Gordon’s Blog – 2012

      Comments Off on Gordon’s Blog – 2012

NEWTOWN, CONNECTICUT ; ARE GUNS THE PROBLEM? (Posted December 17, 2012)

As it happens so often in America, we’ve just spent another heartbreaking weekend mourning the loss of lives to violence. As usual, we heard the same debates about the cause: guns, mental health, parenting, etc.

We’ve had the opportunity to travel and live in a number of other countries over the years. This has enabled us to develop a perspective about crime and violence, particularly with regard to what works in the matter of crime prevention.

Here’s the essence of what we have learned:  it is one thing to have a bunch of crazy people walking the streets of our cities and towns – and every country on earth has them. But it is yet another matter altogether to have a bunch of crazy people walking the streets of  our cities and towns with whatever murder weapon their hearts could ever desire.

And in that respect, the United   States stands alone. No other developed nation has taken such a cavalier, neglectful attitude about guns.

And what are the consequences of this neglect? Thirty thousand deaths every year from murder, suicides and gun accidents, a number that is many times what other industrialized nations experience.

One might expect that this figure alone would be enough to cause us to develop meaningful reforms in the way we regulate the use of guns.

But that expectation is likely incorrect; and even the slaughter of 20 innocents in Connecticut probably won’t change things for the better.

What a sad commentary on our nation.

 

THE “TRUST ME” CANDIDATE (Posted August 25, 2012)

He won’t release any more of his tax returns; he has just indicated that he will not answer any more questions about abortion; he hasn’t said what specific cuts he will make to federal spending and he will not say how he intends to revise the tax code.

So how exactly are we supposed to make a decision as to whether or not to vote for him?

In case it’s not obvious, this is the campaign being run by Mitt Romney. It’s as if we didn’t already have enough concerns about his flip-flopping on such crucial issues as abortion, health-care (read “ROMNEYCARE”) and gun control, we are now being asked to “take him at his word” on these as well as other equally important issues.

At one point he was calling for transparency, yet he now seems committed to opacity (another flip-flop); the tragedy may be that he is not only hurting his own chances, but those of other Republican candidates as well. As a consequence, this could threaten his party’s ability to retain/take control of the House and Senate.

It’s Sarah Palin all over again — a great party being devastated by the top of the ticket.

A sad state of affairs indeed.

 

REPUBLICANS CHOOSE THEIR TEAM (Posted August 14, 2012)

At last the field is set for the 2012 Presidential election. As voters, we have the clearest, most dramatic choice that we have been presented with in my voting lifetime.

On the one hand, the Democrats will, as they have for the last 80 years, continue to push to strengthen the American social safety net. They will continue to assure that seniors and the nation’s poor will have state-sponsored assistance and guarantees that will, in the case of the poor,  enable them to get back on their feet and, in the case of seniors, will enable them to live their retirement years in dignity.

The Republicans, however, will continue as they have for the last eighty years, to attempt to gut the safety net under the ruse of affordability (or lack thereof). Yet they will somehow find the economic wherewithal to provide tax breaks for millionaires while continuing the usual right-wing expansion of funding for defense.

The choice is clear—one side espouses a philosophy that we are a nation of people who are committed to the idea of taking care of each other . The other offers the concept of individualism wherein each individual is on his/her own and the state will have little or no responsibility for our well-being.

It should be noted that with two multi-millionaires on the ticket, the Republican side is assured of never having to bear the consequences of their policy choices. They don’t need Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid and as a consequence are emotionally disconnected from those choices.

This of course is all part of a well-orchestrated plan by the Republican party. The Bush administration put the Federal government well into the red and now they are insisting that the only way out is to cut spending; they have gotten the US Supreme Court to acquiesce in allowing the rich people and corporations to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns while passing voter restrictions that will disenfranchise the very people they intend to shut off from government support. It’s rather creative—the very folks who will be hurt by their policies will have no say whatsoever in the matter. It’s a remarkable bit of electioneering—and would ordinarily be worthy of praise and wonderment if it were not so gruesome in its reality.

The choice would seem to be clear. I personally do not want to live in a society envisioned by the Republican nominees. The question is whether or not the rest of the voters in this country see it this way.

You get what you vote for.

 

WHITHER SENATOR INHOFE? (Posted July 3, 2012)

In recent times, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) has been in the habit of periodically dusting off his American Petroleum Institute (API)-inspired speech proclaiming the evils of global warming, beginning each speech with the sentence “Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”. He was especially vocal when, 2 winters ago, Dulles airport recorded snowfall of 71 inches. He couldn’t resist the opportunity to chide the environmentalists about their absence in discussing the seeming contradiction in their claims given the amount of snow that was falling at the time.

Leaving aside the facts that heavy snowfall can be shown to be a function of warming summers and that the API is a big contributor to Mr. Inhofe’s campaign, we have yet to hear any pronouncements from Mr. Inhofe about the recent experience of devastating weather with record-setting temperatures (WashingtonDC – 104 degrees, a June record)  and how this might just relate to the great debate on global warming.

The climate deniers just don’t seem to be anywhere to be heard. They must be focusing on the real, important stuff, like President Obama’s birth certificate or his Muslim religion inclinations.

And so Washington stumbles on.

 

THIRTY TWO MILLION UNINSURED—NOT THE ISSUE?? (Posted July 1, 2012)

Sunday on Fox news, Sen. Mitch McConnell gave what might very well be the defining view of the Republican Party’s position on the American health care system.

In responding to Chris Wallace’s question about what the Party’s plan was for insuring the 32 million uninsured  after repealing the Affordable care Act (ACA), McConnell blurted out “that’s not the issue!”, referring to the uninsured in America.

Not the issue? Another stumbling, bumbling moment for the Repos(my “nickname”) – but useful  for the voters. We are getting a good look at what the 21st century Republican party stands for. After the primary debates wherein we heard cries of “kill him” in a discussion about the death penalty, “let him die” in a discussion about the uninsured and, of course, Paul Ryan’s plan to disembowel Medicare, we now have a good idea what America will look like if we turn the keys to government back over to the party that has twice in our recent history led us to the very brink of destruction.

You get what you vote for.

 

THE SUPREMES COME A ‘CROPPER’ (Posted June 29, 2012)

Chief Justice John Roberts has undoubtedly lost much sleep the last few weeks as he deliberated with his conservative mates on the court over the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Pres. Obama’s signature legislative achievement in his first term.

In my opinion, the CJ came down on the right side but for the wrong reasons. Aside from the mundane semantic discussion about whether the imposed fee for not buying health insurance was a tax or a penalty, the court’s conservative members struck down the “mandate” as unconstitutional because it did not fall within the Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. The logic behind this view seems to be that regulating commerce pertains to those involved in commerce and the Congress cannot impose regulations upon those not so involved, and those of us who decide not to buy health insurance supposedly fall into this category.

Talk about tortured logic. The fact is that nearly every American will enter the health care market at some point, whether by going to an emergency room or buying a box of aspirin. And anyone who denies this is just not being realistic.

John Roberts saved the President’s health care plan, though he may have been acting for and on behalf of his own reputation. He did not want to be seen in history as the CJ who allowed the US Supreme Court to be transformed into a political entity, especially after the Bush v. Gore and Citizens United fiascos.

We (America) got lucky this time – but will it last?

 

THE MARCH TOWARD FEUDALISM(Posted April 10, 2012)

There are some very unsettling trends in this country at this time.

We hear much about the ever-widening gap between the rich and the rest of us; the increasing number of people in poverty. It is clear that the top one per cent of the population have done unbelievably well while the rest of us have languished financially in the last 40 years.

So we have two issues: upper income people doing well while the rest of us lose ground. Two questions arise: 1. Are the two phenomena related? 2. What is being done that either improves the situation (reduces income disparity and poverty) or makes it worse (increases income disparity and poverty). NOTE: I intentionally leave the question of whether the two issues are good or bad; I THINK THAT THEY ARE DEVASTATING TO THE LONG-TERM WELL-BEING OF THE USA and so I write this article on that basis).

What are the relevant patterns that relate to the answers to these two questions?

First, the money:

For starters, let’s look at politics: Does the Citizens United decision, allowing unlimited funds coming into political campaigns from undisclosed sources have an impact? How about the myriad changes in voter laws being undertaken by many (Republican-dominated) states? Do the anti-union laws being passed in many of these same Republican-leaning states have anything to do with these circumstances? Is it at all surprising or coincidence that most of the big-money donors –individuals and corporations – tend to favor Republican candidates?

Citizens United unleashed the big-money inflow, defining money as free speech, protected by the first amendment. To me, it’s a bit illogical that people with names like Koch/Soros/Buffet/Gates, etc. should have MORE free speech just because they have more money. I just don’t think that is what the founders intended.

The impact is clear: the more money you have – and can use to influence the political process – the more you are able to rig the system to your benefit. It shouldn’t be surprising to hear that billionaire hedge-fund managers (think Mitt Romney) have managed to get tax code concessions from Congress that enables them to classify their income as “carried interest” and therefore subject to a fifteen per cent tax rate, less than ordinary laborers. Or that oil companies, making billions in profits, insist on and are given billions in subsidies out of the public coffers. These subsidies were originally intended to encourage exploration, very little of which is going on, yet the subsidies continue.

Consider the current debate in Congress about the federal budget deficit. There are three options to close it: spending cuts, tax increases (predominantly on the wealthy) or both. One side wants both (Democrats), the other wants ONLY spending cuts (Republicans). The Republicans insist that the deficit be solved on the backs of the poor (cuts in food/nutrition programs for the poor, etc.), while leaving untouched the obscene tax rates for the upper income folks (tax rates for the upper one per cent are the lowest in 50 years). Surprise?

Now let’s look at the voter issue:

Most of the changes in the voter laws seem to be aimed at suppressing the vote of certain groups of people who tend to vote Democrat. After all, who are the most likely to not possess a government-issued picture ID? You guessed it – blacks, latinos, the elderly, and citizens in the 18-24 demographic, segments hardly likely to vote Republican.

Further, if fraud is the issue we are concerned about — I personally think that there is not one shred of credible evidence that this is in any  way widespread — why do we not focus on absentee voting, where no ID whatsoever is required? Again, because the folks who use absentee ballots the most are the wealthy — they are away from home (business, vacations, etc.) the most.

And what about the changes in early voting? Does reducing the early vote window help with fraud? Nope—it merely restricts that window for the people who use it most — the lower-income set who cannot get time off from work as easily as the well-to-do.

These two issues, money in politics and what amounts to voter suppression efforts, combine to enable the status quo, that is, it allows the wealthy to protect their interests and get wealthier at the expense of the lower income classes. This clearly is the basis for both the increases in the income gap and  poverty rates, and this will continue to worsen unless substantial changes are made to the way we do things.

First, we need to remove money from politics; a system of public financing is a must. Members of Congress should be compensated by a strict set of rules; they should receive expense reimbursements only, should have to pay for what amounts to the same health care and other benefits that we do and should have to create their own retirement nest eggs(401-k, etc.) as the rest of us.

Second, we need  to impose a system of term limits on elected officials – I’m thinking about a one-and-out situation.

Third, we must severely restrict legislator contact with lobbyists and other so-called “influencers”. I would like to eliminate “K Street” altogether. Term limits will help, but we also need some rules to ensure that there are no undue outside influences in the “Big House” as well.

I’m with President Obama on this. This country should be about 1) Everyone having a chance to succeed, 2) Everyone playing by the same rules and 3) Everyone being able to share in the successes we achieve as a society.

Sadly, the Republican party doesn’t seem to get this. You can’t even get them to admit or talk about things like income inequality – witness Mr. Romney’s admonition that “we discuss the matter quietly in private rooms”.

So here’s the conclusion: the rich are getting richer; the poor and the middle class are becoming worse off. Are we not witnessing the USA on a march toward becoming a Feudal society? Will this issue be primary in this year’s election? Should it be?

It’s going to be an interesting year.

 

THE GREAT AMERICAN DOUBLE STANDARD (Posted March 31, 2012)

Inspired by obsessive amounts of media coverage, we proceed as a society to get all worked up about a soldier in Afghanistan who shoots up a village, killing innocent civilians. Yet we oversaw the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq over the course of our “humanitarian” involvement there and continue to inflict casualties in Afghanistan each and every day with drones and other instruments of war. Yet we hear nothing about these great travesties.

Why?

Still further inspired by the very same media blitz, we once again get all worked up about a homicide in SanfordFlorida. Meanwhile, there are dozens of other homicides in this country each and every day that go completely unnoticed.

WHY???

Right here in the supposed “greatest nation on earth”, we have a homicide rate that is arguably the highest in the industrialized world and not only does this extraordinary loss of life go unnoticed, we hear almost nothing about what needs to be done to prevent more of the same.

Why exactly do we get so concerned about a select few of the killings that occur every day and seem to ignore all the others? We do ourselves and all victims of homicide a monumental injustice by failing to recognize the magnitude of the “kill” problem and make the necessary commitment to come to grips with the epidemic of violence that threaten us all.

If we are really concerned about the sanctity of human life, we need to begin to act like it¸ else we risk losing the most important aspect of any society—our humanity.

We need to make a statement once and for all that we will no longer tolerate the taking of a human life – not even one.

 

THE TRAGEDY OF SGT. ROBERT BALES (Posted March 24, 2012)

Sgt. Robert Bales killed 17 innocent Afghan civilians recently.

Is anyone surprised at what Sgt. Bales did, given that he was on his fourth consecutive tour in a combat zone? We really shouldn’t be. After all, we not only insist as a society that we must solve all our problems with violence both here and abroad, but we are also quite willing to expend our blood and treasure in pursuit of what our mindless politicians call “American Exceptionalism”. We seem to think of young Americans as consumables – use them up and when they are gone we just simply send more into the quagmires.

What amazes me most is that, among the war-is-the-answer-to-everything set, they insist on going to war and then get mad when people do in war what people normally do in war.

Sgt. Bales is not guilty – we are.

 

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CONTRACEPTION(Posted March 10, 2012)

I have lived in the south for 24 years and, for the most part, I have enjoyed living here. The people are nice, the weather is good and the state of Georgia is quite affordable.

There is one thing about life in the south that has frustrated me – and that is, the tendency on the part of the rabid religionists (my term) to try to foist their religious views on the  rest of us. We have seen it in many forms over the years —  as, for example, they have attempted to justify segregation in biblical terms; the attempt to amend the US constitution mandating school prayer (we all know WHOSE prayer they wanted in those schools), and so on.

Now we have the 21st century version — an even more drastic attempt by the Catholic Church to do much the same thing on a nationwide basis by insisting that they should be exempt from providing contraceptive coverage to employees of their charitable organizations (hospitals, schools, etc.).

Leaving aside the fact that the Church has been doing this for years – many  states require it to do so – which makes me wonder why it has suddenly become a big issue – in an election year, no less! Has the Church become a political entity?

But I digress. Let’s get back to the issue:

That the Obama has today given in to the Church on this point is egregiously wrong. Aside from pointing out yet another failing of the utterly nonsensical employer-sponsored health-care system in this country, we should insist that any entity (read: Corporation or other institution that employs people) that provides a public service and who accepts taxpayer funding should be required to obey the law! In addition, how is it that the Catholic Church, much like the aforementioned Evangelical segment of yesteryear, is allowed to foist their views on their employees who are not adherents of the Catholic faith? They seem to be trying to get the Federal government to do something that they cannot do themselves, i.e., force  their adherents to adhere to the Church’s idiotic policy on contraception(98 percent of  Catholics use some form of birth control!).

The Catholic Church does have a problem of relevance in today’s world. I say this as one who was raised in the Catholic faith, but who has lived and traveled extensively in the third world. I have had a chance to observe the effect of the Church’s doctrinal views in a great many parts of the world.

Think about the Church’s position on contraception and abortion. Many parts of the world are overpopulated today; people living on pennies a day can hardly be expected to be able to support more and more children. Yes, Pope Benedict, population control is critical in many corners of the globe. Yet, according to the very rigid Church doctrine, not only can you not terminate a problematic pregnancy – but you cannot even prevent one at the outset.

Moreover, we now have AIDS to contend with. Here we have an existential threat to the human race; contraception is clearly understood to have a dramatic impact in reducing transmission  rates of the HIV virus.  This would seem to require a re-evaluation  of the policy on contraception. Yet, Rome marches on¸ seemingly oblivious to the  consequences of its very narrow worldview.

Sadly, despite what appears to be a great deal of good work by Catholic organizations, I have come  to feel that the Church may in fact be wholly irrelevant to our time.

 

GUNS AGAIN (Posted February 28, 2012)

Another slaughter in America. More denial in the heartland. Will it ever stop?

As the nation renews its uniquely American custom of the “school shooting” event, we are left once again to wonder what is there about us as a people that enables us to tolerate the kind of wanton slaughter in and around the streets of the country such as we have just seen in Ohio?

We experience fifteen to twenty thousands homicides a year – every year. This is roughly 5 to 10 times what other advanced societies experience. Yet we are unable to bring ourselves to the obvious conclusion – at least in the eyes of almost any clear-thinking human being — that something must be done to deal with the epidemic of gun violence in this country.

Two thirds of these homicides are caused by guns. Yet we are absolutely unable or unwilling to face the reality that our easy access to and inclination to use guns is at the core of the problem. Yes, nation, we are in denial – we are playing ostrich and our sand-ridden heads are simply not allowing us to make the necessary commitment to fix the obvious.

A 17-year old boy got a gun and killed three people (hopefully there won’t be any others). How is it that he was able to get a gun in the first place?? Who owns the gun? And what price will the owner have to pay for what happened?

We have every right to expect gun owners to be responsible about the guns they own. Beyond that we also have a right to expect that the necessary laws will be in place to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands—criminals, mental defectives, and, YES, as the Ohio case reminds us – children as well.

Instead we have states going in the opposite direction—Ohio is working overtime to make it easier to brings concealed weapons into public places; Virginia is about to repeal the law against making volume purchases –meaning the state will once again be the main source of supply for weaponry used in crimes all across the country.

We are actually inclined to take the steps that are necessary to make the problem of gun violence WORSE!

Insanity is too good a word for this.

 

THE MARCH TOWARD FEUDALISM(Posted February 10, 2012)

There are some very unsettling trends in this country at this time.

We hear much about the ever-widening gap between the rich and the rest of us; the increasing number of people in poverty. It is clear that the top one per cent of the population have done unbelievably well while the rest of us have languished financially in the last 40 years.

So we have two issues: upper income people doing well while the rest of us lose ground. Two questions arise: 1. Are the two phenomena related? 2. What is being done that either improves the situation (reduces income disparity and poverty) or makes it worse (increases income disparity and poverty). NOTE: I intentionally leave the question of whether the two issues are good or bad; I THINK THAT THEY ARE DEVASTATING TO THE LONG-TERM WELL-BEING OF THE USA and so I write this article on that basis).

What are the relevant patterns that relate to the answers to these two questions?

First, the money:

For starters, let’s look at politics: Does the Citizens United decision, allowing unlimited funds coming into political campaigns from undisclosed sources have an impact? How about the myriad changes in voter laws being undertaken by many (Republican-dominated) states? Do the anti-union laws being passed in many of these same Republican-leaning states have anything to do with these circumstances? Is it at all surprising or coincidence that most of the big-money donors –individuals and corporations – tend to favor Republican candidates?

Citizens United unleashed the big-money inflow, defining money as free speech, protected by the first amendment. To me, it’s a bit illogical that people with names like Koch/Soros/Buffet/Gates, etc. should have MORE free speech just because they have more money. I just don’t think that is what the founders intended.

The impact is clear: the more money you have – and can use to influence the political process – the more you are able to rig the system to your benefit. It shouldn’t be surprising to hear that billionaire hedge-fund managers (think Mitt Romney) have managed to get tax code concessions from Congress that enables them to classify their income as “carried interest” and therefore subject to a fifteen per cent tax rate, less than ordinary laborers. Or that oil companies, making billions in profits, insist on and are given billions in subsidies out of the public coffers. These subsidies were originally intended to encourage exploration, very little of which is going on, yet the subsidies continue.

Consider the current debate in Congress about the federal budget deficit. There are three options to close it: spending cuts, tax increases (predominantly on the wealthy) or both. One side wants both (Democrats), the other wants ONLY spending cuts (Republicans). The Republicans insist that the deficit be solved on the backs of the poor (cuts in food/nutrition programs for the poor, etc.), while leaving untouched the obscene tax rates for the upper income folks (tax rates for the upper one per cent are the lowest in 50 years). Surprise?

Now let’s look at the voter issue:

Most of the changes in the voter laws seem to be aimed at suppressing the vote of certain groups of people who tend to vote Democrat. After all, who are the most likely to not possess a government-issued picture ID? You guessed it – blacks, latinos, the elderly, and citizens in the 18-24 demographic, segments hardly likely to vote Republican.

Further, if fraud is the issue we are concerned about — I personally think that there is not one shred of credible evidence that this is in any  way widespread — why do we not focus on absentee voting, where no ID whatsoever is required? Again, because the folks who use absentee ballots the most are the wealthy — they are away from home (business, vacations, etc.) the most.

And what about the changes in early voting? Does reducing the early vote window help with fraud? Nope—it merely restricts that window for the people who use it most — the lower-income set who cannot get time off from work as easily as the well-to-do.

These two issues, money in politics and what amounts to voter suppression efforts, combine to enable the status quo, that is, it allows the wealthy to protect their interests and get wealthier at the expense of the lower income classes. This clearly is the basis for both the increases in the income gap and  poverty rates, and this will continue to worsen unless substantial changes are made to the way we do things.

First, we need to remove money from politics; a system of public financing is a must. Members of Congress should be compensated by a strict set of rules; they should receive expense reimbursements only, should have to pay for what amounts to the same health care and other benefits that we do and should have to create their own retirement nest eggs(401-k, etc.) as the rest of us.

Second, we need  to impose a system of term limits on elected officials – I’m thinking about a one-and-out situation.

Third, we must severely restrict legislator contact with lobbyists and other so-called “influencers”. I would like to eliminate “K Street” altogether. Term limits will help, but we also need some rules to ensure that there are no undue outside influences in the “Big House” as well.

I’m with President Obama on this. This country should be about 1) Everyone having a chance to succeed, 2) Everyone playing by the same rules and 3) Everyone being able to share in the successes we achieve as a society.

Sadly, the Republican party doesn’t seem to get this. You can’t even get them to admit or talk about things like income inequality – witness Mr. Romney’s admonition that “we discuss the matter quietly in private rooms”.

So here’s the conclusion: the rich are getting richer; the poor and the middle class are becoming worse off. Are we not witnessing the USA on a march toward becoming a Feudal society? Will this issue be primary in this year’s election? Should it be?

It’s going to be an interesting year.

 

WHAT’S WRONG WITH MITT ROMNEY? (Posted January 23, 2012)

Mitt Romney offers a stark contrast to President Obama in the way he solves problems. This can be seen rather clearly from his work at the private-equity firm, Bain Capital.

Private equity has undergone a number of iterations of its brand name over the years, starting with “mergers & acquisitions”, “leveraged buyouts”, etc., none of which endears itself to ordinary Americans.

In any case, the approach Mr. Romney has taken is two-fold: first, he may simply look for a company that is in financial trouble and buy it at a very low price. He will then borrow a good deal of money on the company’s credit card, reorganize it and then send it on its way, AFTER FIRST DEDUCTING HIS FEES FROM THE BORROWED MONEY. If the company makes money, he will continue to collect a percentage of the profit; if not, he has still collected his fee(s). Worst of all, if the company fails and the original loan can never be repaid, Mitt Romney could care less – he has no liability or obligation to repay the debt. This is from the guy who rails against our national habit of borrowing more than we can repay.

In the second place, he will buy the company –again, at a heavily discounted rate – shutting down the unprofitable parts and then sell the remainder at a profit (the remaining parts are often worth more than the whole).

It is worth noting that, in both cases, what happens to the people involved (i.e., the employees) almost never enters into the equation. Contrast that with the approach President Obama took when he initially had to deal with our financial crisis, specifically with regard to the American auto industry.

Instead of merely reorganizing GM and Chrysler, he made loans to them which enabled them to return quickly to profitability. The primary goal and concern was to help people by saving or creating jobs – and saving/creating jobs he did.

Contrast that to the recommendation by Mitt Romney. He insists that the two companies should have been allowed to go bankrupt. The effect on the employees of the two companies is not mentioned in any way. His purpose is not to provide a service to the public, nor to create jobs; his purpose, solely and completely, is to make money. If jobs are lost and people are hurt, so be it. Similarly with home foreclosures – “Let the foreclosure process run its course” – seems to be the Romney mantra.

So you have two very different approaches: the first offers a solution which emphasizes helping people by keeping them employed; the second just simply tears down the structure and sees what develops from there, the human toll notwithstanding.

Now we have Mr. Romney suggesting that “he’s not concerned about the very poor”, a comment which adds further context to a Republican Party ethos that is unsettling. We have heard debate audiences applaud the idea of state-sponsored executions (irrespective of the question of innocence) and shouting “kill him” in response to a sick person not having healthy insurance. We can now add to that dismal performance the fact that we no longer have to be concerned about 46 million people in this country who exist on income in the neighborhood of 20 thousand dollars a year and who, of course, are well-cared for by the vaunted USA safety net, which, among other things, provides children in these families with up to $1.50 per meal a day worth of food stamps.

We need a President who can govern, meaning someone who can relate to and work for all Americans. An individual who will be concerned enough to reduce the impact of crime in this country and ensure that we do not execute innocents; who will work to enable all Americans to have access to high-quality medical care; finally, who will put policies in place to enable all our citizens to live the American dream.

You get what you vote for.

 

THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT (Posted January 16, 2012)

We should be PROUD for having elected a black man to be our president. It is a fitting testimonial to what America is all about and it speaks volumes about American exceptionalism.

But I live in the south and it is not only hard but darn near impossible to get a sense that

anyone around here truly appreciates this accomplishment. Instead, we see all kind of

criticisms of the President’s efforts to solve this nation’s problems. He can do nothing right—everything he tries to do is wrong. We hear comments like “we want to take our nation back” and an assortment of other inanities that imply only one thing: HE’S BLACK – and that’s bad!

It is quite understandable that people in the south would feel this way. The south has been under the Federal government’s thumb for over 150 years, starting with the civil war right on through the effort to desegregate society. The Republican Party went out of its way to appeal to voters in the south, starting with Nixon’s “southern strategy” and Mr. Reagan’s campaign kickoff in Philadelphia, Mississippi where he issued a clarion call for “state’s rights”.

All this pandering worked very well. The base of the party is now firmly entrenched in the south, where sentiment is firmly against any edicts emanating from Washington. And now, to make matters worse, those edicts are being imposed by a Federal government that IS HEADED BY A BLACK MAN!

Well, I am one person here in the south that hopes we’ll have the benefit of four more years of a president who is decent, who cares for all Americans, and who will do everything in his power to enable this nation to fulfill its promise.

.