was no one's business but his and his wife's, and that they still want him to participate in public service. I wish I could agree. The problem I keep running into is that I cannot trust him anymore. Anyone who is so callous and so careless with the number one most important thing in his life cannot be trusted with the leadership of the nation in any capacity. First, it shows incredible arrogance. Second, it shows a dangerous lack of judgment. Third, it shows a total lack of discretion. Fourth, it distracts everyone from what should be our focus: making America "America" again. Fifth, it gives tons of ammunition to the enemies of reform. Sixth, and most importantly, it is downright dangerous. If you want to know how someone will behave at crunch time on the big issues, watch how s/he handles the "small," private things that no one is supposed to notice. Once you start taking shortcuts in small things, it becomes easier and easier to take shortcuts with big things . . . and eventually, you'll have no credibility or honor left.

I've often said I have the sort of luck that keeps me from jaywalking, even at 4 a.m. on a deserted street. For as sure as I stepped off the curb in the middle of the block and against the light at the intersection, a police car would come out of nowhere and I'd be busted. Rightfully. However, as long as I do not jaywalk at 4 a.m., even on a deserted street, no one will notice. But the law won't be broken.

To put it another way, "If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll ask for a glass of milk." The character that people reveal by their behavior in the "small" things is the same character that will drive their behavior in the big things. I don't wish John Edwards any ill. I hope he is found not guilty of misappropriating campaign funds. But I won't be surprised if my hopes are dashed. And then I'll be angry all over again--for what's really driving my anger is the way his selfishness torpedoed his chances to do good for the whole country.

The Cow May Be Laughing, But I'm Not

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Are you familiar with the brand of cheese called "Laughing Cow"? I frequently wonder whether it was the inspiration for the California Happy Cow advertising campaign. But that's neither here nor there, at least not this morning. I heard a news report about Nebraska US House Representative Lee Terry (R) that inspired the title of this post.

First, a little background. Lee Terry represents my district in the US Congress--more correctly, he represents the rightmost of the right wing voters in my district. [When called to account for his stand on any particular issue, even when the illogic of his position is pointed out to him in the most polite, most rational way, his answer is essentially "I'm right and you're wrong--get over yourself. I represent the people who voted for me, not people like you."--Ed.] Note that this district comprises the metropolitan Omaha area, the most urban area of Nebraska. That's not to say that there are no farmers in this district; there are many--but when compared to the rest of the state, metro Omaha is like New York City compared to the Australian Outback.

Terry initially won office on what he said was an ironclad promise to enact term limits, and to abide by them even if Congress didn't enact them. When it was time for him to fulfill his promise, however, he reneged. He spouts the far-right GOP line on every issue like an automaton. He takes more advantage of the franking process than anyone else in Congress I've ever seen, and most of the mail he sends touts his allegedly starring role in all GOP pet projects, whether his role was microscopic or less. He runs dirty, negative election and reelection campaigns. He is nothing but a hack.

So imagine my lack of surprise when he tried to grab attention after the EPA announced its finding that excessive greenhouse gas emissions are dangerous to humans. He had the gall to question EPA administrators as to whether the EPA's stand meant that the EPA would now regulate methane emissions from cattle. It is true that cattle are the single largest source of methane emissions on the face of this earth. It is also true that he asked his question in a relatively [for him--Ed.] mild tone, indicating perhaps a bit of lightheartedness. It is also true that the cattle industry is a big deal in Nebraska.

But really, now! The EPA's guideline says "excessive." By definition, what cattle emit cannot be excessive. Cattle emit what they emit. And what's it to Terry, anyway? He represents an overwhelmingly URBAN area. You'd think he'd be glad the EPA was doing something that will ultimately improve the quality of the air in urban areas by reducing what belches from our vehicles and factories and power plants . . . But no--he had to go and ask an idiotic-on-its-face question, and one irrelevant coming from him, to boot. So the stereotype of Nebraska as a state full of rural rubes and hicks is reinforced.

The female EPA administrator [whose name I did not catch--my apologies to her and to anyone reading this--Ed.] answered Terry's question with a decency and grace I admit I could not have mustered. Kudos to her. But as for Terry? I'm not laughing. He embodies the worst of Nebraska politics. Back in the Seventies, Nebraska US Senator Carl Curtis responded to an objection about one of President Nixon's Supreme Court nominees by asking what was wrong with mediocrity. "After all, mediocre people need representation, too."

Where have you gone, William Jennings Bryan?

Mr. Obama, With All Due Respect, You Are Wrong

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

You said yourself, Mr. President, that violations of the law must be punished. Yes, you said it about North Korea and in connection with Kim Jong Il's launch of what he said was a communications satellite and everyone else in the world thinks is a long-range ballistic missile. [Just as well that the launch failed despite Kim's claim that North Korea now has a satellite in space playing patriotic songs.--Ed.]

So why aren't your words equally true when the violators are here at home and what they've violated is our own Constitution?

You taught Constitutional Law, for heaven's sake!

You need to get back on track in a hurry and have the Department of Justice investigate and prosecute the Bush Administration people who broke our most fundamental laws--no matter how high or with whom in the prior administration the responsibility rests. You were wrong when you voted in the Senate for giving the telecoms immunity for having enabled warrantless wiretaps of Americans in the US. You are wrong now for saying that we must look forward, not backward. You are also wrong now for letting the government's attorneys claim in court that the need for "state secrets" is even broader than anything the Bush Administration considered proposing.

America will never get its house in order and regain its moral stature in the world's eyes, no matter how careful and skillful your diplomacy, until we clean up the mess at home. Sweeping it all under the rug isn't going to cut it. [Pun intended.--Ed.]

Please reconsider. This isn't a matter of "liberal vs. conservative." It's all interconnected, the same way your brilliant push for infrastructure modernization, turning to a truly green energy economy, and reforming health care are all vital parts of the solution to our current economic crisis.

This is a matter of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution--of fulfilling the oath you swore when you were inaugurated. It's necessary to live up to the promise of what makes America unique. In that regard, claiming we need to punish North Korea while ignoring the criminals amongst us is idiotic. North Korea, if it ever does get one of those missiles to work, may destroy us physically--but letting the Bush Administration criminals take a collective walk destroys our belief in our system. We can rebuild bombed-out buildings, but once our integrity and our faith in our system of government (a government "of laws and not of men") are gone, America is no more . . . forever.

You're smarter than this, Mr. President. Please, please, please reconsider and apply your own standards about punishing violators to the biggest violators of all.