I'm finally getting around to blogging. I chalk it up to Obama disappointment depression followed by the Obama satisfaction elation that came after the HCR bill(s) passed.
If you haven't ever read the conservative writings of Jonah Goldberg, you can easily Google his missive that matches up to this letter from me to the Anchorage Daily News:
How does someone get to be a “fellow” at the American Enterprise Institute (Opinion: Jonah Goldberg, March 22) and not know that it was Republican President Warren G. Harding that first and most famously uttered the words: “Return to Normalcy,” not Franklin Roosevelt.
How does Goldberg get away with saying that, “The 1920s was a decade of roaring economic growth,” while failing to add that the false economic growth he cites rested on the backs of the working class. Laborers, farmers and the emergent middle class saw little or no improvement in their condition. Predatory lenders only made them think they were “getting ahead.” Indeed, the disparity of wealth in America in 1928 is only rivaled by the disparity of wealth in 2008, just before the current recession.
And how funny is it that the Daily News continues to publish right-wing pundits like Jonah Goldberg? Pretty funny, given the apparently purposeful ineptitude of conservative research and fact check departments.
Also worth a Google search:
Bill Maher: "New Rule: You Can't Use "There Will Be No Cooperation for the Rest of the Year" as a Threat If There Was No Cooperation in the First Half of the Year" Courtesy of HuffPo, and
Charles M. Blow's "Who's Country is this?" from the NYT.
And if anyone's interested...
My next book to get: "The History of White People," by Nell Painter (I always wondered about us white folk).
My current read: "Bomb Power: The Modern Presidency and the National Security State" by Garry Wills
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Some reasons for the Mass. Dem Debacle...
Are:
1. A lousy candidate. I'm sure Martha Coakley is a good A.G. but...
2. Democratic party laxity. Were the Dems thinking this was Animal House? "They have to take me - I'm a legacy!"
3. No youth vote. The kids won't come out for bland middle-aged white ladies.
4. No Kennedys. The Dynasty looks to have run its course, leaving a political vacuum.
5. Mass. already has a great health care system. Why should they pay for others?
6. Mass. voters not as progressive as thought. Remember the "Southies" stoning buses of black students during the forced integration of Boston schools?
7. Mass. is a "donor" state, giving more tax revenue to the federal government than they get back. Why add health care?
8. Shay's Rebellion in a tea bag.
9. Photogenic former Cosmo male nude fold-out w/photogenic wife, "available" daughters.
10. [Enter your reason here_______________________________________].
______________________________________
Some have been commenting on the way the U.S. Senate does its business with the automatic "filibuster" of 41 against any legislation. A rule that takes 67/100 votes to change, painting the Senate into its own corner. The only other option is to go "constitutional" (read: "nuclear")if Joe Biden were bidden to do so. As it is now, 41 beats 59. The Constitution allows the Senate to make its own rules, but called for super-majorities only for certain high-level appointments and treaties. I would like to believe that if some senator, or the Democratic Party brought suit, it would not survive a SCOTUS ruling. But after the Taney Court-like decision that opens the corporate $$ floodgates, Plutocracy now trumps democracy. American expatriates have good reason to feel vindicated and guiltless for giving up on the republic.
1. A lousy candidate. I'm sure Martha Coakley is a good A.G. but...
2. Democratic party laxity. Were the Dems thinking this was Animal House? "They have to take me - I'm a legacy!"
3. No youth vote. The kids won't come out for bland middle-aged white ladies.
4. No Kennedys. The Dynasty looks to have run its course, leaving a political vacuum.
5. Mass. already has a great health care system. Why should they pay for others?
6. Mass. voters not as progressive as thought. Remember the "Southies" stoning buses of black students during the forced integration of Boston schools?
7. Mass. is a "donor" state, giving more tax revenue to the federal government than they get back. Why add health care?
8. Shay's Rebellion in a tea bag.
9. Photogenic former Cosmo male nude fold-out w/photogenic wife, "available" daughters.
10. [Enter your reason here_______________________________________].
______________________________________
Some have been commenting on the way the U.S. Senate does its business with the automatic "filibuster" of 41 against any legislation. A rule that takes 67/100 votes to change, painting the Senate into its own corner. The only other option is to go "constitutional" (read: "nuclear")if Joe Biden were bidden to do so. As it is now, 41 beats 59. The Constitution allows the Senate to make its own rules, but called for super-majorities only for certain high-level appointments and treaties. I would like to believe that if some senator, or the Democratic Party brought suit, it would not survive a SCOTUS ruling. But after the Taney Court-like decision that opens the corporate $$ floodgates, Plutocracy now trumps democracy. American expatriates have good reason to feel vindicated and guiltless for giving up on the republic.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
And another response...
To an Anchorage Daily News letter went like this:
Honestly. Why do people like Lori Bond (Letters, Jan. 2) insist on calling the all-too timid attempt at health reform moving through Congress “Obamacare? ” Bring in Sen. Begich if you want to, but this half-a-loaf legislation is clearly a creature of Congress, and only Congress. Progressives like me just wish President Obama had taken more ownership of health care reform – perhaps then we’d get at least a public option, if not a single payer system.
Decriers of “Obamacare” such as Bond and others sound so much like the Birthers and Tea-baggers who scream, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare,” and insist on the debunked notion that ACORN stole 7 ½ million votes for Obama in 2008. They will say anything in the attempt to harm this presidency. It is further proof that far too many conservatives are more interested in seeing the president fail, than seeing the country succeed in offering what every other advanced nation already has: health care for all.
True...?
Honestly. Why do people like Lori Bond (Letters, Jan. 2) insist on calling the all-too timid attempt at health reform moving through Congress “Obamacare? ” Bring in Sen. Begich if you want to, but this half-a-loaf legislation is clearly a creature of Congress, and only Congress. Progressives like me just wish President Obama had taken more ownership of health care reform – perhaps then we’d get at least a public option, if not a single payer system.
Decriers of “Obamacare” such as Bond and others sound so much like the Birthers and Tea-baggers who scream, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare,” and insist on the debunked notion that ACORN stole 7 ½ million votes for Obama in 2008. They will say anything in the attempt to harm this presidency. It is further proof that far too many conservatives are more interested in seeing the president fail, than seeing the country succeed in offering what every other advanced nation already has: health care for all.
True...?
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Recently I responded to an Anchorage Daily News letter-to-the-editor...
Paul Rasmussen’s letter (Dec. 4) indicates that his grasp of the
U. S. Constitution is insufficient.
While the power to declare war is expressed in the Constitution, it is given solely to Congress. Hence, no “wars” fought since WWII – not Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Afghanistan nor Iraq – can properly be called “wars” in the strictest constitutional sense. Since December 8th 1941 there have been “police actions,” “conflicts” and “operations,” but no wars. If a constitutionalist, Mr. Rasmussen should decry all recent American blood and treasure sacrificed in such unconstitutional “wars.”
Mr. Rasmussen correctly states that there is no reference to “health care” in the Constitution, yet he must also know that there are no references to Social Security, Medicare, or the federal highway system either. Still, most Americans enjoy having these things in their lives. The “Necessary and Proper” Clause of the Constitution gives Congress implicit powers to execute laws and delegate powers covering the aforementioned services, and if Congress so wishes, health care as well.
I hope that Congress does just that.
U. S. Constitution is insufficient.
While the power to declare war is expressed in the Constitution, it is given solely to Congress. Hence, no “wars” fought since WWII – not Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Afghanistan nor Iraq – can properly be called “wars” in the strictest constitutional sense. Since December 8th 1941 there have been “police actions,” “conflicts” and “operations,” but no wars. If a constitutionalist, Mr. Rasmussen should decry all recent American blood and treasure sacrificed in such unconstitutional “wars.”
Mr. Rasmussen correctly states that there is no reference to “health care” in the Constitution, yet he must also know that there are no references to Social Security, Medicare, or the federal highway system either. Still, most Americans enjoy having these things in their lives. The “Necessary and Proper” Clause of the Constitution gives Congress implicit powers to execute laws and delegate powers covering the aforementioned services, and if Congress so wishes, health care as well.
I hope that Congress does just that.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Local preacher doesn't now the 1st thing about the 1st Amendment...
...But in the “FAITH/ReligionViews,” section, our Valley Frontiersman nods to the 1st Amendment and gives Reverend Ron Hamman of the Independent Baptist Church of Wasilla free reign to spout some of his strange and insupportable views on a weekly basis. It seems “FAITH” (belief in something for which there is no proof) is the only place the views of the good pastor belong.
In earlier Frontiersman missives, Pastor Hamman has suggested that no person more liberal than he could conceivably respect the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. This may not shock those who call Hamman “Pastor,” but it would surprise a majority of Americans in this center-left nation.
Pastor Ron posits that the only true word of God is in the King James Bible. I don’t know from where Pastor Ron is credentialed in theology, but he must know that the Bible as we know it was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek-to-Latin-to-Old and Middle English, and cobbled together by committee with many subtle and not-so-subtle changes along the way. Why claim the King James as the only authentic “word,” when no serious biblical scholar thinks so?
So worked up about the evils of “sodomy” is Pastor Ron, that he recently suggested: “Will the Antichrist be a Homosexual?” He doesn’t come right out and say that he or she will be, but he leaves precious little room for doubt to any of his readership. Pastor Ron’s not doing a “God Hates Fags” a la the infamous Fred Phelps (also of an “independent” Baptist church), but he really ain’t that far from it.
Most recently, Pastor Ron assumes a competence in constitutional, as well as biblical scholarship, declaring that a government tax on a church is in violation of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that secular humanists, “Are evil and don’t want to be exposed.” On the second claim, Pastor Ron has me dead-to-rights. I admit that I am these things: husband, father and grandfather, schoolteacher, blood donor, community theater actor, recycler, secular humanist and apparently, evil-doer.
As to the Constitution, however, I fear Pastor Ron’s scholarship needs a little brush up. My research can find no constitutional restriction on Congress when it comes to church taxation, nor is there any such restriction on state or local governments. A little history: tax exemptions for churches and religious groups are a holdover from America’s European roots. They were customary in the early Republic, and now, even when protected by law, are not automatic, universal or total. This is no small thing. Churches may own more than 20% of all land in the U.S., and the average American family pays up to $1000 to fill the revenue gap caused by religious tax exemptions. In short, evil-doing secular humanists are subsidizing the churches of Pastor Ron, Pat Robertson, the pope, the Latter Day Saints, the Moonies and the Dalai Lama. Pastor Ron should maybe cut us some slack.
The instrument by which this these tax exemptions are made is the 501(c)3 “corporation.” Used by churches, charities and non-profits to avoid the IRS, Pastor Ron finds the 501(c)3 a restriction on what he sees as his 1st Amendment “right” to sermonize against the evil-doing secularist, homosexual (and potential Antichrist), liberal government agenda. In order to keep his 501(c)3, however, he may not politic from his pulpit.
Sorry, but rules are rules, and if Pastor Ron really wants to compete in the market place of political ideas, he’ll have to come out from under that 501(c)3 tax shelter that we secularists help pay for. We, however, are not holding our breath.
In earlier Frontiersman missives, Pastor Hamman has suggested that no person more liberal than he could conceivably respect the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. This may not shock those who call Hamman “Pastor,” but it would surprise a majority of Americans in this center-left nation.
Pastor Ron posits that the only true word of God is in the King James Bible. I don’t know from where Pastor Ron is credentialed in theology, but he must know that the Bible as we know it was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek-to-Latin-to-Old and Middle English, and cobbled together by committee with many subtle and not-so-subtle changes along the way. Why claim the King James as the only authentic “word,” when no serious biblical scholar thinks so?
So worked up about the evils of “sodomy” is Pastor Ron, that he recently suggested: “Will the Antichrist be a Homosexual?” He doesn’t come right out and say that he or she will be, but he leaves precious little room for doubt to any of his readership. Pastor Ron’s not doing a “God Hates Fags” a la the infamous Fred Phelps (also of an “independent” Baptist church), but he really ain’t that far from it.
Most recently, Pastor Ron assumes a competence in constitutional, as well as biblical scholarship, declaring that a government tax on a church is in violation of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that secular humanists, “Are evil and don’t want to be exposed.” On the second claim, Pastor Ron has me dead-to-rights. I admit that I am these things: husband, father and grandfather, schoolteacher, blood donor, community theater actor, recycler, secular humanist and apparently, evil-doer.
As to the Constitution, however, I fear Pastor Ron’s scholarship needs a little brush up. My research can find no constitutional restriction on Congress when it comes to church taxation, nor is there any such restriction on state or local governments. A little history: tax exemptions for churches and religious groups are a holdover from America’s European roots. They were customary in the early Republic, and now, even when protected by law, are not automatic, universal or total. This is no small thing. Churches may own more than 20% of all land in the U.S., and the average American family pays up to $1000 to fill the revenue gap caused by religious tax exemptions. In short, evil-doing secular humanists are subsidizing the churches of Pastor Ron, Pat Robertson, the pope, the Latter Day Saints, the Moonies and the Dalai Lama. Pastor Ron should maybe cut us some slack.
The instrument by which this these tax exemptions are made is the 501(c)3 “corporation.” Used by churches, charities and non-profits to avoid the IRS, Pastor Ron finds the 501(c)3 a restriction on what he sees as his 1st Amendment “right” to sermonize against the evil-doing secularist, homosexual (and potential Antichrist), liberal government agenda. In order to keep his 501(c)3, however, he may not politic from his pulpit.
Sorry, but rules are rules, and if Pastor Ron really wants to compete in the market place of political ideas, he’ll have to come out from under that 501(c)3 tax shelter that we secularists help pay for. We, however, are not holding our breath.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Senator Lisa Murkowski and Health Care article had me ...
Reading my Nov. 12th Anchorage Daily News, I realized that Alaska's Senator Lisa Murkowski had turned into her father, Frank, who was Alaska's US Senator for so many years, before becoming our least popular governor ever. Slowing down progress was very “Frank,” unless there was a pipeline involved. So it is with Lisa, who, at a Chugiak, AK “town hall,” said of the health care bill now in the Senate: “We can pull this thing back.” Sounds like Frank to me.
As for her town hall, the 150 – plus, mostly retired participants were apparently happy with their health care as is. Here’s why. Participant Ron Bauers proclaimed, “I think we have a pretty good health care system now.” Bauers probably has good health care. But what of the 46 million uninsured, or the 44,000 who die each year for lack of health insurance?
Also against the health care bill were Harry Young, whose years in the military allows him great health care, courtesy of the government, and Ed Singer, retired teacher, who undoubtedly has a government-paid health care plan himself.
Being like dad seems more important to Lisa than getting decent health care to Americans who don’t have a government retirement plan like her, her dad Frank, or most of her Chugiak town hall crowd.
As for her town hall, the 150 – plus, mostly retired participants were apparently happy with their health care as is. Here’s why. Participant Ron Bauers proclaimed, “I think we have a pretty good health care system now.” Bauers probably has good health care. But what of the 46 million uninsured, or the 44,000 who die each year for lack of health insurance?
Also against the health care bill were Harry Young, whose years in the military allows him great health care, courtesy of the government, and Ed Singer, retired teacher, who undoubtedly has a government-paid health care plan himself.
Being like dad seems more important to Lisa than getting decent health care to Americans who don’t have a government retirement plan like her, her dad Frank, or most of her Chugiak town hall crowd.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Guilty...?
In two consecutive days (Sep. 19 and 20, old news I know), we got two Daily News opinion pieces, from two conservative columnists who tell us that race hate against President Obama from the right is a figment of the liberal imagination.
Mssrs. Goldberg and Jenkins discount racial slurs and code words since the Fall of 2008, including some from our own former half-term governor, pictures comparing America’s 1st Lady to a chimp, the president portrayed as a witch doctor (replete with bone-through-nose), post cards of the White House lawn as a watermelon patch, the unhinged ravings of Glenn Beck, culminating in the Caucasian-only, 70,000 strong bizzarro “9/12” T-bag Mardi Gras in D.C. I could show Goldberg and Jenkins some of the disgusting emails forwarded to me by Republican acquaintances in the south.
The list goes on, but Goldberg and Jenkins are having none of it, telling us instead that there’s no real evidence to support the charge of racism, and that it’s simply a plot by Democrats to stifle earnest dissent against Obama’s socialist agenda.
Neither Goldberg nor Jenkins will ever admit that to many white Americans, Obama has committed the heinous crime of being president while black.
Sorry I haven't posted for so long, but I've been in engrossed in our community theater production of Agatha Christie's SPIDER'S WEB. This is our final weekend for the run, and I hope to be blogging and writing letters-to-editors and commentarying at large again soon. Hope you missed me.
Sandy and Joe, Jose and Stella, are you ready for some sunshine and cervesa Pacifico?
Mssrs. Goldberg and Jenkins discount racial slurs and code words since the Fall of 2008, including some from our own former half-term governor, pictures comparing America’s 1st Lady to a chimp, the president portrayed as a witch doctor (replete with bone-through-nose), post cards of the White House lawn as a watermelon patch, the unhinged ravings of Glenn Beck, culminating in the Caucasian-only, 70,000 strong bizzarro “9/12” T-bag Mardi Gras in D.C. I could show Goldberg and Jenkins some of the disgusting emails forwarded to me by Republican acquaintances in the south.
The list goes on, but Goldberg and Jenkins are having none of it, telling us instead that there’s no real evidence to support the charge of racism, and that it’s simply a plot by Democrats to stifle earnest dissent against Obama’s socialist agenda.
Neither Goldberg nor Jenkins will ever admit that to many white Americans, Obama has committed the heinous crime of being president while black.
Sorry I haven't posted for so long, but I've been in engrossed in our community theater production of Agatha Christie's SPIDER'S WEB. This is our final weekend for the run, and I hope to be blogging and writing letters-to-editors and commentarying at large again soon. Hope you missed me.
Sandy and Joe, Jose and Stella, are you ready for some sunshine and cervesa Pacifico?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
