I Am

This week a news piece regarding a Caucasian woman claiming to be African-American got national attention.  My first reaction was questioning why this rose to such a level. Sure, the woman (Rachel) was an activist for African-American issues and a spokesperson for the NAACP, but really…with what’s going on in the world – why this?  Outed by her white, estranged biological parents, she was interviewed and edited to look tongue-tied, sounding both evasive and dishonest.  

However, the more I considered the news story the more relevance I found to fundamental problems that our social norms have difficulty surmounting.  It goes beyond race and spotlights at least part of the reason communications and cooperation have been unable to keep up with demographic and technological changes. 

This should have been her response: 

Am I black, am I white? The question itself underlies the reason why our culture remains so divided, like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Is President Obama black or is he white? He has identified with and been lauded as the first African-American president, yet his mother was Caucasian. Is he black because of the way he looks?  Is Catlin Jenner a woman or a man? He looks like a woman, his physiology is male.  Which is it? It should make little or no difference how the question is answered, but in our society the question itself evokes amusement, hostile emotions, and/or, for some, an unhealthy need for retribution. 

Like it or not we now physically live in an integrated world. There are just too many of us with communication far too rapid and mobility never more available.  Yet we still apply the historical social and religious mindsets that believe the differences we see need to have us separated, closeted, or protected one from another. This has been fostered by hate, perceived good intention, religious dogma, or simply inertia. 

My biological parents are white, my family is black. How I view myself has meaning for me in a variety of ways, but how does that have meaning to anyone else? Yet that view is somehow considered such a violation that it warrants national attention.  Can anyone else not see where the real problem is here? 

The Nazis killed millions of people because they were born into families that prescribed to a particular religion or chose to be, biology played no part. That is unlikely to happen again, but the mindset survives and atrocities of all kinds continue to flourish because of that mindset. The fact of the matter was; those Jews were just people, fundamentally the same as anyone else. Skin color is no different. Before anyone criticizes me or judges my life with prejudice, whether they be black or white, they need to ask themselves why they are asking the question in the first place. 

This story deserves national attention, but not in the way it has been presented.  It has been reported like a titillating sex story, not dissimilar to the Bruce/Catlin Jennings saga.  The fact that interviewed whites (which interestingly include her biological parents) view Rachel as being a nut case (her parents actually stated in an interview that they believed she was mentally ill) or that interviewed blacks viewed her as a fraud or opportunist shows how the news media places priority on reporting only that which they believe will increase viewership and, therefore, ratings and income.  The real and important news story requires a mirror.  While this young lady has the spotlight I hope she has the ability to pull one out of her purse and point it at the camera.

Bushwhacked

Step back and take a look.  Maybe 20 or so notable Republicans either already announced candidates or actively campaigning for the Republican Presidential Nomination and still the overwhelming likely winner will be Jeb Bush. At least I think so:

Sure the Conservative, Evangelical, Conspiracy-“Patriot” Nutjobs, who are regrettably more numerous than acorns in the fall, don’t care for him much – him with his un-American compassion for south-of-the-border aliens and a Latino wife to boot – but at this point they have plenty of alternative choices.  Hell, Ted Cruz (a US Senator mind you) is ready to stand guard at the Texas border (shoulder to shoulder with Chuck Norris), not to keep out the Mexicalis, but to stop the Federal Government from an armed takeover of the Texas citizenry with the US Military’s Jade-Helm 15 Liberal coup. What’s not to love about Ted? 

Of course at this point in the election process four years ago they hated Romney as well, even as he flopped like a freshly caught bass.  Dear Jesus, the man belonged to a religious cult and wore the underwear to prove it.  Still, that didn’t nix Romney and Jeb should feel the same confidence, even as he undoubtedly chooses to begin his own gyrations on the bottom of the boat.

Why will Jeb win?  There is the money, for one thing.  Jeb may not have all the billionaires sewed up.  The Koch brothers have reportedly been winking at Scott Walker (although I feel their Libertarian bent will have them backing Rand Paul in the primaries), but they all know the Koch’s hundreds of millions of primary money is really just to adjust the lines on the playing field. In the general election they will enthusiastically stuff Jeb’s pockets with greenbacks.  Even without them now, Jeb is quietly securing the quiet big money. By the beginning of the hot season (January 2016) he will have lapped his opponents on fundraising.  That fact has been a bell weather in Republican Presidential politics to indicate the prospective winner (with the exception of 2008, when no one wanted to place a bet on a Republican victory).

Why else will Jeb win the nomination?  I believe the rest of the field will so violently vie for the Nutjobs (with plenty of in-fighting) that Jeb will be able to take his fortune and run an intense but relatively positive campaign.  That will garner him the great majority of confused Republicans and, with just a few Nutjobs in his camp; he’ll be able to stay at or near the top of every delegate count.

So what do I say to this seeming inevitability?  Oh dear preposterously naïve and gullible electorate, don’t let us be Bushwhacked again.

I’ll be perfectly honest.  I was a moderate independent the first half of my life, but as the playing field moved under my feet ever so Right while I was standing still, I now find the same attitudes I previously had place me as a Progressive Liberal.  I liked George H. W. Bush…in fact…I still do. He was bright, reasonably articulate, pragmatic, internationally experienced, a good administrator, and deserved a second term.  He made judicial use of the US Military and bent on his Party’s fiscal myopia when he had to. Best of all he was politically non-religious, despite his display of personal faith. I disagreed with him as much as not, but he didn’t lose my respect and his four years set the stage for the Clinton economic miracle by starting the repair to the damage Lord Reagan had done the previous eight.  Who could believe he would father an imbecile who would be used, because of his name, by powerbrokers and Christian fanatics to squeeze into the White House; only the fourth President in American history to win office with a minority of the popular vote.

 
Jeb Bush may be more like his father than his brother.  I don’t know and I don’t care.  It isn’t worth the debate.  What I do know is that ‘W’ Bush and the cronies that gave him his foundation will never be unconnected to Jeb.  Jeb Bush has had to actually and publically claim “I am my own man”. The fact that he has to pronounce such has the same disingenuous irony as Fox News having to proclaim that it is “fair and balanced”.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

The George W. Bush years have not been fairing well as scrutiny evolves into history, and the starting point was at an historic low for modern times.  A Jeb Bush Presidency might not be as bad as his brother’s, but the age of the Rockefeller Republicans took a mortal blow with Ronald Reagan and effectively ended with the Right-wing Republican abandonment of George H. W. Bush in 1992.  The sad thing is that Jeb Bush might be elected; while it seems likely his opponents could not. The few steps forward that Obama managed to take regarding healthcare, immigration, the environment, among others, would either be stopped or thwarted as Jeb spends four years prepping for his next election.  I can only hope that in the general election of 2016 we see pictures of his brother’s face as much as his.

Who knows, maybe Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee might pull off their own miracle and snag the nomination.  Hey…how about a Cruz-Huckabee ticket, or would that be the Cruz-Huckabee-Jesus ticket?  Then we could all have some real fun next year and maybe even realign Congress. Go Cruz!!

Yes, You Are a Racist

Steve, a reasonably intelligent, well educated client I work with on occasion made an unsolicited statement I recently overheard.  He forcefully said, “Obama is the worst President in the history of this country. The man is repulsive”.  I didn’t catch the origin of his conversation and it would be nice to think it was an isolated comment.  Unfortunately, I have heard the same remarks (either literally or in essence) from other Conservative friends and individuals on more occasions than I can recall.  I work in a Conservative environment, so I’d expect to hear observations that didn’t favor the Obama Administration, but…”the worst”?? 

 Admittedly, I felt something close to the same about George W.  Still, with ‘W’ you had a President who entered office with a Nation experiencing an extended period of economic prosperity, budget surpluses, and international sanity.  His initial banal leadership exposed the Country to cataclysmic terrorism.  He then proceeded to turn over the budget surpluses (and more) to the top 5% of the Country’s wealthy with tax cuts, ran up the National Debt to historic levels primarily by those tax cuts while waging two unfunded wars (one incompetently - one unnecessarily),  and officiated the largest financial crisis in the Nation’s history as he stepped off the podium.  That doesn’t even include his sitcom quality communications skills and endless gaffes.

 My son, in the National Guard before the Iraq War began, was sucked in for two years of deployment in Iraq and was wounded in a conflict that Bush, Chaney, and Company virtually concocted in their attempt to control oil markets…needless to say I have personal reasons to despise George W. Bush.

Obama, on the other hand, came into to office in the depths of the havoc George Bush’s leadership created and has had the helm of the Nation during a steady recovery, one that brought us from financial collapse to pre-Bush prosperity, as well as making the US the current economic engine for a still struggling World.  For the first time since the Clinton years the deficit (as % of GDP) has been substantially cut (70%). He has orchestrated the end to both wars and, to his credit or not, avoided any internationally based terrorism on US soil (which Bush couldn’t manage for 10 months).  His administration introduced the first steps to get the US out of the healthcare hole it had dug itself into (using a Conservative Republican plan), and forced open the dysfunctional immigration issue to public view, among many other things.  

There is plenty Obama has done or failed to do with which I disagree or take issue with and I’m hardly Conservative, but…the “worst” President?  How does Steve or anyone else come up with that?  Even setting aside George W… I mean Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, James Buchanan, Richard Nixon, Millard Fillmore, Warren G. Harding???? There is obviously something else going on, something that feeds the likes of Steve, or Rush Limbaugh, or a host of Fox News pundits.

Many of my progressively minded friends have, without hesitation, assigned the vitriol leveled at Obama to one simple fact; the man is black.  For years this explanation seemed too simplistic to me. Combining the knowledge I have of Conservative friends and acquaintances who are good people I’m confident they would take immediate issue if not downright offense at being labeled as prejudice against African Americans.  However, as time has passed and the hatred for Barack Obama has only escalated, primarily among Caucasian men, I’ve needed to re-think the source.  At this point I’ve concluded that the reason for this loathing is not because Obama is black…it’s because he is not white.

 The inherent need we have as social creatures to find like associations between ourselves and others as a mean of mitigating the fear of being isolated and, therefore, vulnerable has manifested itself with historical relevance ten thousand fold.  Nobody is exempt from harboring prejudice thoughts.  As a matter of course, it is one of the ways ordinary people ease the fears that they create themselves or are bombarded with from a variety of sources.  I have reason enough to believe Steve, and others like him, have personally done quite well during Obama’s term in office.  Steve’s job has been secure, inflation low, his children remain in private schools, and I suspect his investments have soared.  In fact, the wealthy and Corporate American have been far and away the largest beneficiaries in the Obama years, yet they are the ones who vilify him the most.  Obama does not represent what they want, but more importantly he does not represent who they are.

I believe these folks could take nearly everything Obama (that which he has done and that which he proposes) if you could only wrap him up in a package that looked like Mitt Romney.  When all is said and done, the uninhibited hate these folks find growing from every orifice in their bodies is because Obama is not one of them.  It isn’t a matter of disagreement.  It is because Obama’s policies have been so bending Right (not the least of which has been his adoption of the Heritage Foundation’s health plan without a public option) that makes this gut opposition look so obvious. I can’t even get my Conservative friends to discuss issues championed by the Obama administration because, I believe, their fear of agreement might contradict their fundamental revulsion.

Prejudice and racism manifest themselves in both overt and subtle ways. Religions have historically excelled at it. Even as any of us might recognize the fear in ourselves we properly suppress it relying on and having confidence in evolving ethics.  However, when Barack Obama is labeled “the worst”, it’s clear that there is no suppression going on, and that the tirade of fear that has thwarted attempts to eliminate prejudice of race is still strong and allowing itself to be manifest under a banner of politics.

Lacking Trust

A comment President Obama made near the very beginning of his 9/10/14 speech to the nation on ISIL/ISIS/Islamic State so distracted me I found it difficult to keep my thoughts from wandering through the remainder of his address.  He said: Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic”.  No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL victims have been Muslim.  And ISIL is certainly not a “state”. As I listened to this pronouncement it occurred to me the fact of our Government and Nation being unable to even decide on a name for this group is a metaphor for the pitiful lack of understanding we bring to foreign relations. This inability is as if we were caught in a pit and, for five decades, have concluded the best solution to getting out is to keep digging.

Now let me be clear, Mr. President: this group (I shall call ISIS for the sake of brevity), as a whole, is absolutely motivated by religious ideology.  What might motivate any particular, psychologically deranged individual in ISIS is not relevant.  That ISIS uses and interprets the scriptures of Islamic doctrine is also irrelevant.  That they happen to be killing people in an area which is primarily Muslim is irrelevant, too. What is quite relevant is our government that chooses to create foreign policy as if that religious ideological element didn’t exist.  And, Mr. President, the notion that religions do not condone the killing of innocents would be laughable if it weren’t so inane.  Human beings have been slaughtered in vast numbers under the righteous interpretation of religions since…well, since there have been religions.  Christians have been particularly good at it over the centuries.  The existence of any one individual’s interpretation of religion that argues against the killing of innocents doesn’t change the fact that it has occurred in abundance.  Finally, the fact that ISIS is proclaiming that their intention is to create a theological state or theocracy is important and should not be discounted.

Why do I feel this misunderstanding or intentional misleading about ISIS is important?  I do because since the end of the Second World War the United States, the World’s leading economic and military juggernaut,  has been unable to understand how to apply its strengths in a world that increasingly doesn’t use or need World War II vintage armies.  With Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now possibly Syria, all countries which posed no direct threat, the US has failed at every adventure, if failure is defined as the inability to effect positive change.  With the exception of securing the boarders of South Korea, it could be argued that each major conflict could have been better off if the United States was not engaged as it was.  We simply don’t get it, and Obama’s comments lead me to believe we don’t get it this time either.

The differences between ideological fanaticism and terrorism are quite indistinguishable, except the makers of US foreign policy don’t seem to understand that.  Our government has and continues to treat both as verbs, i.e., what bad people do.  Like roaches scampering across the kitchen floor, our policy has been to merely provide a heavy shoe to squish those pesky roaches and, presumably, affect the behavior of those remaining in the wall.  We can’t change them to be us, and if higher oil prices are the net result then it is with less oil we need to deal with. 

The fact that there are large numbers of people who view western nations (particularly the US) as Terrorist nations, with their fundamentalist Christian exclusivity combined with Capitalist ethics, nation building, smart bombs, and drone strikes, seems incomprehensible to both the US populous and our leaders.  The reality is that ideological (often religious) fanaticism and terrorism are nouns; they define a state of being and we will never be able to deal with those who view us as terrorists without recognizing the fanaticism that is part of what we are as well.

Okay, you ask what the hell does that mean and what would you do Mr. It’s-all-our-fault camel jockey?  I don’t know exactly what to do, but I feel all foreign policies we enact and follow relating to security should be consistent with these things I’d like to see happen:

• That we once again recognize that the unique characteristic that made this incredible country we live in possible was its adherence to secular principals and ethics.  History is extraordinarily clear on this point and to see this current 50 year swing toward a US theocracy under the guise of patriotism is just so much flung horse crap.
• That we make nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear weapon reduction the number one objective of foreign policy by taking the lead to unite the nations of the world to this common goal.
• That we employ a new, clear doctrine to replace the ambiguous so called Bush Doctrine, (which simply ramps up military solutions and promotes nation building). The doctrine should be that we will not recognize the sovereignty of any nation that either harbors individuals or groups who actively plot against the United States, or does not have the ability to evict them and, therefore, we reserve the right to enter that country to do what they will not or cannot do to eradicate the problem … and nothing more.
• That the use of our military in foreign lands be dependent on the establishment of a direct threat to the United States which has been recognized and validated by a 2/3 vote in Congress, combined House and Senate.

It seems most Conservative pundits, politicians or otherwise, feel leadership is defined by the use of military clout.  At least that’s one thing they have in common with the leaders of ISIS.  When they say (including President Obama) that our goal for “peace” is to encourage, by our bombing, various nations in the Middle East to destroy ISIS, I don’t believe them and I don’t trust them.  In order for that to happen you must expect young Islamic men willing to give up their lives to kill other men who are fanatically Islamic.  You must also expect that when American pilots are killed or perhaps publically murdered that our Government will withhold the use of the military foot soldier.  Forget it…it’s not happening.  I’d sooner expect an abortion clinic to open up at Liberty University.

Do nothing? No, but without a direct threat to the United States all efforts should be diplomatic and based on an objective to unify a coalition of like minded nations.  I’d like to see the American people out of this hole…not just be handed another shovel.

Aiming at the Wrong Target

In the public discussion on the tragedy at Newtown, Ct. I’ve heard a phrase delivered several times, and it makes me grimace.  It’s not new, used after similar, albeit less horrific, heartbreaking events.  It calls for action so this “will never happen again”. This goal or target not only holds within it instant and prolong failure, it causes the corrective action, whatever that might be, to point us in the wrong direction.  It does more harm than good. I use a target or shooting metaphor here because this particular problem is a paradoxical truth about guns in America: that the collective ownership of these weapons is not bad, but how we as a society feel about them is.

Once again the argument that guns don’t kill, people kill is trotted out.  On a national evening radio talk show I even heard, to my astonished ears, the featured guest suggest the massacre was part of an ongoing left-wing conspiracy (without challenge from the radio host).  We will also hear the proposed solution that if most everybody was “packing” such nut cases as (the now temporarily infamous) Adam Lanza could not have carried out his plans, or at least not with the same carnage. The fact that there are countries that have higher per capita gun ownership than the US yet effectively no such large scale incidents (such as Canada or Switzerland) are also given to bolster the only people kill argument.  There are parts to many such arguments which are valid, but it is also a fact that it is bullets, not ill will, which are passing through the bodies of the victims.

What is different about today regarding mass gun killings than in prior generations?  Conservative columnist David Brooks argues in the New York Times that at least since the beginning of the 1900s such gun killing sprees have appeared with regularity worldwide, if not in some cyclical fashion. He essentially says that we might be experiencing an uptick in such events now, but such variations have precedent going back a century or more.  Given that the US population today is 4 times that of 1900 there is argument to be made for consistency, even if the raw numbers have accelerated. What Brooks doesn’t clearly address is the nature of the shootings, which with the death of 20 children under the age of 7 is so devastatingly demonstrated.  It also doesn’t address the bigger issues, which are 1) the countless smaller gun killings which make news, but quickly vanish from the public memory, and 2) that in recent decades the vast majority of such major massacres in the world, almost 2/3, occur in the United States.

A 101 years ago last March, 143 women were killed in a fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist factory in New York City.  This was a pivotal event, which is why it has retained its historical significance.  It tipped the scale on what had been an ongoing problem; workplace conditions.  There had been many incidents of injury and death in the workplace throughout the Nation over many decades but little accomplished as a society to deal with it. There was a high level of resigned acceptance. The “injury” from workplace regulations, such as restricted freedom of the employer or compromising free and competitive enterprise kept even common sensible actions from taking place.  The Triangle fire altered the landscape.  The changes, which included new regulations, didn’t eliminate workplace disasters small or large. It did start something new though; a change in attitude on a national scale regarding working conditions by employees and employers alike.  The impact was far reaching even if the actual number of people whose lives were saved or improved over the years cannot be known.

The target in trying to curb wholesale gun violence is our national attitude about it and our inability to address it in a demonstrable way.  This nation, federally and locally, needs to enact a series of gun regulations, not because we expect that the inhabitants of the lunatic fringe will no longer unleash their insanity from time to time on the innocent, with guns or other means.  We need to do it to generate a different national consensus about guns that will affect new generations and subsequently shrink the size of the lunatic fringe - at least as it relates to gun violence.  Unfortunately, not only will the full extent of such regulations not immediately be felt, but the positive impact (how many killings avoided) will never be known. However, that is no excuse for not beginning the process. Perhaps these 20 children, like the women of the Triangle Shirtwaist factory, will help start it.

The wrong course is to aim at the tragedy itself by elevating national fear, fear which is grossly disproportionate to the actual danger - thank our new informational age for that. We cannot build walls high enough, alarms loud enough, guards numerous enough, or personal intrusion deep enough to stop all Adam Lanzas from carrying out their sadistic fantasies or frustrations.  Those efforts only create a different, more invasive insanity for many, many more people.  We can only attempt to produce less Adam Lanzas by making the use of guns less acceptable to subsequent generations. If Adam and his mother had grown up with different attitudes toward guns, how might things have been different? We start by restricting gun availability, which is simply a social statement of where we want to be.

The General's Lover

The wonderful thing about a DVR connected to the TV is, once a program is copied, you can skip through what you don’t want to view…truly lovely.  Dodging commercials alone is worth the cost of the unit.  If I could only dodge pharmaceutical commercials it would still be worth it.  It also allows me to skip through parts of news or commentary programming I find less meaningful or redundant.  As it happens, with me being a bit of a news junkie and using the DVR accordingly, I have found myself fast forwarding through such programs so often over the past few days that I have stop watching the news at all. That’s probably a good thing.  However, the reason behind this motivation is fascinating and worthy of reflection.

After the historic re-election of Barack Obama, and I believe it will be viewed as having more historical importance than most Presidential elections (including Obama’s first), there was much for the news media to consider, things that have major importance to nearly every person in the country, whether they know or care about it at all.  Instead there has been virtually days spent reporting on General/Director David Petraeus’ affair with his young biographer and how the knowledge of that affair found its way into the public and political domain.  My point is that there is not a dearth of things to talk about and yet the discussion and analysis of this event, which in its most basic form is simply the resignation of a Federal agency’s director, dominates air time.  There are territorial fights and pissing contests over who should have known what and when. So far there has not been any suggestion of a breach of national security. Considering the FBI has had months to uncover such, it leads one to surmise none will be found.  So what warrants this story transcending ordinary news about a fall from grace?  Quite possible the answer to that is nothing.  Rather, it is more likely to be characteristic of our age and a new formula that mixes human behavior, media ratings, and, of course, cyberspace.

Petraeus’ infidelity has real and honest consequences to himself and his family.  It is not a rare behavior, but the meaning of it falls exclusively within the realm of his personal life.  No one outside that circle can know how judgment might or should be applied - speculate as they might.  So what is it that currently generates a seemingly endless commentary?  Was this always the case?  Hardly.

I am quite willing to make the leap, without statistical evidence, that Petraeus’ affair happens plenty often in the rarefied air of political hierarchy, just as it does with the wealthy movers and shakers in the private sector.  When Bill Clinton was asked why he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinski he simply and profoundly answered “because I could”.  When it comes to older, powerful (often wealthy) men having sexual affairs with attractive younger women it’s hard to find a more compelling enabler.  None of this is new, but the times have definitely changed.

Certainly as late as the Presidency of John Kennedy, the clandestine sexual trysts of powerful politicians were not considered relevant to their governance.  This attitude was not only held by the participating bureaucrat and his aides, but also by his rivals and the media.  How Kennedy’s affairs were handled by those around him and the media is astounding in light of how such is handled today.  Franklin Roosevelt managed to partake in a wheelchair for god sakes. Even Eisenhower, beloved Ike, as General and Commander of Allied Forces (and perhaps later) could dally about without scrutiny.  Fast forward to Bill Clinton whose few very un-romantic, back hallway encounters nearly brought down the entire Federal Government. This is the world David Petraeus chose to carry out his age old rite of the elites.

The Theocons (faith based Conservatives) of this age relish in expanding their ethical judgments, regarding sex in particular, to the general public, attempting to identify such behavior as the kind of deprivation which is everything they’re not.  The popular media runs with it because they believe the general public’s appetite for scandal is insatiable and profits are just way too important.  Add to that the new reality that these powerful dabblers are not smart enough to realize that email sent across cyberspace is about as secure as their zippers and provide an accounting of their activities in (duh) written form.  All the conspiracies and politicking that surrounds these circus events are just bad noise.

I liked it better the old way.  Let these men (and sometimes women) be judged by the policies they promote and enact.  If their behavior calls for them to impale themselves, let that lance be held by their spouses.  I’m just glad I’ve got a DVR.

The Referendum

A debate could rage for another year regarding the qualities of one presidential candidate over the other.  I certainly see an obvious outcome to that debate as the weaknesses of Mitt Romney and the radical Republican philosophies are profound.  However, the real identifiable outcomes of this election can be boiled down to three distinct choices, which are the true referendums of this election:

1)     The Supreme Court – The choice of the next President will determine whether the Supreme Court will become a socially Conservative judicial body or remain balanced.  Elect Mitt Romney and likely justices Ginsburg and Kennedy will be replaced by men or women more resembling Justice Alito.  This will impact a host of social and security decisions from abortion to marriage to privacy to drugs to regulations to political funding and beyond, and it will do so indefinitely. The ramifications could be immense.  

2)     Health Care – Although Romney has proclaimed like a conquering Caesar that “on day one” he will remove the Affordable Health Care Act (AHCA), it is unlikely that he would or could.  Still, Obama during this election process has repeatedly failed to point out what was really important about the AHCA. The real importance is not where the Act has taken us to; rather it is where it has taken us from.  It is a flawed insurance reform law created with senseless compromise, failing to adequately address the most difficult problem – cost.  However, where this country was prior to AHCA was truly insane and getting worse (see this blog Health Care…No Relief in Sight Aug 26, 2008) and the AHCA at least got us to take a step out of the crazy house.  The election of Romney would begin to work us back to reinforcing a dominant for-profit health care system, which primarily benefits a select minority of the Country, and delaying by many years the necessary evolution to universal and affordable healthcare.  Such health care is simply not possible without centrally controlled costs in lieu of massive debt and/or services denied.

3)     Taxes – This is the only referendum that is a quantitative reality immediately after the election.  If Romney is elected the Bush tax cuts will be extended, if Obama is reelected they will be modified to lapse for upper income Americans.  It doesn’t matter what the makeup of Congress will be, as nether party will allow taxes to rise in the short term for lower income families.  The bigger and less definitive referendum, though, will be in how we address the use of taxes going forward. Unless Romney got working majorities in both Houses (including a super majority in the Senate – which is hardly likely) he would not be able to carry out his ridiculous 20% cut plan. He’s probably hoping he couldn’t. However, he would hold back any increase in revenues from income.  Instead, as he did in Massachusetts, he will start generating revenue through fees and excise taxes targeting his famed 47% as well as massive cuts to services.  To do otherwise would continue to balloon the debt.  Despite his political saber rattling, he won’t increase the military budget.  That’s just more cubic feet of what Jon Stewart calls Romney’s bullshit mountain.  If Obama is elected he needs to make the case for expanding the progressive tax system we have and that the public services we purchase with those tax dollars have at least the same value to the average citizen as anything they purchase in the private sector, and perhaps more.

So that’s it, the real choice with this election.  Most other issues, including jobs, gas, wages, energy, crime and birth control, to name a few, overstate the power the President has to effect change. The rest, such as character or honesty or personality or leadership are just subjective enough to keep the debate going, but I’m tired of the debate…how about you?

Why?

With this political season closing I am confounded.  Not only has reason decided to pick this season to go on vacation, but I’m left to conclude that the dynamics which may decide the political and judicial future of this country are found in the darkest corners of our National consciousness.

Barack Obama is at best holding a barely distinguishable lead in this contest.  Mitt Romney is potentially the next President. That’s right – Mitt Romney; a man whose only political leadership was that of a one term governor so divisive and unpopular that he couldn’t have been reelected, a man who has been rejected across the political spectrum as Presidential timber for seven years, a man who treats pragmatism as an art form – that Mitt Romney.

There is practically nothing real that has occurred in the past four years that should lead to this outcome a week before the election.  The only reason Romney is the Republican candidate at all is because the field of heavy-weight Republican politicians decided two years ago that the race was not winnable. The clown-like Republican Primary has clearly vanished from the collective memory of the American electorate. 

No one denies what the Nation was left with at the end of the Bush presidency.  Although not the direct cause, the Bush Administration and Congress had cultivated an atmosphere where politically connected financial barons, and the institutions they ran, could advance their self-interest with impunity.  The greed that evolved based on ever magically rising real estate values made no correction even as the cataclysmic outcome of falling housing values on derivatives became obvious to the major players. 

The resulting meltdown had the potential of eclipsing 1929 as a financial black hole.  Yet the Obama Presidency held court over a recovery which avoided anything like what was experienced in the 1930s and did so in spite of more obstructionist opposition than any President has faced since the Civil War.  Even if Obama’s failures as a communicator (see this blog – Handling Depression  9/9/12) hurt his ability to make his case, he still should be comfortably ahead in this election because of his successes and the actual outcomes.  His and the Democratic Party’s premier accomplishment, The Affordable Health Care Act, was used as a tool to drum the Democratic House majority into a minority, despite it being a major step away from the most dysfunctional health care system in the industrialized world.  Reason be damned.

We need to get real. Obama is barely holding onto his Presidency because he is so profoundly hated (not disagreed with – hated), and primarily by white men.  He has been vilified as a Communist, Socialist, Anarchist, radical Muslim, non-American (legally and emotionally), traitor, a Hitler, a Stalin, an anti-capitalist, anti-energy, anti-freedom, and (on occasion) anti-Christ  - who probably shoots kittens to get them out of the trees their stuck in, while still being anti-guns.  It makes no sense. Aside from some social issues, Obama is far closer to Ronald Reagan than he is to Jimmy Carter on all matters regarding the economy and National security, including health care. What really makes a significant majority of white men hate Obama is as simple as it is impervious to discussion – race.   

It is obvious that a large majority of African-Americans support and will vote for Obama based strictly on race.  Obama is projected to receive 95% of the black vote which carries with it no more legitimacy than race voting by white men.  The difference is in the numbers and intent.  According to the 2010 Census, white males in the US consist of numbers 3 times that of all Blacks in this country.  The ratio could be 4 or 5 times as many if one only considers those who vote. 

White men, especially with limited education, don’t see what Obama was handed and what he has accomplished because they don’t want to see it, or perhaps, more realistically, their bigotry won’t let them see it. Sure the Nation elected Barack Obama in 2008 because he appeared to be a young engaging leader who happened to be Black to boot, which some of those white men still encumbered with bigotry felt well about accepting.  However, it has now become obvious that we are much closer to the decades prior to 1960 than we thought.  When Romney Co-chair Gov. John Sununu suggested this week that Colin Powell had endorsed Obama due to race he (Sununu) was saying something far more telling about himself (and his peers) then about Powell.

Given time over these past 3 years and a concerted effort by a neo-conservative movement, tens of millions of white American men are allowing themselves to embrace their fears of lost supremacy.  To those who would argue to the contrary I offer as evidence Mitt Romney…their chosen alternative.

American Women - Pay Attention

The War on Women may seem more like the War for Women if one just stands back and listens to the rhetoric.  Sure, it’s about votes, but there is something else going on as well and American women need to pay close attention.

There is history, but it’s a history which isn’t very old.  The 19^th Amendment to the Constitution which gave women the right to vote wasn’t passed until August of 1920, a mere 91 years ago.  Think of it, there are still plenty of people alive today whose mothers lived at a time when they simply watched their husbands, fathers, and brothers march off to the polls to decide the future for them and their families.  That Constitutional milestone was hardly the successful culmination of the fight for equal rights. Rather, it was more like the first door being unlocked.  Since then women have continued to face locked doors, whether it be in employment, health care, social mobility, finance, and even property rights to name a few, and men have reluctantly given up the keys.  The end is not yet in sight; in fact it may actually be slipping away. This is a reality which can be hard for women to see beyond the attention they must give to their lives on any given day.

The origins of patriarchal societies covering the planet are irrelevant.  The relevancy is what has perpetuated this inequality between men and women throughout recorded history and up to this present day.  It is the use of faith based doctrine and theocratic governance which has provided men the justification to retain legal power over women.  It is no accident of history that the United States was one of the first countries to accept women’s suffrage in 1920, and in fact provided a model for countries around the world.  The crack in the hold men had over women in the US, leading to Women’s Suffrage, began with the creation of the Nation itself, which drew a strong distinction between the rule of law and religious doctrine.  Yet still after 236 years the glass, although covered in cracks, is still not broken.

This clear movement to resist the equality of women is evident in the rise of Theoconservatives championed by the Republican Party. They would have you believe the debate is simply about abortion.  It is not. Abortion is a tragic occurrence by essentially everyone’s standards and no one can fault a person’s emotional response to it, but if there is a God and he didn’t want women to make the decision as to the use of their bodies he would have designed them to lay eggs like chickens - then men could decided what went into the hatchery and what didn’t.  

No, it is not simply about abortion.  It is about the continuation of a faith based definition of what a woman is, how she should act, and is manifest in the powerful, extreme conservative wing of the Republican Party. It’s not just in rhetoric you hear about God deciding who gets pregnant from a rape or designing women’s bodies to differentiate good sperm from evil sperm.  That’s just the tip of the testosterone iceberg.  It is the movement to an Old Testament, faith based creation of law which is threatening the gains women have made over the past 100 years. It should be no surprise that almost all the Conservative rhetoric you hear regarding women comes from men, that Congressional hearings lead by Republicans are testimonies primarily of men, and that a woman who seeks to argue her case for women can acceptably be labeled a slut.  Those are all echoes of 1919.

These are the same people, Romney, Ryan, and the male Republican leadership, who attack Islamic nations that use a faith based rationale to subjugate women.  Although they may rightly describe Islamic fundamentalist attitudes toward women as Neanderthal, American women need to wake up to the fact that even though this Theoconservatism carries a smaller club, it still lives in the same cave as their Middle Eastern brethren.

Are Americans Stupid?

Mitt Romney has proven himself to be what anyone with a pair of lazy eyes and one good ear could discern with ease. He is a master pragmatist like none other I have seen in my lifetime nor studied in history, and politicians generally are hopeless pragmatists.  He is a product of late 20th Century American business which chooses short term goals in the pursuit of increased shareholder equity over long term structural integrity, and by any means possible.  His almost dizzying display of changing positions, which has been correctly observed by commentators, pundits, opponents, and supporters, is only eclipsed by how little a difference this tact of Romney's has impacted American opinion. Combining with such things as his matter-of-fact refusal to release prior tax returns has made him the most opaque Presidential candidate in many decades. Yet it seems to make little difference, especially to white male voters. Is this the result of his campaign's cleverness, the incompetency of the Democratic opposition, or the revelation of a troubling ignorance on the part of the American people?

Without a doubt, the Democrats and the Obama Campaign have failed to address and convince the American electorate on the negative aspects of a leader of the Free World taking a unique position that compliments every group he speaks in front of. Romney has said the most outrageous things, sometimes repeatedly to fit the sales pitch he's giving at the moment and yet seems rarely to be challenged by the opposition. Therefore, the media takes little notice as well. Take numbers, which are simple to expose.

In all three debates Romney said definitively that 23 million Americans are unemployed (a statement made several times at the Republican convention as well) and that Obama's failure to bring the unemployment rate down to 5.4% (as Mitt said Obama promised) equals 9 million unemployed. Take the second point. If the difference between our current unemployment rate of 7.8% and 5.4% (or 2.4%) equals 9 million people than you must accept two conclusions: first that the population of the US is approximately 375 million (about 68 million more than reality) and that everyone other than the 9 million unemployed has a job, everyone - every child of all ages, every senior, every mother, every disabled person, every everyone has a job, including the 5.4%. The number of working Americans is a moving target, but if you take the estimated number of 155 million working Americans provided by the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) it lowers Romney's proclamation down from 9 million to 3.7 million. That doesn't even take into consideration that 5.4% is deemed full employment for the nation. Has Romney been challenged on his ludicrous number by anyone? Not that I'm aware of.

The popular Republican number of 23 million unemployed has a few more subtleties. Although it was stated clearly as "unemployed" at the Republican convention and later by Romney, it has more recently been described as 23 million "looking for work". That's because the number was concocted by far right wing "fact-ories", using bias statistics to represent not just those unemployed, but also those who have stopped looking for work (which includes retirees - the largest subgroup in that category), those new workers who haven’t started looking for work but presumably would have had more jobs been available, those deemed "under-employed", and also those who feel their jobs unsatisfactory (a factor that arguably could included half of all working Americans). The BLS sets the current unemployment numbers at less than 12 million of which more than half is, again, unemployment you would expect to find in a deemed fully employed economy. Has Obama or the limited number of his "spokesmen" ever challenged this deception by Romney and the Republicans? What have you heard?

In the first debate Romney whimsically presented, unchallenged, that he has five sons who believed (at some age) that saying the same thing over and over was a path to creating reality. If so, it appears the teacher became the student. His repeated use of ridiculous assertions, not just with off the wall statistics, but with his plans to balance budgets, maintain revenues, or even his decision to withhold the release of his taxes as a means of keeping the opposition honest have been facilitated by the apparent inability of that opposition to take strong issue with any of it. Obama's campaign has attempted to shoot holes occasionally in Mitt's allegations, but the agile Romney has kept the targets moving and added new targets daily. Obama and the Democrats successfully painted an accurate picture of Mitt Romney the business man. What they have been failing to do is to show that the man who will do and say anything necessary to close the deal, slash & burn, and harvest the short term profits in business is the same man who is a couple of percentage points away from becoming the Head of State, Commander-in-chief, and leader of the Free World.

Obama's extraordinary performance in office against both devastating economic conditions and psychotic obstructionism on the part of the new Neo-Conservative Republicans has earned him reelection. It should be earning him an easy reelection. If Mitt Romney is elected, with all the elitist baggage he carts around with him, then this nation has learned nothing from its gross ineptness of reelecting George Bush in 2004. That would be either collective dementia or tragic stupidity.