The point is to not make him the point.

In his New York Times opinion column (The Who-Can-Beat Trump Test Leads to Kamala Harris, 8/2/19), Roger Cohen makes a fair case for Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee for 2020. And in doing so, he also does a pretty good take-down on Trump and the current (and increasingly inaptly-named) "conservative" movement. But he also unintentionally provides a road map for how Trump could defeat Harris. Harris is a prosecutor. She's a fighter. An attack dog. She will go toe-to-toe with him. She will prosecute him. She will go after him.

And that's the problem: It's still all about him.

It does appear that Harris is the candidate that the Trump campaign fears the most. But I'm not certain how reassuring that is. Trump loves a foil. He needs a foil. Foils are his megaphones. And if he can goad Harris into a debate about his deficits and his failings, then he has once again achieved his goal.

It's still all about him.

The 2020 Democratic candidate needs to be someone who flicks aside such distractions and turns attention back to "Here's what we can do for American families." Someone who won't be baited into wasting their time defensively deflecting Trump's blows. Who treats Trump's tirades as nothing more inconvenient than a jet flying overhead in the middle of an outdoor commencement speech: Yelling at it has no effect, so you just wait for the interruption to die down.

We need a candidate who will not acknowledge Trump for anything other than the noisy, inanimate object that he is.

There are a number of candidates who might do that, including Buttigieg, Klobuchar, or even (ugh!) Gillibrand, De Blasio or Gabbard (assuming she's for real, which is a whole 'nother discussion). But I think the true scrapper in the pack is Elizabeth Warren. And by "scrapper," I don't mean only that she'd hold her own in a brawl with Trump. She would indeed do that, but unlike Harris, she appears to have learned that "brawling" with him is a losing battle, because Trump not only ignores the rules of the road, he does not even acknowledge the road's existence. Roads are confining, inconvenient things meant for sub-human "little people." Trump is an entitled tank, climbing over rocks, ridges and even children in his objective, which is to stay in the limelight. He is not at all concerned that his tweets and tirades have nothing to say to people worried about their health care, their kids' education, their aging parents, the potholes in their street, or the ancient bridge they cross every day to get to that job they'd quit if only they could find a better one. He has nothing to say to them because these problems are no more real to him than the meaning of the word "No." And since he has no grasp of the problems that most people face, let alone any solutions, he'd rather you not hear from someone who does. Distraction is his superpower.

On the other hand, Warren's performance in the debates shows her deftness at deflecting slings and arrows by pivoting back to her ideas. And she does this in a way that is accessible. She's a combination of policy wonk and poet, distilling complex plans into political Haiku, a talent she no doubt honed in her years as a teacher.

I'll vote for whichever of the 2020 Democratic candidates gets the nod. But I'm rooting for Warren. Because nothing gets under a bully's skin faster and deeper than being treated as irrelevant. And that's Warren's superpower.

This is how it happens

Years from now, school children and historians will look back on this ghastly time, and wade through the multiple levels of corruption and treason by the Trump administration, and the compromising of an entire American political party and religious bodies, and ask "Why didn't they SEE it? Why didn't they STOP it? Why weren't people marching? Rushing the camps? Taking over the government buildings?"
And we will say that we did march. We did protest. We did write. We did call. And shake our fists. And scream. 

But we grew tired and hopeless when nothing changed. We grew frustrated when the people we put into positions to stop it dragged their feet. And we despaired to see that so many of our fellow citizens were all too willing to enable the overthrow of our democracy.

So we retreated to our privileged lives. After all, we were not the ones who were locked up. And we had jobs. We had soccer practice. We had bills to pay. Homework to finish. Children to raise.

And so it continued.

This is how it happens: Not a monster appearing suddenly, with yellow fangs and green scales, breathing fire and announcing its plans for destruction. It does not emerge in the midst of dystopia. No, such horror and destruction flower when people are too comfortable to risk their comfort. When people have the privilege of looking away.

That is why we need institutions in place to stop such things before we can even see them coming. The "bureaucracies." The FDIC, the safety nets, the free media.

But those things will only save us if we defend them.

Which is why the monster picks these things as the first to be vilified: They get in the way of tyrants.

x

Slavery, capitalism, socialism and freedom

A video of Vice President Mike Pence declaring that "Freedom, not socialism, ended slavery" appeared in a Facebook friend's post recently. I did not watch the video. I'm trying to preserve as much of my sanity as possible. But it got me thinking about how the words slavery, capitalism, socialism, and freedom, are currently understood in our society. Or should I say "misunderstood." I would challenge Mr. Pence's assertion that "freedom" ended slavery. Freedom was the result of ending slavery, not the means for ending it.
But I would go further to point out that a civil war ended slavery. And the American Civil War was, by its very nature, a socialist endeavor: created (declared), financed, and run by the collective we call "government."
On the other hand, capitalism ("freedom" to the GOP) was the soil from which slavery sprang: profit as a primary motive, and cheap resources as a primary means. Capitalism is, by its nature, amoral (different from immoral). Unchecked capitalism will always lead to things like slavery and authoritarianism. In fact, our current capitalist economy depends on relative slavery, in the proliferation of sub-living wage jobs. And it was only recently that the US recognized slavery happening within its own territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. This was not just recently discovered, however. Do a search for "Tom DeLay Mariana Island sweatshop factory" to learn more. At a party with sweatshop factory owners there, Congressman DeLay declared "You represent everything that is good about what we are trying to do in America." Republican congressman, I should note, a member of the party of "freedom through capitalism" - which for me always begs the question of "Freedom for whom?"
Both capitalism and socialism are amoral - without any awareness of good or bad. They are systems in the same way that a shark is an "eating machine" (Jaws, 1975). They do what they do. And they each require vigilance, which means regulation and enforcement, to work for the good of society.
So, no, Mr. Pence. Capitalism is not the same as freedom. And neither capitalism nor freedom ended slavery in the US. Because it was a socialist effort that freed the Southern plantation slaves.  And because slavery, in one form or another, is with us still.

This is my march

I’m tired of reading that people who are marching today probably don’t have jobs and are on welfare, probably didn’t even vote, and aren’t giving Trump a chance. 

I’m not marching today, but it is not because I disagree with the sentiment of my many friends who are. I’d be there if I could. I’m there in spirit. But of my friends who are marching today, I know this:

● all of them have jobs,

● all of them voted,
● all of them read newspapers,
● none of them are on welfare,
● I’m pretty sure none of them are smashing windows,
● and none of them are under the delusion that marching, even in the numbers we are seeing today, will reverse the outcome of the election, or unseat Trump as President.
They are marching because they are concerned, even afraid, and want to be heard.
They are marching because from what they have seen so far of Trump’s behavior and the people with whom he associates (including aids and Cabinet picks), under a Trump administration, they stand to lose a lot. Health care. Equality. Dignity. Consumer protection. Freedom of religion. Freedom of the press. Even the right to have their vote counted.
They are marching because they are concerned over what the ruling party has promised - PROMISED - to do to this country: destroy Social Security and Medicare (I was rather looking forward to retiring), voter suppression, more carbon in the air, selling of our national assets to private parties, reversing reproductive rights (no, I’m not even talking about abortion - birth control itself is under attack), bullying the press into submission.
Just to name a few.
So they are marching because they want to send a message that if Trump truly intends to be President of all the people, he needs to stop referring to his critics as “enemies.” He needs to stop taking victory laps and act like a public servant. He needs to grow a thicker hide and focus on the nation's concerns, rather than on reacting in denial and derogation to every unflattering remark.
And he needs to stop telling us that America isn’t great. Because it is.
So yes, we have no choice but to “give Trump a chance.” He’s the President. But people are marching today because Trump’s already shown his hand. He has bragged about grabbing women inappropriately. He has mocked the disadvantaged. He has publicly suggested that an unfriendly foreign power hack his political opponent. He has endorsed violence against those who disagree with him. He has ignored ethical standards that every other modern President has adhered to, both for himself and for the people in his administration. And, ironically, he made a name for himself by questioning the legitimacy of a sitting President.
All of this is of some concern to us.
I’d love to think that President Trump will grow into the role, and truly be someone who puts country above all else, above even winning. But leopards don’t usually change their spots. And this cat has a lot of spots.
So we are concerned.
And we march.

America the Secular

The Sunday following Veteran's Day, before worship begins, we usually have all the veterans stand, and we applaud them for their service. We did this today. It was a suitable tribute. Later during the service, we pray for our leaders, that they be wise, and lead the country in ways that promote compassion, peace, and security for all within her embrace. That is proper.

But this morning, the Sunday after Veterans Day 2016, our opening hymn was “America the Beautiful.”

I. Just. Couldn't.

I stood, but I did not sing. Don't get me wrong. I consider myself patriotic. And “America the Beautiful” is a glorious song. I so wanted to sing it. It's one of the best songs ever. The poetry alone is an amazing, beautiful word painting: Amber waves of grain, purple mountains majesty, sea to shining sea. It tells of our history. It honors the sacrifices of our predecessors. And it cautions our nation to balance law and liberty. In addition to the message, it's a great melody for an aging soprano - high, but not too high. Uncomplicated. Familiar. I wish they'd sing it more at ballparks.

But not in church.

I can hear gasps all around as I write this. Why not sing it in church? A great Christian nation should acknowledge God's amazing gifts. Should be thankful for what God has bestowed upon us. Should sing praises to this great gift that God has given us.

Whoa. Hold the phone. That's it. Right there.

Never mind whether or not you think we are a Christian nation. That's a whole 'nother long and circular discussion, and many folks might be surprised to learn which side of that debate I come down on (and others might not).

And never mind the whole question of whether our history is 100% something to be proud of. Again, a subject so dense with potential that it generates its own gravitational field.

I really, really don't want to focus on any of that.

What bothered me this morning is that our opening hymn, our call to worship, did not worship God. It worshiped America the Beautiful. And to me, that is disturbing.

The song “America the Beautiful” is about America. More to the point, “America the Beautiful” is a song to America. Not to God, asking for his grace, or thanking Him for our bounteous land. Yes, it references God, but as a bystander. As if God is off in a distant corner, and we're saying to America “Gee, sister, sure would be awesome if God sheds some grace on thee for Christmas.”

So ok, it’s not a song to God, but clearly it’s about God, in that it mentions God, and praises one of God's blessings. I’ll give you that. But to me (and maybe I’ve been wrong all these years), that's not what church is for: to come together to talk about God, as if God wasn’t even in the room. Or to worship his blessings. We don't go to church to worship the great American Craftsman God gave us to live in. Or to sing praises to the meal we ate last night. Or even to worship the awesome parents, spouse, or children that God gave us. We don't worship God's gifts.

We worship the God who bestowed them upon us.

“America the Beautiful,” as much as I love it, praises America. That's maybe a fine thing to do. But not in church. Not in a service meant to praise God. Because among other things, it elevates the state to a place that should be preserved for God alone.

Also consider that there are people who come to church who may not agree with the sentiments of “America the Beautiful.” Who are visitors from another country, or who live in this country, and maybe even think it has a lot of potential, but who aren't all that enamored of the pilgrim's feet or the alabaster cities. And that is their right. Absolutely that is their right. The state does not get to dictate their feelings or opinion. And when it comes to feelings or opinions about the state, neither does the church.
People come to church to praise God. They come to a Lutheran church to praise God in a way that has been defined by the Lutheran church. It should be fairly predictable. If they have sought out a Lutheran worship service, then the hymns, the readings, the liturgy, should be pretty much in line with how they themselves feel about God. But they should not be expected to feel the same way about America as Katharine Lee Bates did. Again, don't get me wrong: Despite our many sins, I swell with pride at being an American. But I don't assume that everyone who comes to my church does. Or at least they shouldn't have to. Their sentiment about the state should not be an issue in a worship service. In the same way that my child should not have to say “Hail Mary, full of grace” at a public school basketball game (or risk feeling conspicuous by not saying it), neither should someone at a their church feel compelled to sing a secular song praising a secular thing that is not part of church doctrine. 

You may think I'm splitting hairs here. Maybe I am. But I was raised in a tradition that did not sanctify things. I'm so hard-line separation-of-church-and-state that I don't think an American flag belongs at the altar. I think Christians should lead by example, not by law. And I have a few problems with the federal tax code, while we're at it. That's not to invite discussion on those points so much as to let you know where I'm coming from.

When you look back at the history of the Lutheran Church, you would have to admit that mine is a very Lutheran perspective. In Luther's time, church and state were so intertwined that Luther's “heresy” put his freedom and his very life in peril. So this is not some new-fashioned wacko liberal nonconformist agnostic apostasy I'm spouting. It's me, as a Christian and a patriot, wanting as much protection for the House of God as I expect for my house on Main Street. It’s not just about protecting the state from the church. It's also about protecting the church from the state.

So if it happens again, I will once more stand and be respectful. But I will not sing. And I will probably mention this to the ministers - not in hysterical tears, accompanied by threats to leave, etc. There are bigger battles ahead. But I will mention it because I am a Christian, and a patriot, as much as I have heard lately that I cannot possibly be either of those things. But that is precisely the point, perhaps: I do not want to have either one of those qualities defined for me by the other.

Dignity is the New Fairness

Ok, I’ve been busy.

Over the past handful of years, my writing skills have been funneled into pursuits other than blogging, such as professional reports, technical responses on forums, and still - yes, still - my decades-in-the-making, sci-fi-fantasy epic. So I’ve not been blogging much.

But yesterday, that button got pushed. You know that button. The one that makes you go “Whaaaaa? That can’t be right!” and after you read it for the fifth time, you boot up your laptop and righteously just go off. That’s what I did when I heard a portion of Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissenting opinion regarding Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark US Supreme Court decision which has granted legal status to gay marriage throughout the nation.

It’s not just Thomas that has me going. There’s consternation aplenty to be found within the dissenting opinions of all four members of the SCOTUS anti-rainbow coalition. John Roberts, for example, insists that inter-state recognition of marriages “should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives.” I might find this quaint, were it not coming from the mouth of a 21st century Chief Justice. I mean, I’m sure he went to law school somewhere, so perhaps he knows more about such matters than I do, but haven’t we seen over time that “the people” don’t always have the best interest of everyone else in mind? We’ve left to “the people” such questions as whether or not a person can own another person. Or if it’s reasonable to lock workers on the tenth floor of a fire trap to ensure productivity. Or whether a woman should be allowed to sign contracts and have nice things like bank accounts and property. Unless she’s married, in which case her fully-enfranchised husband can cover those bases for her. Unless, of course, he’s a different color than she is, in which case he can’t be her husband. To extend Roberts’ premise, such issues were working out just fine, thankyouverymuch, when they were left to the collective wisdom of the local majority (including, I suppose, the question of whether or not that majority should include people with vaginas).

But the thing that brought me to my now-smoking keyboard is this particular harrumph from Justice Clarence Thomas:

When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

(Although most coverage of Thomas’s opinion does not include the earlier paragraph, I added it as context for Thomas’s reference to “that principle.” But I’ll set aside the whole discussion on the legitimacy of citing the Declaration of Independence in a dissent on a constitutional matter, or on how much Thomas misses his own point regarding the vision upon which our nation was founded. Except to say - WTF??)

To distill it down into its basic elements, then, Justice Thomas is saying that no matter how egregiously the government treats you, so long as you’re a sport about it, it’s all good. Seriously, just hold your head up, and don’t go making a federal case out of it, because - you know - dignity is the new fairness.

So yeah, lock me up in chains and ship me off like cargo, in my own filth and sickness, so you can sell me as property and use whips to compel me to work myself to death. In my heart, I know I’m human, whether you recognize that by law or not, so what’s all the fuss about?

And sure, round up my family, and put us into barbed-wire camps, and treat us like prisoners because we have those funny-shaped eyes, and when you let us go, remind us that our homes now belong to someone else. But you can’t take away my dignity, so no skin off my nose, right?

And while you’re at it, government, go ahead and keep me out of law school, and forbid me to sit for the Bar, and tell me I can’t marry a white woman, because you know what? I’ve still got that dignity around here somewhere. As long as I keep singing “No, no, they can’t take that away from me,” then all of those unpleasant things that are legal to do to me aren’t really all that appalling.

The fact that Obergefell v. Hodges was such a squeaker, and that we are still hearing refrains of “let the people decide about rights” from persons in such elevated positions, should tell us that we can’t put away our marching shoes just yet. Gay rights, women’s rights, civil rights of any kind, all remain subject to re-examination. So yes, we have cause to celebrate, but it’s not over. It’s never over.

In the meantime, in one final irony among so many, Justice Thomas seeks to console the Hodges of this land by reminding them of their own dignity:

[The court’s] rejection of laws preserving the traditional definition of marriage can have no effect on the dignity of the people who voted for them. Its invalidation of those laws can have no effect on the dignity of the people who continue to adhere to the traditional definition of marriage.

So in the end, it’s all good. Right, Clarence?

__________________________________________________


I must add:  I heartily recommend reading George Takei's submission to MSNBC on this topic. Mr. Takei has been married to his husband Brad Takei since 2008, which gives him an obvious interest in the cause of equal marriage rights, a cause for which he has fought many years. But when I read Justice Thomas's words "Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity," I said to myself "I sure hope Uncle George weighs in on this!"

Yep, he did:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/george-takei-clarence-thomas-denying-our-rights-denies-our-dignity?ts_pid=2

.

Not in my name!

As long as the justice system is run by politicians whose reelection depends upon a body count, we should not have the death penalty.

As long as standards such as "egregious" and "monster" are left up to humans to decide, we should not have the death penalty.

As long as people make judgments based upon the color of someone's skin, we should not have the death penalty.

As long as the system can be rigged, we should not have the death penalty.

As long as there is something to be gained by anyone involved, whether it is "closure" for the victims, fame for the prosecutor, ratings for the media, or power for the politicians, we should not have the death penalty. Some otherwise social-justice-oriented folks among us say that the death penalty is allowable, even worthwhile, so long as the standard for imposing it is "beyond reasonable doubt." But as long as the death penalty exists, there will always be someone who has a motivation to move that line of "reasonable doubt" one way or the other to suit their purposes. It appears that someone may have done exactly that in Troy Davis's case.

At the same time that Troy Davis was scheduled to be executed, the state of Texas proudly put down Lawrence Russell, a white supremacist who chained James Byrd, Jr., to the back of a truck and dragged him along the road until all that remained of Mr. Byrd was shredded meat. It was brutal. Inhuman. Insufferable. I do not want anyone who would do such a thing to live among the rest of us. But what I want is not the point. When dispensing justice, we cannot be driven by how pissed off we are. Otherwise, we would break an arm for a broken arm. We would rape to pay back for rape. We would torture as justice for torture. There are societies that do that. But we don’t. Why? Because, we say, we are better than that. But we do not appear to be better than this, do we?

I am not insensitive to Mark MacPhail’s family’s pain. But if executing a potentially innocent man will bring his family peace, then it comes at the expense of our own collective humanity, and that is asking too much. It is done in our name. But despite the bravado with which some cheer the dispensing of this ultimate "penalty," I wonder if, like jury duty, we handed over the switch, the trigger, the needle, the bullet, to those of us in whose name this is done, how many of us would actually follow through? Asking the prison officials to do it for us instead is a convenient form of cowardice that I want no part of.

Please do not do this “in my name.” It diminishes me. It diminishes us all.

Never give a debt ceiling saga an even break.

There aren’t too many situations arising in the world today that don’t call to mind a Star Trek episode. CIA drones? “A Taste of Armageddon.” Big PHARMA? “Operation: Annihilate!” Xenophobia? “Balance of Terror,” “The Devil in the Dark,” and, oh heck, pretty much any original series episode with Spock in it (which would be all of them, you green-blooded hobgoblin!).

But the entertainment reference that our most recent “crisis” over the debt ceiling conjures up is a scene from Mel Brooks’ “Blazing Saddles.” (No, not that one! Although if you’ve ever watched C-SPAN for too long, I can see why you would think that.) It’s the scene in which Bart, after every citizen in town has drawn guns on him, pulls out his revolver, presses it to his own temple, and says “Drop it, or I swear I'll blow this n*****'s head ALL OVER THIS TOWN!” The punch line is that the townspeople fall for it and drop their guns.

Although it’s not a punch line in the real-world. The GOP is pulling out their majority, pointing it at their own country, and saying “Drop it, or we swear we’ll blow this nation ALL OVER... well, THIS NATION!” And like the townsfolk in Brooks’ fictional Rock Ridge, many of the Dems are dropping things: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the return of the saner tax policies that were in place when this country was running surplus - just to name a few. But unlike Rock Ridge, this is not a movie. Although it is fiction.

The fiction of it is that this problem needs to be solved this very minute! Numerous times in our history, the debt ceiling has been raised in a simple up-or-down vote, not tied to long-term issues like the budget deficit. This is the first time, though, that it has been used as a hostage. I realize that in our current political climate, words like “thug” get thrown around so much as to be meaningless, but what else would you call someone who threatens to harm those you hold dear if they don’t get their way? If we have to return to the good old days of poor houses, robber barons, and Triangle Shirtwaist fires, at least we won't have that pesky debt ceiling hanging over our heads. Unfortunately, Mr. Boehner is so out of touch with those American People he likes to reference, he either does not realize or does not care that if he gets his way, a few more of them will have nothing over their heads.
What I am desperately hoping for is intervention from an entity more powerful than Congress! Mightier than the White House! A more weighty and influential constituency than the American People themselves!

Wall Street.

Goodbye, Grant Park. I'm Done.

I have run the gamut of emotions today, from disgusted to really, really disgusted. But sadly, I have ended up at resigned. Over the past several days, I have been calling, writing, railing against the insanity going on in Washington DC, regarding the budget deficit, and the false allegation that cutting Social Security and Medicare will do anything to defray it. I have written and called my Senators and my Representative. I have written and called Senators and Representatives from other states. I have written and called my Senators and my Representative again. And I have written the White House repeatedly. I keep hoping it would matter.

As of this evening, I have exhausted any capacity to care.

I’ve done a lot of writing on this issue to The Powers in DC, but here is today’s output, which I think says whatever needs to be said.

To the White House, this morning:
Do not cut Social Security, and do not undercut it by using the Chained CPI. I figure you have stopped listening by now, but I cannot stop talking. If I do, I feel too much sadness and despair. You may think that you have the Democratic vote for 2012, and all you need is to persuade some in the middle or the right. But take a lesson from what you called the "shellacking" of 2010: a lot of people will be staying home. That will also affect the "down ballot" votes. We feel betrayed, and it seems pointless to vote for anyone because of the lies. Sen. Sanders, Rep. Peter Defazio, and other progressives are the exception, but you are hurting them, too, because people will throw up their hands and stay home. And your telling us not to give up will not carry any weight now. You have given up, and given us over. Why should we not throw in the towel?

To Senator Bernie Sanders, mid-day:
Thank you for standing up for the Big 3! What more can I say? Yours is the one voice that keeps me sane. Yours is the one voice that gives me hope. I cannot believe how tone-deaf others are in WDC. I cannot believe how the main stream media continues to ignore the fact the that SS is not part of the deficit! (And yes, I write to them about this.) They are misinforming the public, and are not serving their own mandate to act "in the public interest." Keep fighting for us. I do not live in Vermont, but I feel like you are truly representing me.

And finally to the White House again, this evening:
Today, I asked to be removed from your email list. I am tired of being lied to, and I don't need it in my email inbox as well as the radio/tv/newspaper. I am tired of getting updates that tell me how much the Administration has done for me, despite the damage being done to the middle class. I was a supporter, but no more. If the contract of Social Security means nothing to you, then Grant Park no longer means anything to me.

And then I clicked “Unsubscribe” on the email I got today from the White House. If 80% of the public is telling the President to stand his ground on Social Security, etc., and he can’t do it, then it must be intentional. He must be one of Them.

Goodbye, Grant Park. Goodbye.

What about the Logic Deficit?

Will someone please explain to the Deficit Commission that Social Security is NOT funded by the general budget? I’m aware of the creative number shifting, instituted under Reagan, used to make the general treasury fund look less in-the-red than it actually is. (Al Gore’s much-maligned “lockbox” was actually right on target.) And the core of Medicare is funded by dedicated taxes and premiums - again, NOT part of the general treasury fund. So how does cutting a program that does not affect the deficit help balance the budget?

And IF the government decides to cancel those two contracts, will my (self-employed) income rise by the roughly 13% that is currently being paid out in those dedicated taxes? Somehow, I doubt it.

This is nothing but war on the lower classes (and the middle class is a lower class in the eyes of the whiners who think that 15% is a burdensome amount to pay in a capital gains tax for passively-earned money). Have the upper crust eaters stopped to think about what would happen with the loss of the “Security” portion of the Social Security program? Never mind the starving widows and orphans, or the grandmothers freezing to death in store doorways. (Talk about a “death panel”!) If the well-washed masses truly think that we are all better off without Social Security, they also need to consider whether they can set aside enough provisions so that they never have to leave their gated communities and venture into the chaos of the streets to purchase food, clothing, or theater tickets.

When will we be done with this failed trickle-down philosophy? By the most common definition of insanity, our nation has truly gone crazy. For thirty-plus years, we have done the same thing over and over again, and keep expecting a different result. But the far right just keeps repeating the top-down mantra as though it were true, and it is swallowed whole by the efficiently consolidated and corporately-owned media, no longer run by Adam Smith’s “invisible hand of the market.” Oh, the far right loves to quote Adam Smith, and also Jesus, when convenient. But if they studied either of these gentlemen more closely, they’d brand both of them socialist lunatics.

There is also a quote from Kennedy that the right likes to trot out from time to time, with the gleeful intent of using words uttered by one of the left’s own heros to prop up their right-wing pursuit of this economic insanity. “A rising tide floats all boats.” What the modern-day robber barons on the far right don’t appreciate, however, is that a rising tide floats those boats from the bottom up.

We're Winning the War - On Ourselves

"We have more now on that explosion yesterday in downtown Chicago. Mexico’s civilian intelligence agency, the Centro de Información de Seguridad Nacional (CISEN), had determined that Henry Samuels, the owner of a local chain of convenience stores, was a key kingpin in the illegal drug market in the US. CISEN released a statement today saying that the United States’ insatiable appetite for drugs constitutes a clear and present danger to Mexico’s national security. CISEN has therefore initiated a program of identifying those people believed to be key personnel in the American illegal drug trade, and neutralizing them using predator drones. Although this also results in the destruction of surrounding property, and the death of several innocent civilians, including children, the American government has issued a statement that despite the collateral damage, the United States stands firmly in support of Mexico, a key partner in the War on Drugs."

Ridiculous, right?

Not so much.

Replace "Mexico" with "United States," "CISEN" with "CIA," "Chicago" with "Khyber," and "War on Drugs" with "War on Terror," and you have a thumbnail sketch of modern-day Pakistan. Based strictly on their own secret intelligence, and in the absence of due process, our CIA, supported by the tax dollars that we can't seem to spare for schools, libraries and fire departments, picks out the bad guys in Pakistan and blows them up using remote control drones. Never mind that there are also a few wives, aunts, uncles, and kids nearby, and even some neighbors that don’t have any relationship to the "bad guy." Never mind that there might be someone driving by who turned down the wrong street looking for a birthday party. And don’t even fret about the whole "What if we’re wrong?" scenario. This is War, people! War on Terror! And we won’t stop fighting it until we’ve won!

Unfortunately, a war footing justifies a lot of things that people would not otherwise tolerate. Spending, hardship, and the sacrifice of those near and dear to us are all burdens our nation has been willing to bear during wartime. Whip up enough fervor for it, and those things which we otherwise consider atrocities seem downright moral when framed in the context of war. Like blowing up kids. And given our new, modern style of war, with non-military agencies driving remote missiles into far-away sovereign nations, where we don’t even have to look at the mess we’ve made, it all seems just that much less atrocious. So it’s all good, right? If it keeps us all safer here in Seattle, Boston, Dallas, etc., it’s all worth it, right? We’re the USA, after all. Nothing trumps that card!

Arguments about morality and effectiveness aside, let’s do some simple math: Pressing a button to send a predator drone raining down on a Pakistani birthday party costs between $4 million and $15 million a whack. We say we do it because we certainly don’t want another 9/11. Over 3,000 people died on 9/11. It was awful. So naturally we spend billions of dollars now in the War on Terror to prevent another such terrorist attack.

Now let’s look at the other side of the ledger. What if we skipped a dozen or so of those drone attacks, and hired some police and some school teachers, buy health insurance for some kids, and kick-start some green industries? How many lives would that save? The statistics for murder in the US appears to have been pretty steady over the past 10 years: between 15,000 and 17,000 a year. I’m just guessing that better policing might at least have put a dent in that statistic. Lack of health insurance claims another estimated 45,000 lives annually. Asthma, cancer, and other illnesses related to fossil fuel pollution also carry costs with them in lost lives, not to mention lost productivity. The cost of a gallon of gas does not include what we pay in both blood and treasure to support the Pentagon’s oil-driven mission. And BP promises to "pay all legitimate claims" for the latest Oops in the Gulf of Mexico, but when asked in Senate hearings whether that included tax revenue lost by local governments due to decimated seafood and tourist industries, the president of BP America answered "Question mark." I kid you not, that’s a quote. What kind of benefits would we see in lives saved and revenue generated if we had the will to slide some of those fossil fuel tax subsidies over to renewable energy enterprises? So again, never mind the questions of morality, or whether we have effectively deterred another 9/11. If anyone in charge truly started crunching the numbers, our War on Terror not only looks like a bad investment - it looks downright suicidal.

But at least the War on Education is going well.

Mad Math: April's Fossil Fuel Tally

Tosoro Refinery, Anacortes, WA:............7
Upper Branch Mine, Montcoal, WV:........29
Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig, Gulf Coast:...11
Dotiki Coal Mine, Providence, KY:.......... 2
____________________________________
GRAND TOTAL:....................................49

Shame, shame, shame on us!

Massey is going to offer the families of the dead UBM miners a total of nearly $90 million to shut up and go away. How much would it have cost to have the proper safety provisions in the mines to begin with? And how much could we add to that blood money if they hadn't had to bribe the inspectors? Would that have bought the safety of those miners?

What will we learn next about the other fossil fuel disasters that have happened this month? Whatever it is, I have a sinking feeling that it won't be enough. Until people go to jail over things like this, we won't ever get the attention of the likes of Don Blankenship.

Papiere, bitte

OK, now I'm scared.

I seem pretty "American." Brown hair, green eyes, no accent. But I don't carry my birth certificate with me. If I take a walk with my husband around the neighborhood, I don't even have my driver's license. And I've always thought that as long as I didn't - you know - hold up a bank or stab someone, no one would haul me into jail.

Then again...

Arizona has just taken the next step towards the fascist state the Tea Partiers love to warn us about - except that they aren’t decrying this one. The latest bill passed by the Copper State’s legislature, and just today signed into law by Gov. Brewer, would make it a crime in that state for an illegal immigrant not to carry an alien registration document. It also would require police to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally.

Where do I begin?

First of all, any crime that makes it illegal for an illegal immigrant to do anything illegal is just ludicrous on its face. Kind of like making it illegal to rob a bank with a Glock. (And anyone who doesn't get that can just stop reading. Come to think of it, they probably never started.)

Second of all, what would constitute "reason to suspect" that someone is in the country illegally? Lucky for us that our friends at azcentral.com have given us an overview. In a Q&A format, University of Arizona law professor Gabriel Chin, and Kris Kobach of University of Missouri-Kansas City law school (the latter who helped to write the legislation), have given us their professional assessment of how the law might play out in the real world.

• Question: Do I have to carry an ID card all the time now, to prove I'm a citizen?

• Answer: No, the law does not require citizens to prove their citizenship. Professor Kobach's answer actually says: "If the person merely asserts that he is a U.S. citizen, that's good enough." Ok, then. If you're a citizen and you say you're a citizen, you're fine. If you're here illegally, though, and you say you're a citizen, and can't prove it, then we can haul you in.

• Not Answered: How is it determined that you’re a citizen who does not have to prove you’re a citizen? And how long can the police keep you in the hoosegow while you’re proving/not proving it?

I like Professor Chin's answer better. Well, not "like" so much as "respect." He says that "if you look Mexican or Hispanic or Asian or Black, then you should carry ID" because "there's already some evidence" (that being your very tan face or very slanted eyes) that you might trigger "reasonable suspicion." Anyone perusing his curriculum vitae would see that Professor Chin is widely published on immigration issues. And he perhaps has a unique perspective on this issue, looking reasonably suspiciously Asian himself. But he brings up only one of two points that have troubled me most about this new law.

The first concern has been well-aired of late: that of racial profiling. This should be of obvious concern to anyone whose description fits within the list of usual suspects that Professor Chin outlined. My daughter-in-law was born in Peru, but she is a naturalized citizen of the US. I was born in this country, so she worked harder for that "citizen" designation that I did. But she is dark-skinned and has an accent, so in Arizona, she will have to carry her "papers." And if, God forbid, she were ever mugged in Mesa, she might find herself locked up next door to her assailant until one of us can drive down there with some replacement documents for her.

The second point, however, is not one I've heard anyone put forward: political profiling. The standard of "reasonable suspicion," as far as I've been able to tell, is not defined. What if I have a t-shirt or bumper sticker that a cop takes exception to? What if he thinks my sentiment is supsicously unAmerican? And what if he's just a jerk? But it couldn't happen here. Could it? If the press round-ups at the 2008 GOP convention didn't get your attention, if Bush's Free-Speech Zones didn't rub you the wrong way, then just Google "police stop for bumper stickers" and see if any of the hits sound like stories from the Land of the Free. "Live Free or Die" will get you pulled over in some jurisdictions. And if you have "9/11 was an inside job" on your car, you'd better get yourself either some adhesive remover or a lawyer on retainer.

Over the past eight years, we have had Hitler analogies and socialist-fascist-totalitarian hyperbole flung from the Left and now from the Right, to the point that we seem to have been desensitized to it in the same way that we have learned to ignore "damn" and "Hell" during Prime Time. Now, it seems, we may have to learn to tolerate yet another previously offensive phrase from the darker pages of history:

"Papers, please."

Never Mind Massey: Our Own Unwarrantable Failure

Last week on NPR's Morning Edition, at the end of Renee Montagne’s interview with Bob Ferriter of the Colorado School of Mines, she asked him why, in 2010, we are still using people instead of machines to mine coal. I think the more appropriate question is why, in 2010, we are still mining and using coal at all. Mr. Ferriter defined the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) term “unwarrantable failure” as knowing the proper way to do something, and ignoring it. The coast-to-coast tragedies we have witnessed recently, from the oil refinery explosion in Anacortes, WA, to the Massey coal mine disaster in West Virginia, are the result of unwarrantable failure that extends far beyond industry management: We ignore the alternatives we have to fossil fuels.

And we do have alternatives. Wind farms dot the landscape from the wide-open prairies to the hills outside of San Francisco. Communities in Europe are able to generate enough electricity from roof-top solar panels that home owners sell power back to the grid. And we have barely touched the potential of biomass and geothermal. And conservation? Talk about Power to the People! That strategy is currently within the grasp of each and every one of us.

Of course, this "green" power is currently expensive. But what are the costs of the energy sources we doggedly, unquestioningly, continue to pursue: The price of gasoline has the power to send our economy into a tail spin. Soot from our tailpipes and factories so foul the air that the weather report warns “sensitive people” to stay indoors. Nuclear power plants are so risky that We The People have to subsidize their operation through government insurance -- never mind the 10,000 year half-life of their waste.

Oh, and now you can add 5 refinery workers and 25 coal miners to that price tag. How many solar panels would their families buy to have them back?

Sarah at Stanislaus: CSU can't do better?

"Due to severe state budget cuts imposed upon the CSU, most administrative offices at California State University, Stanislaus will be closed on the dates listed below in observance of mandatory, unpaid furlough days.
"Students are advised to consult with their instructors concerning the impact of faculty furlough days on specific course meeting dates. Unless the students in a particular course are told otherwise, they should assume that most courses will be meeting according to the published schedule."

These words on the CSU Stanislaus website would lead one to believe that the school, like so many institutions in my native state, is in dire straits. But now, in one of the last gasps of investigative journalism yet alive in this country, one particular CSUS student ignored Furlough Friday, and did some dumpster diving. What she came up with was a copy of a contract related to the school's upcoming 50th anniversary celebration. The contract was with scheduled speaker Sarah Palin.

Just prior to the discovery of the documents, state Senator Leland Yee had quizzed school representatives about the school's expenditures in bringing Ms. Palin to campus. The school denies spending any money on Ms. Palin's visit. Needless to say, Sen. Yee now has a few more questions for the school, and California Attorney General Jerry Brown is going to do a little checking into this, as well. But Matt Swanson, president of the CSU Stanislaus Foundation, has assured those concerned that "We're not only using no state money, we're not even using existing foundation dollars."

Yeah, Matt, maybe. But it just looks bad.

The school has been slashing funding for things related to their primary purpose: education. The CSUS website notes that if alumni or other supporters want to make a donation to help "continue the CSU Stanislaus tradition of quality education and personal attention," they should make their check out to "California State University, Stanislaus Foundation." So Mr. Swanson wants to reassure us that any such donations, including the $500 per plate tab for the upcoming event, will continue to support the school's vital mission by funding Ms. Palin's $100,000 (minimum) speaking fee, a private jet, and bendy straws (not kidding!). In other words, the Foundation thinks it fitting to hire for this celebration of higher education a speaker who is famous for her lack of curiosity, proud of her insatiable appetite for not reading, and who as a student herself quit four colleges. Now that's alumni money well-spent!

But really, CSU Stanislaus Foundation, is this the best you can do? There are no California native daughters - or at least transplants - whose connection to California might make their presence a little more meaningful, maybe even a little more consistent with intellectual excellence? Sally Ride? Maria Shriver? Condeleeza Rice? Tracy Caldwell Dyson? (Dr. Dyson might even have some killer PowerPoint slides from her trip to the International Space Station!) Even if every one of them commanded their own hefty speaker's fee, I'm sure each has something more profound to read off the palm of her hand than "Don't Retreat... RELOAD!"

I am very concerned about the future of education in this country, and its impact on the future of the country itself. Ironically, my stepson and his family, including those citizens of the future that are my grandchildren, live right down the street from the CSU Stanislaus campus. So while I am distressed over history textbooks in Texas, dismayed about the lost art of critical thinking, and downright sad about the state of literacy in general (Rnt U?), I have an especially finely-honed radar concerning things that might impact those two particular kids in Turlock. So I have to ask myself: Should it come to pass that Ms. Palin does do a turn at the CSUS podium, what will she say? Maybe she can be an inspiration for the future generations of CSU students. Just think of what she could teach them:

• If you don't like your job, you can always quit.
• If you don't like what people are saying about you, call them names.
• You can score points as a pundit by blaming the other party for the problems your own party has caused (the political equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?").
• Once you get your own TV show, if you can't get interviews with big stars, just make believe you interviewed them (oh, and edit, edit, edit!).
• If you don't like that people are accusing you of things like misappropriating funds, using your children as political props, and outright lying in your "auto"biography, change the subject to something that can't be refuted because it is sheer nonsense.
• When inevitably someone points out that what you said is sheer nonsense, or worse yet calls you out for being just plain wrong, say that you were misunderstood.
• If the above does not work, then foment violence (and then be prepared to repeat that you were misunderstood).
• Above all, wear tight clothes, high heels, higher hair, and leathah!

OK, not so much inspiration as sensation. I propose that instead of Ms. Palin, why not give $100,000 to CSU Stanislaus student Alicia Lewis, who discovered the dumpster documents and brought them to light? Then she might actually be able to finish college, and do something truly inspirational.

Net Neutrality

On Tuesday, the principle of net neutrality got put on life support when the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to stop C o m c a s t from slowing down or blocking sites they don't like. Contact your federal representatives and tell them how you feel about this.

As for me, if I really want to know what it's like to use the internet in China, I'll get on a plane.

A Supreme Noogie

Joe Wilson behaved himself last night. Sam Alito did not. Not to excuse Mr. Wilson’s behavior last year, but he was at least in his own chamber (which, come to think of it, makes his behavior even more ghastly - he disses his guests), and Joe is a member of the "loyal (to what) opposition." He was a partisan, responding in a partisan manner.

But even though he used his Library of Congress voice, Sam Alito’s mouthed outburst of "not true" to the President, in response to the President’s criticism of a recent SCOTUS decision, strikes me as an even greater breach of civility. The Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan. While it’s obvious that the Justices, being human (we are told), have political leanings. But in their behavior while acting as a member of the Court (and sitting in the front row at a Presidential Address with television cameras on them would count), they are supposed to be above the partisan fray. Last night, however, Alito behaved as though he was a kid back in New Jersey, exchanging volleys of "Uh hu" and "Nah ah" with his sister. I expect better behavior from a full-grown Supreme. In fact, most of the time at a State of the Union address, the Justices sit on their hands, to avoid an appearance of partisanship. And while they might smile or frown, I am pretty certain no Justice has ever face-mimed "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire" in a joint session of Congress.

Maybe Alito’s response to the President was based on a heart-felt belief that the Citizens United decision was so obviously The True Law of The Land, that any disagreement with it is unbearable, and requires immediate correction. But even that benefit of the doubt does not hold up. If Alito truly felt so strongly and passionately about any difference of opinion, then when is his own "home territory," Justice Alito at least should have been shaking his head the whole time Justice Stevens read his fiery dissenting opinion from the bench. Maybe stuck out his tongue. As far as I know, he did not do either. If he had, I’m sure Nina Totenberg would have mentioned it.

So I take Alito’s behavior as nothing less than another signal that the Supreme Court is not only activist and partisan, it is now jack-bootedly so. The conservative Justices do not truck outside dissent, to the point that at least one of them will behave like a kid playing basketball in Aunt Tilly’s living room: so focused on their own view of the world, that they lack any courtesy whatsoever when invited to someone else’s house. At Aunt Tilly’s house, that’s just bad manners. On the world stage, that’s usually played out as totalitarianism.

During the State of the Union, at least one member of one of the Cabinet is selected to sit it out. In the event that some disaster wipes out the U.S. Capitol Building, and all inside, we would have at least one "designated survivor" who can take the reigns. The Congress usually picks a few members to sit it out, as well. The Supreme Court does not traditionally do this. They are usually all there, and seated in the front row, as honored guests. But maybe it’s time that they leave Sammy home for the next one.

Then again.... If a disaster did occur, the surviving Judicial Branch would be made up entirely of: Sam Alito. So strike that last thought. Next time, Sammy, try to behave more like a Supreme Court Justice, and less like a pesky kid who cannot let a dissenting comment pass without responding with the Washington DC equivalent of a school-yard noogie.

A Nobel Gesture

I heard the news at 4:00 AM. I often awake early, and turn on the radio to help me drift back to sleep for another couple of hours. But I was wide awake this morning, and this news clinched it for me that I would not be returning to Dreamland.

I am a hopeful supporter of our President. I believe he's the right man at the right time. I am counting on him to pull us back from the precipice. At the very least, his election has stanched the hemorrhaging of our civil liberties and our national honor. I am relieved he's in charge. But when I heard that he’d won the Nobel Peace Prize, I was puzzled. Really? Now? Why?

I had no doubt that in the future, Mr. Obama will have earned the honor without any question. And I did think that thus far in his nascent presidency, he has managed to put a whole new spin on the course of our planet. But on the heels of Saturday Night Live's opening sketch last weekend ("Look at what I've accomplished with majorities in the House and Senate... jack squat"), I wondered: what was the Nobel committee thinking? Obama has not brokered any ground-breaking handshakes. He hasn't torn down any walls, caught any Nazis, or granted any micro-loans. He has not even assembled an Oscar-winning Power Point presentation.

What has he done?

As the day wore on, I took breaks from work to listen to the radio, and to visit Google, and I found my perspective on Mr. Obama’s resume evolving. He has actually accomplished a few things in his 47 years:

1. Instead of seeking a job with a cushy law firm (his resume certainly would have opened doors for him), he sought out the opportunity to be a community organizer on the streets of Chicago. That changed a few lives for the better.
2. He stood up to the entrenched power structure by questioning the "war" in Iraq, the violation of civil liberties, and the eroding of America's respectability in the world community that was happening under President Bush. That "call to arms," starting with his campaign for the Illinois state senate, is pretty much what got him elected President.
3. He has returned the US Presidency to its role as an active participant in efforts to reverse global climate change and end nuclear proliferation.
4. He enacted a financial bail out which - all other criticisms aside - has kept the world's financial system from total collapse. For now.
5. He has called for, and is trying to referee, the reform of our health insurance system.
6. He has reversed some of Bush’s more disastrous environmental policies.

Not bad for a rookie. By this time, his predecessor had already managed to lose the World Trade Center, part of the Pentagon, and some real estate in rural Pennsylvania. But I also had to ask myself: What has he not done?

1. He has not closed Gitmo.
2. He has not stopped renditions.
3. He has not reversed the PATRIOT Act.
4. He has not yet fully awakened to the reality of the morass in Afghanistan.
5. He has not issued an order to stop "don't ask, don't tell," to halt the expulsion of gay military personnel.
6. Oh, and that Olympics thing.

These are not criticisms. OK, some of them are. But he's been in office only a few months, so to expect him to have accomplished much more would be a bit unfair. And as I have noted, he certainly could have done worse. But it takes more than not being Bush to get the attention of the Nobel committee. So I dug deeper, and by the end of the day, I had a different perspective on his accomplishments. He’s done a bit more with his time in office than hold a "Beer Summit."

Most impressive to me was that in his short tenure as the leader of the free world, he appears to have steered us away from a collision with nuclear holocaust. Last month, he chaired a United Nations Security Council summit meeting, at which a resolution was passed calling for strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It’s a sure bet that his predecessor would not have offered support to any discussion of nuclear disarmament, especially if it was tied to a UN resolution. And to be the first US President to chair a UN summit meeting, let alone one on this particular issue - former UN ambassador John Bolton must be having the vapors. In fact, there are those on the right who saw Obama’s participation in the UN proceedings as a violation of the Constitution, and an abdication of US sovereignty. The Nobel committee, however, apparently sees it as a sign of hope that we as a species may live long enough to see the world population more threatened by climate change than by nuclear disaster (a good news/bad news proposition if ever there was one).

But if he stopped right there, he will have fallen short of expectations, even those held by his supporters before this morning’s announcement. I hope that this honor gives a boost to Obama's "political capital," so that he can fulfill that promise. I hope it makes him more Presidential, and perhaps a bit less Senatorial. And ok, I have to add: I hope it gives Misters Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck severe heartburn. Maybe this will at least dampen some of the "foreign-born socialist fascist Nazi Death Panel Dictator" rhetoric we've had to endure lately. Unfortunately, not even the RNC can manage to be grown-ups about this. Instead, the committee issued a petulant press release saying "It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights." Perversely, they just cannot pass up an opportunity to find fault with our President, even for being the recipient of an award he did not seek, and that he himself has said he does not feel he deserves. One would hope that at least a few of them might take their cue from Sen. John McCain, who graciously put "Country First" in saying that "as Americans, we’re proud when our president receives an award of that prestigious category."

I am indeed proud.

I do wonder if the Nobel Committee has given Obama more of a burden than an honor by laying on him this mantle. The President did not seek it, and it should not reflect ill on him because he's the recipient of an honor. He is perhaps muttering under his breath "Thanks a heap, guys!" Still, if nothing else, the Nobel folks have set the bar pretty high, and I don't think that's a bad thing.

Split Personality

A while ago I created my first blog. I billed it as "Rants and reflections from Way Out West." I have now come to the decision that the rants and the reflections each deserve their own playground.

So I will be in the process of transferring my Rants to PolySigh101 - a play on the classic freshman college course "Political Science 101," but with a deliberate misspelling that means "many sighs."

OK, you get the point.

So I have formally recognized my split Gemini nature in communicating with the world in two blogs. This one is the "Rants." The posts that follow are ones of a political bent, which have been imported from my blog "Kingston Kay." For the "Reflections," my poetic side (although rarely an actual poem), please visit my original blog http://kingstonkay.blogspot.com/.

Heeeere we go...

Bye-Bye to the Myth of "Bipartisan"

No, I have not been kidnapped, in a coma, or otherwise put out of your misery. But my "day job" seems to be recession-driven. I have, however, had it with the current noodle-spined majority leadership. I have the following questions for the Democrats:

How can anything be "bipartisan," when one of the partisans insists that it’s all or nothing?

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has defined a "bipartisan" health care bill to mean "no public option." Hmmmm - no public option, which certainly also rules out "single payer." That equals..... WHAT WE HAVE NOW! So Sen. Grassley is saying "We, the minority party, get everything that we want, or we won’t even consider it." Not only is that not bipartisan, it’s not "reform." (And from their behavior during the stimulus bill debate, we’ve learned that even if they DO get what they want, they still won’t vote for it.)

The "bi" in "bipartisan" means "having two parts." The GOP’s insistence that any health care bill lack a public option takes the "bi" out of "bipartisan." The GOP does, however, have a handle on the concept of "bi" as in "bipolar." Their argument against the public option has a split personality: 1) The public option will be awful because the government can’t run anything right. 2) The public option will be so good, it will drive private insurance out of business. I won’t even get into all the things the GOP thinks the government does right (the military, and reading our private email, for starters), or the completely anti-free-market premise they are endorsing in wanting to protect the private insurance companies. The contradictory nature of these two talking points alone is enough to give you whiplash (treatment of which will cost you a $20 co-pay).

There is nothing bipartisan in the minority’s demands that they will get what they want, or they will take their toys and go home, but it is sooooo very GOP. Today, Sarah Palin resigned as Alaskan governor, because she could not put up with being a lame duck. Well, there’s public service for you! There’s bipartisanship! There’s maturity! That is, if you consider "maturity" to be one step above holding your breath until you get your way.

So grow a spine, Harry. Break some heads, Nancy. You were not put in the majority to assure that we continue steering toward the same cliff the GOP leaders have had their eyes on for the past eight years. Do what the American people put you there to do. And don’t do such a "bipartisan" job of it, that it ends up being ineffective and maybe even harmful. Just do it, and do it right! Yes, you run the risk of going down in flames. But the "bipartisan" course you are currently plotting all but guarantees that same self-immolation.