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!!!!!!!!!!!!