Dialing down the vitriol by looking inside ourselves

A couple of days ago I read a story about a 16-year old being threatened with rape for daring to criticize Michele Bachmann. (see story here:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/sophomore-threatened-with-rape-for-criticisms-of-michele-bachmann )

I'm not naive about the level of vitriol in our political discourse but I am now way beyond disgusted. Can you imagine the hate it takes to threaten a 16-year old?

I make no secret of being a liberal and no secret that I therefor disagree with a lot (but not all) of the politics of the conservatives. I wish them no harm, however!

Something about Barack Obama has really set off the right, though. There was the Birther issue (now resolved by the publishing of the long-form birth certificate, although there are those that still will remain unconvinced), the "czar" issue (as if this president were the first to appoint a "czar"; he was not. President Reagan created the first drug czar, by the way (although this still was not the first time the term "czar" was used)), and, for many, anything that comes out of Obama's mouth.

The Obama-haters should, in fact, look at the similarities between our current President and President Reagan (who is a demi-god - or maybe just a god - to the right). Many of Obama's ideas echo those of Reagan (leading this liberal to wonder if Obama is a secret Republican :-). So here's my question of the day: do you disagree with the ideas of Mr. Obama, or do you just disagree because it's Obama? Did you disagree when a Republican president proposed the same idea?

In my own small attempt to put some of this vitriol back in the box, I would ask you to look inside yourself and see why you disagree with Obama's ideas. If it's because you have an intense dislike for him, fine: at least admit it to yourself. But if you dislike the idea because of the idea itself, ask yourself if you disliked the idea when a Republican presented it. At least be honest with yourself. I know not everyone can look into themselves this way but I hope at least some of you will try. Maybe then the future voters will not learn to be afraid of voicing their opinions.

Another Infamous Day

Well .... I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again, but I think I'm right about this: with no intent to insult my Republican friends, today will be marked as the day that elected Republicans, collectively, went too far.

In a surprise move - that has nothing to do with the budget - Wisconsin went ahead & stripped the unions of most of their collective bargaining rights.

Michigan will now allow a city to be taken over in a "fiscal emergency" (with a way-too-loose definition of fiscal emergency), and then the person that takes over can fire any or all of the elected officials, strip unions of their bargaining rights, nullify contracts, and take over schools.

Republican governors, "coincidentally", have all decided that collective bargaining needs to be done away with (you DO remember reading about life before unions, don't you?)

Florida wants to eliminate almost all taxes on corporations then fire 9000 people to make up for the loss of income.

All of this while giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy and to hugely profitable corporations.

Looks like all the noise about President Obama being a socialist was nothing but a smoke screen to cover up the fact that our rights are being stripped away from us so quickly and so boldly it's frightening. I think all of us better pay more attention, open up our windows, and shout out that we're not going to take it any more. Then .... we have to not take it anymore & keep protesting until rights are restored, the wealthy pay their share, and corporations give back to the country that made them wealthy.

Today's moves are truly disgusting.

Soldier funerals & those "church" protesters

I've been thinking a lot about free speech these last few days (ever since the Supremes handed down the 8-1 decision regarding the "church" (that term is loosely used here) protesters at the funerals of our fallen soldiers). I'm sharing these thoughts because writing helps me make sense of things that sometime seem to have no sense.

The Supremes - in a rare near-unanimous decision (only Justice Alito dissented) ruled that these "church" members can continue to protest: their speech is protected whether we like it or not. (I'm not sure how someone carrying a sign that reads "God hates fags" can really be called "religious", and how a group of people whose sole purpose seems to be to hurt the families of dead soldiers can be called a "church", but that's a discussion for another day.) Now ... I was pretty disgusted when the Supremes ruled that corporations have the same free-speech rights as us humans, but after thinking about this week's "church" decision, I have to agree with the 8 justices that are protecting the ugly speech.

Here's the thing ..... these "devoutly religious" "Christian" people are protesting at military funerals because they really believe that soldiers are dying because of our (the United States') tolerance of homosexuality. (Seriously???? Can these people read newspapers???) But what is so ironic is that these soldiers died protecting their right to say these things. It's a dilemma, isn't it? (Side thought: "Christian" ... try to picture Christ carrying a sign that reads "God hates fags". That'd do wonders for religion, wouldn't it??) So all things considered, I think the soldiers would also side with the Supremes even while they are disgusted by the protesting.

I hate the protests. I think the "church" people are wrong for putting grieving families through even more misery. I also hate KKK rallies and protesters at clinics that provide abortion services. But after musing over this for a few days, I've decided that I prefer the protests and rallies over the limiting of speech. If the court had stopped the funeral protests, what speech would be stopped next? It is the beauty - and sometimes gut-wrenching freedom - of our democracy to be able to protest without fear. We have our fallen soldiers to thank for protecting that freedom.

A real conversation

In-coming Governor Rick Scott (Florida) recently said he wants those collecting unemployment for more than 12 weeks to do community service and to have proof they're looking for a job. That's a great sound bite and God knows we live in the world of sound bites! Heaven forbid we take the time to look any deeper. OK Heaven, forbid away, but here I go ... deeper.

Consider the single parent that was making, say, $70K a year before losing that job 6 months ago. Let's also say this single parent has 3 (2, if you prefer) children still young enough to need child care. At $70K a year, this parent had no problem paying the child care bill along with all the other stuff that needs to be paid in a month. Now that the parent is unemployed, paying for childcare is out of the question! Not only is it no longer affordable, but in this electronic age, most days it's no longer necessary.

In comes Rick Scott's "new rules": now this parent has to do community service and that means paying for childcare again. Just how is said parent suppose to come up with the money? Not to mention the next issue of community service hours taking away from job-search hours. (Is the community service idea starting to sound a little less "right on!!!" ??) And if the parent is out doing community service, how is the parent suppose to prove that he/she is looking for employment?

That's just "five minutes worth of thought" into the sound bite. What may sound like a great idea on the surface (long live our great American sound bite) is usually like the onion just waiting for more layers to be peeled away. Whether I voted for Rick Scott or not is irrelevant; he is our new Governor and I want him to be successful. This is not a good start, though. He's off the campaign trail and into the Governor's mansion (well ... in a couple of days) so he needs to ix-nay the sound bites and start thinking a little deeper. Let's have some real conversation about ideas. (And I haven't even talked about WHAT community service would be performed... would we end up putting even MORE people out of jobs?)

I'm just sayin'......

The Senator and Mr. Miller

Joe Miller, the Tea Party Republican candidate in the Alaska senate race, has just filed an appeal to the Supreme Court in his continuing challenge of the election results. The esteemed Mr. Miller has every right to do so, but in my humble opinion Mr. Miller shows blatant disregard for the plurality of voters of Alaska by continuing this fight. Ms. Murkowski (Mr. Miller's esteemed Republican opponent) lost the primary, yes, but continued on as a write-in candidate. Surprise, surprise! She got more votes than the other two candidates!

Mr. Miller is not questioning the number of votes cast for Ms. Murkowski, nor is he questioning the intent of the voter. Instead, Mr. Miller is attempting to win this Senate seat by questioning how the state counted the votes for Ms. Murkowski. Seriously, Joe? If a voter wrote "Murkowsky" instead of "Murkowski", you want the vote thrown out. Is the voter's intent not clear enough for you??? The voters clearly voted for her. Take your loss and try again next time. What does this fight do for anyone besides cost money and show that you're a really sore loser! I live in Florida - ask me about voter intent! I mean ... really, dude!

Mr. Miller disrespects his party and his would-be constituents by showing us that he's willing to do anything to win this seat even if it means disenfranchising the voters of his great state. It is but one sign of what has gone wrong with this, The Great Experiment: if you don't get your way you'll whine and sue and hold your breath until you do (except for Ms. Angle, of Nevada, who believes we should take up arms if we don't get our way!!) Bow out, Mr. Miller. It's way too late to do so gracefully, but bow out anyway and give the voters of Alaska the Senator of their choosing. I'm just sayin'.....

Who's patting down Mr. Limbaugh?

I've not been watching too much politics for the last few days. It's very frustrating when I do watch, though. The latest buzz on the right is about the pat-downs at the airport. You'd think every person was having nude body cavity searches right there in front of God and everybody. But no - it's about 2% of flyers being patted down. And I'm thinking the TSA folks aren't all that happy about having to fondle people, either. I mean - there are people in this world to whom "hygiene" is a foreign language! Pity the TSA person that's patting down the traveler that hasn't washed body nor clothes for the last two weeks! Yuck!

But my rant today is about Rush. Yea, Limbaugh. He blames Mr. Obama, of course (since the TSA folks are government workers). You'd think Rush actually had to fly commercial and is personally inconvenienced. The real issue for him is, of course, that he has yet another opportunity to bash our government for the sake of ratings. I really really intensely dislike Mr. Limbaugh - to the point of not being able to tolerate his voice for more than 5 minutes at a stretch anymore - but I will ALWAYS defend his right to say whatever he wants. HOWEVER ... even though he considers himself an entertainer first (thus meaning that we should put ZERO credence in what he has to say since he'll say anything for ratings), he should have enough respect for our country (AND our system of government) to accept that fact that words have consequences.

While Rush may know that he's simply spouting drivel to drive up his advertising revenues and line his pockets with even MORE money (what's he going to buy with all that money anyway??), he should also know that his words encourage the lunatic fringe. Just as the anti-abortion protesters say they don't advocate violence as they spout their inflammatory words yet cheer when another doctor providing abortion services is murdered by one of their ilk, Rush really should step up to the plate and quit trying to enrage the lunatic fringe for the purposes of feathering his nest. After all - don't you think Rush would be the first person to scream outrage if one of our planes was blown up because the TSA didn't do enough checking??? So Rush ... chill, dude. You've got lots of followers who believe every word you say. Try to do some good in the world. I'm just sayin'......

Sharks being jumped

Have the Republicans already blown their political capital? In the world that is current-day politics, where no one respects any one else, or even the office of anyone else, I think it's still bad form to disrespect the office of the President. When he invites you to dinner, you show up and the hell with your schedule. The Republicans blew off the White House: how can we expect to see any "working together" if this is how the new Congress starts (before it even starts!!)? But wait ... it gets worse.

Yesterday the House failed to extend unemployment benefits to millions of our fellow citizens because the Republicans wanted to actually pay for it. Hey - that's fine with me! I think fiscal responsibility is a terrific idea! I'm willing to see cuts made to pay for extending benefits. But I want some consistency. The Republicans are NOT willing to pay for extending the Bush-era tax cuts yet "demand" that they be extended for all income brackets. OK dudes and dudettes - how are we going to pay for that? Could that deafening sound that I don't hear be the silence emanating from the right side of the aisle? Two bad moves in as many days just might have cost the Republicans all the good will they had the day after the mid-terms.

I'm just sayin' .......