The End of the Page

2010 Midterms: Feeding Frenzy Overtakes Reason

For every dangerous animal out there, a bigger one exists.

It’s nearing that time of year again when all the news networks, and partisan sounding boards, break out their horn choirs and play that familiar ‘Decision’ music. It’s meant to inspire, it’s meant to encourage, and it’s meant to fill our hearts with the desire to take part in the core meaning of our democracy. Instead, what it reflects now is the onslaught of fear-mongering and fact distortion in the most heinous of manners. One side is struggling to buck historical trend and not lose too many seats, while the other is struggling to hold on to any semblance of its previous character, having sacrificed themselves at the altar of public reactionaries. Both sides smell blood in the water, but they ignore that too much blood makes the water impossible to drink and it cannot nourish the nation.

Issues are now distorted instead of debated and the public is suffering at the hands and wills of those we are brought up to trust, our elected leaders. One step down from them is the ‘pure’ news outlets, who are finding themselves a lonely species in the world, ousted by a new hybrid, the news/partisan echo chamber. Crawling out of the political ooze, this fledgling evolution of money, power and influence is now wielding its might like a toddler with a baseball bat, unaware of the dangerous power to damage and destroy.

Every story now is another opportunity for the extremists on both sides to gin up more rage and anger, but most boil down to absolutely nothing when dragged into the bright light of the day. These political assassins are becoming masters of the newly coined, ‘non-troversy’, and these hack job stories are currently dominating the country’s dialogue, which is now on the verge of descending into nothing more than hastily scribbled placards and photoshopped racist images of their enemies.

At the top of the non-troversy totem pole right now is the “Ground Zero Mosque” debate. While I can completely understand that it is a sensitive issue and there is still much grief and sorrow floating in the air in Manhattan and around the country, here are a few key facts that are very rarely mentioned in the so-called ‘news reports’:

- The proposed mosque is not just a mosque, it is a cultural center that includes a mosque, as well as a pool and a community center for people of all religions.

- The location, while close, is not actually at Ground Zero. It is two blocks away, completely blocked by many other buildings from the now hallowed ground. So far only the Associated Press has directed all their employees to discontinue any usage of the term “Ground Zero Mosque” because it is intentionally misleading.

- If this cultural center is such a horrific idea and flies in the face of our freedoms and what we suffered nine years ago, what about the other mosque two more blocks beyond? When was the last time you heard in a news report just how many mosques there are already in that small area, not to mention New York as a whole? Hundreds.

- Some have tried to label the proposed cultural center as a ‘terrorist headquarters’ in the heart of New York, but do they recognize that there is a mosque right now located inside the Pentagon? Why not rally and protest that one? Seems like an incredibly dangerous location, don’t you think?

- While the opponents of the cultural center are claiming they can follow the money back to radical Islamic terrorists, they are trying to conveniently avoid showing how the money actually leads back to the second largest shareholder in Fox News and other religious leaders previous hailed on their very network as “moderate Muslims” and as shining examples of the peaceful and proper worship of Islam.

Those are only a few of the facts that might shift the debate were they to be boldly and loudly preached through the airwaves. Almost all the major news networks are to blame for taking the pill and getting on the ride for the sake of generating viewership over reporting on the facts. The direct and immediate danger of this is we are watching our country, which was once so wonderfully hailed as a place of religious freedoms and individual liberties, devolve into a religious monarchy, where only one religion rules the masses and the preacher’s pulpit will become the new oval office. We are already seeing the effects of the disease being spread. As I mentioned before, the location of the proposed cultural center in New York can easily draw up some raw emotion, but what about Murfreesboro, TN or Sheboygan, WI? Are those also too close to Ground Zero? We are creating an invisible line in the sand that is pushing any worship of Islam, or anything outside the Judeo/Christian norm, out into the oceans on either side of the country.

Yet there may be a flickering light at the end of this tunnel. The opponents of ‘the other’ are beginning to overplay their hand. They are losing supporters in the very base they are trying to rally. The violence is beginning to lash out in unavoidable ways, causing even the most staunch supporters to lower their hands. From the cab driver who was recently stabbed after being asked “are you a Muslim?” to the Ground Zero worker who was harassed at a protest rally just because he looked Muslim. Even Ron Paul, the un-official leader of the libertarian conservatives, has come out against this baseless fear-mongering:

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.

We have reached the breakwater and it is time to turn this ship home. So next time you think about screaming about protecting your country from the dangers of Islam or blurring the lines in our Constitution referring to the “separation of church and state” and “freedom of religion”, it might be time to sit down, take a deep breath and look around at where that path will lead you.

Oh, maybe turn off Fox News as well.

What are your thoughts? What stories do you feel are meaningful or being blow out of proportion for political gain?

Chasing Che: A Motorcycle Journey in Search of the Guevara Legend

The Che-cycle rides only towards revolution! [insert inspirational road music here]

Rating: 8 out of 10

Everyone has heard the popular phrase, “Never judge a person until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes.” Well, many people throughout history have judged those gone before us, especially those who went on to change the course of history. Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara Jr. was one of those people. After growing up in Argentina, he took a soon-to-be-famous motorcycle journey with his friend and compatriot, Alberto Granado, into the deep plains and undeveloped areas of Latin America. During that journey he witnesses abject poverty and suffering of the indigenous people. By the time he returned, seeds of political and revolutionary discourse were germinating in his soul and they would very soon sprout and give rise to the man everyone came to know only as ‘Che’. Even years after his execution by a one-man firing squad, scholars and modern-day revolutionaries alike have attempted to explain and understand who the man was, but very few of them remembered that famous parable above, and those who did remember, didn’t take it to heart like Patrick Symmes.

Chasing Che is a documentary tale of travel, both physical and intellectual, that follows Symmes as he saddles up on his own motorcycle (one a little more modern than Granado’s jalopy) and attempts to follow the exact route those two fellow travelers ventured upon so many years before. Symmes even attempts to limit any and all creature comforts to match whatever Ernesto and Alberto had during their original journey. There are new obstacles, to be sure, and detours must be made, but when they do arise, Symmes rolls with the punches and finds himself transformed into the same road-weathered traveler he is following years behind.

There are many great qualities about this travel journal, but foremost among those is Symmes’ dedication to the quest. At numerous points he could have taken a lighter path, called for more help or equipment or turned back towards more friendly locales, but he continually pushed through in search of the same physical places and people that Guevara and Granado touched on their way through. On more than one occasion, Symmes found himself in conversations of broken Spanish with heavily armed men– some government soldiers, while others were guerrilla warriors still trying to live out some of the mantras Che left behind. One wrong move could’ve landed him in a South American jail or worse, “disappeared” like many opponents of the various controlling regimes. Yet, I believe his saving grace through this was he not going after an ideology, he was going after a man. He made no proposition to learn, live and spread the teachings of Che. Instead what he was after was the true history of the man, good or evil, who would later become Che and change the face of global politics. That objectivity and balance allowed him access through gates many others would have failed to pass.

Two things struck me during the book. First, Symmes continually mentioned the inherent charity of the indigenous people with whom he crossed paths. Time after time he would ride up on his motorcycle, kill the engine a good distance away from a small shanty home and clap his hands twice (to signal that he was friendly and approaching the house). He would almost always find the family willing to give him a small piece of floor to sleep on, or at the very least against the side of the house, and possibly food if they had enough to spread around. The following mornings, many of his new-found landlords would refuse to accept payment, just seeming like it was their duty to help fellow travelers (which many of them are as well considering the great distances between villages and homes). Secondly, Symmes went in the end of his journey to the source, at least, one of the sources; Alberto Granado. Still living reasonably off his notoriety as Che’s wandering partner, Granado granted an illuminating interview and insight into those dusty days on the trail. Symmes had both of Granado’s and Guevara’s original diaries from the trip and he pointed out many of the disparate descriptions of places and actions between them, one moment standing out in particular where Granado and Guevara both credit the other for the heroic rescue of a small kitten. What came from that discovery was that the journey represented different transformations for each traveler. As for the kitten, Granado admitted to laying the heroic banner on Che because he was the one destined for it.

Another factor I found interesting is Symmes was on his travels during the exact same time the government and others were in a desperate search to exhume Che’s body from the hidden dumping ground the Bolivian soldiers left him in. Another writer, Jon Lee Anderson wrote a book entitled, “Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life” (which I have also read and highly recommend), and in his research for that book he interviewed and received confessions from the very people responsible for hiding Che’s body. It had been many years since the action, so the location information was not entirely specific, but both books ended up tying together in the same place and moment, which made for even more interesting reading.

The End of the Page Recommendation: For those interested in learning more about the man behind the mythology and who that is staring back from the hipsters t-shirts and messenger bags, you could do far worse than starting here. As I said earlier, Anderson’s book is another great find, but a much thicker and in-depth read.

Arizona moves out of the ‘Land of the Free’

The moment I sign this, can someone please check the guy behind me? He seems fishy.

Arizona recently enacted one of the most backwards and revisionist immigration laws in our country. The piece of paper the governor signed into practice states that the police are now under orders to pull over, question or otherwise force any person in the state that “looks to be an illegal immigrant” to immediately show proper documentation of their status as American citizens. Most pundits and newscasters have been referring to this as the “Papers, Please.” bill. While I do not personally live in Arizona, this is a dangerous game to begin because a number of other Southern states with more conservative leaning electorates are watching very closely as to whether this law will withstand the oncoming onslaught of civil liberty and constitutionality law suits. If it does, you can be assured you will see laws like this popping up all along the southern border and spreading upwards. Honestly, do they think every illegal immigrant just stops in the first border town?

Arizona is the number one crack in the wall for the passage of illegal immigrants and in turn the number one funnel for the Mexican drug trade, but this sweeping doctrine is the result of over-reactionary zealots who are attempting to purify the state. What this does once more is bring back the everlasting debate over what a “real American” looks like. Supposedly this is the only way the Arizona police will know who to pull over and who to let by. I don’t envy any officer who has to enact this incredibly misdirected statute, which, at its core, institutionalizes blatant racism.

Recent rumblings around the legal circles depict this new law being shot down right after its inaugural usage. The first case to be brought by either the ACLU or any other civil rights group will force this into the State Supreme Court and it will find itself tossed out as a poor reminder of immoral laws gone by, like Jim Crow. Governor Jan Brewer states we will not see the abuses of personal and public rights we fear and that she is only doing what she feels is best for her state in the absence of any real immigration reform on the Federal level. I’ll grant her a small point on the lack of movement from President Obama and his administration, but her rash decision cannot be polished into rational judgment by that fact alone. President Obama has immigration reform in his sights and it seems to be next on the list once Wall Street reform gets enacted. He’s on a real roll and the momentum could carry along many of the changes he promised along the campaign trail.

As for me, well, there were days before when I felt that one voice couldn’t do anything, but I’ve learned through many examples set out before me that one voice can be added to another and then to another until the once silent whisper of a concerned citizen becomes the booming cry of a motivated public cheering for justice. In that vein, I’ve taken to writing letters and e-mails to any politician I believe is proposing or supporting laws I do not believe in and I encourage everyone to make your own voices heard as well. If there is one thing the recent Tea Party revivals have gotten right (and as far as I can see it has been only this one thing) is the government works for the people, which means you. Never forget it is your right to inform your employees when they are not doing their job correctly.

Obviously, since Governor Brewer signed the bill into law, my plea fell on deaf ears, but here are the words I sent her way:

Dear Governor Brewer,

Although I don’t live in your state, the bill currently sitting in front of you is going to set a precedent which will affect a growing number of states, especially those along the southern border, like California. I truly empathize with your situation and the need to get illegal immigration under control, but this current attempt is the wrong way to go about it. All the talking points being sent out now in defense of it are only trying to pull the wool over the eyes of a stunned and offended nation. This is going to create state-mandated racial profiling in the worst way. Every Mexican-American, Latino-American or South American, born free here under our nation’s laws, will be treated to regular accusations and challenges to their status as Americans. Yet, while some might say this racial profiling would not happen in such dire terms, can you tell me Irish-Americans, Russian-Americans or even British-Americans are going to feel the same microscope following their every move on their downtown streets?

You have the power to stop your state from changing it’s identity from a piece of what we call the “land of the free” into a racially cleansed country club. Please use that power.

You can follow these links to find the contact info for your senator, state representative or governor. Let them know what you think. Then, let me know what you get back!

Using the Best, Bringing Out the Worst

Freedom of speech is one of the most widely appreciated and critically lauded rights in our country, yet it is also one of the least understood. Under the protection of this original amendment to the Constitution of the United States, each person has the inherent right to express themselves through the use of words. This is one of the core elements to our democracy, if not the very heart of it. Yet once again we are beginning to see how that right can be mistreated, misunderstood and misdirected against the very ideals it was created for.

On March 23, 2010 President Barack Obama signed into law a comprehensive package of health care reforms under the title of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This is being held as the most widely sweeping package of reforms to the health care system since the enactment of Medicare. As with any major change to our country, there was disagreement and dissent in how these changes should be applied, if at all. That’s a good thing–dissent and disagreement should be protected and even encouraged because that is how checks and balances work and it is our protection against any one party or idea running roughshod over the entire country. A multi-party and multi-idea system is inherently necessary for Democracy to work at all.

Unfortunately, as with any system requiring human beings to take part, there will always be people who will abuse that system. While hiding under the guise of protected argument in opposition to the passage of health care reforms, Senators, Congress people and ordinary citizens have escalated their rhetoric beyond reasonable limits. Referring to health care reform as “global Armageddon”, claiming we should vote out  those in favor in November, “if we have elections” or even calling for the assassination of politicians’ children if they voted yes on the bill; those are only a few of the responses from the opposition. While they might indeed reside technically under the protection of the first amendment, these types of exaggerations and exhortations are against the core ideal of free speech.

Our right to free speech was meant to protect our ability to state our opinion and express ourselves in face of totalitarian oppression and intimidation, yet in these cases it is being used directly for the intimidation and oppression of those with differing views. Worse, the politicians, pundits and performers who choose to wallow in this level of discourse ignore the effect it has on those people listening to their vitriol. They scoff at those who warn them and they deny that the mass population would ever take things too far, but they consciously and knowingly neglect the knowledge that terrible acts aren’t only orchestrated by a large group of people:

-       The recent flight of a small plane into an IRS office building was achieved and orchestrated by one man.

-       The Oklahoma City bombing was achieved and orchestrated by two men.

-       The mail bombing campaign issued from 1978 – 1995 was achieved and orchestrated by one man.

The very night the Senate version of health care was passed an operation of window smashing was enacted against various Democratic county offices and those offices of politicians who voted for the bill. Credit has been taken by a far-right conservative blogger who revels in each and every report of vandalism and damage, whether or not it was specifically in his name. While a few hundred dollars in damage per affected office is not a huge thing, I do wonder exactly why this particular act was chosen to express their disappointment. I suppose letters to their representatives seemed too light or too ineffective, or maybe it just wasn’t flashy enough, or maybe they were trying to draw a subliminal connection to the ‘Night of Broken Glass’ where the Nazis and anti-Jewish coalition smashed all the windows of Jewish shop owners, signaling only the beginning of the oncoming Holocaust. Whether or not this was in their heads while they scurried through the dark tossing bricks through windows, the message is clear. Words are no longer an option for them, action and violence is now their chosen recourse.

The opposition to the new health care package needs to quickly decry and despise the violence inherent in the rally cries and speeches from their very own supporters. If they do not, they will find the uncomfortable color of innocent blood on their hands and a saddened nation of people wondering how and why they let it get that far.

CPAC Starts Its Wild Ride

(Honestly, the joke here writes itself.)

Coming directly on the heels of the Tea Party Convention only a few short weeks back, the other clamoring section of the far right came together once again from all over the country for their once-a-year, bang-a-gong, color coded convention (red, white and blue being the consistent theme).

CPAC stands for the Conservative Political Action Conference, where those politicians looking to connect to the fervent and boisterous base of the conservative movement come to recharge and reload their political weaponry (or actual real-life weaponry depending on how dedicated they are to appeasing the second amendment crowd). The main keynote speaker on the final night will be Fox TV host and poster child for the Chalkboard Lovers of America, Glenn Beck. I’m doing mental workouts each morning in preparation for this speech, making sure I can handle the triple jumps of logic and 100-meter dash from assumption to conclusion (while dodging those nasty fact hurdles, of course). Yet before Mr. Beck can grace the stage, the crowd must be worked into a frenzy over the opening days.

I can’t comment on Marco Rubio, the new young buck on the right-wing  block, since I didn’t catch his speech. I know he’s young and he’s bringing a hearty primary challenge in Florida against Republican Governor Charlie Crist in the race for a Florida senate seat. Once a total longshot, Rubio rallied strong and sits atop a healthy lead in the polls right now. From clips I did see the only thing I can truly hold against him is he began the unending train of anti-Obama teleprompter jokes, all while standing in front of a shiny pair of teleprompters. (Nearly every speaker who followed made a similar crack, each one more tactless than the one before)

Let hypocrisy ring, people. Oh, wait, it’s freedom. That’s what they meant to ring. Freedom. Oops.

Jim DeMint graced the stage and really got things cooking with a reminder about where the conservative movement truly wants to take this country. While touting the goal of freedom for everyone he simultaneously spouts the idea that all politicians should be taken out of office if they are not voting based on Judeo/Christian values. His claim that this was the true intention of the founding fathers and the Constitution seems to fly in the face of the first ammendment when it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” but hey, don’t let the actual words of the Constitution get in the way of your point Mr. DeMint. Please proceed.

He goes on to state that what the government should do is place a moratorium on all spending and spend the next two years balancing the budget, but again he staunchly opposed, alongside the entire Republican caucus, the creation of a bi-partisan budget commission created to do that very thing. Hmmm…I’m sensing a pattern here.

Lastly, making a nice closing, he related a thinly veiled threat to those in the Republican party who were only pretending to be Conservative to gain the political voting power of these fine folks. Mentioning Mr. Rubio and others like him, DeMint made it clear that all the incumbent Republicans could easily be replaced if they didn’t fall in line with the people and this nationwide groundswell from the Tea Party movement.

Let the right-wing evisceration begin. Self-inflicted, of course.

Later on Kevin McCullough came up and reminded everyone how freedom loving the Conservative movement is. One of his points was that the young people in the conservative movement had to save the next generation from the terrors inside the “halls of academia”. Are our children are being taught too much? Given too much information so they can think for themselves and make up their own minds? Maybe he’s angry at the system because more and more of the youth are growing up more tolerant towards gays and lesbians, which is staunchly opposed to his “freedom”. Oh yeah, so is Roe v. Wade. So ladies, prepare to grow more free while simultaneously losing control over your own body.

My favorite moment of his was when he used the phrase “we will not sit in the back of the bus”, which is a direct reference to Rosa Parks and her daring silent protest against blacks being made to sit in the “black” section of the bus back in the pre-Civil Rights days. I had no idea the conservative fight for freedom was so identical to the civil rights movement.

That’s because it’s not. Not even close.

More and more came up, singing the praises of Ronald Reagan and each other and rehashing new version of the teleprompter gag. Scott Brown and Mitt Romney took turns praising each other, while Dick Armey, current head of FreedomWorks, dropped a gem when he claimed Obama created the illusion of the health care crisis in order to gain control of the economy. I wonder if Mr. Armey works for Aetna Blue Cross as well? They could most certainly afford to pay him well since they are planning to raise their rates for a large section of Californians by up to 39% with no reasoning whatsoever.

Nope, no health care crisis here. Not at all, Please move along and do not under any circumstances look behind the curtain. (Did you notice our new curtains, by the way, their made out of 100% money. Feel how decadent they are…)

Also, the right wing should know better what it look like when someone creates a fake crisis in order to gain control. Bush did a splendid job of that with his mythical WMD’s in Iraq. *BOOM goes the dynamite*

Lastly, Ginni Thomas, an everyday citizen who just wanted to get involved, spoke about how pleased she was with the energy surround the tea party movement. She specifically pointed out how wonderful she thought all the homemade signs were. Think she’s talking about this one:

this guy is actually the head of one of the largest Tea Party groups


















or possibly this one:

maybe this one:

but she couldn’t have meant this one:

Is half-breed muslin washable with other like fabrics?












These are the people rallying right now to take control of the direction of our country.  Progress sure looks funny, doesn’t it.

The Assault on Reason: Attacks from the Head and Gut

Since I’m not President, I finally have time to finish writing my book.

Rating: 7 out of 10

Flipping through these pages can be tragic when you read the level of intelligence behind the words and begin to wonder what the world would be like today if Al Gore had served George W. Bush’s two terms in office. Would there be milk chocolate fairies delivering candy and fountain-style root beer floats to children throughout the heartland of America? No, absolutely not. Yet I would wage a healthy amount of money that the U.S.A. would not have been in the geopolitical crapper as it was when George W. Bush finally walked out of those hallowed doors with one of the lowest approval ratings in history. His one-time opponent, Al Gore, tries to explain and extol on the reasons things went so badly off the rails.

The Assault on Reason is written by former Vice President Al Gore and details chapter after chapter the numerous areas where the Bush years, and some of those before, have displayed an incredible and frightening trend replacing science and reason with faith and narrow-mindedness. The government we once knew, the one begun all those years back, has been systematically dismantled, pulling the power from the people as a whole and concentrating it into an increasingly small number of hands. Those chosen few have since done everything in their power to eliminate reason and intellectual debate in favor of religious rhetoric and cowboy posturing in face of any and all opposing evidence. In essence, readers feel the true power of the American people slip further and further away with each turn of the page.

Before even opening the book, it must be noted the context in which these words live. Al Gore lost the Presidential election back in 2000 in one of the most contentious, and in some minds demonstrably corrupted, rulings in history. This man was a single breath away from the oval office and seven years later he writes a book about how terrible a job his former opponent is doing. So it is impossible to view this book without a small sense of bias on the part of the author. Yet, although the book does sometimes fall too far into “political slam-book” territory and reaches a slight whiny tone, Gore checks himself and within a few pages brings it back to a place where he backs up each and every criticism with solid, reasonable and irrefutable facts. In those passages when he cites source after source and charts out the trends which we should be so afraid of, that is when Gore is at his most effective.

The real power of the book is not as a weapon against the Bush-era style of politics and power grabbing, but the entire political system hierarchy and its continued growth away from the general public. Gore points out numerous occasions, pre-Bush, that also helped lead to the dangerous place we are today with so much control centralized into the office of President and not spread out amongst the three co-equal branches of the government as intended by those who set it up all those years ago. Yet, Gore even expands on this to the rest of the planet as well when talking about nuclear proliferation, detailing other nations and how they followed the missteps of the American powerhouse. In one of his most eloquent moments in the book, Gore writes:

“As a world community, we must prove that we are wise enough to control what we have been smart enough to create.”

In my mind, that is the central thesis to his entire argument. His textual intent is to warn us of the danger of nuclear arms being in the hands of people who block out reason in favor of belief, religious or otherwise, but sub-textually I believe the statement also shines lights on the creation of our government. Power should never be wielded only by one man alone; that is the antithesis of our democratic style of government. The balance between the three branches has been slowly ebbing away and the person sitting in the oval office has been the silent beneficiary of it all. Both sides have played their parts in the dismantling of that balance, but the Republicans took more giant steps on that march towards  an iron-fist government between 2001-2008 than ever before in history.

What we can learn from this book is how to regain that balance, if you can filter out Gore’s “I wouldn’t have done it that way” tone in various portions. Science, reason and factual proof are slowly making their way back into governing politics, but there is a long way to go and more people who live by that credo need to find their way into the hallowed halls of the capital buildings. I’m not suggesting no one of any faith should be in government, just that they no longer turn a blind eye to anything that doesn’t follow in lockstep with that belief. Important choices should only be made after the most rigorous of debate and unfortunately, as you will see in these pages, our last President was not a huge fan of differing points of view. Even though this was written while Bush was still in office, many of the policies and laws enacted during that time are still in effect and Obama has yet to find the spare time to return some of that balance the government so desperately needs. Let’s help remind him.

The End of the Page Recommendation: A well written and well researched book on the state of our government and the dangerous path it is on. Although not exactly a page turner and it gets randomly embroiled in mudslinging and overly scientific terminology, the final result is still impactful and important.

A Glimpse Behind the Fog of Hope and Hate

I promise to do whatever my political party says, in right and in wrong, till death do us part

I can hear it now rumbling in the back closet, rocking back and forth with one broken foot, that same one I’ve been meaning to fix for two hundred years:

The Political Spin Machine

…and it’s going full steam.

With the election of Republican wunderkid, Scott Brown, the troops on the right are doing everything they can to convince Democrats across the nation that every progressive and liberal policy currently being proposed now has as much chance of succeeding as Conan O’Brien ever doing a show on NBC again. Yet, let’s take a good close look at what really happened yesterday and see if we can’t find a way to help each party find its way back to some type of ethical center.

By electing Scott Brown, Massachusetts brought the Democratic majority in the Senate down by exactly one. They dropped from 60 to 59 and while many will bemoan the loss of the filibuster proof majority, what they neglect to mention is the filibuster proof majority never really existed because of those Democrats in the Senate referred to as “Blue Dogs”, or more conservative-leaning voters. The squelching of the filibuster happened only once, which was to finally push the Health Care bill out of the Senate, and the reparations the liberal Democrats had to make in order to secure those Blue Dog votes over the filibuster helped to shape a bill that virtually no one is pleased with. So the idea that Scott Brown’s inclusion in the Senate will suddenly destroy the happy-go-lucky hand-holding going on in the left leaning side of the chamber just shows how little the right side actually pays attention to what is going on.

This is nothing more than a scare tactic to frighten the left and encourage the right, but I honestly believe the right has more to fear from Scott Brown than the left. Republicans think his election is a repudiation of Democratic policies and of Obama himself, but in fairness I believe he was chosen more out of frustration of continued record unemployment ratings and a growing disappointment from independents who let themselves believe the Obama hype machine during his campaign. I’m not knocking Obama, I voted for him as well, but people seemed to forget he is just one guy inside a government machine built by money, power and massive special interests. He has made many changes already, in demonstrably record time, but people on Main Street won’t feel the effects of those until much later. The change some people was hoping for was much more than he could ever achieve in such a short amount of time. Remember, his one-year anniversary as President was yesterday!

Scott Brown also comes in claiming he is ushering in a “new type of Republican”, which in other terms means “time for the old guys to move on out.” Let’s see how well that plays out in the polls come mid-term time. Anyone coming in preaching change to the “old way of politics” is a danger to anyone currently sitting, Republican or Democrat.

Now, while watching Mr. Brown gloat over his seemingly amazing win, I can’t say I’m incredibly impressed with him or how he handles himself (check this little moment of pimping out his daughters at his acceptance speech), but I wasn’t all that enchanted by his opponent, Martha Coakley, either. This is where people need to help usher in a real and tangible sense of change. We need to start looking beyond the party name and look at the actual person. As unattainable as it might sound, filled with pretty rhetoric and uplifting oratory, I agree with Obama when he stumps for the goal of bi-partisanship, but I want to take it one step farther. “Bi-partisanship” alludes to the idea of two parties getting along, but what about “tri-partisanship”? Actually, we do have one Independent senator (wave to the nice Internet folks, Mr. Barney Frank of VT). What about “quad-partisanship”? The Tea-Partier’s are about to host their own conference, so who will deny they have a chance to get their own candidate on a ticket and not be forced to list them as Republican? I’m a good distance off from supporting anything currently coming out of the tea-party caucus, but I fully encourage their right to not affiliate with either dominating party. My belief is if we breakdown the powerhouse parties the American populace would be forced to learn more about who they are voting for instead of just checking whether their was an “R” or a “D” next to their name.

An informed populace is an absolute necessity of any great democracy and it’s time that we as members of that populace bore some responsibility for that.

Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment on Health Care

I’m not one known for reposting videos, except the expected movie trailers, but due to my own personal attachments to the current discussion over Health Care and the similar nature of Keith Olbermann’s situation with one I only so recently had to endure, I felt this eloquent and heartfelt speech he gave last night on his show is one that should be heard and spread far and wide.

Health Care Debate Without the Actual Debate

Now turn your head and cough up $75. It’s for your deductible.

Anything worth doing is worth fighting for, but no one ever said the fight was going to be fair. Nothing in the current political climate proves that case better than the repulsive, divisive and downright irresponsible tactics being employed day after day by those against the proposed health care reform package put forward by President Obama.

Before I get any further, let me be frank and fully admit my own shortcomings. I have not read the full bill being supported by Obama. After doing a number of searches online for a copy of the bill all I could find were cut-down versions or ones rewritten as “plain-English” translations by people with their own agendas. Without getting the exact words from the bill itself I don’t feel any of the “laymen” versions are fully trustworthy (especially since most of those demonize the plan anyway without pointing back to the original language as examples). Yet with all the coverage being given to this debate from all around the political spectrum, I feel fine in pointing out some rather glaring hypocrisies being badly hidden by the raucous and rambunctious opponents of health care reform.

There are a wide number of issues to discuss, but I’m going to focus on one of the most talked about and absolutely least intrinsically important lightning rods inside the fight, the so-called “death panels”. Sounds scary, right? Does it bring images of judge’s benches built way too high specifically to make you seem insignificant in the eyes of the law and the people who run it? Then do you picture yourself being wheeled in front of said bench only to hear from robed faceless politicians that you are too sick to make continued care efficient for the economy, so the lever is pulled and you are essentially dropped out of existence? That is what the fear-mongering conglomerates on the right would like you to dream about at night, specifically so you will wake up on the day of your local town hall meeting and race out with your pitchfork held high and the light of your torch lighting the way.

Trouble is, there are no “death panels”. Nope. None at all. The tiny piece of legislation inside the 1,000 page bill which is being referenced for this demonic fantasy actually says that under the new government sponsored plan they would reimburse you for an appointment with your own doctor if you chose to have a counseling session about end of life decisions and setting up a living will. That is all. No death panel, no politician having any say what-so-ever about “pulling the plug on Grandma” as Sen. Grassley keeps touting. It is simply a small payment covered by your insurance policy for an appointment to let you talk to your very own doctor about how you would like to face that most difficult of decisions. The impact to the health care industry and its costs comes from the fact that thousands and thousands of people are kept on life support systems for many, many years with no hope of recovery and costing their families and the economy millions and millions of dollars. Studies have shown that an increasing number of seniors would choose not to have their life end with them lying in a hospital with wires and tubes protruding from every part of their fragile bodies. More and more are choosing to die at home, with their families, surrounded by loved ones and with a higher sense of dignity.

Before anyone decides to challenge the validity of the sentiment, my mother died just under four years ago from brain cancer. The moment she was diagnosed and it was made quite clear by the doctors that her condition was fatal and incurable, she immediately got paperwork going for a living will. She had no intention of wasting away hooked to a machine and due to her diligence and forward thinking she was able to spend her remaining weeks at home surrounded by a constant rotation of friends, family and loved ones. The living will also takes the onus and pressure off of the families. End of life decisions are terrible and painful to make and without the expressed sentiment of the actual patient, families have been completely torn apart. Let’s not forget just a few years back with the tragic case of Terri Schiavo. She was completely brain dead and her husband felt he knew Terri’s feelings about being alive solely based on life support, so he wanted to have her machines turned off so she could die naturally. Terri actually had a “do not resuscitate” order in place, but the medical staff at her hospital convinced her husband early in her treatment to have it rescinded. Years later, after no improvement at all, he tried to have the order re-enacted. Her family was dead set against that decision and felt prayer and God’s will would bring her back from her vegetative state. It turned into one of the most contentious court battles over the “right to die” in history.

The main reason why this case is of supreme importance to the current health care debate is the very people who are screaming and rallying over the purported offense of having the government step in and interfere in the intimate family-only decision of when and how a loved one should die, those people were on the forefront of the government effort to stop Terri’s husband and keep her alive. In that case they said it was their moral and ethical right to step in as the government of all people and help ensure the safety of one of their own. The President of the United States at the time, George W. Bush, actually came back from a vacation early just so he could sign a piece of legislation urging the Supreme Court to rule on the side of denying Terri’s previous wishes.

So you see, when stepping in supports what the right wing wants, the family and their heart-rending decisions have no place in front of the government desire. Yet when stepping in does not support their desire – which in the overall case it doesn’t because it will lessen the money flowing into the pockets of the health insurance agencies – now the government should keep their damn hands off our grandmothers. The hypocrisy is brighter and more apparent than a first grader’s coloring book.

The idea of educating and supporting the furthering of “advance care directives” or living wills, which now makes so many on the right sick to their stomachs since it is really a plot by Obama to kill old people (true statement from health care reform opponents), was once touted and rallied for by those exact same people. In 2003, tucked nicely inside the prescription drug reform package, was a very familiar sounding piece of legislation which actually pooled a percentage of funds to educating more people on living wills and even offering early consultation services as part of the drug plan package. That prescription drug package was sent up, voted on and widely passed by the current Republican majority of 2003 and celebrated by then President Bush as a major success for the health of our wise and venerated citizens.

For those concerned about the changes being talked about, please read between the lines and find out where the scary nightmares are actually coming from when they are being screamed and bellowed at these surprisingly camera-ready impromptu protests. These are all made up of random concerned citizens. A percentage of them, not all, but certainly some, are bought and sold mobs funded by the right wing special interests whose pockets are lined with millions from the health insurance industry and drug manufacturers. The people with the most money to lose are the ones feeding the hysteria, because this is the nightmares they see when they sleep. Dark dreams of years without $11 million dollar bonus and a gloomy “For Sale” sign posted on the lawn of one of many summer homes in the Hamptons.

This is a fight to help the common citizen. Don’t be blindfolded with the dollar bills of the rich.

Follow this link to find out the truth about what’s really in the reform bill: HealthReform.gov

Also, if you would like to help or support the foundation set up in memory of Terri Schiavo, click here.

Indeed, Love is a Battlefield

Come on wind, don’t die on me now. *Pfooooo….pfoooo….*

To many around the country and even beyond its borders to the outside world, the fight for marriage equality centers around the formerly progressive state of California and the infamous Prop 8. Prop 8 was voted on and narrowly approved in the November elections, thereby banning same sex marriages in the state. Less than a week ago, a decision was handed down by the California Supreme Court to uphold Prop 8 by a vote of 6 to 1, leaving the ban in place, while a small note of logic and compassion slipped through allowing the nearly 18,000 same sex couples who were married in the brief time of legality to stay married in the eyes of the California legal system. In the amazingly harmonic words of the Canadian a capella group, Moxy Fruvous: “Can’t really call that a loss or a win?”

Let’s be frank here, it was a step back on the road to equality, even with the already performed marriages upheld. Supporters of equal rights for same sex couples rallied all over the state on the day of the decision, chanting and yelling, doing anything they could to keep their spirits up and not let themselves get crushed under the angry, fearful bus of bigotry and discrimination that just ran over them once again. For those of us on the side of equality, we knew this decision was likely. The Supreme Court has a great tendency towards not overturning what they describe as “the will of the people,” but we also knew the justices are all human beings, with the same faults and the same fears, one of which is being looked at unkindly by history and handing down a mass divorce decree for 18,000 couples would certainly not look good in the record books. Being prepared for the likely answer didn’t make it any less disappointing, but it did allow plans to be put in place in case things fell in that fashion.

The discussion now surrounds whether or not to bring the issue back to the ballot in 2010 or 2012. I completely understand the facilities needed to fight this and the finances which must be drawn to keep pace with those who want to see the ban stand, but I can’t see any downside to pushing forward and bringing the fight in 2010. Even if we lose once again, I feel confident ground will be gained and it will only bring us that much closer to success in 2012 (if necessary).

Let’s look at the facts here once more, just as a refresher:

- Although many opponents of same sex marriage use religious rhetoric and diversionary fear tactics, this is not a religious fight. The church has nothing to do with who gets married. The church, synagogue, mosque or temple, doesn’t issue the marriage certificate. In fact, they cannot even officiate over a marriage without getting the aforementioned certificate sent to them by the state. This is a government issue and religion has absolutely no place in the argument.

- Although the case brought before the state supreme court was ill-framed, the fact remains their job is to interpret the law and ensure it is fairly enforced over all its constituents, not just the narrow majority. One of the main roles of government is to ensure the rights of the minority are not trampled on by the majority and this is point for point the failing in this case, not only in California, but nationwide. Beyond the whooping and hollering by both sides here in California, this issue should never have been left in the hands of the states. How can we ever say one state has the right to control who you love while another state doesn’t? Love is not a statewide right, like being able to smoke in a bar. Love is a civil right, one due to every citizen of this nation, no matter if they stand under the rainy clouds of Seattle or bask in the sultry sun of Key West. It is the basic human right to have your love for another person recognized by the government and take part in all the benefits wrapped up in that acknowledgment. There is a case being brought before the Federal Supreme Court now, launched just days before the decision to uphold Prop 8, and the two lawyers arguing for same sex equality are top people from each side of the landmark Gore v. Bush case, which awarded Bush his first term in office. These guys know what they are doing when they approach those hallowed halls of justice and those on the side of discrimination have no clue what is coming their way.

- In most states gay couples can petition and be granted the right to legally adopt children, but are denied the right to marry. Think about that for a second. How does this support a cohesive family unit, one so desperately protected by those against gay marriage?

- Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, was quoted after the California Supreme Court ruling saying: “Marriage is worth protecting because it is the way we teach the next generation: children need mothers and fathers.” So, to all those single parents out there thinking right now you are doing everything you can to provide for and love your children, guess what…you’re not enough. You’re not traditional and “nuclear”. You can’t possibly fully provide a loving and nurturing home for your children because you are only half as good as a gender balanced couple. Thanks for trying though. Please drop your kids off at the nearest adoption clinic so they can be fed into the foster care system until they’re eighteen years of age and dropped back into the world alone.

- The national divorce rate is 50%. What exactly is being torn apart by allowing more people the shot at having long fruitful, respectful and loving relationships? Does it look like the heterosexual population is really, truly respecting the “traditional” values of marriage? Those people who wave the banner of sanctity in marriage can come and talk with me once they legally shut down 24-hour drive thru wedding chapels officiated by Elvis impersonators. Reinstill respect and tradition for the straight world first before claiming the gay world is ruining it. Some of the couples who have taken advantage of the right to marry, in California and the handful of other states who recognize it legally, have actually been together for thirty years or more, just waiting and hoping for the day to make it legal and gain the respect and rights of thier country. I would love to see a statistic of how many straight couples make it that long without officially tying the knot.

President Obama did make a number of statements during his campaign pledging support for the rights of gay people all over the nation, both in regards to civil unions and marriage equality and in the realm of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which forces gay soldiers to hide their true self in order to serve and not be discharged. He has not made a lot of headway on these issues during his brief time in office, but I can honestly afford him some slack on these since it’s easy to see he has other, more nationally compelling issues to deal with (economy crashing, rising wartime violence, spiraling budgetary concerns, etc…). But make no mistake about it, the gay community and its allies, like myself, will not let him forget the promises he made and I fully expect them to be dealt with during his second term, when he won’t have to worry about the need for re-election votes.

I encourage all those who wish to deny the full rights of marriage to the gay community to find a history book, anything from the seventh grade and above. Crack it open and read a couple chapters on the suffrage movement of the 20s, the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s (pay extra close attention to the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education where we received the lasting legislative ruling that stated “separate, but equal” was inherently unconstitutional), and toss in a light dusting of the fight for women to serve in the military. If you look close enough, you will see where this modern day civil rights movement is heading. There is a light at the end of the tunnel for supporters of same sex marriages and it is unavoidable, whether you like it or not. History ignored is history repeated and although we would like to think people would see logic, reason and humanity in these early stages, we’ve already read to the end of the history books and seen equality handed down once again to those who most certainly deserve it.

Last note: For the supporters of marriage equality, it can be a touch confusing on how to support financially or with volunteer work since it feels like another grassroots organization sprouts up each and every day. With the people I’ve talked to and the research I’ve done, I happily point you towards Equality California and the Human Rights Campaign. These two organizations are incredibly motivated and connected with the fight, both in California and across the nation. If you want to support the cause, I recommend starting your research with either of these groups.