Growing Number of Americans Believe Obama is a Republican

President Asked To Produce Voter Registration Card

In the emerging field of GOP presidential candidates, only one acts remotely presidential. Maybe because he IS the president.  What's disturbing is that he's acting Republican, too.

The logic here is that something like 1/3 of registered Republicans believe President Obama is Muslim.  Many of them believe he was born in Kenya. I'm pretty sure ALL of them believe he's a liberal.  Well, it's been proven he's not Muslim, and wasn't born in Kenya, so doesn't it follow that he's not a liberal?

This week the president has been engaged in tete-a-tetes with Speaker Boehner.  The plan they seem to be agreeing on sounds an awful lot like Speaker Boehner's original plan, with maybe one or two concessions on the Speaker's part.  Seniors citizens will still be allowed to breathe, for example (assuming breathing isn't contingent on decent healthcare and a home to live in).  Millionaires and billionaires will still get a share of the tax money the rest of us pay in.  If all these rich folks would hire just one person per household with their ill-gotten tax-cut gains, more than 8 million more Americans could be employed.  A recent poll showed that none of the extremely rich are creating jobs at all.  Surely, if we're giving them money to create jobs, why aren't we demanding they do so?  If I give you $5 to go get me a sandwich, you'd better show up within a reasonable amount of time with my food or I'll come looking for you.  At best, I'd never trust you to go get me a sandwich again.  At worst, you'll know better than to volunteer again.

If President Obama is agreeing to all this nonsense, regardless of the fact that the plan won't pass the Senate, I think it follows that, in 2012, the president will be on the Republican ticket. Because, really, who else have they got?

But then, who have the Democrats got?

Peace,

muon

THE PLEDGE THAT CRIPPLES

Signing pledges these days seems to be the thing to do.  The thought is that signing a pledge is giving one’s word which, of course, one should never break.  When I hear that someone has signed a pledge, I wonder, is it a one-time thing?  If you sign a pledge you can never change your mind?  Is “signing” a pledge more powerful than saying a pledge? 

We say the “Pledge of Allegiance” to our flag for many occasions.  Is that because just saying it once doesn’t “make it so?”  Or, is it that the “Pledge” is just something we do from habit.  It is certainly not something that came in with the Founders.  The way people carry on about those who don’t recite the Pledge and the anger held by some regarding the phrase “under God,” you’d think it was a life or death issue.

Signing pledges seems to be in.  We ask teen agers to sign abstinence pledges as well as non-violence pledges.  We know that these pledges are not very effective, not because the intentions at the time of the signing weren’t honest, but because circumstances changed and the pledge wasn’t strong enough to stick.  Or perhaps, it is not reasonable to ask this of teens, then expect them to submit to it for the rest of their lives. As young people grow older, abstaining until marriage might not be practical or desirable, and if someone is acting violently toward them, they might need to respond in kind to save themselves or their family.

The Republican Party and conservatives in general, are stuck with the notion that voters expect their politicians to to “always” vote the party line, never even turning slightly toward another position, no matter how much sense that other position might make in the situation.   So now, it is not enough to SAY they support a particular position, they must sign pledges to declare for all time that they will always support a particular platform point.

The Temperance Movement of the 19^th Century attempted the same thing.  Signing the Pledge meant that one would never again drink and would support prohibition candidates and legislation.  Well, we all know how well that turned out.  The crime system that arose at that time is still in place in many parts of the country, although the focus shifted from drink to drugs and other vices. 

Grover Norquist and his gang are currently trying to get all Republican candidates and legislators to sign a pledge to NEVER raise taxes.  Those who have signed, essentially shut down concerning that issue.  Even though we pay a lower percentage of taxes than Americans have for the past 60 years, we are told that we are suffering from taxes and because of the Pledge we NEED to keep lowering taxes.  It is clear that in the past 30 years, the wealthiest Americans have received the most breaks, but they can’t be expected to pay more like their fair share because we can’t raise ANY taxes, not even close loopholes!

Who are these people that were elected last November?  Were they elected to help govern a great, complex country or were they elected to protect those who need no protection.  We don’t really need legislators to do that, pledge or no pledge. 

When politicians sign pledges like those presented to the Republicans these days, they give up their ability to govern intelligently.  They are allowing a special interest to determine their votes.  They are unable to negotiate anything.  I guess that makes things easier for them because they don’t have to think or consider.  Their response can be “I signed the pledge.” 

The pledgers’ explanations for why they cannot compromise even in small ways are generally ludicrous and sound childish and memorized.  The even sadder part of this whole thing is that almost no one ever calls them on it nor points out the poor quality of their arguments. 

Let’s ditch the pledges.  If we need to have a pledge at all, let it be to our country and the betterment of ALL its citizens and guests.

Peace,

Ruth

LOOKING FOR PC

One might think from the title that this piece is about buying a home computer or expecting people to be politically correct.  Neither is the theme for this blog.  I want to discuss “Political Courage.” 

As our president and congress are working their way toward some kind of deal for raising the ceiling on our ability to borrow money, and on cutting the deficit, I have heard a lot of talk about political courage. 

It began with Paul Ryan’s proposed budget proposal which was called “courageous”, particularly in the media.  When examined more carefully, it showed little courage.  How much courage does it take to cut critical programs and funding for the most vulnerable people?  It seems only the “bleeding heart liberals” will fight to stop that (and we all know how effective they are).

Republicans, especially the Tea Party variety, are so tax-averse that they can’t conceive of even the wealthiest 2% paying a bit more to help get the country on an even keel.  Where is the courage?  Since no one is exactly thrilled with having to pay taxes, it does not require courage to stand unmoving against any kind of tax increase.  There is no problem with cutting the poor, elderly, and disabled off because even inept representatives and senators will never be in that position.  Once one is in Congress, health care and pensions are taken care of for life (through taxes, of course).

The Democrats are desperately watching the programs to improve the well-being in the country evaporate.  They've always supported these programs and, thus,  cling stubbornly to every aspect of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  These programs do need reworking and reshaping to reflect the needs of 21st Century America.  One can  understand their fear and reluctance to touch those programs because reworking them could devastate these supports, so desperately needed by so many.  Political courage requires respected Democrats to stand up and make realistic, practical suggestions for changes that would benefit everyone (e.g., have Social Security taxes paid on all income, raise the age to 70 years for collecting, discontinue Social Security for people earning more than $100,000.00 a year, but still allow Medicare when needed). 

And then there’s the military industrial complex!  Who has the guts to stand up to that monster?  No courage here!

There seems to be little courage on the state and local levels either.  Some governors and mayors are getting media attention by cutting programs, laying off state workers, blaming them for the state’s/city’s  woes.  It plays well, but isn’t true.  Now there are more folks unemployed.  Again, they hit programs that serve the disadvantaged who won’t make much of a fuss.  The politicians look like heroes because budgets are “balanced.” 

Political courage is standing up for what will be most helpful to the largest number of people.  It means holding personal standards of excellence and integrity that are reflected in one’s words and actions.  It requires one to explain positions to constituents in clear, honest language.  It also means acknowledging one’s weaknesses and mistakes and being able to grow in wisdom and understanding.

  

Courageous leaders might not be reelected, but they would certainly set a good example for the rest of America.  Maybe it could start a trend. 

Peace,

Ruth

FOR-PROFITS RUNNING OUR SCHOOLS? ARE WE NUTS?

OK, which fools came up with the idea that for-profit companies should be running public schools, or any schools for that matter?  Do we want companies making profits on the backs of our children.  For-profits deceive the voters with their unfounded claims that running public, tax-supported schools for profit is the American way. 

What are voters thinking?  Do voters know that when for-profits take over, they often lower salaries, decrease benefits, increase hours, and hire and fire at will.  This may sound economical on the surface, but who benefits?   The threat to workers--“If you don’t do whatever we tell you to do, with whatever resources we decide to give you, we will find someone else who will”-- is powerful.  How can employees complain?  The education of the children does not have to improve, but, who cares?  “It’s out of our hands,” the people say, and they are right.  By then, it’s too late.  The companies are accountable to no one. 

It is interesting that friends of legislators manage to open public charter schools and can make profits from running these “public schools.” Is this just another means of thanking campaign contributors?

A large segment of our government’s work has already been turned over to for-profits.  It is called outsourcing, contracting and a few other things, but it is all the same.  We citizens pay for a lot of the profits that go into the pockets of the wealthy.  Why do we allow it?  Why aren’t we screaming at this abuse of our taxes?

We are turning our children’s education over to people who seem to understand their mission as maintaining an American-born underclass to fill jobs they fear immigrants will want to come here to take.  It is also a technique for union busting since few charters have teachers who are part of a collective bargaining unit.  When private companies run charters, everything developed in their schools belongs to them and cannot be shared.  Many of us thought that charters were instituted to try out new teaching and organization strategies to improve education for all.  That’s what proponents told everyone.  I suspect that is one of the reasons the charter school movement had such momentum.

The reality is that charters, for-profit or otherwise,  are generally opened in poor communities who have already gotten the word that nothing they have to say about education or anything else matters.  Parents think they are going to get something better for their children, but that is not what happens most of the time.  Since nothing related to the basic poverty and lack of opportunity in the community changes, parents, their children, and taxpayers in general are just being taken for another ride to nowhere, and paying for the trip.

Ruth

THE EASY CAUSE

 Thursday morning, I was listening to a report on NPR about the flocking of Republican candidates to the “Right to Life” convention in Florida.  It seems that they are falling over themselves to prove that they are the most anti-abortion candidate ever.  They are even signing pledges that if elected, they will only appoint “right to life” people to positions of power in their administration. 

As I listened to the report, it came to me as it so often does that abortion is the easy cause.  All you have to do to have credentials in their group is be willing to show photos magnified a hundred times of aborted fetuses and work to cut funding for any organization that tries to help women who cannot or should not be pregnant.  Usually the spokeswomen have a bunch of kids and claim to be super religious. The men aren’t too big on women’s rights in general.

If these people are so “right to life,” where is the signed pledge that they will find funding for struggling women and children?  Where did they sign that they will do whatever necessary to be sure that even the poorest children will have an education equal to that of at least middle class kids?  Where is their signature on the promise to get businesses into poor communities that will provide jobs for the young people and prices that residents can afford?  Where are the ads and quality films that promote giving children for adoption?  I don’t see the pen on the line promising health care for all children or decent housing for their families.

What I do see is a stampede toward a cause that has all kinds of emotional ties but few real risks.  Their efforts make a small core of people think that being anti-abortion says something important about their candidate’s character.  It is not even necessary to analyze what that is.  With one hand the candidates sign a ridiculous, probably un-American pledge while they raise the other to cut spending for the programs that would support and protect the children.  It seems the group’s name should be “Right to Birth” with a subtext that states, "Every breath you take after birth is at your own risk."

Peace,

Ruth

OUR MOST VALUABLE RESOURCE

The school year has just ended for me and the news for the coming year does not look good.  Rumor has it that 40% of our teachers and support staff will be laid off.  Due to state and Federal budget crunches, our children will be sacrificed again. 

I hear so often “our children are our most valuable resource” and I even have a great T-Shirt with that thought on it.  I think that is the exact truth.  When one notes the way we treat our natural resources in general, one cannot be surprised that our “most valuable” resource should be treated so badly.  We clear-cut our forests.  We fish out our rivers and oceans.  We use our precious FRESH water to drive natural gas from deep in rocks.  We destroy our wetlands to provide entertainment spots for the wealthy.  We hunt animals to extinction.  We strip mine some of our most beautiful places. 

In that same spirit, we allow 25% and more of our children to live in poverty.  We blame teachers for student lack of success, then pile more and more children into their classes with fewer supplies, guaranteeing low success for the children in our poorest communities.  We allow for-profit organizations (charter schools) to suck the resources of the districts who are already tapping taxpayers out.  We drive our kids into prisons because we have no jobs for them.  We charge so much for college that it may take a lifetime to pay it off, that is if they can get work.

Like our other “cherished” resources, we fail to see that what we do or do not do now will sharply impact the future for generations.  What fools we are to choose to live only for the present, spouting our political nonsense while our children’s well-being goes the way of the dodo.

Peace,

Ruth

HERE’S TO INDIANA

I just learned that Indiana has “proudly” passed a law to refuse all state and federal funding to Planned Parenthood and any other organization that offers abortion to women.  The governor, a potential candidate for president, signed this law despite his claim to set aside divisive social issues in favor of dealing with the economy and other pressing problems.

How is it we allow conservative white men to decide for women what is right for us?  How is it we stand by when right-wing women tell everyone else that, because they believe something is evil, they have the right to impose their beliefs on everyone else?

If Sarah Palin is right and the Indiana folk are the “real Americans,” the majority of America is in trouble.  The least willing to think for themselves should not be dictating to those who choose to take the effort to think.

So here’s to Indiana, a triumph of the deceived.  Defunding reproductive service organizations does not decrease spending.  It will ultimately significantly add to it when the unplanned pregnancies bear fruit and the state has more children in poverty to support.  Oh, wait, they’re cutting funds that support those children, too.

Peace,

Ruth