Are career politicians ruining our democracy?

I've been doing a lot of thinking about this debt ceiling crap going on in Washington. (And no, there is no limit to the things that interest me! Politics. Quantum Physics. Constitutional law. Quilting. Knitting. I'm never bored.) I guess I'm thinking about it so much because I watch so many political commentary shows.

The debate about the debt ceiling has magnified congressional ridiculousness. We cannot afford this pettiness. Imagine what the collapse of the US economy would do to world markets. If you thought your 401K/investments looked bad in 2008, imagine what they'll look like if our politicians don't get on with the people's business. Why now? Why pick this fight now when raising the debt ceiling has been pretty much a no-brainer for years? I mean, it's not like we can say "Nevermind. We're not gonna pay our debts." If Congress really has some desire to get spending under control, then go ahead & raise the debt ceiling then get on with the business of cutting spending. (Actually do the people's business - what a concept!!).

It's all due to career politicians, I think. I know our process is broken. Our democracy has turned into a risky game of "king of the hill". It no longer matters what's right for the country, or what a person's ideology is: if the other party said it, it must be bad (even if it was a good idea 6 months ago). I don't know the cure, but I have some ideas. OK maybe one idea. Term limits.

If you really listen to what our politicians are saying - and I mean really listen - you'll always end up hearing "I'm doing what I have to do to get reelected". Hmm. I'm voting for these folks to do what is best for our country. If they've lost the courage to make the tough decisions, they aren't doing me any good by being my representative. Imagine if they didn't have to think about being re-elected. Oh, there would be some down-sides for sure but I do think the positives would far outweigh the negatives.

If our politicians weren't concerned about being re-elected, maybe they would learn to compromise again. Isn't that what governing is all about? We're pretty much a split country (Democratic, Republican), so why should any one party get all the decisions? When I hear any congressperson say "the American people want this", I wonder which "American people"? Which half wants this? Our two party system used to serve us well when the politicians would actually agree to compromise. (Ever studied the stories of the the writing of our Constitution? Talk about a lot of compromise!!!!) If we limited everyone to one six-year term, we'd eliminate the root cause of a lot of the problems in Washington today.

Imagine campaigns where huge corporations couldn't buy the election. Imagine our candidates not being indebted to those corporations. Imagine the Congress actually doing the business of the people instead of jostling for camera time which will translate to campaign dollars. Our Constitution was put in place so we would not elect kings (and queens), but unlimited terms and unlimited money seem to be doing just that.

I wrote to my congressfolk to express my frustration with their antics. You should do the same. Here's a link for you to easily email any of your elected representatives: email my rep

If you're interested in starting a drive to implement term limits, leave me a comment or email me. I'd be willing to lead the charge!

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.

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' .......

Ramblings from a little left of center

Weird thoughts go through my mind when I’m doing work that doesn’t require brain cells. Here are some of today’s thoughts.

When any guest on any of the political shows says “let me finish”, I hear “waa waa waa”.

I would listen to Bill O’Reilly except that he seems to have a profound aversion to facts. Even when they’re pointed out to him. Especially then, actually.

Anyone that proudly calls themselves a “Dittohead” needs to maybe practice thinking on their own again. I don’t “ditto” the thoughts of ANYONE! Hell, I don’t even agree with myself sometimes!

Is there any excuse for Glenn Beck? He’s such a waste of good oxygen!

When I hear people say “I want us to get back to what our forefathers wanted” I wonder what they mean? Can you be more specific? Oh….by the way … if you’re a woman or a black person or don’t own property, don’t bother telling me what you mean because you didn’t count back then. (soooo…. Are you SURE that’s what you want?)

George W. Bush (43) loved to talk about his dislike of activist judges. Just exactly how does he think he got into the White House?

How come anyone still listens to anything Sarah Palin says? She was elected and quit…what kind of character is that?

Does anyone really believe that one party loves America any more (or less) than the other party?

Why is it so hard to accept a change in government? Hell, we all get another chance to overthrow the government every 4 years! Some people are just sore losers.

Why is the right suddenly aware of fiscal responsibility? Did you think these wars were free? Or the tax cuts? How’s that trickle-down economics working for you so far?

Why don’t we prosecute those that break the law? Oh…they’re Presidents and Vice Presidents….I guess they’re above the law.

Give me a reasoned argument instead of whiney bullshit and I’ll listen to you. This immediately discounts Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck and O’Reilly.

Rachel Maddow is a reasonable human being! I highly recommend her show.

I wonder if Mary Matalin & James Carville have civil discussions at home? I bet they’re fascinating! I think it’s sooo interesting to talk (not rant) with someone that has differing views! It’s the only way to broaden your mind.

I love “the media”. I don’t want a world without them. I DO wish, though, that the honchos in the news business were still good gatekeepers instead of the money-seeking executives they’ve become. News is NOT entertainment.

When you watch the political shows of your choice, please remember that you’re listening to people in search of ratings. You need to ask yourself if even the host really believes what s/he is saying.

What makes Sean Hannity a great American? And why does he think every caller to his show is a great American …. Until they disagree with him? Then he gets mad, whines, and hangs up on them. Sheesh what a grouch.

I think the lefties don’t get mad often enough. Except for Keith Olbermann. He rocks. He’s like Max from “Network” – mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore. “Good night and good luck” back at ya, O-mann!

If we don’t require everyone to have health insurance, can hospitals refuse to treat the uninsured? If yes, then I’m OK with not having insurance. If no, then what’s the justification for letting health insurance be a choice? (In other words, who’s going to pay for the uninsured people?)

I hate the idea of government regulation just as much as the next person, but do you really think big corporations will be ethical without the Mommy & Daddy hovering? They certainly don’t have a very good track record so far, do they? Sometimes we have to hold our nose when we take some of the actions we take.

So….now that we’ve shipped all the manufacturing to other countries, and shipped all the servicing/help desk jobs to other countries….. just exactly how do we expect to employ people? What if the unemployed worked at the hotels in Las Vegas and picked the produce we grow instead of leaving these jobs to illegals? What would the unemployment rate be THEN? But …. I guess these government-program hating folks would rather collect an unemployment check.

If you really believe we live in a free market economy, you need to check your facts. We subsidize an awful lot of stuff, and guarantee the price of a lot of other stuff. Doesn’t sound much like “free market” to me!

Do you think we should have let the banks and the car companies fail? What do you suppose the unemployment numbers would be then?

Seems to me that the Democrats always have to raise the taxes because the Republicans always cut them so low the government can’t run. It’s a mad game, I’m telling you!

We sure could solve a lot of problems if every one of us spoke up every time we encountered cheating, injustice and unfairness instead of just closing our door because it didn’t affect us.

Obama is an illegal alien? Please!!!!!!!! These "birthers" are assholes; there's no other word for them. Oh and by the way, Kanye West is also an asshole.

Who Runs the Country?

Yesterday I watched my usual selection of Sunday Morning Talking Head shows. I watched a few politicians be interviewed, but mostly it was conversation between political pundits and party strategists. Hmm. Who's minding the business of the people?

Today we're attempting to confirm a Supreme Court justice - which has, of late, turned into nothing more than a show for political posturing by both sides. Again ...who's minding the country?

Agendas abound! Pundits want more air time. Talking Head shows (both radio and television) want ratings. Elected officials want to get re-elected. Party strategists want to ensure their party wins the next election.

Who's minding the country?

Now really ... there's little doubt that Sotomayor will get confirmed, so why are the Republicans posturing? Is it for the good of the country, or the good of the vote count in their re-election runs? Democrats did it too, with Roberts - neither side is innocent, here! Is it too much to ask our politicians to do what we pay them to do? (For the record, OF COURSE we should have hearings! But they should be meaningful and productive, not the side-show they have become!!!)

I still say term limits would help with some of this.

As for the Talking Heads - I really wish they'd contribute to the conversation regarding "how ought we live" rather than stirring up misplaced passion in their listeners.

Just my two cents.

The art of compromise

There is a very interesting maillist thread ongoing on one of my lists about bullets flying in the night.  The amusing thing is this .... the originator of the post commented about the green casings.  Another poster said that if they're green, they are the non-lead casings.  Is it me, or is there something very bizarre about "safer bullets"?

About gay marriage:  suppose we called everything outside of church ceremonies "civil unions".  Only churches would perform "marriages".  Would this solve the controversy?  (Full disclosure - the fact that same-sex marriages are not allowed is ridiculous!!!!!)

The pro-gun and pro-choice people make too much (invalid) use of the slippery-slope argument (if this, then that).  It's a bunch of BS.  Suppose the pro-choicers give up late-term abortions and the pro-gunners give up assault weapons.  Is that a compromise we can live with?