Fascism in America

If you’ve lived in America most or all of your life you have probably noticed that a good share of us enjoy our freedoms.  It’s something we have fought to the death for and tend to shout about during nearly every election period of late.

So what if our freedoms became a pawn right here at home?  What would you do if you heard that Small Town America has become the testing-ground for fascism?  Would you blink or would you fight?

I’ve been reading, lately, about a town in Michigan called Benton Harbor that has come under a lot of scrutiny over a change in laws that affect that small community.  First some back-tracking.

Some time back in the history of Michigan, their governor had introduced a bill that allowed for an Emergency Financial Manager to go into any town that is having financial difficulty and help them to get their books in order and make suggestions on how to make the town or city viable.

After the most recent elections that installed a new governor, those laws were altered to change the title and the duties of the Emergency Financial Manager, now called the Emergency Manager.  The Emergency Manager is now capable of going into one of these failing towns and take over.  Literally. 

On December 15 of this year the NY Times published an article about Benton Harbor.  It was an in-depth discussion of what is going on there and how all of this came into being.  Approximately a year after Joseph Harris arrived in Benton Harbor to attend to the emergency financial manager’s duties, the change in his focus took hold. 

The article stated that “His power grew exponentially last spring when Governor Snyder and the state’s Republican Legislature passed Public Act 4, which allows emergency managers to renegotiate or terminate contracts, change collective-bargaining agreements, even dissolve local governments (subject to the governor’s approval). They have almost unfettered control over their respective cities.”

There was a subsequent addendum to this article by the NY Times, authored by a Benton Harbor scientist named Chris Savage, discussing the powers of the Emergency Manager and his concerns on its application. 

Here is what he described as a sample of the emergency manager’s, or E.M.’s,  powers:

1) Assume complete control over local governments and can prohibit elected officials’ access to office facilities, e-mail and internal information systems
2) Remove current department heads, administrators
3)  Sell, lease, convey, assign or other use or transfer assets of the local government or school district
4) Dissolve or disincorporate the local government and assign its assets
5)  Develop academic and educational plans
6) Receive and disburse all federal, state and local funds earmarked for the local government or school district
7) “Take any other action or exercise any power or authority of any officer, employee, department, board, commission or other similar entity of the local government whether elected or appointed”

He stated a special concern for number 5, saying “I have seen the training materials for the training sessions held for potential E.M.’s, and they contain nothing that would help an E.M. develop academic and educational plans. In fact, the trainings were run primarily by representatives from companies who stand to benefit”

An emergency manager in Michigan has “unfettered” power to take control of the city.  Joseph Harris is the Mayor, City Manager and controls the City Council.  None of the business of the democratically elected officials in that town will be allowed to be implemented due to the actions of the E.M.  Because of a financial crisis, this small town has lost its right to practice democracy.  And Benton Harbor isn’t the only one.

In September of this year Louis Schimmel was appointed emergency manager of the City of Pontiac by Governor Rick Snyder.  In a subsequent interview, when asked about his feelings about the state’s emergency managers being called “tyrants” he responded “I guess I’m the tyrant of Pontiac…”

Other towns that have been gifted with the presence of an emergency manager are Flint and Ecorse as well as the school district of Detroit.  There’s talk of a potential that the whole city of Detroit will be under the purview of an emergency manager in the not too distant future.

Equally concerning is the fact that these E.M.s are being paid salaries with six-figures.  While cities are struggling to survive the state has added insult to injury.  Paul Jordan, a Flint resident asked, “What is the proper salary of a dictator?” and I find myself echoing that sentiment.

I also begin to wonder if, by some slim chance, there is a consensus amongst our lawmakers that the emergency manager experiment in Michigan is a success where does that put the rest of the country?  Will E.M.s begin popping up in other communities in other states?  Which state will be next, California, Las Vegas?  And I also wonder how long before this state law becomes a national policy.  Can we allow this slippery slope to swallow our freedoms we enjoy in the name of financial security?

It wasn’t long ago that our country watched as fascism spread across Europe and changed the landscape of foreign policy.  It was also during that time that our own country fought to rid itself of a creeping community of fascism in the form of Nazism; an underground movement that sought to slowly invade our political system.  Can we risk allowing such policies to take root in the face of fear even in small, struggling towns like Benton Harbor and Pontiac, just as it had in pre-World War II Germany?  No.

We have to remember to keep our American values and to not allow fear to consume our rights and liberties.  As FDR said during his first inaugural address: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

All eyes should be on Michigan at this moment and our minds should be keenly focused on solutions that exclude the loss of our democratic process.  Only then can we truly contain the spread of this disease that threatens us all if we don’t inoculate ourselves.  As much as it may seem practical to take over a city to ‘save’ it, our best interest isn’t being served by turning a blind eye to an overreaching law that could, someday, become viral.

Is There a War on Christmas?

We hear a lot of talk these days about a so called “War on Christmas.”  It’s everywhere and there’s mounting evidence of it. 

The special lighting of the “Holiday Tree,” a long time tradition in Rhode Island, has come under fire.  And a conservative Christian group called American Family Association in Michigan has even made out a “Naughty List” which included such retailers as Banana Republic, Barnes & Noble, Family Dollar, Foot Locker, GAP Stores, L.L. Bean, Limited Brands, Office Depot, Old Navy, Radio Shack, Staples, Super Valu and Victoria’s Secret.

It appears as if these retailers and the Governor of Rhode Island are in hot water because they failed to use the term ‘Christmas.’  That’s right.  That one little word changes everything.

And I also noticed that those who are overly critical of these businesses or state leaders have said nothing with regard to the lack of similar Christian salutation in the NRA’s recent holiday greetings.  I guess it’s okay if the organization is well known for touting Christian values while pointing to the lack of virtues of any and every member of a certain political party. 

It was also overlooked that the Arizona chapter of the NRA had a “Guns & Santa” photo shoot with parents and children carrying their hunting rifles and handguns while surrounding Santa in front of the “Christmas” tree.  What will they do next year to switch it up a bit?  I see AK 47s surrounding the Nativity.  Maybe you can have your picture taken while cradling the baby Jesus in one arm and a Glock in the other.  But I digress.

As The Northern Light (an Anchorage University student newspaper) pointed out, the tradition of erecting a spruce tree and decorating it, is a pagan tradition that has been adopted by Christians to signify the birth of their Savior, Jesus Christ.  As a matter of fact, the whole holiday was borrowed from the pagans and was not a concept born out of the birth of the baby Jesus as that holy event didn’t happen in December.  It took place sometime in the fall when the people were required to come in to be counted for the census and be taxed for the money they made from the sale of their summer’s harvest. 

The tradition of celebrating December 25^th actually predates the birth of Christ.  It was originally celebrated as the birth of the ‘son-God’ Mithra, a pagan deity whose religious influence became widespread in the Roman Empire during the first few centuries A.D. 

Rome had absorbed this pagan religion and its rituals, converting this legacy to a celebration of the god, Saturn, and the rebirth of the sun god during the winter solstice period. The winter holiday beginning the week prior to December 25th became known as Saturnalia. The festival was characterized by gift-giving, feasting and singing as the priests of Saturn carried evergreen boughs, turned into wreaths, and sauntered in procession throughout the Roman temples.  It wasn’t until 336 A.D. that Emperor Constantine high-jacked this traditional, non-Christian holiday and labeled it Christmas.

Okay, so it has been a Christian holiday tradition for more than a thousand years and many of us Christians enjoy celebrating it and using it as a reason to remember our Son of God, Jesus Christ.  But is that any reason to force others to do the same?

There are many who don’t believe in the holiday, and for obvious reason, so they choose not to celebrate with us.  Keep in mind; it isn’t the true date of Jesus’ birth.  So why are we suddenly so super-sensitive about forcing our religion on everyone?  Why must every store and every elected official recognize this tradition of saying ‘Merry Christmas’ while ignoring the constitutional right of others who choose not to?  Why must every person in this country be forced to acknowledge it for the simple reason that we do?  They shouldn’t.

Being a Christian, I don’t find it objectionable in any way to smile at someone and say “Happy Holidays!”   

I find it ludicrous to get offended over the Governor of any state calling the spruce the pagans used to decorate in celebration of the birth of Mithra, a ‘Holiday Tree.’  And when my Jewish friends tell me “Merry Christmas” even though they don’t believe in Christmas, it doesn’t cause me guilt in the slightest sense to offer a “Happy Hanukkah” as well.  It’s just thoughtful, and it’s in keeping with the spirit of the season as well as the First Amendment of our Constitution that not only allows us to have freedom of religion but also freedom from religion.  Who are we to take anyone else’s rights away from them?

Tonight my boys will be singing in the ‘Christmas’ concert at their school. They will be singing songs about Jesus as well as other traditional Christmas songs that don’t mention the baby Jesus at all.  And I will sit there in the audience and clap for all of the songs, the ones that are Christian oriented and the ones that are centered on the pagan holiday as well, because it doesn’t really matter.  It doesn’t take away the idea of what the holiday means for me.  And anyone who is strong enough in their faith or beliefs shouldn’t worry about what those non-Christian words mean to them either. 

And that being said; I wonder if those who make the greatest fuss about the use of ‘Holiday’ instead of ‘Christmas’ are more concerned about the frailty of their own personal faith than those who dismiss it and go on with their religious celebrations.  Or do they just need something else to complain about because they feel there isn’t enough already. 

 

Let’s put our guns away and stop creating a dilemma where there is none.  It will help to make the holidays a little less stressful for us all.

Indefinite Detention

Most Americans will never have to worry about being arrested for acts of terrorism, but could you be arrested and treated as if you are a terrorist because your dog relieved itself on your neighbor’s lawn? 

Several years ago there was a law passed called ‘The Patriot Act’ which gave the United States government sweeping powers to investigate you, your property, family and friends if they were under the impression that you were a terrorist.  What was most concerning was that they didn’t have to discern between valid evidence.  And such determinations were indiscriminate as well.  A person could literally lose all rights to privacy for the simple reason that their neighbor turned them in to get back at them for their dog doing his business on their lawn.  It’s a scenario right out of a Robert Ludlum novel, right? 

As recently as four years ago I remember hearing someone click into my phone lines whenever I spoke with family and friends, resulting in temporarily distorting the clarity of my personal calls.  I would joke with my mother or a close friend that the CIA or FBI was listening in on my calls, wanting to find out the ingredients to my infamous Almond Butter Crunch recipe.  Immediately following these comments I would hear a click and the echoing of our voices would cease.  I kid you not.  I do have witnesses.

So I began to wonder if my lines were being tapped because of my previous military experience and/or due to my criticisms of president, George W. Bush, over his handling of the Iraq war and our shrinking economy.  I could think of no other reason as I was sure that my dog hadn’t soiled any of my neighbors’ lawns since, at the time, I didn’t own a dog.

I found it invasive to be shadowed due to having strong opinions that didn’t coincide with our country’s leaders.  Clearly it wasn’t the first time an American took up an issue with their sitting president, look at all the flack president Clinton endured, and nobody tapped my phones when he was president no matter how critical I was of him.

Imagine my pleasure when the Supreme Court had decided that warrantless wire-tapping was unconstitutional and that I could make a call without annoying clicking and incessant echoes.  Not that I didn’t get a kick out of being plugged in by the government and letting them know that I was aware of their intrusive presence. 

Currently our lawmakers are considering a bill that allows the government to commit Americans who are suspected of terrorism without any due process, no right to a hearing or even to know the charges being brought against you, and allows you to be detained indefinitely without recourse.  Congress has already passed this law and it heads to the Senate where there is no indication it will be curtailed.  At one point our president, Barack Obama, had threatened to veto this law, but after some minor revisions by Congress he has acquiesced and withdrawn his promise to veto. 

With all the new and highly invasive laws being passed in states these days -- such as the “Papers Please” law in Arizona where law enforcement officials can walk up to any individual on the street and ask for their proof of citizenship (I don’t always carry ID on me), or Alabama’s immigration law that encourages people to spy on their neighbors, once creating an incident where a customer who was paying with cash was asked to show their ID -- is anyone besides me growing concerned over the idea that our country is looking increasingly like pre-World War II Germany?  I’m sure Fascism is one of the evils our Founding Fathers tried to protect us against when they were drafting our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In my opinion it’s dangerous to give our leaders this type of power that takes away our constitutional rights as citizens of this country.   I understand that there’s a tremendous fear of terrorism since the September 11, 2001 attacks on our country.  And the members of the right-wing media don’t do anything to discourage such hysteria, especially when it comes to members of certain segments of our society (Muslims/Mexicans).  But shouldn’t we be more reasonable about what freedoms we’re willing to give up.  After all, it was Benjamin Franklin who said: He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither.

From comments I’ve seen by Americans who are aware of this bill and the rights it diminishes or completely obliterates, there are few who would support this bill if brought to a vote of the electorate and for a very good reason.  

Thankfully there are civil rights groups out there, like the ACLU and the NAACP, who haven’t given up and have vowed to fight this new bill.  It makes me want to begin donating to these and other civil rights organizations in order to help them continue to fight for our liberties.  It seems our elected officials are less than enthusiastic about providing them for us themselves.

My reason for concern about this bill isn’t that I worry I’ll be labeled as a terrorist.  The recipe for my Almond Butter Crunch will cause nothing worse than exploding hips and expanding waistlines.  But I do have a dog now and I can’t be sure that it won’t make a jail break and reek some form of havoc in a neighboring yard.  Hopefully, with a bevy of sincere apologies and a plate of goodies I’ll be able to stave off any attempts to have me indefinitely detained for reasons of unfounded but suspicious terrorist activities.

ID or Not to ID... That is the Question

A good friend of mine asked me my opinion on whether or not a person should be required to show their ID in order to vote.  I decided to answer her here.

When the discussion of this controversy first emerged, my initial impression was: So what?  Everyone should have their ID in order to vote in any election.  It keeps people from voting fraudulently doesn't it?  But then I did some more checking into the matter and this is what I found... 

First some background on why this has become such a controversy.  Over the past several months there have been several states that have begun working to change their voting laws.  Some of the ways they have gone about doing so is by creating laws that redistrict areas within their state. 

When areas of a state are redistricted the boundaries are moved creatively that separate areas that would vote predominantly one party or another so that a district that typically votes Republican or is predominantly Democrat would have a deciding share of those votes moved into another district that votes in the opposite.  The ending result is an area that would normally elect someone in one particular party ends up electing someone from the other party instead due to dilution of votes or it can help ensure that an incumbent will be reelected. This is called Gerrymandering.

In order to see how this redistricting effects the voting population of that area, one needs only look at a map of these new districts.  In many cases you will see lines and boundaries that make no sense at all, curving through one section and then portioning off another.  It is only one of many age-old ways to affect the outcome of an election.

Another move to change voting laws of late is to decrease the amount of time allowed for early voting.  There are many people who lead busy lives between work, family life and other factors that get in their way.  These folks prefer to vote when it's convenient for them since it will allow them to be able to accomplish everything on their list and not wait in line on election day to vote. 

During the 2008 elections, students at Kenyon College in Ohio, stood in line for up to 10 hours, the final ballot being cast at 4a.m.  But this wasn't the exception.  There were complaints of long lines in Columbus, Ohio as well as in the states of Colorado, Michigan and Florida.  There were reports of waits as long as 8 hours in Florida where even the elderly voters were required to stand in line outside in the suffocating heat.  Also consider that most employees are given only 2 hours in order to vote on election day, so you don't need to wonder if diminishing early voting would have any effect on those people.

And all this election day waiting occurred with the average amount of early voting days still in place.  In Wisconsin they made a "trial run" of how a typical election day would work with a decrease in early voting days and found that there was no possible way they could accommodate the increased number of voters the new law would create.

Lastly, there is a sudden increase in the number of states that are requiring IDs in order to vote.  This is the one that has had people scratching their heads.  It seems like the right thing on the surface.  As I mentioned early in this post, I was definitely leaning toward agreeing with this law.  What makes it a difficult one to decide which side to fall on is that the arguments on both sides are so convincing.  So here are the arguments as I understand them.

On one side of the line is the group saying that the voter ID requirement protects our elections from allowing ineligible voters to cast ballots.  It is their only true argument and it's a pretty strong one.  In the state of Minnesota there were just over 100 people convicted of voter fraud for casting ballots in spite of their lack of eligibility during the 2008 elections.  It was reportedly the most egregious case of voter fraud in the country since 1939 and the number of voters convicted of fraud in Minnesota was greater than the number of people who were caught in all other states put together,  nationwide. 

On the other side there is the idea that in most states an ID was never required in order to vote.  In those states there are (and I was not aware of this anomaly until recently) literally thousands of elderly people who were born at home and therefore, do not have birth certificates.  These people have been able to prove their existence through entries in family bibles as to the date and time of their birth but that is not enough for government-issued birth certificates or to acquire the state official ID in order to vote. And those elderly voters who have no such official identification and have voted regardless for as long as they have been allowed?  No more.  They will not be allowed to vote unless they clear up the matters that keep them from acquiring a state-issued ID.  And in some cases it will cost hundreds of dollars in order to do so.

Other groups that would be disenfranchised would be the poor, minorities, new voters and students.  Student IDs, under some of the new voter laws that require state or federal government issued IDs, are considered insufficient.  As a matter of fact, it is estimated that approximately 5 million people would be affected by changing to an ID required voter law.  That is an enormous number to just ignore.  But that isn't even the most disturbing point about this whole issue.

What makes it more of a concern is that every one of these new voting laws are being considered in 'Red' states only.  It is the Republican legislators and governors who are proposing these laws and it isn't hard to believe that such laws only effect a demographic of voters who would cast their ballot for Democratic candidates.

Even the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) in an attempt to discredit a NAACP report this week on the lack of voter fraud evidence, has bolstered the view that there is no need for voter ID laws, imposed by many states.  And, according to George Washington University law professor, Spencer Overton, a former member of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, "the existing evidence suggests that the type of fraud addressed by photo ID requirements is extraordinarily small and that the number of eligible citizens who would be denied their right to vote as a result... is exceedingly large."


Now I'm not a Democrat, although I have been accused of being one, especially over the past couple of election cycles, but as a moderate who wants fairness in our elections process I have a difficult time supporting laws that disproportionately favors one party and disproportionately hurts another, while disenfranchising a tremendous number of people in this country. 

Do our elected officials really want to hurt those who depend on them for the sole purpose of effecting an election?  We have seen so much of this over the past year and it's disturbing to see one segment of our political system letting down numerous people in our society for political gain and the invention of another's political loss.

After weighing the evidence regarding required voter ID I have to say 'No'.  In the current political climate I feel it is a bad idea.  And, until they can ensure that EVERYONE who is eligible to vote will be provided a way to do so without cost then I fall on the side of no caution. 

And if you think about it, with the low number of voter fraud cases in this country, is anyone really losing by allowing 5 million Americans to continue to exercise the rights they have always enjoyed at the expense of allowing a handful of ineligible voters to abuse it.  In the grander scheme of things, doesn't it just make sense to not give up that right because of a small few who won't make a difference in this or any future election anyway?  Give me YOUR opinion.  Let me know what YOU think.

Ben and Jerry's Cherry Garcia Pipeline

What is all the hullabaloo about the Keystone XL Pipeline?  I hadn't really heard about it, or probably had just shut down my intelligence monitor whenever it was brought up, until an article surfaced showing Daryl Hannah being arrested, among many others, at a protest in front of the White House.  Then I began to listen and this is what I learned.

First the boring part...  The Keystone XL Pipeline started with a proposal by the TransCanada Corporation in 2005.  At the time, there was push-back from the unions stating it would exclusively serve US markets, create permanent employment for very few Canadians, reduce energy security, and hinder investment and job creation in the Canadian energy sector.  With some hesitation, however, the pipeline was approved anyway.

On March 17, 2008, the U.S. Department of State issued a Presidential Permit authorizing the construction, maintenance and operation of facilities at the United States and Canada border.  In 2008 ConocoPhillips acquired a 50% stake in the project although in 2009 TransCanada agreed to buy back CononcoPhillips' share of the pipeline.   So what's the problem with that?

The issues arose when TransCanada proposed taking the pipeline across the border into the United States in 2008.  A permit was granted by the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission on February 19, 2010.  Impact statements were filed and then it was noted that the information provided in the statement was very narrow and needed revision.  Upon later revising the impact statement, it had been decided there was "no significant" impact to the environment as long as they follow EPA regulations strictly.  But this news wasn't as consoling as you would think.

One concern is that the pipeline could pollute air and water supplies and harm migratory birds and other wildlife. It will cross the Sandhills in Nebraska, the large wetland ecosystem, and the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the largest reserves of fresh water in the world. The Ogallala Aquifer spans eight states, provides drinking water for two million people, and supports $20 billion in agriculture. Critics are concerned that a major leak could ruin drinking water and devastate the mid-western U.S. economy. Portions of the pipeline will also cross an active seismic zone that had a 4.3 magnitude earthquake as recently as 2002. Opponents claim that TransCanada applied to the U.S. government to use thinner steel and pump at higher pressures than normal.

Additionally, the oil that would be pumped through this pipeline will be oil-sands crude which is the dirtiest and most costly to refine.  The cost of the pipeline and refinement of the oil would increase gas prices across the Midwest.  But this pipeline will create "thousands", "tens of thousands", even "millions" of jobs, as conservative talk show hosts would have us believe.  Wouldn't that alone make it worth the increased costs?  Not necessarily.  According to TransCanada, the amount of permanent jobs created would be only in the hundreds.

A study from Cornell University said the pipeline could actually lead to a decline in jobs in the long run. One reason is that, since the pipeline would lead to higher fuel prices in the Midwest, it would slow consumer spending and cost us jobs. The study also said jobs could also be lost due to crop failures or other events associated with higher pollution levels the oil sands would bring. And it said more oil would mean a decline in green jobs.

So here we are, wrestling with the idea of allowing a Canadian company, one that shows little regard for safety and greater concern for costs, to build a pipeline across our country in areas of potential earthquake activity and crossing an aquifer that provides drinking water to millions as well as supporting agriculture, providing only hundreds of jobs and possibly eliminating hundreds of others, while increasing the cost of gas throughout the Midwest.  Why are we even considering it?

So, knowing all of this information about this very volatile subject, you can imagine my surprise when Congress voted on the Payroll Taxcut Bill with added increases in Medicare, an extension of Unemployment Benefits and a provision that will move ahead completion of the Keystone XL Pipeline within 60 days of passage of the Bill.

All of the House Republicans are in favor of the new Bill.  Representative and House Speaker, John Boehner even stated "The president says that the American people can't wait for jobs. Well clearly if we pass this bill today we will be taking the first big step toward creating jobs in America."

Knowing what I know about the Keystone XL Pipeline, I begin to wonder: How many millions of dollars did TransCanada have to shell out to get our Legislators to fall all over themselves to jam this bill through?

And again, we are at another precipice, with our representatives standing, looking over the edge and tossing our futures into the void.  If it comes back up we can implement it, right?  Legislation that doesn't create jobs should not be wrapped in Ben and Jerry's Cherry Garcia ice cream and fed to the American public as if it's something healthy for our country.

And again I ponder this very important subject.  Will we ever be able to get beyond the facades that allow us to support these types of bills that are destructive to the many and beneficial to the very few in our society?  I sure hope so.

And I've learned a very good lesson from all of this: If someone is willing to get arrested for a cause, isn't it worth finding out what it's all about before we flip the channel to something mindless and sedating?  It could mean a great deal to the quality of water we'll be drinking or the air we'll be breathing at some point in the not too distant future.  Think about it.  Just my opinion....

Newt Gingrich: Picking a Fight The Israelis will be Forced to Finish

As many others across this nation I have been watching the presidential debates and keeping track of the candidates' movements, statements and anything that will give me further insight as to what they believe, where they stand with regard to economy, foreign policy, domestic policy and social issues.  Interesting to see the proverbial mud-wrestling that takes place at this stage in the election cycle.  Most recently we have been exposed to varying forms of individual candidates' policies that will affect our country.

Rick Perry, for example, spoke of 7 Constitutional Amendments he would abolish upon being elected president, the most concerning of which would be the plan to give Congress the power to over-rule Supreme Court decisions.  Additionally, he gave the names of 3 federal agencies he would do away with: the Department of Commerce, the Department of Education and the Department of Energy, although the name of one of those agencies seemed to escape his memory each time he recited the list.

And who could forget Herman Cain's "9-9-9" plan for economic reparation?  It was a plan that would, on top of the current state taxes, introduce a federal sales tax in the amount of 9% while decreasing our federal income tax to 9% for all tax payers.  The idea of increasing our sales tax by so much has many scratching their heads.  What would such a daring move do to the retail industry?  If 50% of Americans are struggling to pay their bills, what will a major increase such as this do to their ability to buy clothes, household items, food?    Although his plan was strategically developed with a teller at a Wells Fargo bank, it was an idea that not one respected economist was willing to embrace.  Hmmm.

Michele Backmann has proposed taxing every person in the United States, even the poor, because everyone should feel like they have contributed something to our economy even if they don't have the ability to contribute food to their dinner table.

And then there's Newt Gingrich.  Recently he made a very inflammatory comment about the Palestinians being an "invented people" drawing sharp criticism by the Palestinian government and the Arab League of Nations.  At the moment his comment went viral over the internet you could almost hear a collective holding of breath across face of the world.  I have no doubt most people said to themselves, or the person sitting next to them, "did he really mean to say that?"  After all the things that had been said throughout the recent debates and in interviews, there have been quite a few incendiary statements made by these republican candidates that have caused large numbers to be taken aback at the insensitivity of the orator, or of the audience reaction.  But this one was especially concerning in that it wasn't an idea that affected only the people within our borders.  It was an international incident.  In fact, you may even call it a hyperventilation-inducing moment.

Many wondered if Gingrich would retract his comments in an after-thought of temporary sanity.  So when the topic came up during the debate on Saturday I waited with bated breath to see what he would say.  Not only did he back away from what he said but he repeated it again to a round of applause from debate observers.  He stated that he's merely telling the truth and then began to recite some textbook jargon, purportedly in every Palestinian school textbook, matter-of-factly discussing math facts that include adding and subtracting the body count of dead Israelis. But it didn't end there.  He ended his confirmation by calling all Palestinians terrorists.  It was certainly shocking to witness.

Although it wouldn't be hard to believe that Mr. Gingrich had probably made up such ghastly math problems he stated so surely were contained in Palestinian textbooks, it is a well-known fact that Palestine is an enemy of Israel.  It is painfully obvious, as well, that many Israelis have been killed by Palestinian mortars and that such mortars are launched regularly into Israel from Palestine.  And that, from time to time, the Israelis have felt it necessary to answer such shelling with return fire.

What isn't so clear, however, is whether or not ANY elected official of this country, let alone candidate,  has enough information to make such generalized and negatively engaging statements that will do nothing to help the people of Israel.  It is also unclear whether a  lack of diplomacy will assist or hinder the peace process in the Middle East or if it will instead create an unquenchable inferno.

I agreed with Mitt Romney and Ron Paul when they stated that the affairs between the two warring nations should be dealt with carefully and that, if anyone was going to make such strong allegations it should come from the leaders of those countries, not this country.  Are we not yet tired of engaging in the politics of other nations only to become the bastard child of an ugly divorce?  Have we not learned that there is more work needed to be done here at home; that we cannot afford another war in another part of the world that we are not already engaged in?  Have we not lost enough American lives on foreign soil over the past 10 years to be able to say 'we're tired and we wanna' go home?'

In my opinion, it is unforgivably irresponsible to pick a fight with the Palestinians when the brunt of our actions will be taken out, solely, on the neighboring people of Israel who didn't pick that fight in the first place.  Allow them to choose their words and to be as honest or as diplomatic as they care to be.  Your words, Mr. Gingrich, are those of a neutered Chihuahua, yipping in the protective shadows to the rear of a Great Dane, and you owe the people of Israel, as well as the people of Palestine, a sincere apology.

Occupy Corruption

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the efforts of Occupy Protesters at least once in my blog.  I guess this day would be better than any other.

From the beginning, when Occupy first set up in Zucotti Park in New York, I had my doubts about the movement and what they were trying to accomplish.  I was interested and intrigued, however, as with every other observer, it was difficult to discern what they were trying to convey.  When their messages began to materialize I became more than interested, I grew emotionally involved. Their messages were mixed, the press was confused, yet I saw the beauty of their statements as a metaphor for how the country is feeling at this time. 

In the end of the George W. Bush presidency we had seen a somewhat similar movement, called the Tea Party, grab hold of our political conscience.  They became a huge voice in the 2010 elections due to a weary electorate looking to oust the insiders connected to corporate lobbyists and greed.  And then their message became muddled with the voices of angry pundits spreading false information and radical ideology.  At once our nation awoke from the slumber and realized that the Tea Party movement was no longer a people's movement but a partisan ambush.

Rather than populist concerns and intelligent discourse, it became co-opted into angry rhetoric and partisan bashing.  The conversation was no longer that of love of country but take up arms and destroy those who disagree.  I once had a friend in my home discussing current politics.  When I spoke in simple terms of my distrust and low opinion of the Tea Party movement and the visceral turn it had taken, not to mention a certain movement hero who choked out numerous ossifying and polarizing oratories, my friend turned on me.  He became animated and began shouting at me.  I've no doubt there are many others around the country who have had similar experiences.

As it became painfully obvious that the Tea Party had evolved into bitter voices and bigoted actions, the collective conscience of the more moderate thinkers in our society shifted away.  A political party embraced them as the ugly cousin with cute friends.  But to those who embraced sanity in an insane world, the message was lost, yet the problem remained.  No one had truly addressed the issues that nearly brought our nation to the brink of disaster.  And in walked Occupy.

The motley band of protesters with their tents and drum circles were nothing more than fodder for late night talk show hosts and political satirists.    But as the movement grew, so did the attention bestowed upon them.  Those who vehemently supported the Tea Party turned on the occupy movement as if they were mangy pit-bulls.  And more Americans began to notice. 

As they were assaulted by overzealous protectors of rights, and evicted from their makeshift homesteads, the movement evolved into Human Red Carpets and Occupy Foreclosures.  They proved they were not just a band of homeless squatters invading private and public domains.  They were truly activists who were willing to fight for the average person, helping down-on-their-luck people to stay in their homes for as long as possible.

In spite of their altruistic deeds, there were many who continue to disparage them.   One particular pundit warned his listeners "they will drag you  out and kill you.."  But it didn't dissuade their supporters.  Presidential candidates painted them as lazy, calling them "ignorant and disrespectful." Michele Bachmann said that they only wanted to have "people pay for their stuff." Newt Gingrich told protesters to "Go get a job" and "Take a bath."  Deposed candidate and former pizza-groping aficionado, Herman Cain, called Occupiers “jealous’ Americans who "play the victim card” and want to “take somebody else’s” Cadillac.

With all the negative attention there were many who expected the movement to dwindle, even fade into obscurity as a lost cause.  And yet, the movement continued to grow.  Why?  Because their message was simple and remains as simple as the day it was conceived: We're angry as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore!  Now I have to say that there has been no official statement as to one clear message of the Occupy movement.  My generality of their cause is only my summary, not theirs.  And yet, I listen to their chants and their pleas to get corporate money out of our politics, stop bailing out the big guys when there are so many of the little guys who are hurting even more, listen to the poor majority not the rich minority, etc... and I'm so reminded of the Shay's Rebellion as I witness this event that will be marked forever in our history.


I find it ingenious that they haven't stated a clear goal nor picked a central leader, although it has been driving the media and naysayers mad.  The truth is, their movement isn't about one person or one political party or even one problem.  It is about all of us and the many problems we now face due to misjudgements and continued pandering to a small group of anointed people.  It is about our changing world and the trials each of us face that are as varied as the cultures within our small nation.  It is about being able to respond to situations as they arise and not brush aside the needy because their circumstances don't fit within the narrowed purpose of a borrowed movement.

My hat is off to all those who have sacrificed for the Occupy protests across the country. Although they have met with incredible adversity they haven't allowed even crummy weather to dampen their spirits.  We all need a little Occupy in our lives to remind us what is really worth fighting for and what rights are worth preserving.  I am the 99% and so are you.  Thank you Occupy!  You are true heroes in this, sometimes, ungrateful nation.

Have Supermarket Tabloids Replaced Fox News As A New Source For Conspiracy?

Since I was in my teens I was clearly able to recognize the sensationalized inaccuracies in such supermarket tabloids as The Globe, Star and National Enquirer.  Back then, as now, I would pass the strategically placed publications at the checkout stand and read the varying headlines.  Not because I was interested in what they had to say or had any misconception that I could receive any form of insight from what they could share with the eager world.  Mostly I gawked as though I was passing a devastating wreck, tying up lanes of busy freeway.   At times I would laugh at the implausible announcements of some celebrity who was getting divorced or acting inappropriately or storming off into the sunset in a drunken rage.

I always found it difficult to take any of those publications seriously.  It was equally difficult to take anyone seriously who elected to purchase such nonsense and drag it to their home with an expectation of elevating their knowledge of any subject tackled in that particular issue.  So, you could imagine my surprise when I came across an article written by Harvard graduate Jerome R. Corsi quoting such tabloids.

For those who are unaware, Jerome Corsi has written several books and articles on the topic of Democratic  presidential candidates with intent of derailing their candidacy.  His first such biography, entitled Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,  hit the stands during the 2004 elections selling more than 1.2 million copies.  The book paints Senator John Kerry as a coward under fire during his tour in Vietnam, with affidavits from veterans who reportedly witnessed his actions.  These claims were later repudiated by other veterans who were actually there during those excursions and disproven by other sources including official Navy records.

In 2008 he wrote another presidential candidate expose and named it The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.  According to various American news sources, many of the accusations made in the book are unsubstantiated, misleading or inaccurate.   The New York Times wrote, "Significant parts of the book... have been challenged in the days since its debut."   Additionally, on July 20 of 2008 he appeared on The Political Cesspool, a white supremacist radio talk show, to promote his book that would be released less than two weeks later.

In May of this year he release yet another book about President Obama entitled:  Where's the Birth Certificate?,  This venture questions the origin of the president's birth and thusly the validity of his presidency.  Unfortunately for Corsi, just three weeks before it was published, President Obama released the long-form copy of his birth certificate for public scrutiny.

After all of this dramatic theater you would think the question of the president's place of birth would be a moot subject.  As luck would have it, that assumption would be incorrect.  On December 8, 2011, Corsi authored an article for ultra-conservative on-line publication, World Net Daily, entitled Arpaio gets death threats over Obama Investigation.  Quite a titillating title indeed.

It appears that Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has been encouraged by Jerome Corsim, as well as Arizona state Tea Partyers, to conduct an investigation into the matter of Barack Obama's birth certificate.  It seems that, according to Arpaio, we have been misled into believing that his long-form birth certificate is real.  The article quotes Arpaio as saying:

"This is a serious law enforcement investigation, and our findings are going to be controversial but based in facts...  The investigators on the Cold Case Posse are doing a great job,"

A "Cold Case Posse?"  Really!?!  And I begin to wonder if he says this with a straight face.  Upon seeing the phrase "Cold Case Posse" (sorry, it's so ridiculous I couldn't help but print it again) I am indescribably intrigued.  I know I shouldn't waist my time on such trash but I have no choice.  It's like watching a train veering toward a crumbling tunnel on mangled tracks.  I realize the impending carnage but my eyes won't close, my head won't turn away.  And then the article says this:

"On Tuesday, Arpaio posted on his Facebook page a reference to a Globe Magazine report citing inside sources in the White House who say President Obama and the First Lady are in "a panic" over the Maricopa County investigation"

He quoted The Globe Magazine!  I couldn't believe it!  I had no choice but to research this further, because my mind is rolling through the resumes of Mr. Corsi and Sheriff Arpaio.  After all, Corsi is a person who may have used some form of deception in his past writings but he does have a PhD from Harvard University.  Harvard University!  And his go-to source is The Globe? 

A simple 'Google' search took me directly to the article with a picture of our president looking very concerned.  I stared at it in the same way I always view the cover of  The Globe, Star and National Enquirer in the grocery store line; with a hearty chuckle waiting to escape my throat.  It was like an old Saturday Night Live skit right there for my incredulous enjoyment.  But wait, that wasn't all.

In September of this year, Sheriff Arpaio told Arizona Republic's Dan Nowicki that tabloids like The Globe and the National Enquirer are "more accurate than anybody else..."

He's kidding, right?  I'm laughing.  And it's not just a slight "ha ha" but an all out guffaw.  This is 'roll-on-the-floor' material.  I'm nearly to the point of hysterical, yet, I'm worried at the same time. 

I can only assume this man carries a gun.  Has anyone questioned Sheriff Arpaio's fitness to carry on his duties with a sense of sanity and a reasonable mindset?  Who cares about the sanity of Corsi.  He's merely an alarmist who's scaring people the country over with his anxiety-inducing rhetoric.  But Arpaio is a sheriff, with a badge and a gun  and a large group of people who depend on him on a daily basis.  How can a county take a man with his intellectual incapacity and grandiose ideals seriously?

Equally, how could a Harvard Graduate with a PhD in Political Science not fear that the University would retroactively rescind his degree?  I can imagine the faculty of this prestigious institution are at this very moment slapping the middle of their foreheads and cursing out loud.

Even more concerning is that these two gentlemen have a devout following in the very large coalition of Tea Party activists.  Segments of our society are devouring these statements as if they're accurate and factually based.  Not only have they been fooled once by Jerome Corsi in his very scurrilous books and articles but they have been fooled time and again by Corsi and Sheriff Arpaio as well as so many other pundits with axe-grinding rhetoric and a platform to disseminate it.

Have we come to the point in this country where freedom of speech has not succeeded in elevating our intelligence but has adversely dumbed-down a segment in our country that has been defeated with fear-inducing, hate-mongering rhetoric?  Is there any way to overcome this virus within that has as many rights as the rest of us yet uses false implications and scurrilous attacks in an attempt to subdue our own rational voices?

I suppose our best defense in times such as these is a collective voice that is unafraid to shine a light on the rhetorical vampires, sucking the life's blood from the liberties our Founding Fathers had provided in a frail document so long ago.  I believe education is the key.

Don't get me wrong.  It's not that I have any delusions that the tabloids will suddenly begin printing accurate and responsible stories any time in the near future.  And I can imagine that there will always be a readership, anxiously awaiting news about a drunken celebrity having been accused of fathering an illegitimate child with a far-flung alien.  There's no doubt these rags will go on and that someone will buy them.  However, if they go the way of Rupert Murdoch's outrageous publication, News of the World, there is little doubt we will begin to see their ilk flung to the trash-heap along with all the other sensationalized tabloids that have also become painfully irrelevant.

Why Do They Keep Picking On The Poor?

As the Primaries draw near for the Republican Party's presidential anointed to be revealed, we see many varying cries to arms.  Most notable of late is the war on the poor of our country.  I read comments from posters regurgitating rhetoric that have become the latest talking points of the moment, created by a pundit who has more arrogance than tact or compassion.   I find myself embroiled in the debate I may or may not be capable of winning, depending on the number of conservatives or moderates/ liberals who are posting thumb's up or thumb's down on that particular site at that moment.  And as I read a misguided rending of an angry follower of visceral ideology, I find myself in awe of the lack of thoughtful understanding.  Do these people know not how to google or fact check or even think for themselves?

When I was young my teacher taught us about "Stereotypes". It is a word that means putting a general meaning to all in a group that only applies to a small few. To this day I continue to read many comments from people who obviously haven't learned that to group all poor into the same group is a false assumption or stereotype.

There are many poor people who have worked hard all their lives and either didn't go to college because they weren't confident enough to feel they could succeed, or maybe they already know their abilities are not conducive to such an undertaking. There are others who have gone to college but have had a situation beyond their control that has kept them from being able to finish or to monopolize on their further education. I have seen each of these situations in play.

Many conservative supporters seem to want to vilify those who make a poor living while cheering for their wealthy employer who is making record profits at the expense of their labor.  Many such employers offer no company healthcare, or one with premiums that are too expensive for an employee to afford at his/her meager salary. Interesting to see these "job creators" making record profits while informing their employees that they are decreasing benefits and freezing salaries. I wonder why so many people (approximately 60% according to recent polls) are so angry and have taken to the streets.

Recently, Republican presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich told an audience in Iowa "Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works..."  I wonder which study he was quoting when he made such remarks.  He went on to say "...they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of 'I do this and you give me cash,' unless it's illegal."  Does he seriously believe this unfounded stereotype?

It has become clear to me that many of the followers of beltway media sources - the ones that purport 'fairness' and 'balance' in their reporting yet espouse very unbalanced views - have been led to believe that this is not only a possible truism but the norm amongst the very poor in America.  I am here to say it just isn't true.

When I was young , at times, my mother worked 2 jobs in order to make ends meet.  There were many nights I didn't see her before I went to bed.  Yet, we were still very poor.  Many of our meals consisted of rice or some concoction created with rice.  Mostly it was something I preferred not to introduce to my body but had no choice if I wanted a meal.  I can tell you that when your stomach shrinks it's much easier to disregard one or two of the in-dilectible meals set before you.  There were many times I chose to only eat the cereal I'd had for breakfast and choke down only half of the sandwich I was given for lunch.  After years of peanutbutter and  something-else sandwiches I have found it difficult to choose it as a desired lunch alternative.  Thankfully my children don't know what that's like.

As an adult I had decided to return to school to get my degree.  I had hoped to become a lawyer and chose Philosophy/Pre-Law as my four year degree kick-start.  I attended Kansas State University while my daughter began kindergarten.  Each afternoon I would leave class to pick her up from school and bring her back to the university with me while my husband played Army on the neighboring base.  Some days it all worked out well, other days it was a struggle. 

I was so determined to achieve my degree and move on to the next stage of my life that I was willing to do whatever it took.  Because the university charged the same tuition for any number of credit hours over 7, I took as many as 25 credit hours in a semester.  It was hard, but I didn't have the money and we were barely getting by with the $1000 per month my husband made as a medic in the Army.  Macaroni and Cheese and Hamburger Helper became a staple in our home during those desperate times.

I needed to finish my degree quickly and move on so I could get a job in order to assist in supporting our family.  After my first year I had completed one-half of my degree requirements and carried a 3.3 cumulative GPA.  Yes, the poor girl who, according to Newt Gingrich, 'had no working habits' was working far beyond most of her fellow classmates in college. 

I was involved in college-sponsored groups that would help to further my education about our world politics and I attended classes day and night, every weekday and, in some semesters, on Saturday.  It was a grueling schedule but I was so focused that I didn't seem to notice.  The important thing to me at that moment was that my grades were good, I would have my degree in a year and my only difficult decision at that point was whether or not I would get my Masters Degree before I went on to Law School.  And then a different choice crossed my path.  My daughter was diagnosed with a severe heart disease that required a heart transplant.

My life was put on hold.  My degree was no longer in sight.  My only focus at that point became the welfare of my child.  Although we lived in Manhattan, Kansas at the time, the facility that would be performing her transplant was in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  So we were suddenly faced with not only struggling to pay our bills in Kansas with the $1,000 a month my husband received from the Army, we also had to pay for our rent and food in another city of which we would be residing for a very long time.  We were thankful to have friends who took great care of our animals in our Kansas home while we were gone, but the situation was an immense weight that we continued to endure without notice as our focus was razor sharp.  Thankfully the surgery went well and we were able to return home only a few months later.

A couple years after my daughter's surgery, I found myself a single mother with a daughter who had ongoing health needs.  I worked full-time at a job that paid barely over minimum wage, but had the company-sponsored health benefits that I needed in order to take care of my child.  Once again I struggled.  I worked hard at my job and finished my degree at the same time.  Thankfully, I was able to catch a break, a lead on a higher paying job had crossed my path, and I was on my way out of financial despair. 

So, here I am today, able to say that I live fairly well, although it has not always been that way.  My mother struggled and then years later I struggled as well.  I look at everyone of my siblings and how strong they also are, how hard they also work, and can see nothing in our unfortunate past that reflects or supports Mr. Gingrich's- or any short-sighted conservative's-opinion of the very poor.  As a matter of fact, we are representative of so many Americans who succeeded in spite of being poor and gained superior work ethics because we saw how hard our parents worked to provide a decent living in the face of adversity.