Guns II

I am encouraged to see a consensus growing around an all of the above approach to America's gun violence problem. With all proper respect to Mr. LaPierre, I could support armed security in schools ALONG WITH bans on assault weapons and high capacity clips, and a national list of the mentally ill ALONG WITH vastly better treatment and assistance for them, and controls on simulated violence in children's lives ALONG WITH prevention of REAL violence in their lives.
It is REALLY time to stop taking sides and consider each others' solutions.

Connecticut

I'm pleased to see that the idea of a multi-prong approach to this and other tragedies seems to be acquiring the state of consensus.
IMO, the most important aspect is the treatment of the mentally ill. If they have any sense (and that's debatable) the NRA will be all over that. But anyone who gets on that bandwagon (yes, I mean you Bob McDonnell) will have to realize that it will cost MONEY. And A LOT OF IT, if we are to do it right. And that means TAXES, because the government will definitely have to be part of it. Republicans are already on record as being willing for people to lose their houses and starve in the streets to prevent a tax hike. Are they willing to see 6 year old shot again and again for it?

union primer

It seems to me it is time to re-educate the population about just what a union is.
The right to work crowd has done a good job of promoting their version of 'freedom', but if anyone examines it closely, it just doesn't work. Here are a few facts that explain why.
Fact 1. The workplace is an inherently unbalanced power situation. The boss has much more power than the worker by virtue of the power to fire.
Fact 2. The only way the worker can try to even up that balance is to combine with other workers and gain the threat of strikes, slowdowns, etc. These combinations of workers are called unions.
Fact 3. The only way unions have power is through at least majority, if not overwhelming, membership. A walkout by 5% of the work force is not likely to have much impact. 50 or 60% on the other hand ...
Fact 4. Management has and has used many tactics to prevent the unions from gaining strong membership. Campaigns of falsehoods, veiled threats, mandatory 'education' meetings, etc. are rampant. Most of the time we don't hear about them, but this last election brought some of that to light.
This brings us to our present situation. Closed shops may seem unfair, but in the real world, they are necessary to give the union some hope of competing with the dominant power of the employer. I heard one pundit comment on unions proving themselves effective and then gaining membership. Sounds reasonable until you realize unions can't be effective until they have membership. Early members have to join now, get the benefits later, after the membership has grown enough to force the employer to deal. Just a sad fact of the real world.
These are the facts. Maybe now you know why union members are so upset at gaining the 'freedom' of right to work (for less).

Philosophy

So, now, in this season of great signicance to Christians, Bill O'Reilly says Christianity is a philosophy, not a religion.
If I put any credence to his statements, it would be good news for me. I have always liked the philosophy of Christianity. It's the religion that bothers me. I can't get behind their ideas on creation, salvation, or condemnation.
My own evolving beliefs have come to be a mash-up of science (the age & creation of the earth and the emergence of homo sapiens, Native American (the Great Spirit, without any characteristics that make it more prone to some segment of humanity), Celtic ( worship that is the celebration of the rhythm and life of the earth and our connection to it), and eastern (reincarnation).
And recently I have come to a whole new understanding of Christianity, through the medium of film. First I saw Religulous, Bill Mahers film, wherein I learned that the story of the savior was borrowed, as were many of the Christian legends, from other religions that had gone before. That left me wondering if possibly there had not even been a Jesus, something I had never questioned before. And if that was so, where did all those beautiful teachings come from?
I found the answer in another film later that told the story of the Essenes, whose
'philosophy' matched those teachings rather closely.
So it is possible that there are no Christians, because there was no Jesus Christ. Maybe we are all just Essenes and it is a philosophy after all.
Check it out, Bill, you may be right!

which season is it?

"Jesus is the reason for the season". If this year is like recent ones, we will soon be hearing that everywhere.   Depends.
If this is the Christmas season for you, then yes, you are correct. But it is perfectly legitimate for someone to see it as the Hanukkah season, Kwanzaa season, Solstice season, or just winter.
Jesus is not the reason for any of those.  In fact, most of those predate Jesus. Some of them even predate history, or mankind.
Equally factual: America is in the throes of becoming, once again, more like its theoretical self. You know, the hope of the world, a nation of immigrants. Melted into Americans we may be, but we are not melted into white Anglo-Saxon Christians. Bill O'Reilly has faced it, not that he is in any way happy about it, but at least he has pulled his head up and looked around.
The first European Americans may have been Christian, but even then, other religions were already here. And those of other western faiths followed shortly thereafter. Even more divergent believers were brought here as the centuries went by, with the expectation of course that they would convert. Some did, but many didn't.
In the last few decades,(thank you Madalyn), many of us have become brave enough to admit we are not Christians and to insist on our right to believe what we actually do and behave accordingly.
Happy Holidays is not an attempt to remove religion from the season, it is just a recognition that many DIFFERENT faiths are celebrating holidays and wish their adherents, all the adherents, a happy time no matter what.
So, as a 21st century American, floundering techologically, but keeping up pretty well culturally,
HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

veterans every day

The passage of Veterans Day and the military/CIA scandal gives rise to thoughts about war and warriors.
We should honor our military members not because they are some kind of superbeings, unfailingly kind, honest and honorable, but because they have left their lives, families and their own safety to go into that indescribable hell of war and do our fighting for us. Most of all our leaders should honor them by NEVER sending them out unnecessarily. (Still haven't gotten there yet, at least not as of 2001). The rest of us should be extremely grateful, but not let that gratitude make us revere them as more than human.
I understand it can be hard to honor someone who might have (you don't know) done something unspeakable in the midst of battle, but believe me, it has been done thousands of times already. Only in movies are U.S., or any other, soldiers always noble. I have a friend who wants all fighting to be done with humans, not machines because he believes fewer civilian casualties will result. I fear there may be more instead. Remember all the incidents in Iraq? Those mainly involved human atrocities, not unthinking machines.
Many are now concerned about the leak of classified material through the avenue of an illicit liaison, or the illicit liaison itself. Petraus even found it necessary to resign over it. After all his years in service, can we say with any certainty that he never killed civilians or other innocents? And my point is, should we even ask?
In short, we must get beyond expecting superhuman exploits from our military and instead expect basic human wisdom and restraint in our deployment of them.
That is the least they and we can expect of America on every veterans day.

08/012

Obama's victory in 2008 was his alone - the victory in 2012 was for progressive values
In 2008 the American people elected a black man, partly because he was a black man, but mostly because they were happy to have the opportunity to elect a black man because he was the best choice for the job. Those who oppose him underestimate the pleasure this gave many Americans.
In 2012, that was past. We had done it.
This was a very different race because it was such a clear choice between the old attitudes and the new. Conservatives simply could not, would not believe that the majority of the country had changed so much.
In 2008 I was cautiously optimistic. Cautious because I just wasn't sure my country was intelligent and mature enough to elect Obama. It was a real thrill when I heard the news not because he had been elected, but because my country was a better place than I had believed.
In 2012 I was pretty sure he would win because so many of the knowledgeable people had said he would. I was more worried about some of the other races, the vast majority of which turned out the way I want. In some ways I feel sorry for the losers, both the candidates and the supporters, because they really have lost the country they knew. I think it is for the best, but I can sympathise with how they must feel, living in such a strange place.
It finally sunk in to me a few years ago that we are in a transitional time, both physically and spiritually. This is difficult for everyone living through it. But many changes must be made if mankind is to have a good environment in the future.
We have made a good start on these changes this year.

rich man, poor man

All through the recent campaign, I kept hearing talking heads say "The American people don't resent wealth." And every time I thought, "Well, I do."
Now I realize I was wrong.
It's not the wealth I resent, it's the attitude.
Wealthy people mostly really want wealth and did what it took to get it. OK, as long as it was legal.
The problem comes not with them getting what they wanted, but them demanding that we ALL want it too.
I personally didn't want to be wealthy, so I didn't 'work hard and get ahead'. I accept that they will have wealth and I won't, but I want them to accept it too.
I don't want 3, or 5, or how ever many houses, but I do want one.
I don't want 10 or 20 or how ever many cars, but I do want to be able to get around, be that with a car, bicycle, or mass transit.
In short, I want the basics to be comfortable in 21st century America, whatever that may mean.
Part of the problem is that 'the basics' keep changing. Some conservatives complain because the poor have microwaves and cable, but microwaves are actually the cheapest way to have hot food these days, and without either cable/satellite or a digital TV, you can't have TV at all anymore, and how will you hear about emergencies?
The other part of the problem is the feeling that we all have to be driven and ambitious. This is not and cannot be true.
There is infinite variety among people and many of us are not driven or want to be. We are honorable, responsible people and go to work and contribute to society, but we are satisfied with simpler lives. Without us, who would fill all the support positions that are still around?
And in return for that, we want basic human decency and a few comforts.
The idea that we can't have this life IS offensive and we DO resent it.
Or at least I do.

Late October surprise

Some political talk shows like to choose who had the best and worst week. Well, this past week, I would say it was Progressive America.
First came Sandy, pointing out in a big way both the reality of climate change and the absolute necessity of big government. Hopefully this will move us far enough beyond the 'debate' over these issues to consign those on the Regressive side to the fringe for good.
Second, Mitt Romney redefined desperation with his ridiculously false Jeep to China ad. Not only was Chris Christie AND Mother Nature poking holes in his worldview, he was ripping off his Emperor's clothes himself.
One would think this would eliminate any chance he had of winning next week, but I'm still holding my breath. I could barely believe America had the sense to elect Obama four years ago. I'm not ready to believe any stronger this year. We'll see who has the best week next week.

what's the difference?

How much better is it, Mr. Mourdock, to think that God wants a woman to be forced to carry and give birth to the child of her rape, than to think that God wanted the rape in the first place? Why can you not understand that we DO know what you were saying and find it TOTALLY reprehensible?!?!?
And say you could get your way and place these restraints on women. What then? Would you force the woman to raise the child too?? If not, why not? You have already inflicted your sense of morals on her this far, why not go all the way? Or do you think it will be easy to find other parents for this child? Are there couples just lining up to adopt a child whose father was a rapist? From everything I know, most people do the best they can to adopt a superlative child, from the best background they can arrange/afford. Is this not so? So why would they take on the uncertain future of the child of a violent criminal?
Go back and talk to your God again. And keep on doing that til you get a different, more humane answer.

Uncertainty pt. 2

I find it quite astonishing that the story is business owners need certainty. IMO, any business owner waiting for certainty should sell out and get a government job. That, at least until very recently, was the closest you could get to certainty in the working world.
Owning a business was about the farthest you could get from certainty. Did they not know this when they went into business? Have they not figured it out since?
In fact, life itself is uncertainty. This summer, 70 people simply went out to see a movie. Did they have certainty? How much less should one expect when talking about your profit for a quarter?
How can business people portray themselves (or be portrayed) as superior beings - you know, stronger, smarter, harder working, and also be such whiners?
Let's be honest. This is just another way to attack the government on the theory that we (or at least you) don't need it and we can do just fine on our own. Too bad they can't test that theory without messing things up for the rest of us.

Mystery Man

One thing that, IMO, unites all the voters this year is complete uncertainty about just WHAT Mitt Romney will do when he is elected. This is actually more of a problem for Republicans than Democrats. The latter don't care as much because they are doing all they can to keep him OUT of the White House. Of course, there is the possibility they will fail and then all they can do is hope really hard that either he will be the 'old' Mitt, the Massachusetts moderate, or the Congress will be able to blunt some of his more objectionable policies.
The Republicans, on the other hand, have to contemplate the very real possibility that they will have worked SO hard to elect a conservative and still not have one. Lately I have heard that they have decided they are willing to live with this just to get Obama out of office. Maybe so. Or maybe not. Either way they have a difficult decision.
And all of us have to decide just what we are risking and if it is worth it.

Power to the people

We all have merit.
That is the slogan I contributed to my union, Texas State Employees Union, for one of their yearly rallies a few years ago. This simple phrase is the crux of the divide in the US today. Maybe the world.
Mankind has been seeking for at least the last millennium to find and establish a meritocracy. In feudal times they tried genetics. The hope and belief was that extraordinary people would have extraordinary descendents, so royalty and nobility was inherited.
When that proved an error, the dream was equality, but either people didn't know how to ensure the practice, or were simply not determined enough, because instead wealth became the standard.
This is where we stand today.
IMO, one of the major divides, the fundamental differences that lead to the more commonly discussed, superficial differences, between the two parties is their attitude towards meritocracy.
First, let me say, I would be all for meritocracy if I thought it could ever be achieved in our emphatically imperfect species.
As I further see it, Republicans believe in meritocracy and Democrats agree with me. Republicans, at least the economic Republicans and probably many in the other wings of the party, believe that wealth IS evidence of superiority and a valid basis for the decision power over society.
Democrats believe that it is not possible to select some group of people with sufficient merit to have that power and therefore we must extend the decision power to ALL the people.
In just the past month, I have heard a Republican verbally quake at that idea. The attitude of the founding fathers that rights must be restricted to property owners lives in these people.
It's time to get beyond that 18th century attitude.

rights? entitlements?

This may shock some, but I DO consider that ALL human beings are entitled to health care, housing and food.
Apparently Mr. Romney doesn't. Let that sink in for a while. Mitt Romney thinks some people are not entitled to food and housing.
Now of course, everyone believes that people should work for what they get. Society could not continue if most people didn't contribute to the common good. Even communism said from each according to their needs and from each according to their abilities.
But there may be many reasons why someone cannot contribute, especially now. Romney and his ilk seem to think that people who have a hard time supplying those basics for themselves will not be motivated by money, yet people who have enough to never have to work again are deeply motivated by the same. So those at the lower levels of society will choose to make less, just to be lazy.
Somewhere deep in their minds, they live in a fantasy world where everyone controls their own destiny. Don't want to be poor? Have an unwanted pregnancy? Surrounded by drug use and violence?Just rise above it!
They seem to have no concept of having such an out of control life that you need help.
And the worse thing is, they don't see how they contribute to this everyday by piling up goods they don't need and will never use. How they scoop up all the opportunity in life for themselves and their children and leave crumbs at best for the rest of us.
This is the world they call free. Ron Paul came very close to expressing this in one of the debates and the crowd wanted him to go even farther.
Sad to say this group of  'christians', rather than looking to help that beaten stranger along the road, would blame him not only for his own woes, but theirs as well and give him an extra kick or two.
This election will be very telling.

Apologies accepted

Not surprisingly, Mitt Romney is wrong again.
Even beyond the crass political nature of his rushed comments, lies the underlying error of his worldview.
President Obama has not 'apologized for America', but he has granted other countries and their leaders a more equitable standing in the world in his dealing with them.
This is a most correct way to approach other countries.
I'm not sure what I make overall of the concept of American exceptionalism, but I am sure I don't believe it means someone automatically becomes exceptional just by being American.
Does anyone believe Ted Bundy was an exceptional human being? He was an American.
Does anyone believe Mahatma Gandhi wasn't an exceptional human being? He was not an American.
To recognize that America has made some mistakes and to acknowledge our shared humanity with people of other nations does not denigrate our country, it exalts it.
To pretend that we are somehow superior to everyone else is not only insulting and unfair to those others, it makes us look childish and stupid.
No wonder the image of the ugly American is so widespread that even we are painfully aware of it.
If President Obama has begun to lift us above and beyond this awful stereotype, God bless him. Let's not go back to it now.

Better for who?

So Ann Romney says her husband will work hard to make America a better place to live. For most issues, this can be debated. Whoever gets elected will make America better for some, worse for others - on MOST issues.
Economy - better for millionaires, or better for middle/lower class
Sexuality - better for women, or better for strict Catholics
Healthcare - better for consumers, or better for insurance/Pharma
But on one issue, there can be no debate. Mitt Romney's energy policy is strictly fossil fuels. He will increase production of these fuels and decrease or eliminate funding for alternative energies.
THIS WILL MAKE AMERICA AND THE ENTIRE WORLD WORSE FOR EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even the old energy company executives will have a worse world, as the air gets dirtier and the weather as a whole gets more volatile and violent.
So she may have told the biggest lie of the whole damn convention!

Dignity

"The dignity of work" This is something we hear the Republicans talk about a lot, but what do they mean? They certainly seem eager to get everyone off any kind of government help, but how far are they willing to go with that?
Bills have been created to increase minimum wage, expand the reach of mandatory sick leave, even give more maternity and family leave, and they seem to be consistently against them. Don't these things increase the dignity of work? How dignified can you be when you work all week and can't support your family, when you can't take a day off when you are sick or your family is sick? Are we giving dignity to hard work when we withhold these basic human comforts?
It is most definitely not enough to just say "get a  job" when we don't make ALL work dignified by showing the workers we value their labor.
So, I say, match your deeds to your words or just shut up.

In the weeds

For many of us, I think Rep. Akins' comments didn't make much sense when we first heard them. I mean 'legitimate rape'? You can't get pregnant from rape? These ideas seemed pretty much out there. Where could he have gotten such information and theories?
Now, however, the sad truth has started to come out. Unbeknownst to the mainstream, the fringe has been busy constructing an entirely separate reality for the sole purpose of hardening their hearts even more to the unfortunate women who find themselves in the position of needing an abortion after a traumatic event.
The fact is, they are accusing young women who come seeking an abortion of 'claiming' to have been raped to get around the restrictions they put in when they thought they were being hard enough on them in the past. Now they have decided they have to be harder.
It is beginning to look as though what they have been accusing Planned Parenthood of all along is what they are doing: Making a business of abortion. The 'leaders' of this movement must keep the 'followers' keyed up and angry so they will keep sending in money. So, they have to keep going farther and farther as they begin to win their cases, or the enthusiasm will wane.
God help us if they do succeed in making abortion totally illegal in this country.
What will they possibly do next to keep their power?

Hooray for ordinary

America can be a hard place to live in for the un-ambitious. So much stress is put on success, big, glamorous success. Anti drug ads even show people who stay 'clean' becoming executives or ballerinas. How about accounting clerks, or even sewer workers? Wouldn't that be good enough for us? Staying off drugs, working for a living, owning a home and raising a family? Does one HAVE to be rich and famous to even feel beyond shame?
Be all you can be, give it all you have, etc, etc.
Why not give your work part of your all and your family and friends part of your all, your hobbiesand interests part, and so on? Is that such a bad life? Don't we NEED everyday workers to do all the un-glamorous jobs? Can we afford to make them feel like failures?
I think this is just more conservative propaganda designed to make everyone not rich feel inadequate and pump up those at the top even more.
American will start getting on the right track when we start rejecting this thinking.

Guns, etc.

The latest of America's shootings took place in my home state, not far from me. This was a little different, because it was not a random massacre or a hate crime. It was someone pushed to their limit by modern society. It was someone who wanted to keep their house. I don't know the details, but I imagine they had lost a lot before that and just couldn't take any more. The constable didn't deserve to die. He didn't make the decision to take the house. He was doing his job, a very unpleasant job, but under current law a necessary job.
How, in God's name, can a country with so much suffering be even remotely considering electing people who have publicly and proudly stated that they will make it worse?
The wealthy simply have to be made to do more. Ideally much more, but at least more. How can the country have such debt when CEOs are making multi-million dollar salaries? Can't people see the connection?
In the fear and confusion of these times, some people will shoot out the window and some will put trust in scoundrels. Both are misguided and dangerous acts.

Dietary politics

OK, so no Chick-Fil-A or Papa Johns Pizza, but we can eat all we want of General Mills cereals.
Hey, it's healthier anyway!

Free speech?

So, once again we hear the right complaining because the exercise of free speech brings consequences. Right, like they never boycott someone they disagree with. Everyone is certainly free to speak their minds in this country. If you doebt that, check out some of the extreme, hateful things you can read on the internet. The government cannot force you to shut down, or shut up. But that doesn't mean you can just say whatever and no one will challenge you. Chick-Fil-A is clearly free to speak - not only are they still in business, but they even had a very successful appreciation day. AND we are FREE to boycott them.
In fact, I would say this is a good time to review ALL your purchasing decisions. Tighten up and try to make sure you are supporting your values as much as possible.
God Bless America!

tosh 0.0

Years ago, working in a dept. store, I was in an elevator with several women and one man who made a joke about rape. I was stunned. This man did not know me and I would bet there were several other women he didn't know in that car. How did he know they had not been raped?
Now we have Tosh claiming he has the freedom of speech to make rape jokes to a large crowd in a comedy club. How does he know no woman in that crowd has been raped? That she has suffered the trauma, violence and sense of helplessness that involves and is trying to get her life back to normal by coming out for some laughter?
Would he (or anyone else) make a joke of kidnap to the Iranian hostages? That might be funny to someone.
But seriously folks, I think men make jokes about rape because they are so uncomfortable and guilty about it. This crime affects all of us. Every woman is a potential victim, every man a potential perpetrator. (And yes, I know men get raped too, but I consider that a different situation). If they can make people laugh about it, it lessens those unpleasant emotions. BUT IT IS STILL NOT FUNNY!!!!!!!!!
Men will just have to get used to that discomfort and work to eliminate the crime, not try to lighten it up.
And frankly, Tosh should find another line of work.

clearly stated

I watched a debate on TV lately in which the liberal blamed the crisis in America's cities on the wealthy leaving the cities, thereby depriving them of a large part of the tax base, and the conservative blamed it on the unionized workers.
She even defended the right of those who left, saying both 'why shouldn't they do the best for their family' and 'why should they pay' to help those who were unable to leave and were stuck with the mess.
In other words, she believed they should make NO sacrifice, all the while demanding more sacrifice from the city workers.
I hardly know how to respond to such a world view - the wealthy are entitled to anything and everything they can grab, while those who are not wealthy must face a neverending cycle of more and more sacrifice. How can this make any sense??
Such is the end you arrive at in a on your ownership world.
Conservative Christian is the worst, most hideous oxymoron in the world.
Christians are commanded to share and care for all their brothers and modern day conservatives see no obligation by anyone to anyone. Paul Ryan even wanted to deny disaster relief unless it could be carved out of the budget somewhere else. Losing your house is apparently not as important to him as losing your tax break.
If this philosophy succeeds, we won't need hell anymore - we'll be there.

Future unemployment

Does anyone else think Eric Fehrnstrom (sp?) will have to find a new career after this election is over? Even if Romney wins?

God?

I  read an article lately in which a poor woman in a forgotten area of eastern Kentucky said she didn't like mainstream denominations because she didn't like people trying to "put God in a box." I can really relate to that woman. Except I haven't just abandoned mainstream Christianity, I have pretty much abandoned all of the large religions in the world.
Sure, I find bits and pieces in many of them that resonate, but in general, I find that they all try to bring God
( a term I just use for its convenience) down to an understandable level.
Let's face it: People think they have a right to understand everything all the time. I can respect the search for knowledge, but I think we need a little more humility. We are not as close to being God as we think.
So I have more free form beliefs. And I definitely don't think I understand God. I don't think I can. But I do trust him/her/it to do the right thing. Without owing me an explanation.

Vaguely presidential

Can American elect an unknown quantity to hold the most powerful office in the land? Will people vote for Mitt Romney even if he continues to never answer any questions about who he is or what, specifically, he will do in office? Will the press ever treat him anywhere near as harshly as the Irish nitwit treated Mr. Obama the other day? Where is the little boy with clear vision, as in the fairy tale? I remember how wonderful it felt in 2008 that we had actually elected a black man. But were we really prepared for the backlash, and how much work it would take to keep him in office? The ants whose hill we kicked had a nasty bite, and they are still angry. We worked hard in 2007-08 for Obama; now we have to work at least as hard for ourselves. If we lose this, we will lose decades of progress - maybe for decades to come.

No, really!

Another call for the liberal press (or all the REAL press, you know, not FOX), to grow a spine.
Obama was right - THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS DOING FINE.
Those people in the GOP ad are NOT the private sector. Otherwise, we wouldn't talk about people getting jobs 'in the private sector' or 'in the public sector'. We don't get jobs in ourselves.
The sectors are the institutions. Private institutions are very profitable these days and have oodles of money they are not spending.
Public institutions, on the other hand are shedding jobs like dog hair in the summer.
The jobs numbers we see are the NET jobs. The private sector is creating more jobs than the total, but the public sector job losses have to be subtracted.
So yes, Mr. Romney, we need more police, firefighters, teachers - and safety inspectors, doctors, nurses, public utility employees, etc, etc. How is cutting those jobs helping the American people?!?!?!?!?
And yes, Mr. Romney, the federal government DOES pay for those jobs (Honestly, could he GET any more uninformed?) They send money to states that can't meet their obligations, so these people can get hired, or at least not fired.
Somebody in media needs to stand up to the GOP scare tactics.
I guess that somebody is me.

What today means

More than an election is taking place in Wisconsin today. It's really a survey of what at least part of America thinks about workers and their representation.
I think even the most ardent union supporter would admit that unions have not always been perfect. There HAS been corruption and power HAS gone to the head of some of the leaders. But why should we hold these people to such a high standard - a standard that is probably too high for any human to reach? Are not some corporate leaders corrupt and power hungry? Should we do away with corporations because of that? Should we eliminate the presidency because of Watergate? Or the Catholic church because of the priest scandals? In what other organization do we let the errors of some of the members lead to the end of the organization completely (oh yeah, ACORN, but that is another story).
For all their faults, unions are the ONLY voice the workers have that can even come close to the volume of the owners voices. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE!
Just like in any other case, we need to correct the flaws and preserve the institution. The future of working people - and America - depends on it.
We may lose in Wisconsin, but we can't lose hope.

How many kinds?

I am not generally someone who believes there are two kinds of people. There are as many kinds of people as there are people. But uniqueness aside, there are sometimes issues that divide humanity into two sections. I think this US election has brought one of these to the surface. Envy.
The Republicans use this term to describe the unhappiness of those who are trying to change the inequality in our country. I believe this might be because of their viewpoint based on their own envy. People like Mitt Romney ARE driven by envy, by the desire to have at least as much, if not more, than the next guy. This is so deep in their nature they cannot imagine people who don't feel that way.
But many of us truly don't care how much someone else has, AS LONG AS we have enough. Enough to live a reasonable, comfortable life. We don't need or desire car elevators, just accessible transportation. We don't need five houses, just one decent one.
In fact, that is probably why we don't have anywhere near as much as Romney. We didn't have the intense drive to get there. But we still believe we deserve a decent life. It seems in this world, that means people who get paid 20 million dollars a year might have to give some of that back. Not because we envy them, but because all human beings deserve a decent life and because somewhere along the way, they could have shared the credit for their success a little differently. No matter what they tell themselves, they didn't get where they are alone.

Sexual Devolution

The cultural revolution of the 60s-70s involved 3 parts: drugs, politics & sex. I took part in all 3, but now I would say only the political part was a good thing. The negative outcome of the drugs part is clear. But I don't think many people see the downside of the sexual revolution (other than Rick Santorum et al). I will readily grant that sexual attitudes before the revolution were just as wrong, but our change wasn't the solution. We simply swung the pendulum all the way in the other direction. The repression and rejection of 'loose' women and 'bastards' were cruel. But the divorce of sex from love is equally wrong. Treating other human beings as instruments for physical satisfaction IS demeaning.
To justify this we have created a culture where sex is a necessity. This is untrue. The only reason to believe this is to justify casual frequent sex.
I totally disagree with the right that homosexual relations are wrong, and I despise their treatment of sex outside of marriage as evil and immoral, but I do agree that sex should only accompany a serious, caring relationship.
I can only hope the pendulum can swing to the middle someday.

Why stop there?

I support most of President Obama's stand on legal gay marriage. I do think, even if he believes it is a state issue, he could come out for a change in federal marriage rights for gay couples. Otherwise, I agree with him.
The right makes a lot of analogical arguments on the subject; if you let gays get married, why can't you marry a duck, or a child, or five people? But, as I see it, these arguments don't stand together.
Part of the reason gay marriage has gained such acceptance is that the opposition has not given a good rationale against it. They tried marriage will be destroyed, but people didn't buy that. They tried it will mess up the children, but research was done and nothing backed that up either. All their arguments evaporated when looked at seriously.
But now I hear gay proponents making similar statements. Of course, gay marriage won't lead to child marriage, or inter-species marriage. There is a sharp dividing line there - consenting adults. Rights for consenting adults have NEVER led to the same rights for children or animals. Our legal code is chock full of age limits for rights. It is a deeply accepted part of our legal code. And obviously animals are not able to consent to a marriage type relationship. These are CLEARLY different situations.
However, rights of different numbers of consenting adults is a different matter. If we legalize gay marriage, why not multiple marriage? Here I have heard gay leaders say "because marriage is for two people" just as the right said "marriage is for a man and a woman". Why??????????
Why does one statement stand up when the other doesn't? I have yet to hear reasoning. They might fall back on the children as the right did, and I am not sure if there is research on children of multiple partner households and what it showed if there is. But since it has been practiced in many places in the world over many centuries, it must have something to say for it.
I think we must face the fact that legal gay marriage MAY lead to legal multiple partner marriage and examine whether that is such a bad thing. In my book it's not.

Kind power

Gay rights has been all the conversation this past week, but one thing started me thinking. I saw an old statement by Ronald Reagan where he opposed both discrimination and acceptance for gays.
To me that is an impossible stance. If you really oppose discrimination, you must be for acceptance. As a victim of non-acceptance, I can tell you how discriminatory it feels. You know you are different, not accepted like others - that is discrimination. This is true even if your non-acceptance is just personal, familial, like it was with me. How much more painful must it be if it is social non-acceptance, which is what he was talking about although he seemed to be treating it as if it was personal. How much of what the dominant culture has always blamed on the aberration of homosexuality comes really from a life of separation, 'otherness'?
But this is only one of two reasons why his statement is far worse than he understood. As bad as the mental and emotional cruelty of non-acceptance is, the physical cruelty it engenders is (arguably) worse. When Reagan made his statement he was grown, even older, long past his youth. But youth is a wild, confusing time and people in this phase take things differently. I once came upon a group of college (!) boys having great 'fun' tormenting some turtles to walk off a bridge into a stream. When I confronted them and rescued the last of their victims, they protested extensively that they were not hurting them. Technically true, but they were inflicting mental pain on the animals - and that was the point. If there hadn't been terror, it would not have been 'fun'. The fear of the animals made them feel powerful and that was what they were after. In youth, particularly for men, one needs to discover and feel power. We are moving from being helpless to being independent and this is one way to do that, the way our culture seems to have stuck with. Sometimes the victim is not an animal, but another child who is easy to attack because he/she is different. Our society tacitly encourages bullying.
But there is another way to feel one's power. Power doesn't have to be about dominating someone/something else. It can be about helping someone/something. Destruction can be powerful, but so can construction. Somewhere along the way, whether in the home, school, or religious institution, we need to  formalize teaching of kindness, and express the power and strength of helping. That may be the best cure for cruelty and bullying.

We all have a dream

The events of the last week have put American intolerance in the spotlight. But this is nothing new. Contrary to what we like to believe about America, we have always been intolerant. The objects of our disdain and cruelty have changed over the years, but someone has always borne the brunt. Even when this is talked about these days, it is glossed over and people seem to believe it wasn't as bad in the past. It was.
We should not be surprised, and certainly not discouraged by this. Not only was America populated by mere mortals, often they were uneducated, hard living mortals. They had no room for high flung ideals in their hand to mouth existence. Lady Liberty's inscription talks about the wretched refuse and some took us seriously.
But we did have our ideals - the ones mentioned in our Declaration of Independence. At the time, these were the real revolution, not the war. No one else came even close to them.  This is what the modern left overlooks in its dissatisfaction with America. Yes, we fail every day in living up to those ideals, but we still have them and we still revere them. This in itself is something to celebrate.
The right, on the other hand, seems to think having ideals is all we need to do and that is wrong too. They don't mean much if we don't try to live up to them, no matter how often we fail.
We are no longer the only country that has the ideals of democracy, justice and equality, but that doesn't mean we can let them slip to the back of our minds. The Cold War is over, but our biggest rival in the world is still authoritarian, with little respect for human rights and freedom. If the free world falters, the power hungry will always be there to pick up the slack.
We need everyone to do whatever we can to preserve the American ideals. The left can't despair and the right can't get complacent. We all have to do our best.

Blue Justice

In my part of the world, the police are a big issue now. An officer was tragically sent to the wrong address and there shot a dog he felt was threatening him. Dog lovers reacted instinctively and sided with the owner exclusively. More information has come out and the owner is looking more suspicious - the dog has even had past occurrences of biting, but many people are still attacking the officer and have brought up other cases from other places and times, as if there is a dog killing conspiracy among law enforcement around the country.
I know that police sometimes do things wrong, even commit crimes themselves. We unfortunately have to hire flawed human beings to protect us. And it is true that a job like this attracts power hungry, even violent people and sometimes they slip through the process and get hired. But I have known a few cops in my lifetime and many of them are sensible, well-intentioned people.
My generation has a history of being anti-police. In our youth, some called them pigs and occasionally I still hear that. And police misbehavior has caused others to write off the entire profession. This is wrong. When officers are wrong, they must be corrected, even going to jail like any other criminal if they break the law themselves. But the fact remains: We need police. Most of them, even the ones who do wrong, have a very hard job, a job the rest of us would have a hard time doing, probably even couldn't do. Every time they go to work they know they may not come home that night. Even something as simple as a traffic stop could turn deadly. And like any other group, most of them are good and shouldn't be lumped with the miscreants.
It's time for us all to grow up and oppose the wrong while standing by the right. And let them know.

Religious evolution

I am not a Christian. I simply cannot accept either the whole story of Eden or the concept of original sin. Certainly humans evolved consciousness, but I don't consider that a sin.
And, while I always considered Jesus to be an exceptional human being, I didn't consider him any more a son of God than the rest of us. So I didn't accept the stories of his birth or death.
But recently I have gained some very interesting information on this topic. I finally saw Bill Maher's movie Religulous, wherein he mentions that other, older cultures had their own Messiah stories. That left me questioning if there was even a real person of Jesus. But I was still stuck on all the wonderful doctrine of Jesus - love thy neighbor, the meek inheriting the earth, etc. Someone had to have said those things, right?
Then I happened upon a documentary on Jesus that pointed out that much of his doctrine was the same as the Essenes who lived in his area of Judea around the same time.
Of course, it makes much more sense that a whole group of people came up with all that wisdom, so did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John just make up Jesus? To fulfill the prophecy their people had been waiting for so long?
And where does that leave us?

Never forget

5/4/1970

2nd or 1st?

That is, which do you fear most:
An Obama second term in which he is not beholden to anyone,
or a Romney first term in which he is?

Democrats on defense

No surprise the Republicans can't even let the Democrats have one on national security. They have been spreading the lie that Democrats are 'soft' for so long, they couldn't get by without it.
But how did this nonsense ever get started?
It has no basis in fact. A Democrat won WWI; Democrats won WWII; Korea & Vietnam stymied both parties.
As far as I can tell, it is because Republicans are willing to talk tough and Democrats prefer to negotiate whenever possible and don't want to spend ALL our budget on defense.
I think the Republicans learned the wrong lesson from the old westerns. Watch them again and see how often the real hero is the soft-spoken guy that avoids trouble when possible and knows how to fight when it isn't. Not the braggart that is always itching to draw his gun. That guy usually ends up looking foolish.
Just saying.

The First of May

In case you were wondering why all the demonstrations took place today, it is because this is the significant date in true labor history, not the first Monday of Sept.
And these days we need to mark as many Labor Days as possible, up to and including EVERY day.
It is completely timely that at this time a chart has come out showing the almost locked downward trends of union membership and middle class jobs & wages.
I have heard many people say that unions are great things and were really necessary - once. But now we have won those wars and our pay and benefits are secure.
WRONG WRONG WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hate to be the one to tell you, but those wars will NEVER be over. The other side will NOT give up and so we cannot either. The good news is that it doesn't take much. You don't have to keep up with all the politics, or go to meetings every week, or go out on strike and maybe lose your job.
YOU JUST HAVE TO JOIN A UNION.
If membership went up and SOME of the membership volunteered on campaigns and most of the membership voted MOST of the time by their union guide, things would turn around fast.
You don't have to be the one volunteering, and you can certainly vote your conscience, although I would expect you would go along most of the time with the people working for your rights.
JUST JOIN.

April

Hitler's birthday
Titanic
Waco
Oklahoma City
Columbine
BP
Did the poet set us in this stone (hard place)?

The Big Chill lives on

Remember that movie? A group of young friends come together years later and find they are not who they thought they were.
That is truly a profound message, because there is an innate human tendency to need to find a group of people we can belong to who can be trusted to think just like us. But IT DOESN'T EXIST.
In the 60s, straights thought anyone with long hair was bad, and hippies thought everyone with long hair was good. Neither was true. But we were just the latest groups to fall victim to this kind of thinking.
I have a relative who was raped by a young military man who she let in to use the phone. In those days, many people would have thought the same. Now of course, we know different.
I'm sorry to tell you, but the comfort of a group who thinks just like you isn't out there.The fact is, we must judge each person individually.
Because each person IS an individual.

Fairly wrong

It should be clear to everyone now that Mitt Romney just doesn't know what fairness is. Most likely he has never thought about it - never had to.
In his 'unofficial acceptance' speech, he put forth some ideas of what it is, but IMO fell far short of the mark.
Fairness in giving urban students school choice? How about fairness in making ALL of our schools quality so that choice isn't an issue.
Fairness in taking away unions political contributions (which I believe are voluntary anyway)? How about fairness in providing good wages and benefits for everyone which union members fought and died for.
Fairness in having public and private employees have the same benefits? Fine, as long as you bring the private employees benefits up, instead of try to take public benefits down.
You have a little over 6 months, Mr. Romney, and you have a LONG way to go.

What's the matter with kids today?

You'll need to ask a Republican that question. For some reason, they seem to have something against the younger set. Newt Gingrich wants to reverse child labor laws (aren't we lucky HE struck out).  On top of that, they seem to hold children reponsible for things their parents do. On that basis they oppose the Dream Act and are having great fun with Pres. Obama having been fed dog meat as a child.
Considering their double standard on so many things, I wonder if they would feel the same about their own children or those of their friends?
Can their view of the world be so skewed they will even attack children?
Time will tell

The Democrat way

Rush Limbaugh attacks a private citizen with a totally vile, unprovoked outpouring and the Republicans can barely muster a word of criticism.
Hilary Rosen makes a totally reasonable criticism of a political wife and surrogate and every Democratic public official that can be found denounces her for a week.
Scooter Libby lies about the outing of a CIA agent and gets convicted and Bush pardons him.
John Edwards has some friends who cover up an affair he had and the Obama administration continues a prosecution that many think is way beyond the scope of the legal system.
It seems to me the administation and party are trying to send a message: We will not stoop to the slash and burn Republican tactics, even if we have to pay a price for it.
We will police our own to the fullest extent possible, even beyond what is really necessary to show that we believe in responsibility and honor.

There is certainly a lot to appreciate about this approach. It seems to me that for the last few decades we have been letting the class clowns run the country. I admit my generations (Boomers) had their share of blame for this. We have let our rejection of the old status quo go too far. Cynicism has replaced respect. Getting there before the next guy has replaced honor and doing the right thing as the highest value. A return to being serious would be a refreshing change.

I just hope it works.

1970-2012

Well, Earth Day is here again. A lot has changed in those years. Environmental problems have been solved and new ones have arisen. So far we have won, but the problems keep getting bigger. At first they were local, now they are global.
And now, in addition to climate change, the biggest problem we have faced yet, we also have the problem of a stubborn refusal to recognize the problem and work on solving it among some of our leaders.
I have heard many reasons why this is so, but the most convincing to me is that they realize this problem will take a large concerted effort to fix and they adamantly don't believe in that type of solution. It will cost money, true and they don't like that, but they have accepted that in the past. And the opposition started before they became the party of no.
They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, but what term is defined by seeing a mortal danger in front of you and thinking you can just shut your eyes and eliminate it?
I hope we can have 43 more Earth Days and the luxury of time and ability to celebrate them.
Amen.

Everyday Romney

First, be clear - I am NOT voting for Romney. And I definitely agree with the criticisms of his policy ideas and some of his tactics.
But I must admit I am puzzled by some pundits reactions to his non-political statements.  It started with the trees statement. I can't see how that was so odd. Trees do grow to different heights, do they not? And why not feel more comfortable with the height of the trees where you grew up?  When I first went to the Pacific Northwest, I found the huge trees slightly intimidating. And when I go to west Texas, the trees are so puny.
And now it's the cookies. Look, I know it was a lame joke (really, how could it not be), but it was a JOKE people. He made a mistake I have seen many other people make - behaving familiarly with people you are not really familiar with. Maybe he thought it was relating to regular people.
It seems to me that these are everyday things - noticing the world around you and being a little awkward with strangers. What's so weird about that?
Now his plans for the country, on the other hand ...

English, please

Well, it's Friday, so I want to take a day off of politics and talk about a pet peeve of mine instead: TV hosts, pundits, etc. who were passing notes in English class or something.
First, there IS a word such as farther. Further has its place, like to further a project or an education.
But the comparative tense of far is FARTHER. It's far, farther, farthest.
Which brings me to my next point. The comparative tense seems to be disappearing altogether. This is most noticeable in weather forecasts, because weather includes so many comparative words: rainier, sunnier, cloudier, etc. But these days everything is more instead. Is that so much easier?
Next, the phrase is: I couldn't care less. It may be 'hip' to say I could care less, but you are actually saying the opposite of what you mean. I can accept bad meaning good, but let's not get carried away.
And finally, to say something can't be underestimated doesn't mean it's big, it means it's small. So small that you can't create an estimate that is smaller than it is. Overestimated works in a complementary way. And overstate and understate work the same way too.
Please media folks, remember; other people will follow your lead because they assume you know how to speak. Don't let them down.

Aspiration facts

As I said earlier, the right has attempted to make greed a virtue. They do this by calling it aspiration. As in Americans don't resent the wealthy because we are an aspirational society.
So it's GOOD to want to be obscenely wealthy! Sorry, but I think not. Still, they do have a point. Many, if not most, people in America dream of being wealthy. I admit it, I have done it myself. But I made peace a long time ago that I would never be rich unless I win a sweepstakes or lottery, and I'm OK with that. I simply am not willing to do that which must be done to get that amount of money - whether you consider that long years of hard work, or cutting corners and taking the suckers for all you can.
And I contend that the country would be better off if more people saw things my way. Here's how I do see it:
1. A better goal is just to be comfortable, not filthy rich. Just think - less stress, less long hard workdays, less dependence on the boss/company, and more enjoyment of plain everyday life.
2. If the majority of us are happy with a comfortable life and hold that up as the goal of our society, we can keep control on those few who still insist on 5 houses and 15 cars and get back some of that money for the good of the country. Really, there is only so much money in the world and less for extravagance does mean more for housing and medical care for the indigent. (I know there is more cash in the world every day, but overall the value of goods doesn't change, the value of that cash does.)
3. Once again, religion rears its head. Christianity says we should be concerned with life after death, not with this life. So once again the right moves away from true religion and twists it to suit their own base desires.
So, to sum up, if you can be contented with just a comfortable life, you can achieve it more easily, reduce the power of the corporations you work for and buy from over you, bring this world closer to heaven and, if enough of us do it, we can get control over the greedheads and get back to the good old days.
Oh yeah, the 50s, the decade the righties exalt were created by the policies of FDR and the economy today was created by the policies of Reagan and Bush.

Justice

In the latest word from the radical right, if you believe in social and economic justice, that makes you a communist. So they believe in injustice? I mean we kind of thought that anyway, the way they have been acting on behalf of only one part of society, the 1%. But now they are working on making that a virtue, like they have greed and selfishness.
How can this be America? A place begun on working together and sharing. How could any of our pioneers succeeded otherwise? Nowadays we do have the luxury of being more independent in our daily lives, but we still need cooperative action on the macro level. You know, transportation, education, safety, etc. And Paul Ryan notwithstanding, our religions, in fact all major religions, insist on caring for each other. Is that communistic too? (Disclosure: I wrote a high school paper on the similarities between communism and christianity.)
My only hope is that these leaders are going far beyond their supporters, hoping to put up a wall between them and the other party. That they (the leaders) are just a small group of extemists, NOT representative of any influential group of Americans.
Otherwise, if our fellow citizens really believe Americans have a right to run other people's lives, enforce that through our might, and take as much of the world's resources for ourselves as we feel like, we could make past dictatorships look puny.

Scandal in Colombia

No, I'm not talking about the seamy secret service activity, I'm talking about the purpose of the visit itself - a far more serious scandal. That is, another sell out of the world's workers for the sake of the corporations. Free trade is just as much a misnomer as free markets. Trade and markets are only really free when there is equal power on both sides, as there was in Jefferson's days. The bigger and more powerful the businesses become, the less free the trade is. Prior free trade agreements and other trade deals, most preferred status, etc., have led to the loss of jobs from the U.S. and the migration of stricken people from Mexico and Central America into it.
I'm not against trade agreements, just the way they are structured today. We could write them very differently - with environmental and worker protections, so that we could help other countries move forward, instead of being pulled backwards ourselves. Once more we have not achieved that.
There are two things almost everyone can do to change this, even if we can't make any headway with our elected officials. One: buy fair trade whenever you can.  Two: join a union. You may think there is no union in your job, but you might be surprised. Many occupations have unions out there. Look for them.
If you want to get more involved, there are organizations that promote fair trade deals - and you could always look for candidates that support these ideas.
I just wanted to make you aware of the problem. Now you are and it's up to you.

The Ides of April

Once again tax time approaches and weighs heavy on many minds. Of course finances are never easy and handing over some of your money can raise some bad feelings.
I have heard people say they shouldn't pay school taxes because they don't have children in school. To which I say everyone benefits from an educated society.
I have even heard someone say they shouldn't pay for roads since they don't drive. To which I say, but you do want a nice smooth road for the ambulance coming for you.
I know it is hard not seeing what we are paying for and not being sure how much we are really benefiting from our payments, and that has some justification. We must keep an eye on government and make sure it is acting as we want it to, but we must not completely lose faith in our government.
Society simply cannot exist without government period. It is the tool of society that accomplishes the work that must be done so we can go on living our lives as we wish. In olden times people took all the responsibility for maintaining their communities. Then they invented government to do it for them and were relieved.
If you want to know what government is doing, find out! It really isn't that hard. Getting more involved with your government is a good thing.
If you resent others getting the benefits of your tax dollars, go to church and listen harder.
In the meantime, after you mail in your payment, stop and think about just what you do get for that money.
Roads, schools, product safety, clean air & water, workplace protections, military, research, parks, medical care, communications, copyright protection, historical preservation (there may be more, but you get the idea) Maybe that will cheer you up, at least some.

Southern shades of gray

This post is 367 days late. I hoped to find a place for it last year, but that didn't work out. So now a new year has begun and it is timely again.
This year I am in a quandry. I am both a life long liberal and a loyal southerner. With the advent of the sesquicentennial of the Civil War, I've been forced to watch my pundit heroes disparage the commemorations, the re-enactments and the south itself. While I continue to admire these people, I feel I must point out the issue is not that simple.
One question raised is why the south, which lost, is the one commemorating the war. To me that reveals a lack of understanding, surprising in people who deal with politics all the time, of conquered nations. For the north, the war is one event in U.S. history; for the south it is the event, a center everything circles around. This is hardly unusual for a subjugated people. While the pundits compare confederates to Nazis, a better comparison might be the Irish. Like them, we were drawn into our current nation by force and an uneasy peace has existed since. And like them, most people cling to the past in various ways.
Repeatedly I've heard that the war was only about slavery. While that was definitely in the mix, I say once again it is not that simple. By now we should surely know that states' rights is not a one issue or even one philosophy thing. Most recently liberals defended California's right to set tighter emission standards than the Feds, so they must believe in it at least a little.  And you don't have to be a World Government wacko to see that a counterbalance to unrestrained federal power might not be a bad idea. Then we could worry less about a future George Bush.
Southern culture too has been dismissed, denied as something distinct from the culture of other areas. It's true in our mobile society regional differences have greatly diminished. But that is more reason to establish events to celebrate them, not less. Of course, it is past culture that most people are trying to keep alive in events.  And I believe the South has as much esteem for its past culture as any place on earth - in fact these commentators do too, that's what they're complaining about. This is another aspect of the argument that puts my two loyalties in conflict. Beyond slavery, the south also represents the last gasp of feudalism in western societies. The wonderful homes and glittering lives they created were born of great inequality, something I despise. But they also clung to what were already becoming old ways in their time - pastoralism and hospitality. Unfortunately in modern times the second has disappeared quickest of all and the first has been degraded to redneck clannishness. So why not idolize the genteel past we imagine?
That being said, since the end of the Civil War, black culture has become intrinsic to Southern culture. Blues, jazz, and soul food have crossed over big time. Race relations certainly have changed - in the last 50 years and the last 150 years. From what I saw on my last drive through the south, a stable but uncommitted peace is achieved the same way it is in the rest of the country - by staying away from each other. Those who claim racism only existed in the south have forgotten the Boston busing riots and the Los Angeles problems through the years. In fact, my American history professor showed us a photo of a group of white men posing for a picture  around the burned body of a black man - in Pennsylvania.
So there it is. It's no surprise that secession commemorations should stir up liberal talking heads. Leftists have long feared and hated the south. They had some good reasons, but they also portrayed it as a monoculture, which it never was, and used it to feel superior, which they may have been, but their regions were not. And to some extent the north, either through the war itself or the poorly handled reconstruction, is partly responsible for the path the south took. Most likely slavery would have died without the war and without all the animosity and backlash. And I can't even imagine what the south would be like without its historical centerpiece. As it is, all Americans continue to take baby steps toward true colorblindness. Historical celebrations have nothing to do with that.

Hilary Rosen was right!

For my first ever blog(!), I want to defend Hilary Rosen. The worst mistake she made was in choosing 'worked', when she should have said 'held a job'. That way, maybe the right ( and some on the left) wouldn't have been able to PRETEND she attacked stay at home moms. What she REALLY said was that Anne Romney is NOT a person you want to go to if you want to understand the economic struggles of women today. And if we Democrats acted like the Republicans when one of their own is attacked, both Mrs. Romney and Michael Steele gave us good openings. Anne responded by defending her 'choice' to stay at home and so generously granting others the right to their 'choice', as if most women working outside the home did so by choice. Then Michael said Rosen can't attack Anne because she hasn't walked a mile in her shoes. Yes, and Anne hasn't walked a foot, much less a mile in a working woman's shoes. THAT WAS HILARY'S BASIC POINT, Michael!!!!!!!!
I will go farther and say she can't even understand the women who stay at home even when that means a real financial sacrifice for the family. Anne NEVER had to worry about that.
I can understand the Obamas not wanting to get into this and making their mild comments, but where is the rest of the left? Bill Press is the only one I have heard defending a perfectly valid point made on our side. It is ridiculous to think that Democrats don't respect stay at home moms. We are the ones fighting for family leave, sick leave for all, a higher minimum wage, etc.
Don't let them get away with this!!!!!!!!!!!!