Liberty and community

Libertarianism is prominent in my world lately, both in family postings on Facebook and in a difference of opinion in the Austin Chronicle.
Being a conglomeration of both liberal and conservative, it serves me here as a different sort of definitional foundation for both of them in its own definition.
"Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose". This old saying serves well to illustrate the differences in the stands of all three philosophies. Liberals and conservatives both would accept the statement, but have different stands on who is interfering with whose freedoms. This stems from their different understanding of the effects of others' actions. Conservatives truly believe that gay marriage affects them, even if it occurs in other states. Liberals say proudly that none of us are free till all of us are free, even though in a physical, material sense this may not be true.
Libertarians however, truly seem to disagree with the saying totally. IMO they seem to believe that we can all have virtually unlimited freedom. This, if true, would make them an antiquated system of thought indeed. Margaret Thatcher notwithstanding, we ALL these days live in a society, even the most isolated tribes. And as long as we do, we must temper our freedoms with respect for each other. True, there is much negotiation involved in this tempering. Most, if not all, laws involve weighing two or more rights against each other. Think about it.
And, as society grows larger and more crowded, more laws are called for. We may get tired of dealing with all these laws, but in essence they are needed. They may be altered as time goes on for changing situations, but basically they are needed.
Gun rights are one of the current issues being debated among the three groups, and here libertarians are quite far removed from the other parties. I have heard it said among them that these rights should not be infringed upon, yet many of the constitutional rights that stand equal with the 2nd amendment have been regulated. There is no unfettered right to speech, or to freedom of assembly, or to freedom of religion. All of these have had restrictions put on them over the centuries, for good or bad, to accommodate perceived social needs.
Why should the right to arms be any different? In fact, most people, even professing libertarians would not take this position to its ultimate end - a private person allowed to own bombs.
Guns are not one of my big issues, but I cannot see the problem with background checks and limits on ammunition. This does NOT take away a right to own weapons to any sane, law abiding person.
And if the fear is of what may come next, I say deal with that when it comes. As hard as it is to do even a simple thing on this issue, it seems as though that fear is not worth bothering over.
Liberty is a wonderful thing, but as long as there are billions of people in the world, true unfettered liberty will belong only to dictators.

Francis Christian

Not only am I surprised at Pope Francis, I am surprised at how well received his messages are. Now he's even person of the year.
Not a surprise in this world that a christian acting like a christian should engender such a reaction, but who would have thought that the world would be so ready for it? I guess as long as he is not expecting other christians to follow his lead, he's doing great.
Just imagine a world in which ALL christians lived humbly and exalted others, even those that conventional wisdom deems sinful and unworthy. A world in which ALL christians asked "Who am I to judge?"
Guess we're not quite there yet.

Something for everybody?

So Republicans are against a federal minimum wage increase because different states have different costs of living. OK, fair enough.
How about this then?
We increase minimum wages, state by state, according to the living wage there. So everyone who works full time could have a decent paycheck according to their region.
Then everyone would be happy?

U.C.

This morning on the news I heard about a theory that low political participation is related to commute time. And a theory that this affects those with lower incomes even more.
This led me to a theory of my own.
More mass transit, besides being better for the environment, might help our democracy by getting more people involved.
That's an unintended consequence I could learn to love.

Look deeper

While on vacation with my aunt last week, discussing racial issues, she opined, "They want to stay with their own kind too."
I believe it's true that all people want to stay with 'their own kind'. We are basically timid creatures who don't want to face disagreements.
But it will be a great leap forward in human evolution when we learn that 'our own kind' CANNOT be determined by ANY physical or outward element.
Not skin, clothing, gender, hair - NO outward element.
It would be nice, certainly, if there were some quick, easily visible sign by which we could determine who would make a good companion.
BUT THERE ISN'T!!!
Discovering who you are compatible with - truly your own kind - takes time and a close aquaintance. And when you do find them, they may have NOTHING in common with you physically.
It's possible, just possible that the internet has accelerated this realization. People are beginning to find friends all over the world, with many differences, but similar hearts and minds.
Maybe they can carry this lesson into their neighborhoods.

perspective on police

So one week we are learning of a 12 year old and a 14 year old who kill their teachers, and the next week, when a policeman shoots a 13 year old carrying a toy weapon that looked very much like the real thing, suddenly 13 is too young to be a suspect?
If you believe the policeman was lying about what happened, fine, this is unjustified and tragic. But if he is telling the truth, he really had no other option.
No, you cannot point a gun, toy or otherwise at the police.
And no, you cannot run from the police after they have told you to stop.
Maybe this seems unfair to you, but the police have an unfair job. They can pull over a speeder and get killed.
Can you not imagine how stressful that would be, day after day?
We NEED police, and while the nature of the job may lure people who definitely do not belong in the profession, for the most part, the screening and training process keep them out. If there is misconduct, it needs to be dealt with swiftly and strictly, because they do carry such a heavy load in society.
But that load means society also owes them some consideration. There certainly are bad cops, but that doesn't mean all cops are bad or that it is bad to be a cop. We cannot make them feel that way, because that will push more of them into misbehavior.
And, as bad as we may feel for the family, we cannot let their emotion drive the reaction.

Spy games

I am a little astonished at all the hoopla about the U.S. spying on other governments.
In my opinion, everyone does this. I don't usually like that excuse, but here I think it not only pertains,
it is fundamental.
OF COURSE it is in our national interest to spy on other governments, friendly or not.
OF COURSE it is in their national interest to do the same.
Perhaps in a personal world friends are always friends, but it is certainly NOT that way in international
relations. Remember, just a few decades ago, Germany was our enemy and Russia was our friend.
Furthermore, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to individuals that are outraged about this,
but, again IMO, the noises being made by leaders are completely phony.
We are being subjected to this outrage simply because we have the only leaker.
It is in the other nations interests to get us out of the spying, so they can get an advantage.
Perhaps what we need is leakers from several other governments to level the playing field.
Because what is going on now is just one big game.

Be careful .....

What the Republicans 'won' after all their efforts is something they have been crying for for years.
A new President Obama.
Strong
Resolute
Standing up for America
A leader
Congratulations, guys.

a (possibly) bi-partisan answer

No, not about the government shutdown or default.
No, this is about something more everyday: customer service.
This is in serious decline in our country. No matter where you go, there are not enough
customer service workers. It seems this is where many companies have chosen to
economize - in the very workers that most interact with the customer, the very workers
that give the customer their impression of the company.
Since everyone is doing it, no company pays much of a cost.
But I think this holds the key to not one, but several problems we are experiencing.
First, of course, it its own problem. We have accepted this for too long. In the past, we
were accustomed to good service. Why have we let it slip away? We DON'T have to just accept this.
We need to start demanding better service. Companies will listen if we speak loud enough.
Second is the unemployment problem. How much better off would our economy be if
every company hired just ONE more customer service person in each location? And how much easier
would our lives be?
Third, and this may be where the bi-partisanship fades away, the inequality problem.
Let's not pay for this with higher prices, let's use executive salaries. Why should the big boys get
so much money for cutting our service? How many people could be hired with a big chunk of the
multi-millions they get? And how much more of that would be spent right here at home, instead
of invested overseas?
This would be a positive way to take us back to the 50s that conservatives revere so highly.
In those days, salaries WERE more equal and that is the time period we look to for great
customer service because there were enough employees to provide it.
Anyway, that's my idea.

Value of government

People frequently talk about 'the government' as if it was some kind of external entity.  It's not.
Government is merely society's instrument for doing large things that we cannot accomplish alone or in small groups.
As such, it impacts everyone's lives everyday, usually in ways that we cannot readily see. No matter how much someone thinks they have never used government services, THEY HAVE!
We all take for granted that in the U.S. we have the safest, most orderly life on the planet. That is because of our government.
Somehow we have allowed a relatively small group of nihilistic greedheads to convince us that government is unnecessary at best, the enemy at worst.
Perhaps this is the real reason the right worships Reagan, because he promoted an anti-government attitude, even while he betrayed all the policies they wanted to dismantle it.
I am not saying that there are not faults in government. It is run by people after all, so it will never be perfect. Neither is any other institution run by people, and we don't hear an outcry to get rid of them.
If you don't like something about the government, work to fix it. If enough other people agree with you, it will change. If most people like it, it won't.
But don't chuck it completely because it isn't perfect.
You really wouldn't like being on your own.

one possible answer

So the U.S. government is shut down. How did we get here?
Well, a few years ago the Democrats in office passed a comprehensive healthcare reform, something they had been wanting to do for decades.
What they passed was really a pretty moderate bill, because that was all they COULD pass. What the left really wanted was real government healthcare. The ACA is not that. Insurance companies still exist and largely run healthcare. It IS government regulated health care and since the Republicans hate regulations, any regulations, that bothers them. They made a proposal at the time, but it was not complete healthcare reform, it was just small adjustments to the system we had.
However, there is much that is moderate or even conservative in the bill that was passed, because compromise was necessary to accomplish anything. The very mandates that the right is now screaming about IS A RIGHT WING IDEA!!!!
Now the Republicans say they want to compromise with their budget bills, BUT THE COMPROMISE ON HEALTHCARE WAS MADE IN 2009!!!!!!!!!
So that's the first ingredient.
Second, the Republicans are both indebted to and under pressure from the very fringe of their side. They are answering to a very small, but very vocal and active group. This means that this small group has a very outsize influence in our country today.
This needs to end. Now.
There is one way we can accomplish this. It won't be easy, but I think it will be easier than getting money out of politics, the other big reform that is being promoted.

We need independent redistricting commissions EVERYWHERE.
We need district lines that don't automatically favor one candidate so strongly that the average person is not heard or considered at all.
We need candidates that really want to govern, not just make their name so they can have well paying jobs for the rest of their lives. Being famous for nothing is one thing in Hollywood, it is much more sinister in Washington. Right now we have the sad spectacle of a decent, intelligent man who went to D.C. to make our country better being stymied at every turn by fame/wealth hogs who only want to satisfy themselves and don't care how much of a mess they make - like all hogs.

Anyway, that's the answer I see.

Adding up the score

Contrary to much of the mainstream media world, I think this has been a great month for Barack Obama.
First it is said he was in over his head threatening Syria.
Here's how I see it. He stood up when most of the world wouldn't in enforcing the world's commitment to stopping the use of chemical weapons. (By the way, France was standing with us, all you freedom fryers). Correct there.
Second, he went to Congress as they were asking and our system demands. Right again.
Third, he weighed the balance of abiding by the Congressional restriction, if it came, and the need to take a stand for the world and retained the right to go ahead without their approval. Tough, but I think correct.
Fourth, this stand brought about a diplomatic opening and, unlike George Bush, he took it. Not just right, but outstanding.
So far, it's Obama everything, opposition nothing.
Then we come to healthcare.
It's said the American people oppose this. But really, what they oppose is the mythical Obamacare that the Republicans have made up and scared them with.
When the people are asked about what's really in the law, they favor it strongly.
Another win.
And Sen. McConnell criticizes the law for leading some companies to give up their healthcare programs, but as I recall, one of the best outcomes foreseen for this law was that it would put American companies on a more equal footing with companies around the world who are not burdened with healthcare costs because the governments there were involved in this field. (Maybe they can use some of the money they are saving to beef up their pension benefits - just saying). Victory again.

Yes, I think this is starting out as a potentially good fall for our president.

It's a blessing and a curse

 God is not our father.
This is one thing religion needs to accept to move forward.
The gift of free will came with the right and burden of taking care of ourselves.
God doesn't want billions of children (would you?), but companions.
Companions might need each other occasionally, but for the most part, they do fine on their own.
If your faith depends on someone who is there to rescue you from every problem, what is its value really?
God has already given us the capacity to take care of most of what life brings, and plenty of good advice for the rest.
So:
Stop whining, grow up, thank God for what you have and Handle it, handle it.

Not about Syria

Well, Labor Day has come and gone.
But we still need to think about Labor.
These are hard times for working people. There are some signs that people are waking up to the need to  stand together and organize, but corporations continue their attacks unabated.
Now Office Depot claims that unions come between the workers and the employer.
Man, they are not between the employer and the workers - THEY ARE THE WORKERS!
Maybe with repetition, it will sink in. Unions are nothing but workers standing together. Some companies try to set up workers groups and not call them unions. But these are either a union or a sham. If they have no power, why bother? That is just holding your hand out, hoping for some spare change. If they have power, they are a union.
There is nothing wrong with workers joining together to try to have the same level of power as the owner/executives/corporation.
Sure, there have been some unions that have gotten corrupt. Hey, we're dealing with people here. Why is it so much more objectionable or surprising for union leaders to be corrupt than for corporate leaders?
No one turns against corporations as a whole because of corruption. Why unions?
The only answer I can come up with is the corporate witch hunt against them. Somehow people keep listening to the right wing, no matter how many times they are proven wrong.
STOP!
Let's let this Labor Day be the time when things start to really turn around.
If you know about a union you can join, do it.
If you don't, look for one.
If you really can't find one, join Jobs for Justice, or a Faith/Labor Coalition.
Stand up for yourself and all workers.
Let's change the world.

There/Not there

On the eve of the 50th anniversary of King's March on Washington, here are some thoughts.
Yes, in some ways America has advanced quite a bit. Unbelievable as it was in 2008 ( I had some trouble believing it), a black man getting elected in 1963 would have been even beyond fantasy.
That makes a big difference to one man and a small difference to a great many men (and women), but the real sign of progress is what will make a big difference to many men & women.
It is just as much a sign of progress that blacks are starting to appear as everyday middle class people in our advertisements.
A better sign of progress will be when they appear as everyday middle class people in our real lives.
THAT TIME IS COMING.
I know this because I used to work at a university and I saw young people walking in multicultural, multicolor groups around campus all the time. Young people who have grown up like that will not move away because a person of a different color moves in down the block.
We won't really eliminate or at least marginalize racism til we work together, go to school together, and live together.
Let's see what things are like on the 100th anniversary.

That depends on what you mean by ...

Russia. The Olympics.
Big topics right now. I totally oppose their 'moral' law, but I agree with Pres. Obama and Greg Louganis. We should not punish the athletes by asking them to give up what they have worked so hard for.
Let them go and I deeply hope they do win medals and come home celebrated as they should be.
But while an official, political boycott might not be the best idea, I think a commercial boycott could be.
Countries vie for the Olympics because of the money it brings in - but it doesn't HAVE to. Russia has become one of the most money grubbing nations around. They certainly are hoping to make a bundle off this event. But they don't HAVE to. Let the athletes go and the audience stay home. These days you don't have to be there to see it anyway. And it will keep your money out of the  hands of the human rights violators in Russia.
They don't want our values, fine. They can do without our money too.
Let's see how they like that.

A McWord of advice

Obtuse? Insensitive?
I just don't know how to describe a business that batters us with ads about the great prizes and money we could win if we patronize their establishment at the same time that their employees are striking for a liveable wage.
Hey, McDonalds. If you really want my business take that money and give it to your workers so they can spend more than 0 on heat or $20 on health care each month - or maybe even quit that second job you assume they have to live while working for you.
I mean really!

Guilty

Since the Zimmerman verdict, the thing that has been said that I most agree with is that there are two realities in play here. The one juror who has spoken has made it clear that in her reality, 'George' is a sympathetic character and Trayvon was not.
That is a reality I do not share. Everything I know about Mr. Zimmerman is that he was angry, prejudiced and ready for violence. Everything I know about Trayvon is that he liked tea, smoked pot sometimes and was walking home minding his own business.
Zimmerman assumed he didn't belong there (prejudice), blamed him in his mind for doing something wrong and went out to accost him against the explicit advice of the police. What is sympathetic about that??????????
No clear story of what happened has emerged. Witnesses differ, Zimmerman's story is inconsistent and there was no recording of the encounter. Perhaps the jury thought there was reasonable doubt.
But for me, the crucial fact was that Zimmerman left his truck and followed a young man simply walking home. Everything that happened after that is on his head because of that. Even if Trayvon confronted him, even if he got violent, none of that would have  happened if he had taken the police's advice as he should have.
And can we really think that Zimmerman didn't contribute his own share to the conflict, whatever it was? After he spoke the way he did on the tape, after he disregarded the police, after he went out with a gun? Does anyone think he spoke to Trayvon calmly and rationally, asking him if he  had a good reason to be there?
Very doubtful.
Worst case is that two hostile people met and one ended up dead. Which wouldn't have happened if he had stayed in his truck.
His unwarranted actions ended in a death. He is guilty.

The America Dream

These days it seems everyone is either an unquestioning 'patriot' or a jaded cynic about America and its history - even in other countries.
You either think America is the greatest country on earth or a hypocritical fraud.
It seems to me the most radical position one can take is that it is neither - and both.
The truth is there IS greatness in America. When it was founded, it was revolutionary in a spiritual sense and not just a political one. There was a spirit of noble rebellion throughout the developed world of the time, a real leap in mankind's progress. And America was the perfect place to put these new theories to the test. If one was a believer, one could make a case that America was founded and created just for that test. Men created equal? Government answering to the people? These WERE radical ideas then.
And then and now, they were hard ideas to live up to. So we failed over and over. But that same country that was genocidal to the natives and brutal to the Africans WAS a beacon to many huddled masses all around the world. Land was taken from the natives, but given to many who never would have had a chance at it back home.
One could also make a case that possibly there would have been more revolutions and more progress overall if those masses HADN'T had the escape valve of America. Would the world be better off that way?
Too late now.
But many of those countries have now accepted the same ideas and in their own ways have instituted them. In some ways those countries have even passed us, so the claim that we are the greatest is dubious. But our founders would have LOVED that. Replication of our experiment would have been their fondest hope.
Bottom line is that America's promise is truly wonderful and it floats above and ahead of us forever. It isn't perfect, it may or may not be the best country on earth, but how good it is in the end is up to all of us. Neither unquestioning patriotism or cynical defeatism will help in that effort. We need to see what is wrong and believe it can be better. Then act on that.

What's next?

Time was summer was slow and relaxing, but this one has started off with not one, but several bangs.
The U.S. has taken some steps forward and some steps back on civil rights, thanks to the SCOTUS, the do nothing congress is actually making progress on a big issue, a real shocker, the people are rising up all over the world - Turkey, Brazil, Texas, and now Egypt, as governments forget that there are people out there who care about what they do and may not like it, and more and stronger evidence of climate change is in our faces every day.
It's hard to say who's coming out ahead in all this, but I do believe in the arc of history tending towards justice, so I'm hopeful overall.
But heat and humidity not withstanding, the struggle continues.
Stay tuned.

Where will it end?

Seeing what I did of the rally in Washington followed by the defeat of the Farm Bill by those who thought it didn't punish people for being poor enough, that's what I had to ask myself.
To listen to the speakers at the rally, you would think people not only chose to be poor, but aggressively demanded it.
This picture they draw of an imaginary group of people spending every waking hour figuring out how to waste their lives and scam and steal from all the hard workers
is false, unethical and dangerous.
Contrary to what Margaret Thatcher thought, we DO live in a society. History has shown us time and time again that we ARE all in this together and society cannot really advance properly if we leave some people behind.
Part of this is unseen, as in who knows what inventions or advances those who are not given the chance might have come up with? But part of it is merely unrecognized, as in what victims of crime might have been saved if the criminal was given a different path in time?
You may not see how it affects your life, but the effect is there, nevertheless.
Somehow we MUST get past this false dichotomy. There are not, not in the way it is getting presented, good and bad people. There are people who get breaks and people who don't, there are people who respond to situations differently, maybe better and worse, but ultimately, we are all human beings and God has put us all here for a reason. We need to look at each other with compassion and try to figure out what that reason is.
If instead we allow a small but vocal group to divide us and create distrust and hate, things will get worse.
The ending of this is in our hands.

Get real

So the Republicans have done it again. Job legislation, or anything else that might help someone languishes while they pass unconstitutional, doomed anti-choice legislation.
One might think this is principled if such strategy was ever conducted by anyone else in similar situations, but in fact, it is a blatant effort at shoring up the insane right wing base they need to get elected, since they have lost any other voters.
Instead this is the most overtly self-interested group of legislators following the bidding of the most overtly controlling group of supporters.
True Christianity has been left behind long ago by these fanatics, replaced by an overriding need to control the lives of others in the name of religion.
In this way they are matched by the anti-religionists, attempting to control others for their own cause.
It seems almost impossible for humans to believe in or care about something without trying to force everyone else to feel the same.
Meanwhile, the important issues where they are unable to or uninterested in having control over others sit off to the side while those for whom they are vital issues continue to suffer.

Welcome to the 21st century

I am one of what seems to be the majority of Americans who is not outraged at the government 'spying' on my communications. IMO, the Boston bombing proves that surveillance helps to at least catch criminals and terrorists, if not always prevent their actions. Frankly, I don't see privacy in this sense as such a big deal. Just the keeping of this information doesn't bother me.
What does concern me is what might be done with the information at some later time. President Obama has established some safeguards, filing for warrants where Bush refused to and keeping Congress informed. This is important. It's true that future presidents could fail to do this, or even go farther in the misuse of this information.
For that reason, we need to establish limits on these programs. This is the responsibility of our legislative body. And this can be done without dismantling the necessary information gathering to keep us safe.
Another thing that concerns me is the obviously overbroad issuance of security clearances. Serious reforms need to be made in this area.
I have heard many make the claim that the American people need to make the decisions of what kind of security programs we have. Oddly, I hear no one say that if the American people know about all the security programs we have, everyone in the world will have the ability to know as well. What's the point of a security program if everyone knows about it? The global nature of information and communication today mandates that the American people NOT know about some, perhaps many, programs. I understand that and I am fine with it.
As long as it is overseen by all three branches of the government and not misused.

Walmart from all sides

I've seen the new Walmart commercials, including the one with a man that says "When people look at me, I hope they see someone building a better life" and I want to finish the sentence "on the backs of the underpaid and abused Walmart workers." Because that IS what's happening.
I know there are people who need to shop at Walmart, even though these commercials are trying to appeal to better off shoppers, but the fact remains that the 'savings' the shoppers are getting come right out of the hides of the workers and the suppliers workers. This is no way to run an economy. The people at the top of Walmart take home $20 million plus. Those at the bottom $15K. They are not, as the people in the ad, putting aside a little for braces or college, they are praying they can keep feeding their family.
Many of them can't without government aid.
And then we have a Congressman quoting the bible about those who won't work not eating - OK, let's start with making sure all those who DO work can eat! Even that would be better than what we have now!
Walmart has stepped up for the environment, building green stores and carrying organic produce.
Smithfield stepped up for animal rights, guaranteeing the pigs humane working conditions.
Both companies did this BEFORE they would give their workers decent conditions.
Why is it that any other, every other concession will be made before simply treating your workers as human beings with the God given right to a decent life? Not anything special, not luxury, just a decent comfortable life.
And why do the American people continue to allow this?

Meeting halfway

First, let me say that I, like the vast majority of progressives, believe in the right to bear arms. Even someone like myself who finds no need to arm myself, is willing to let many people do so if they want or think they need to.
Second, the vast majority of conservatives really don't believe in an absolute right to bear any arms. No really, they don't. Unless you believe in the right of every human who wants to possess a nuclear bomb to do so, you believe in some form of arms control. Bombs and many other military type weapons are prohibited to non-military people and no one complains about that.
So really what we are talking about is a difference of degree in our desires for arms restrictions.
No one (sane) wants unfettered access and no one (contrary to the hyped up rhetoric of some so called leaders) wants total restriction.
Maybe if we can just realize this and take a few breaths, we can start to have a normal discussion on how to bridge the relatively small distance between us.
P.S. to those sending toxic letters: You are really not doing your side any favors by making it seem to be populated by crazy people.

Looking and leaping

While I don't know yet the content of Obama's speech today, much of it has been 'leaked', so I will go ahead and comment on it.
I am really more interested in the Guantanamo part than the drone part. From what I have heard, we should expect some good news here. Around 1/2 of the remaining detainees can expect expedited action on their cases. This is a big and welcome step.
In addition, I am quite satisfied with the handling of the IRS 'scandal'. As a line worker in my career, it is very believable to me that these local workers came up with policy on their own. I think these congressmen must have never worked on the frontlines if they don't know this happens all the time in most, if not all, institutions. People who make policy don't get to see how it affects those who have to deal with it every day. OF COURSE they make changes to try to make it fit reality.
And it seems today that the document dump has taken the wind out of the Benghazi sails.
Many criticize the President for taking time and being cautious, but I think these examples show that this is a better way to govern.  And they show that, after taking the time to gather and consider the necessary information, he can act quite decisively. This is an important combination for someone in his position.
I shudder to think of where we would be if Hairtrigger McCain had the power of the presidency.
When you have the responsibility of the leader of the free world, much more often than not, slow and steady wins the race.

Scandals

Here's my take on the Obama (non) scandals.
1. Benghazi: First, the biggest error there was not having adequate security. Why this happened is a mystery to me, but I do know that the Republicans denied additional funding for outpost security. As time goes on, this looks more and more like primarily a CIA outpost, which makes it confusing as to who should have provided security and why there may not have been more - were they trying to avoid attention on the spying?
In addition, the released documents show that most of the changes in the talking points were between state and the CIA, both trying to avoid blame and again, keep knowledge limited as to the covert nature of the installation.
Not much of a scandal there.
2. IRS. This seems to be working its way to a solution, and for me, the biggest question remaining, which may never be answered, is who were the other groups targeted? From a quarter to a third have been identified as having tea party, patriot, or other conservative watch words in their title, but there has been no identification of the remaining majority of the groups. One reporter stated that they were all conservative, but I have not heard this corroborated. This would make a huge difference in the case.Were all the groups conservative, or did they span a larger range? Either way, with no evidence for any involvement outside the agency, again - Not a big scandal for the administration.
3. The wiretaps of phones. Are the Republicans serious in pursuing this? Do they forget who it was that insisted on government access to ALL citizens information, phone records included? Is the Patriot Act not still in effect? Did they not vote against the Shield Law? Did they not scream for an aggressive investigation of the leaks? This is really a fishing expedition.
But, ultimately, I don't think it matters to them WHAT 'scandal' they can find to 'investigate', as long as they are NOT working on making the economy better for Americans so they realize that the government can work for them and deserves trust and support.
I think they will have to do a lot more to get people to give up the institution that protects their health, safety and security, along with providing many of the things that make everyday life more comfortable, but they are certainly trying their best.
Hopefully they will continue to be unable to prevent themselves from overreaching and alienating the very people they are trying to influence.

Give us independents

A lot has been said about the military's latest sex abuse scandal, but there is one aspect I think has not been brought up enough. Gillebrand is right in calling for independent review panels for charges that are made, but there is much more need for these than only these cases. Or only the military.
The same network she sees in the chain of command there, exists in all chains of command. It is only human nature to have feelings about those who work under or over you. This either makes you biased in their favor or against them. Whichever makes you unable to judge the complaint fairly. In my working life, I saw it over and over.
I wish her all the best in this effort, but even if she succeeds, it will be only the beginning of what is needed. Changing a power structure like this will be enormously difficult, because it will only benefit those at the bottom. Most of those invested in the structure, even just a little, will fight to keep it in order to cling to whatever power they have, or imagine they have. Only those with no power, or ethical enough to choose fairness will be willing allies for change.
If she can keep the issue in the public eye, and if she can get an independent panel established, and if it is successful, maybe the idea will catch on. We can hope.

Work?

As a retired person, I see plenty of stories about people who kept working until well after the usual retirement age, and the impression is given that this makes them some kind of hero. BS.
With all the jobs going overseas or to machines/robots, the last thing we need is people working who don't need to.
Statistics show that we have a large number of 25-34 year olds who are unemployed. THIS is who should be working. Those who are older, unless they have to work, should not. If they really need to get out of the house every day, there are plenty of volunteer opportunities, not just calling, but screaming.
In addition, we as a society need to think about what we are going to do with all our 'workers' in the future, as the trend to self-service and automation continues.
Everyone has to make a living - how will we do it?

Defense

 Foreign policy has once again taken center stage in America and again the Democratic president has come under attack as too hesitant, not strong enough on defense. Happily some backtracking on the Republican side has already occurred, still the position is that he is not moving fast enough.
IMO, Obama has a strong record on defense and this old line has become more than stale. I also believe this in general is just another Republican delusion that has taken hold with the public through repetition.
Democrats have never been 'soft on defense' and this president most certainly is not. Just check your history:
A Democrat won WWI, a Democrat won WWII, Korea and Vietnam stymied Presidents from both parties, and more recently, it was a Republican who just plain tangled up our response to 9/11 and a Democrat who found and destroyed the instigator of that attack.
The myth of Democratic softness, as far as I can tell, originates from their more thoughtful and measured approach to the Defense Dept. If they were not for everything and anything military that could be imagined, they were accused. This is just hysteria and it seems the American people are finally realizing it.
If there is any good to be found in the GWB 'legacy' maybe this is it. He finally managed to overdo the hawkishness and drive Americans away from that immature state if mind.
As for me, at this point in time anyway, I have faith in Obama to do the right thing - just like he has before.

Rick feels the heat, sort of

So Rick Perry demands an apology from the Californian cartoonist who had the nerve to tell it like it is.
I'm sooooo sorry. One more chance for Good Hair to show us that he can be a man and admit his errors.
Guess he's still not up for it.
To be fair, West is not ALL his fault. Our previous governor, in his 'capacity' as 'president' did his best to prevent inspections of fertilizer plants, even after it was much publicized after 9/11 that they were vulnerable, not only to corporate malfeasance, like happened in West, but also terrorism. The Republican party is fine with attacking the FBI for not somehow knowing Tamerlan was guilty, even though they investigated and found nothing, but won't give a moments' thought to something as simple and undramatic as inspecting factories for safety.
And then there is the company itself. Even though it is shocking that inspections were not taking place, that did not force the company to engage in such risky behavior.
Perhaps before we contemplate barring students from entering the country merely because of where they happened to be born and raised, we could start by making sure we don't blow OURSELVES up.
As for Rick, maybe next time his horrendous performance as governor kills or injures his fellow Texans, he will find the decency to accept some reponsibility.

Asked and Answered

There are many things to talk about today, but I heard something on TV this morning that I had to respond to.
At the celebration of the George Bush Presidential Pseudo Library, the question was asked as a quiz: Who was the last person to defeat W in an election?
Of course, every good liberal knows the answer to that: Al Gore!
So I call on you today to commemorate this ridiculous occasion by musing on how much better our country would be, socially, financially, diplomatically and environmentally if that election had been decided correctly.
Maybe our combined energies will make something good happen.

What does it mean to you?

Earth day again. The 43rd. A lot to look back at.
There have certainly been victories: a lot of pollution has been cleaned up, the ozone hole is shrinking and should disappear, and renewable energy is beginning to take hold.
But new problems are appearing and we are on the brink of possibly creating a large new one that we could avoid.  Tar sands oil.
At this time when new forms of energy are beginning to take a larger share of the mix, should we really invest in some of the dirtiest petroleum possible?
Can we really not override those who refuse to move out of the 1950s?
Appropriately, this is the time for a lesson in interconnectedness. Corporate funding of elections instead of public funding, the partisan drawing of district lines, and a rather silly changing of the rules of the Senate, have all contributed to this problem.
These things are wrong and dangerous in many instances, but when it comes to the future of the earth itself, they are perfectly unacceptable.
Of course, the planet will go on, but in what state? Will it be a planet we want to live on? Is mere existence the standard we are shooting for?
The best way to honor this Earth Day is to decide not to lurch from disaster to disaster and get active for a few days or weeks at a time, but make a real commitment. Stand up for a different earth, a different future and be active in some way every day.

MHP/Public Education

After all the uproar, MHP took to the air to clarify that her promo was about the importance of public education.
So, let's talk about that.
I was recently at a meeting/lobby day with my state representative, discussing just this subject. Mostly I sat and listened to others speak, and as I did a position solidified in my mind.
I am a big supporter of public education. But, I do understand that parents with children in school now need a solution now. So I would support vouchers FOR THOSE WHO REALLY NEED THEM so their children can get a good education now. Proof of need should be required for public money to be spent on this.
Beyond that, I would think that everyone would agree that the priority should be making the public schools competitive with most, if not all, of the private schools. If that is done, the problem should go away.
I don't know about anywhere else, but I KNOW Texas needs MUCH more revenue to fix ALL the social problems in our state.
Good for business is not good enough.

Boston etc.

The event in Boston was truly shocking, but I am heartened by the response so far. Except for a few fringe types (A.J.), everyone has been surprisingly restrained, allowing the authorities to do their job and helping as much as possible.
A definite contrast to how the gun issue has been handled. Here we have two sides talking past each other, engaging in strong rhetoric and demonizing each other to a typical extent.
Perhaps I can see this as I am not strongly invested in this issue. Not that it isn't an important issue, but I have discovered you can really only put effort into so many things before you diminish your effectiveness everywhere.
So from my perspective, why not an all of the above approach, like Obama claims to be using with energy?
It seems to me that both sides have offered valuable partial solutions. Why not use them all? Armed guards in schools doesn't eliminate the need for background checks, or a ban on high capacity magazines the need for better mental health treatment (which, frankly, I don't think the NRA is pushing hard enough. If they had much sense, they would be talking about that nonstop.).Maybe some clever Congressperson could even link some of these ideas in a bill and see if both sides would support it. Or, if not, at least you could flush out the insincere.
Maybe this can be the issue where the polarization of our country begins to crumble.

MHP pt. 2

Further thoughts.
1. Of course, parents have rights which must be respected. For the most part, these are people who have chosen to give birth and commit to sacrifice to raise the child. Society does and should recognize this.
2. Children are people, not property. Therefore, Fox News, they don't 'belong' to anyone, except to society as members, not property.
3. As adults, these children will live in society, therefore, society has some rights to their teaching and socialization as well.
4.. These different facts must be reconciled. Society has not done the best job they could at this. Implicitly, we all know that parental rights are not absolute. People who abuse their child physically have those rights terminated. But we are squeamish about emotional and mental abuse. We need to get over that. It will take a long time and many cases to establish standards for these things, so we need to get started now.
This controversy may be a good place to start.

I'm with you Melissa

Melissa Harris-Perry has set off a firestorm with her simple suggestion that society has some role and some stake in the raising of children. I want to say I agree with her.
This seems to me to be an issue, like many others, that society has deliberately avoided for too long.
At one level, we all know that parental rights are not absolute. Face it, some parents are just not good parents. Society does not accept their right to abuse their children.
The real question is where do we draw the line? What rights DO parents have? What rights do children have? What rights does society, where these children will live after they are grown, have?
Do Klan members have the right to isolate their children in their communities, making sure their hateful rhetoric is all they will hear as they are growing?
The fact is, children are humans and IMO, should have defined rights and we should all know what they are.
They should not infringe on good parenting and good parents should not object to this.
This might be a good time to start thinking about these issues.
Thanks, Melissa

You have the power

I was shocked and saddened to see a group of liberals on TV celebrating the ticketing of a woman doing 63 in a 65 mph zone on the highway. I have heard progressives cheerfully admit to speeding before, but only in private.
Apparently these people don't practice what they preach. Certainly most, if not all, of these people believe in protecting the environment. But just as apparently they don't realize the power they have in their own lives to effect this.
The clear facts, documented in testing, are that engines burn gas most efficiently around 45 mph. The farther away you get from this speed, the more gas you bought goes right out the tailpipe, causing more pollution and powering your vehicle less. Which causes you to have to buy gas more frequently. Which puts more money in the pockets of the oil companies. You might as well pour some portion of your gas on the ground and set fire to it. Would you do that?
Well, that IS what you are doing when you speed. So I, driving 55 mph or less, am holding the cost or your gas down, and you tailgating me, speeding by me, and sometimes acting rudely or aggressively, are driving the cost of my fuel up.
If you want to hit the oil companies, you can very easily. JUST SLOW DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Right question, right answer

Much has been made of Rand Paul's quest for either the truth or more headlines, depending on your point of view. Personally, I will take the middle ground and say he was seeking both. I am quite noncommittal as to his filibuster, beyond being pleased that he went old school, even if it was self-serving. But I very much support him asking the question of AG Holder as to the U.S. drone policy within our borders. And I am also supportive of Mr. Holders answer.
Unlike Mr. Paul, I don't make the distinction of inside/outside the U.S. I am for the same policy either way.
And I don't think you can give a blanket statement blocking yourself from a particular action when we don't know what situation may arise in the future. I think Mr. Holder made just the right statement.
Score one for each side.

Big Gulp

Well, Sarah Palin has done it again. She 'protested' Bloomberg's soda ban with a Big Gulp, which was exempt under the plan. Par for the course for her, I would say.
And par for the course for her and her followers who seem to have taken the desire for freedom to a manic state. In Fla. the Tea Party is even fighting for the 'freedom' to ride manatees. Yep, no one can tell them what to do or not do anytime, ever.
They seem to thing they can just make society disappear by repealing the laws that hold it together. While that may work to make civilization disappear, the people who formerly made it up would still be there and they would continue to disagree with each other and need solutions to those disagreements.
What then?
With a completely unrestricted second amendment, I think we can all imagine.
The real choice facing the GOP these days is who do they want to represent? A decent proportion of the country who may be concerned about the cost and effectiveness of government, or who may think we need to mull things over a while longer before we change them - or a small group of people who want to live like frontiersmen with no one to please but themselves and the complete freedom that living outside the bounds of society can bring, but with all the benefits that society allows at the same time?
Personally, I think that last group doesn't  deserve a say in policy until they join the rest of us in the real world.

Goodbye Hugo

The death of Hugo Chavez has really raised some issues here in the U.S. While I don't agree with much of his rhetoric about my country, I do have some sympathy for his views.
The time has come, quite simply, for the U.S. to face up to its flaws, both past and present. In the past we have done terrible things, and even today we do not seem to recognize that the rest of the world has its own point of view and its own rights. Marco Rubio calls Chavez rule a disaster, but it certainly was not for the desperately poor of his own country and even ours who got discounted heating oil from him. Has Rubio done as much to help the needy?
How can we expect other people to support us if we treat them so? Or if we support cruel, evil leaders and oppose those who improve their peoples' lives? Can we call their anti-americanism evil under those circumstances?
I know it can be a difficult balancing act, preserving global human rights and our own interests and sometimes there is no easy answer and the necessary answer can be unpleasant, but surely some of the time we can do the right thing, even if it smarts a little.
The time has come.

This is not progress

I have long believed that each ideological side has the obligation to stand up and criticize its own members when they mess up. In that spirit, I am highly offended by Progress Kentucky's attack on Sen. McConnell's wife. THIS IS NOT PROGRESSIVE. And we simply cannot allow the opposition to characterize it as such.
I have read their statement of apology and promise of future better practices and I hope it will hold. I don't know whether this may have come from just a small number of their members and not at all reflected the majority thinking there, but it did go out and now the whole group will be suspect until they can prove this is not their philosophy.
In the meantime, all of us who DO hold progressive ideals should let it be known in no uncertain terms that we do not agree with these ideas and/or tactics.
And get back to work moving the country forward.

Turn off the lights

Q: How do you know when the tea party has really reached its limits?
A: When it is against mosquito control and septic tank inspections.

Make my day

I hope the Republicans will make good on their threat and let the sequester happen. Then we'll see just how popular their 'small government' philosophy is. I'm guessing not very when people begin losing the services government provides to all of us.
Perhaps that is the only way some people will learn the value of society's government tool to get things done.
Go ahead guys, that foot is an easy mark.

Nothing lasts forever

Especially your rights. I was struck this weekend by hearing MHP say that we are now essentially back in pre-Roe days. In some states you can get an abortion, in others it is virtually impossible, especially if you are poor. The right has won without getting Roe overturned.
This happened because most people who cared simply assumed that the fight was won and looked away. While they were looking away, the other side came in the back door and passed restriction after restriction until they had hollowed out our 'victory' and left it meaningless.
The same thing is happening with union rights and it will happen to women's other rights, gay rights, what have you until we WAKE UP and fight back.
I know it is tempting to 'win' and then rest and move on, but I'm sorry to tell you - you CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last year we had Newt Gingrich, seriously contending for his party's nomination calling for bringing back child labor. If that is not safe, which workplace rights are??????????????
Already the 40 hour work week is an unreality for many people. Many other rights, like vacation days, pensions and even sick leave were never won for everyone. With the drive for 'right to work' laws, how long will it be before they start getting rolled back.
You may not have to die in the struggle anymore, but struggle you must.
Or we will have to start from scratch again.

Needs first

So, Rick Perry wants to start thinking about returning money to Texans because the state has taken more than it needs. Wow.
The truth is, Texas is so far from meeting its needs that the situation he describes could not possibly occur in his lifetime.
Before anyone thinks about returning some of the money, first we must move Texas away from being at or near the top in the amounts of several pollutants released into our air, teen and pre-term births, and poverty and food insecurity rates, as well as being at or near the bottom in most healthcare categories, high school graduation and SAT scores, pre-natal care, home ownership, retirement plan participation, homeowners insurance affordability, credit scores and internet access. Oh, and the state needs to restore the cuts they made several years ago to higher education and employee retirement funding. Not to mention eliminating Perry's own misguided women's 'health' plan.
Many, many goals to meet before this tax cut comes along.
Put it out of your mind, Rick.

I want my P.O.

How do you know the post office reorganization is a bad thing?
 Answer: Darrell Issa is in favor of it.
I am hoping that this is one government cut that really blows up in the conservatives faces, because a large part of their base - old white people - USES this part of government. I have heard folks of that type say that government could be cut many places, but not there.
Personally, this time I agree. Not only because I support government jobs, but because I too use this service and look forward to it everyday.
Contrary to what many people think, this financial problem is NOT caused by email, online bill pay, etc. It is caused by Congress and Congress could easily fix it. Just change the extreme rules they set up for this and only this agency and most of the red ink would disappear.
We have already had our free TV service destroyed, and roads are being tolled everywhere you look. The American public needs to stand up to this under the radar assault on the services we use every day. SPEAK UP!!!!!!

Alternatives

Just yesterday I was at a town hall with my state representative. When I asked a question about our water future, he informed me that our aquifer is possibly the most productive in Texas right now. As such, it is highly desired by many areas around the state without such a resource. People in this area are understandably concerned about whether enough of  'our' water will be left for us when the more populous and growing parts of the state really set their sights on it.
Texas as a whole must start thinking seriously and maturely about water. Our antiquated laws are not good enough in the 21st century. We must explore all alternatives to maintain our supplies.
One place we most certainly have not looked up to now is at our energy production. Besides all the other negative aspects to coal production and use (land destruction, pollution and toxins), it uses more water than cleaner types of energy provision. Right here in the LCRA region there is a coal plant which uses 13 milliion gallons of water EVERY DAY. In an area where the lakes are shrinking and there are battles among the people living up and down the river over who can have how much water, it seems clear we cannot afford this anymore. To continue this facility, by federal environmental statutes, the LCRA will soon have to spend millions to stop the pollution which it has been raining down on local residents. Is it really worth it when Texas is a prime source of wind and solar energy?
Even our Republican U.S. representative is actively promoting Texas wind power. 
And at a time when everyone is concerned with health care costs, can we afford the costs that this plant and others like it foist off on us, thereby hiding their true toll? If we added all these hidden costs, how competitive would 'alternative energy' be?
Perhaps this would cost jobs, but there are solutions to that. Like mandatory training programs for the laid-off workers to enable them to find new, better jobs. (A small cost for the savings that will come and for the dangerous work we have asked them to do for us.)
The point is - There are alternatives to coal power. There are alternatives to fights over limited water supplies in growing areas. There are alternatives to dirty, low wage jobs. There are alternatives to hidden costs that fool us into thinking something is cheaper when it isn't.

There is no alternative to water.