inthetrunkroom

  • F & I

    On the night of the presidential inauguration in 2009, Republican leadership met in a hotel room to plan out a strategy of obstructionism designed to block any and all progressive efforts introduced by the newly elected president. This calculated and well orchestrated obstructionism took shape early on and became ingrained into the republican agenda for the next eight years.
    Faced with an economic strain brought about by years of reckless policies, the country was brought to near fiscal collapse. The new president was faced with having to bring about a level of recovery not seen since the days of the Great Depression of the thirties. However, rather than work along with him for the good of the country, the GOP blocked every attempt at recovery. The republican strategy, replete with refusals to even bring measures to a vote, government shutdowns and a total lack of cooperation across the aisle brought about a log jam of government function unheard of in modern times. Now, a new force began to rise and in the face of wholesale institutional failures, an even more extreme agenda took hold and neither the democrats or the republicans could stem the tide of disdain for established institutions. Anything inside the beltway was anathema and a new extreme far right scheme was taking over. Enter Donald J Trump.
    From the very first night when he announced his candidacy for the presidency, his message was full of venom, bigotry beyond comprehension, complete disrespect for women and an abiding disdain for a federal government. His verbal assaults on virtually any and everyone who did not fall in to his mold of doing business and his xenophobic posturing was considered anti American. He was playing on fear and, indeed, ignorance among the masses. A businessman of questionable ethics and a genuinely successful entertainer in his own right, the prime candidate proved to be a master of manipulating the message as well as the messengers. No one took him seriously and that turned out to be a mistake of historic proportions. He surrounded himself with loyalists – again of highly questionable credentials – and launched what was in no uncertain terms, a race to the gutter.
    It is not necessary to recount all the insanity of the campaign season but what is important are few questions which will be a long time in being answered. Questions such as how did he get away with not releasing his tax returns – which no doubt would show his indebtedness and to whom, or whether or not he actually did make large charitable donations, none of which could be either quantified or verified even by the alleged recipients. Why did the media allow him to take a pass on all the half truths and outright lies being spouted throughout the campaign ? The overwhelming thing was how so many who supposedly know these things, did not see what was the eventual outcome long before it came to be and how did someone like Donald Trump find himself as President -elect.

    One approach to an asnwer could he found here. In a 2012 town hall with retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter, the topic of civic education was brought up. In answering a question put forth from the audience, Justice Souter quoted Benjamin Franklin, who said that democracy cannot survive too much ignorance. Justice Souter continued.. I don’t worry about losing our republican government in the United States because I am afraid of foreign invasion…….. what I worry about is that when problems are not addressed people will not know who is responsible and when the problems get bad enough as they might do for example with another serious terrorist attack, as they might do with another financial meltdown. Some one person will come forward and say “..give me total power and I will solve this problem”. That is how the Roman empire fell. Later he added, if something is not done to improve the level of civic knowledge, that is what you should worry about at night.
    The GOP agenda was calculated to not solve problems, to not capitalize on solutions, and to not move the country forward. No, it was and remains calculated to bring about a complete blocking of any progressive agenda and the erasing of any policy or power in a centralized federal government. In short, a dispanding of the republic and a return to a confederation of states.

    Another approach to an answer also stemming from Justice Souter’s comments is the pervasive and complete lack of interest in facts.
    One has to accept that each of both the print and the broadcast news media outlets has a particular slant. However, one likewise must accept that many are more than guilty of outright fabrications. While outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times do have a left slant, they are still reliable sources for factual information as they have been for many years. This is also true of a number of other print news outlets. In the broadcast world, MSNBC is indeed a left slant site but we all know that and accept that. One has to admit that their on air talent does do seriously in depth research on their stories and they do evoke discussion.
    On the other hand, the far right side of matters really does fall in to the category of the ridiculous when it comes to news. Brietbart, Limbaugh, Alex Jones,Newsmax – really ! It is almost laughable if so many did not take their kool ade as their gospel. But FOX news is a major real culprit here. Not much that comes out of this – at least from their pundits – has much in the way of any basis in fact. One such pundit even admitted publicly on the air that he was not a journalist but rather an entertainer. But should a so called news source be listed as entertainment ?

    The sad thing is, getting back to Justice Souter’s comment, that for over fifty per cent of those between thirty and sixty-five, Fox is their sole news source. Is it any wonder that we find ourselves in the mess we are in. So many who bothered to vote this election cycle noted that they were sick and tired of the failures of Washington and the seeming inability to get anything done on behalf of the people. What they invariably failed to ask is not the what but the why and this is where so many news outlets fail. The GOP strategy is calculated to make certain nothing of progress happens and these news source for so many simply go along with that strategy mostly for the sake of ratings. They and as a result, the public are still not raising the question why and , while it might be argued, a la Chris Wallace, that fact checking is not the purview of a newscaster, it is an absolute necessity for the viewing public.

    And finally, there is one more element in this tragedy that gave us Trump as president. Aside from the smear campaigning and all the rhetoric and the playing to the fears and phobias across the board,there is this question. Approximately 62.5 million voters voted for Hillary ; approximately 61.2 million voted for Trump; these figures may be revised to reflect that Hillary received near 1.5 million votes more than Trump. What is frightening is the last of three statistics – nearly 100 million eligible voters simply did not show up to vote at all. Restrictive voter laws enacted by GOP controlled state legislatures was a factor, though probably not as critical as one would think. Simple alienation from the process is also a part. However, straight out voter apathy remains a major, if not the major factor in our electoral process. For example – in 1968, the turn out of eligible voters was 60 % ; in 1972, 55 % ; in 1980, 52 % ; in 1992, 55 % ; in 2012, 54 %. In 2016, though figures are still being calculated, it appears that 57 % will be the figure. This is nothing short of a sad commentary on the level of civic engagement on the part of the “ voting public”. By contrast, France shows 71 %, Belgium, 87 %, Sweden, 82 %. It must be said, in fairness, Canada shows 62 %,better but not by much.

    All in all, the 2016 election was not only what one could call a referendum on our entire process and the elements which factor in to an election, it is indeed an indication of what this nation has become and what sort of country the voters want it to be, at least for the next four years. One dares to say – we will pay the price for flowing kool ade, fear and ignorance ! Hopefully, mistakes made will be lessons learned.

  • JUST THE FACTS MA”AM – PERCHANCE

    Back in the early years of television, folks watched Sergeant Joe Friday and his partner solve crime cases on Dragnet. While the phrase “Just the facts, Ma’am “ never actually was in the script, it was attributed to it and the phrase stuck, so to speak. How does that figure in to more current times ? Well, think about it. How often do we listen to what people are saying and wonder, what if what they are saying is actually true. If it be so, that’s a good thing. If not so, that cannot be good. And, one should ask, does it matter in every context or only certain ones.

    For example, in the realm of story telling, there are legends and lore and all sort of concoctions that get the moral of a story across. If you grew up in the Hudson River Valley, there were trolls, dwarfs, covered bridge tolls and the ever present Headless Horseman – all wonderful weavings of a little history, a little geography and a little magic. We all are enriched by the stories from wherever we grew up. But, while legends and stories are one thing, as it pertains to news, the need for facts – real hard facts – is quite a different question.
    In the days of John Cameron Swayze, Douglas Edwards and Walter Cronkite, the news was the news. Items were delivered and not usually discussed. That was held for later in the broadcast when notables like Eric Severeid and Edward R Murrow would offer analysis and at the beginning of the segment, they clearly noted it was opinion.
    As time moved on, newscasts became increasingly seasoned with commentary and while offering news items, often the anchor would offer some observations about the story. Today, the scenario is completely different and, with a few notable exceptions, news is almost always delivered with a slant, depending on the story, the anchor and most importantly, the network. The same holds true for the print media – both print and digital – and to some observers , even more so.
    Generally, people get their news from all three sources, though one can note the dwindling popularity of the traditional newspaper print mode. [ Parenthetically, there is still something special about enjoying a mug of coffee along with the Sunday New York Times out on the patio in the morning. ] It is also true that most choose their source based on how closely that source caters to their political point of view and their particular slant, if you will. However, therein may lie a significant part of the problem.
    The adage often seen on this sight that this nation is being plagued by fear and ignorance plays into this issue of news and the news media in a large way. Using the term “ignorance” in the classical sense of “ unknowing” fits like the proverbial glove. As earlier, should one have to ask whether what one hears as news is accurate or not is part of the temper of our times and asking that question is not only advisable, it is indeed critical.
    Time and time again, reliable information sources have revealed that some so called news sources have taken slant to the level of absurd, in effect rewriting events and the stories behind them to fit their own agenda. Fox news, while allegedly being the sole source of news for a majority of those thirty-five to fifty-five, is famous or better , infamous for this. There is no other way to describe it – they flat out lie. And regrettably, they are not alone. Leaving the alt-right, lunatic fringe aside for now – sadly many actually buy in to their nonsense . There are numerous so called news outlets who are guilty of this. We are not speaking of slant here. We are speaking of deception. We should accept that slant is a part of news and, while it should not be the case, it definitely is. MSNBC’s on air talent is slanted to the left and while delivering stories that may be factual in content, their commentary on them is clearly a bit leaning. CNN, while presenting much of the same in terms of event coverage, does move to a more centrist, right of center posture.The National Review,on the other hand, is decidedly right leaning. The venerable conservative magazine, founded by William F. Buckley, has carved out its place in news commentary as a bastion of conservative thinking and it is recognized as such with no hesitation.
    The Washington Post and the New York Times, both exceptional newspapers, while offering news as news with facts and figures produced by serious journalists ( most of the time ), does portray in its editorial presentations, a left leaning position.
    There are so many outlets available to news wonks – some worthy of attention, some not worth the paper they are printed on or the space they take up in the airwaves – and fairly much the spectrum of opinion goes along with it. What then is one to do if one is to find a way to break out of this “ fear and ignorance”

    Unless you are a real news wonk or an investigative reporter ( tabloid dirt diggers are not even considered here ), it is not expected that you survey a significant number of the huge number of sites and publications out there. It would be simply just overwhelming. Additionally, I doubt very much if the everyday household subscribes to the “Green Sheets” or wire services.
    There are some, then, who do scan a larger than usual number of outlets and also take the time to do research, seeking out primary sources such as actual legislation or first run video or voting records etc.
    For the majority of those out there, though,, a little strategy suggestion. Take a minute and exercise some judgement, some intelligence and some due diligence, as it were. For those left leaning, take a look at right side sources ; for those right leaning, take a look at left side sources. One is not saying agreement is essential but what is clear is that somewhere between the farther left and the farther right there is an honest answer. From there, an intelligent opinion will be formed and can be constructively argued. However, keep in mind the caution of the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan – while one is entitled to one’s own opinion, one is not entitled to one’s own facts. Today, fear and ignorance are the ruling elements. Tomorrow, this need not be the case !

  • THE GREAT REGRESSION

    Some time ago the question was asked as to how this nation took such a hard right turn and found itself held hostage by the tea party and its unreasonable and borderline irrational agenda. The vinegar of the late sixties had turned in to the venom of our time and the ability to reach any sort of middle ground on the spectrum of important issues has long since been abandoned.One cannot deny that tracing this frightening path is the path of the Republican party and over time, its driving the U S into what is clearly the “Great Regression” ! It is likewise clear that the future agenda for the GOP is to turn back the progress made since the turn of the last century, destroy a federal government, reducing it to simply a trade and war machine – all geared toward profiteering – and return to the days of a confederation of independent states.
    While one can stipulate to a certain level of partiality in these discussions, the track of the GOP is almost irrefutable. It is rife with policy and process which has either directly or indirectly attacked so much of those elements in every day life which benefit the vast majority of our citizenry.
    On 14 August 1935, the Social Security Act was passed. Over the decades, social security has kept literally millions out of the grip of dire poverty. It has provided, though lean, some income for those who have none or those who are disabled or survivors. It is indeed social insurance. On 15 August 1935, the Republican party began its drive to repeal the Act and return those millions to a life paralleled to the worst conditions in third world countries. To this day, that quest continues with attempts time after time to privatize the Act and turn over the management of it to the robber barons of Wall Street. Curious, the GOP  nominee for the presidency and his vice presidential pick are well in tune with that quest.

    In 2010, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Within weeks, the drive to repeal this legislation had begun. While the Act itself was flawed on some respects and the sponsors caved on certain essential elements which were critical to success, the blanket opposition was unmistakably GOP and specifically Tea Party. The Administration’s handling of the roll out was at best a disaster and the Secretary of DHHS failed miserably in following basic procedures for the implementation of such a broad scale program. Nevertheless, there was nothing but calculated opposition from Congress who no less than fifty-two times wasted time, energy and funds trying to repeal this monumental piece of legislation. Rather than discuss its merits and work toward repairing the deficiencies in the Act, the GOP preferred to waste its time trying to scrub the entire Act, this in spite of the fact that millions who never had access to heath insurance now had that opportunity. The GOP simply caved to the insurance lobby. It is well know that near all of the major industrialized nations, including those of Scandinavia and the United Kingdom and others have some system of universal health care. Nevertheless, the GOP fought it from the beginning, just as they did Social Security and just as in the case of Social Security, that obstruction continues to this day.

    No one can contest that there is an increasing level of gun violence in this country. While the official statistics may be seen as showing a down trend in crime overall, the instances of gun violence have not only increased but have intensified. Some instances include 2007, thirty-two killed at Virginia Tech ; 2008, five killed at Northern Illinois University ; 2009, thirteen killed at Fort Hood , Texas ; 2012, twenty-six killed at Newtown Connecticut ;2012, 12 killed in Washington,D.C. ; 2011, six killed in Tucson, Arizona ; 2012, twelve killed at Aurora Colorado ; 2015, nine killed in Charleston, South Carolina ; 2016, fifty killed in Orlando, Florida ; and in 2016, five police officers killed in Dallas Texas.The country is demanding answers, some of which may never come.  However, with the prospect of more and more of these attacks, most with military style AR-15 rifles and high capacity magazine Glock pistols,the threat could be lessened to some degree by instituting some measure of common sense firearms control. Accept that these attacks may not have been stopped, perhaps the severity of them could have been lessened and perhaps some even prevented. Even one would be invaluable. In several national polls over the period of those years, 92% of people polled agreed that universal background checks for ALL purchases of firearms would be a serious step in the right direction. 89% of firearms owners agreed and over 80 % of NRA members likewise agreed. Nonetheless, when the vote came to the floor in the U S Senate, it went down in utter defeat. It was never taken up in the House. The GOP, in controlling the vote, caved to the NRA and made certain that there would be no legislation which even closely resembled gun control, common sense or not. And so, while some of these senseless tragedies will visit upon us again, the few that just might be stopped will not !

    In 1872, the federal government set aside the Yellowstone Park for all to enjoy. In 1933, President Theodore Roosevelt established the National Park Service which took over the management of Yellowstone along with, over time, fifty-eight other national parks. These indeed are the marvels of our nation and are enjoyed by people form nations all over the globe. Millions come here to to see the wonder that is Yellowstone, the awesomeness of the Grand Canyon, the splendor of Arches and Canyonland, the beaity of the Great Smokey Mountains and the sheer unanswerable nature of the Mesa Verde. These are solemn lands, protected by the National Park Service under the Department of the Interior.
    Now many members of the GOP, sadly especially the Congressional delegations from Arizona and Utah particularly, want to divest the federal government of their role with the national parks and revert that to the states which can open it up for development. In Arizona, Congressman Trent Franks, on more than one occasion, has introduced legislation to open the Grand Canyon National Park to uranium mining.In Utah home of Bryce, Arches and Zion, Rep. Bishop and Senator Lee are pushing legislation to force the federal government to cede ALL national park and wilderness holdings to the states with the express aim to open these lands to commercial developers.
    The agenda is clear. remove any and all things that are there to enjoy unless they make someone or some group richer than they already are. It is indeed sad that the GOP has lost all sense of aesthetics and any taste for the gifts from the Creator.

    Speaking of gifts, one of the great gifts, or rights, bestowed on citizens of this country is the right to Vote. As per the Fifteenth Amendment and the Voter Rights Act of 1965, all citizens have the right to vote and to vote their conscience. The Supreme Court gutting Part 5 of the Act notwithstanding, ( that part that mandates certain states have federal approval before making changes to their voting procedures ) we ALL have the right to vote. Red state GOP controlled legislatures don’t seem to see it that way. Phony voter fraud legislation abounds and ridiculous ID laws likewise. Case in point – Pennsylvania. In their action to federal court seeking approval for their voter ID laws, etc, they even stipulated in their complaint that there was no evidence of voter fraud prior to their filing. They just wanted to prevent it in the future. REALLY. And then there is the case of Arizona. In Arizona, the County recorder – the person responsible for implementing voter procedures – cut the number of voting places from over two hundred to sixty for the Presidential Preference Primary. This was in Maricopa County where near 74 % of the state’s 6.4 million people live. The Secretary of State, who is ultimately responsible as the chief election officer for the state, simply blew it off. These are just two of the many examples of the hidden agenda of the GOP across the nation. Maybe it is time for the courts to take a long hard look at this !

    Let’s face it. The GOP track record working on behalf of this country is a bit dismal. At least since to post WW II era, through the Cold War period, we have had to put up with one war after another, usually less than justified or, in one case, even illegal. We have had to spend enormous amount of funds to support these ventures into insanity and then the Democrats who followed had to pick up the costs and bail out the those damaged by the profiteering war machine. Accepting some slant here, and also, it is not quite that cut and dry, the case can be made. After all, it was a GOP administration that not only got us in to an illegal war that lasted over a decade but, with the cost of two wars waged simultaneously and a completely reckless tax cut program for which we are still paying, we damn near lost it all. Yes,, lest we forget, it was indeed the 2000 – 2008 administration that cost us our credit rating. Things which are important to the every day functioning of a country – schools, health care, infrastructure, transportation – all have been sorely and ,one might add, criminally neglected. By comparison, for instance, our rail system is of third world caliber in comparison to other nations. Calculated obstructionism, which began on the very night of the Presidential Inauguration in 2009, has destroyed any effort at progress and has won the day. We are once again on the verge of collapse in many dimensions of our nation’s capacity to move forward. A new agenda is critical. It is necessary. It is essential to our very survival. The GOP agenda, focused on destruction rather than construction, is most certainly not the one.

  • T O A

    As per an earlier posting, there is a sense that this nation has taken not only a hard right turn in its politics but also in its whole demeanor. The vinegar of the sixties has turned to venom and the idea of having any respect on any level for those who hold public office or who work in the public sector has, admittedly with some justification, left us almost entirely. Those who occupy the halls of congress, on both sides of the aisle, have failed miserably at their charter to govern and as a direct result of a calculated plan of obstruction on the part of the GOP, nothing has moved in a forward direction for now nearly eight years. What is scary, though, is not just the thought of this obstructionism continuing in to the next administration but the thought of who might be in that administration. It is election season and the race is on.
    The “jackass” candidates started out on what seemed to be a fairly decent playing field, discussing issues and agreeing to disagree on certain specific points. There was sufficient agreement on the problems at hand with curious disagreement as to the solutions. And while the one candidate came across as having a single issue focus, the other took on a much broader, almost waterfront agenda. Then, for some reason, the whole tenor darkened and slid into a bit of name calling and the usual nonsense we see in campaigns. Issues which have little or no bearing on a future administration or the ability to function as such became the main course and sour apples were all over the place. By well in to the race, we were now left with one candidate with more baggage – real or imagined – than a flight to Colorado on a ski weekend and one not only continuing to be, in our opinion, single issue but resorting to raising matters sometimes totally out of sync with fact and most of the time out of sync with relevance, a status I fully blame the campaign manager who is not happy unless and until he is trolling. It is no less than pitiful and,in the long run, may well damage the party and its chances to end up on Pennsylvania Avenue.

    The “elephant” on the other hand is quite a different story.
    The field of candidates brought to the stage performers who have curiously failed to address anything in the real world and constantly go off on tangents which resemble Fantasy Island gone amuck.While the field of candidates started out at seventeen, with a steady menu of theocracy, bureaucracy and hypocrisy , the final candidate poses the most fearful of possibilities.

    The loudmouth from Manhattan is clearly who has no respect for anything or anyone except himself and whose entire agenda has been to get rich by manipulating laws and and exploiting trade policies. His entire candidacy is capitalizing on fear, misinformation, crass ignorance and xenophobia.
    To quote a columnist form Australia , he has been “ gaslighting ” this country for months. His blatant and obvious failure to grasp even the basics of government serve to make ones head spin. He continues to spout conspiracy theories as if they were fact, citing as his “ reliable source” some of the more moronic right winger bloggers and twitter posts. When challenged on some of these nonsensical pronouncements, his fall back is that “ I am only retweeting what I read”, as though a presidential candidate has no responsibility to make even a cursory effort at fact checking !
    There is no effort at concealing blatant disdain for the less fortunate among us, for any diversity of ideas and being disguised as patriotism, a return to the whole white supremacy notion from an earlier time. Support for his path to Pennsylvania Avenue rests with the likes of the former grand wizard of the KKK, the cast of Duck Dynasty, the brainless Ted Nugent and a likewise lunatic, Alex Jones. There is constant belittling of handicapped persons and those whose lives have been destroyed by disasters. We won’t even venture in to the mire of his opinion of women ! All this, as distasteful as it is, is being fed, like kerosene on a smoldering fire, by the current political climate, not to mention being enabled by the media. That he is the presumptive nominee for the GOP should give pause to wonder just how far down that road to hell we have ventured . And here is the really frightening part – support for this posture is very widespread. The dark side has come to the forefront and it should have set off the alarm in every community but it hasn’t.
    As noted earlier, we have taken a far and hard turn to the right and unfortunately, none seem to awaken to that fact and nor do they see the course on which we have embarked. Gone are the days when partnerships were workable and there was a sense of community – at least on a policy level – and the profiteering mode rules again as it did in the eight years prior to the current administration. Apparently we as a nation have learned nothing and one knows what happens to those who fail to learn from history.

    In the early sixties, a school of dramatic presentation arose in which the things seemed to get way out of hand and “Absurdist Fiction “ was born. In this, the logical and compelling were reduced to the irrational and the illogical. It was coined by Martin Esslin as the “Theatre of the Absurd”.
    Welcome to the theatre – the curtain gone up !

  • B I K ( be it known )

    To Our Readers

    We have been plagued by some of those pesky intervening variables of late – however, we expect to return to the board by May

  • THE LAND GRAB IN THE WEST

    Somewhere back in the annals of early America, cotton growers in the Southeast decided that they needed to expand their growing capacity in a huge way. The problem was there were several tribes of Native Americans getting in their way. Now,as we all know, most politicians answer more to the influence of big money and big business than to the needs of those who elected them and under pressure from the growers and their money, Congress decided that, for the good of the country – read, the good of cotton growers – the tribal folk had to go. So, in the winter of 1838, the Trail of Tears began.

    Fast forward to 2014 and we find much of the same situation, only the stakes are almost as high. The tactics have varied and though whole tribal nations are not being relocated, the outcomes are pretty much the same. The modern version finds senator John McCain, the senior senator from Arizona, ( you know, the guy who never met a war he didn’t like ) arranging for an amendment to the defense bill which will hand over land deemed sacred by the San Carlos Apache to an Australian Mining company to expand copper mining in he Superior, Arizona area. And by the way, this land is part of the Tonto National Forest but one has to figure that this doesn’t matter to Mr McCain either.

    In the U S House of Representatives, a group led by Tea Party Caucus members Rob Bishop ( R-UT ) and Chris Stewart ( R-UT ) is pushing for legislation which would “Seize and Sell America’s public lands”. A similar push in the Senate is being spearheaded by the Tea Party senator from Texas, Ted Cruz (R-TX ).
    Can you imagine what the people of Utah, Arizona and New Mexico will say if and when they wake the hell up and realize what congress has planned for their national treasures ?
    Funny thing though – on a state level, matters are equally vigorous in the pursuit of this disastrous agenda. Far right wing lawmakers in several states – eleven of them – have introduced proposals to seize control of public lands, especially federally protected lands. In the Arizona legislature, Senator Kelli Ward along with numerous others in the legislature, is spearheading a move to in effect nullify all federal rule in the State of Arizona and cede all federally held lands to the State. While the fate of this from the earlier session is unknown, it plays well with U S Congressman Trent Franks who is pushing to open uranium mines on the eastern edge of theGrand Canyon.

    As one can figure, the Koch brothers backed American Legislative Exchange Counsel ( ALEC ) is drafting the legislation proposals for this agenda in close league with a front group for the oil industry in the person of one Richard Berman.
    The culmination of these efforts would, if successful, completely obliterate the legacy of President Theodore Roosevelt and destroy what are true havens for naturalists, photographers, scientists and all those who simply relish and enjoy the beauty of nature at its finest – at least on this continent.

    Millions of people from all over the globe annually visit our National Parks, especially those is the West and Southwest – the Grand Canyon, Zion National Park, the Painted Desert, Arches and Canyon Lands, Chaco Canyon. Can you imagine how absolutely horrifying it would be to be a visitor in these majestic places and be forced to negotiate around fracking wells and uranium strip mines ? The shattering of the quiet, the polluting of the air, the poisoning of the water table – all in the name of corporate greed. And yet, Reed Watson, the executive director of the Koch backed Property and Environment Research Center is calling for no more national parks, touting them as a waste of financial resources. Of course, PERC, with Koch money and strong ties to the fossil fuel industry, has long been advocating for the privatization of our national parks so, as Sarah Palin often said, fuel companies can drill and drill and drill,baby drill .
    One should take a long hard look at how so many are connected to this conspiracy to destroy and who is behind it all. While you can criticize this post as being slanted left – a view that is accepted – it is indeed outlining a path toward the elimination of some of the worlds true wonders. And one can also find it interesting that there is a second agenda here not only corporate greed but a way that certain states are looking to in order to recover from deep debt. The states which seem to be pushing the anti – wilderness agenda appear to be deep red states, most of which have deep red ink in their ledgers. These states are now looking to use the possible sale of protected lands to bail them out of their folly created by eliminating key sources of revenue, especially business taxes. It’s the Grover Nordquist mentality taken to the ridiculous. Allow the principal source of revenue for all public services to dry up but then wonder why the ledger does not balance.
    So, as all can see, the desert Southwest is being ruined by earlier wholesale disposal of public lands and with that over development comes the commensurate congestion, overcrowding and other environmental issues. Big business once again is the fair haired boy of states and all others must pay the piper. When the dollars run short, then the course of action is to sell off more land and when that runs out,we are left with the great American land grab. Shameful indeed how the continuing saga is told – quality of life be damned. Big business needs more revenue and quality of life is up for sale.

  • A Definition, Please ?

    There is a story running in the recent news about a certain County Clerk in Kentucky who has categorically refused to grant marriage licenses to gay couples. This clerk, whose past record regarding marriage is checkered at best, tells everyone that she was “ born again “ and it is “…. by God’s authority..” that she is taking this position. The local court ruled against her, the State court ruled against her, the federal district court ruled against her and the U S Supreme Court refused to rule in her favor. The law firm which represents her – The Liberty Counsel, a spin off of Liberty University of Jerry Falwell fame – continues to support her claim, saying that she has the right to practice her religious beliefs according to her conscience, regardless of the code of law
    Not to long ago, in Arizona, a bill found its way through the state legislature which had a similar bent . In effect, S B 1062 would allow ANY business owner to refuse to provide his or her service to anyone who offended their religious beliefs. A key element here was that merchants were refusing to allow gay and lesbian persons to do business with them, e.g. buy a wedding cake. The major push for this came from one Cathi Herrod, President of the Center for Arizona Policy. Her on the record position was that we cannot allow gay and lesbian people access to our schools and our children. A far right wing so called Christian, Ms Herrod continues to plead that her agenda is misunderstood – in spite of her highly vocal statements – and this Bill was all about personal freedom. Shortly thereafter this Bill was vetoed by then Governor Brewer, a similar Bill – SB 101 – was introduced in Indiana and signed in to law by Governor Mike Pence. Again, he asserts that the legislation is not to be construed as anti – gay but rather the confirmation of allowing citizens to exercise their right to freedom of religion.

    The primary basis for these actions lies in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Act was passed and signed in to law in 1993 by then President Clinton., Despite being declared unconstitutional in 1997, it continues to be used as a basis for legal actions involving the “ compelling interest of the federal government “, a element yet to be clearly defined. This use was deemed constitutional by the Roberts Court in 2006, forming the basis for the Burwell v Hobby Lobby case.
    One has to be a serious legal scholar to negotiate the legal maze created by these actions. It is highly problematic to determine how a public law which was deemed unconstitutional can have only portions of it used as a basis for widespread legal proceedings, highly qualified and conditioned by that less than defined phrase”…. compelling interests..”. One can be clear of one thing though, the provisions put forth here very much lend to, shall we say, the legalization of discrimination.
    One of the principal spokespersons for the far far religious right, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, has taken up the cause of the county clerk mentioned above and, in a statement which reveals a significant degree of lunacy, noted that one only has to obey the law if the law is right. He has failed to mention who it is that determines that but, based on his long record in the realm of religious fanaticism, he seems to hold that the Courts including the Supreme Court, do not have that prerogative but rather the individual. Back in the days of studying matters like this, this position was referred to as a convenient conscience. Today, one should call it license to instigate chaos headed toward anarchy.
    One of those parts of the P.L. 103-141 held that actions should not “…substantially burden a person’s right to exercise religion…”. The law is a bit vague on some points but it seems clear that it does not allow for an individual to impose their religious beliefs on others. I submit that, while one can stretch the point for private business owners – still wondering about the discrimination element – one must not allow this position to be taken in the context of an employee of a public agency. Policy and statute, unless they are changed, are to be followed , not ignored because of an individual’s personal beliefs. If one cannot abide by the law of the land, one should find another role to play, or be told to find it.

    We can go back to the very founding of this nation to chronicle the striving for religious freedom – or the imposing of a belief system on a society. Our system allows for and strongly supports an individual’s right to subscribe to any religious practice. It can mean belonging to a religious denomination, following a religious sect or ascribing to a philosophical school of thought. It does not, however,privilege an individual to impose those beliefs on others, especially when it goes contrary to civil law. This whole wave of fundamentalist extremism is at best, annoying and at worst, dangerous. It fosters blatant discrimination, breeds hatred and thrusts many into a limelight they would prefer to avoid.

    In the mid eighteenth century, during what was titled as the “Age of Enlightenment” Thomas Paine wrote: “…. Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst..”. It is important to understand this statement, particularly in these times of overt fanaticism. There has been much in the way of villainous deed committed in the name of religion, some of it horrid and down right evil. Though somewhat more subtle , are we treading on a similar path ? Are we following a dangerous agenda by following a candidate for president who believes that ones conscience, no matter how erroneous, shall hold sway over law ? Be aware and be careful. The legal scholar who stands by the law of the land and the religious fanatic who holds the individual above all don’t play well together !

  • WIRED Or WHATEVER

    After watching a local high school let out after the school day, I began to wonder about the curious advancement of technology. Dozens of teens exited the school buildings and proceeded off campus to their respective destinations. What was interesting was that, while there were so many in such close proximity to each other, few if any seemed to be speaking to another person. One could not help but notice, though, that pretty much all of them were engaged on some electronic devise . It reminded one of that Tahoe taking kids to school. Mom is on the phone, the student in the front seat is focused on texting and all the kids in the back seats were either likewise texting, on the phone or wired in to some sort of MP3 player. None was actually speaking to another person.

    It seems to be the everyday thing of late and, though some will not find this out of kilter, one has to be aware that quietly, the ramifications are presenting themselves in many of the facets of everyday living. The utility of technology has given way to an almost obsessive dependency on not only these devises but the whole mode of communication they foster. Therein lies the problem and, if one doesn’t see that, it must be concluded that the machines are winning in the war to preserve human interaction.
    Take a close look, for instance, at the widespread deterioration of the English language. Accepting that school curriculum may hold a good part of the fault here, the apparent failure of so many to approximate good grammar has to be rooted to a good degree in the lack of language skills required to send and receive text messages, often riddled with shorthand and short cuts, completely abandoning what used to be prized as correct syntax. And this is not limited to everyday conversation. Simply listen to even the alleged high level news broadcasts. The constant misuse of words and the lack of correct sentence structure is appalling.
    One can be driven to screaming with the abundance of plural subjects connected to singular verbs. The constant and continual misuse of certain words like “possibly” simply adds to the fire. Do they even teach grammar and syntax in schools any more ? Would the students of today have any clue as to how to diagram a sentence ?
    Another facet of our world of modern technology that should be seriously reassessed as being self defeating is the world of the career search. Back then, one would address a well written – and grammatically correct – cover letter and a professionally composed resume and forward it to the CEO ( or the actual hiring manager – not to be confused with the Human Resources Office ) of the organization to which one was seeking employment. Then the process would continue with discussion, screening by the organization and its managers, first round interviews, second round interviews, and on to an offer being made. OK, maybe not quite as simple as that but that’s the general gist of the process. These days, one is at the mercy of not only so called HR specialists who, for the most part, have no clue about the demands of the position for which they are recruiting, but the short list for even their consideration is developed by a computer scan, searching for those critical buzz words which usually have no connection to the real world. And all this can be moot if the computerized system fails to recognize a certain web browser, never receives the application in the first place because the “ sending web site “ fails to operate or, as is all too often then case, the documents are received in such format disarray that they are not even reviewed.
    Sadly, and we have discussed this at length earlier, many highly qualified candidates fail to achieve a seat at the table because companies and organizations are so fixated on computerized processing.

    And speaking of being fixated, how about the newest obsession in the world of schooling – on line education. While one can accept the utility of some coursework being offered on line, particularly in the fashion of long distance learning, the question needs to be asked, at what cost are we offering education on a computer monitor rather than in a classroom where a student can intellectually and socially interact with other students ? A survey course in history, for instance, might well be offered on line if it is only purposed to present a chronological calendar of events, leaving out any discussion of the impact of those events, let alone the opinions of others about that impact. Take for instance this scenario. Picture yourself in a large university community with a huge international population. It is 1968, the height of the Viet Nam war and newspapers from all over the world are covering this mess, offering not only facts and figures but also opinions as to the what, how and why and wherefore of it all.
    The discussions are constant, sometimes heated and always bringing various and highly varied opinions to the table. Can you get that on a computer monitor ? What about discussing a new discovery in the solar system ? Would a discussion discussion of this be more productive in a chat room or or in a classroom where one can actually see the persons who are offering opinions ? After all, seeing ones expressions are a significant part of communication unless, of course, one is completely robotic.
    Another concern – one fails to see how any educational institution can offer a degree, especially a professional degree with a critically shortened timeline and conducted totally in a chat room. Sorry, it just doesn’t float for this writer and the lack of experience in a socratic setting plays out in the real world as inability to discuss, debate and negotiate a program, a project, a plan of action or anything else for that matter.

    One is not completely anti – technology here, nor a technophobe. Technology and its modern applications have allowed us humans to make major strides in securtiy, medicine, travel, and yes, indeed, communication. In some ways it has advanced our way of living and in some ways, in the quality of living. However, it is sometimes quite scary that a whole wave of seeming dependency has crept in to our way of life.
    Albert Einstein once mused “ I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots “ ! OK, that might be a bit extreme but there is truth to many of the grains of this thought. It is especially true when entering the realm of social interaction as well as, as noted earlier, our ability to discuss and debate. It is apparent to some of us that one root cause for all the hostility out there might just might be that widespread inability to engage in civil discourse unless and until some screen on a lap top or tablet or phone didn’t provide directions !

  • THOSE FOUR ARE STILL HAUNTING US

    Every four years there is a major event in this country that captivates pretty much all of us – the election of a new president. For whatever reasons – positive or negative, liberal or conservative, pro this or anti that – we all have a stake in the outcome. At least, we should all see it that way because we do.

    Regardless of how one feels about the process or the system under which it operates, it is a big deal and all should be of interest and prompt participation by all who are eligible.
    In 2000, the Clinton administration was coming to an end and the candidates for the highest office in the land were jousting for position for the final battle – the November election. After a long campaign season, it all came down to two – George W. Bush and Albert “ Al “ Gore.
    Election Day was November 7th, but the election was far from over by the end of that day. In what can only be described as a legal battle more convoluted than a halloween corn maze, the Supreme Court finally had to intervene. It heard arguments and then remanded the key issue back to the Florida Supreme Court.It was their ruling which allowed the then Florida Secretary of State’s declaration of George Bush as the winner in Florida to stand. This gave Mr Bush the needed electoral votes to take the election, win the presidency and move in to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We have been paying the price ever since for that curious maneuvering of the court system which in effect appointed the president.
    Mr Bush took office in January, 2001 and the journey down a very hard road began. Over the next few years, budgets got out of hand, tax breaks for the wealthy were the stock and trade of the administration and between January 2001 and March 2004, over 1.6 million jobs were lost. This trend would continue well in to the administration’s second term – an election jaded by fear and ignorance – when the official unemployment rate went up to near 8 % and, with reckless economic policies providing the impetus, between December 2007 and December 2008, an additional 3.6 million jobs were lost, most going overseas with unchecked outsourcing carried out by multi national corporations farming for profits in the sweat shops of Asia.

    \And then the proverbial manure hit the fan. In spite of many warning signs ( such as the now infamous Phoenix Memos from the FBI Office in Arizona ) the intelligence community failed , or chose not to connect the dots and on September 11, 2001, we were attacked by Islamic agents of Al Qaeda from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It is noteworthy here that the attackers were not from Iraq. This attack precipitated such upheaval on so many fronts, it is hard to gauge the impact even now fourteen years later. What is certain is that a calculated and well planned campaign of fear mongering, outright lies and reckless policy decisions which brought about two unpaid for wars, one of which is still ongoing. There was implemented ( The Patriot Act ) unchecked surveillance on American citizens disguised as keeping the country safe where,it has come out, much of that was to spy on those who were opposed to the wars in the Middle East.
    Those who dared to question the authenticity of the so called rationale for it all were chastised as being unAmerican ( sound familiar ) and in one case, when Ambassador Joseph Wilson made public statements questioning the veracity of Vice President Cheney’s charge that Iraq was importing weapons grade uranium from Africa, a White House senior staffer revealed – outed, if you will – the identity of his wife, a CIA covert operative,a clear violation of law and procedural policy.
    There is much that has since come to light about the lies and chicanery in the administration, orchestrated by the four key actors in all of this – Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld – far too much to discuss here. Suffice it to say that the mess in Iraq cost near 2.2 trillion dollars and near 5,000 American military lives. One can add over 4.4 trillion in costs for Afghanistan. There is no counting for Iraqi and Afghani soldiers or civilians but it is estimated at over 350,000. One cannot even begin to calculate the toll for this total and complete disruption and chaos caused in the Middle East, paving the way for the havoc existing there now. Again, does this sound sound familiar ? The whole truth and probably far more other secrets may not actually ever be made known by the public but, even with what we now know, one needs to ask the question – why has no one been held accountable. Indeed, even the then Secretary of State, General Colin Powell, finally admitted that he knew he was lying to the U N Security council about the status in Iraq. Why have no charges of war crimes been levied against the former president and vice president and their cohorts, the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Advisor ?

    Since those days, to the end of the Administration, reckless economic policies sent the nation in to a deep economic recession rivaling the Great Depression of the twenties and thirties. The administration was handed a modest surplus in the deficit in 2001 but by its end in January 2009, Bush handed a deficit of over six trillion dollars to his successor. The impact of his overall tax plan to date has cost the nation over two trillion dollars in revenue; His policies increased the federal budget by almost 53%. And we are still paying for it.
    In an effort to dilute some of this deep deep red ink, the Bush administration vetoed bills for continuing Child Health Insurance, slashed the Veterans Administration budget and crippled the No Child Left Behind Act ( the Elementary and Secondary Education Act updated ) by so much it was rendered almost useless as a means to improve K-12 education. In addition, as if to add insult to injury, especially to seniors and those on fixed income, Mr Bush pushed hard to privatize Social Security – something which Republican presidents have been pushing since the days of Harry Truman. Fortunately, the fear of not getting reelected held sway with even the GOP members of congress and millions of people dodged that bullet once again.The succeeding administration has had to spend well over what would be acceptable levels just to try to bring some level of stability to a crashing economy.Costs for medical and rehabilitation care for the thousands of returning veterans has skyrocketed to over 134 billion,and , with an obstructionist GOP controlled legislative branch keeping them in tact, those tax cuts for the upper 10% continued to add to the deficit year after year until some modest changes were made in 2013. The Bush years drove us to the very brink of complete fiscal collapse and that red ink is deeper than ever due to his complete reckless abandon regarding the well being of the nation.

    It is time for everyone to acknowledge the damage the Bush administration has and continues to do to this country. The time for an accounting and accountability is now and it is time for those very courts which appointed this traitor and his minions to be held liable for damages caused.

  • WHAT’S IT WORTH

    Of late, there is much discussion about whether or not to substantially raise the minimum wage from its current level of $7.25 dollars an hour. It’s not, by any means, a simple question and there are valid arguments to both sides of this discussion. While not posing a solution, perhaps raising some questions would lend to approaching one which is truly workable.

    After decades of sweatshops and what was tantamount to slave labor in, among other places, the mills and factories of the larger cities, the Roosevelt administration passed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 and, as part of that was a clause which required a minimum wage. It was clearly designed to bring some level os dignity to the labor force and push back against worker exploitation. Over time, the minimum wage rose to its current level of $7.25 per hour. The current administration now wants Congress to change the federal minimum wage and raise it to $10.00 per hour. In fact, there are now several jurisdictions which have done that, some even higher. Many, especially in the fast food market and the big box retail market are calling for a raise to $15.00 per hour as the minimum wage. While this might be nice from an income level for some, there are several questions which must be raised, centering around fairness, economic growth and policy.
    According to several sources, including the BLS and the Census Bureau, a raise to a $10.00 minimum wage could move over 900,000 workers to above the poverty level. This would mean about $20,000 annually, which for an individual would be about $4,000 above the federal poverty level. With the federal poverty level being at $24,250 for a family of our, this helps but does not lift that family out of poverty unless there are at least two breadwinners making at least $12.500.00 each. Also, in order to have this effect, that individual would have to be working a full time forty hour week for a full fifty weeks.The question is, then, will such corporations as the big box retailers and the fast food industry be willing to one, hire far more people at the full time forty hour week and then pay them that minimum wage of $10.00 per hour -PLUS BENEFITS, one might add – ? The first, maybe, the second, decidedly not.  Retailers much prefer manipulating the part time labor market to hiring full time employees The underlying argument here is that, contrary to the assertions of some managers in the business, profit margins are the ruling agenda here and hiring more workers at a full time forty hour week would seriously diminish the part time ( less than a thirty-two hour week ) job market which is still a much needed market. While this is an argument for another place and time, the premise does indeed have some merit.

    Then there is the calling for a minimum wage of $15.00 per hour and this discussion brings up several very different elements for consideration. In addition to those raised above, there is one key element which bears a close look and that is the element of fairness and worth. Do the job requirements demand a wage in the area of $ 30,000 annually and do the prerequisites of the job likewise require that level of compensation. Now before the far far left get going on what the term “worth” connotes, it is not about the worth of a person nor of an individual worker. This is about skills sets and abilities based on schooling and education even before one secures that job. Ask anyone who has searched for a job or better, a career position and they will tell you of the array of requirements – yes, requirements one must have before they will even be considered .
    How does the big box retail market stack up to , say, a school teacher or a social worker or a special education teacher. There are education requirements, training requirements, experience level requirements and sometimes language requirements. Never the less,the average salary for a Child Protective Services case worker – requiring a bachelor’s degree ( in Arizona ) – comes in at about $30,100 for entry level and, with two years experience, about $36,600. Nationally, it’s a bit higher at $42,000. The salaries for school teachers vary almost as widely as case workers. According the the NEA, the starting range is from $24,600 in Montana to a high of $48,800 in New Jersey – again with a college degree required. In Arizona, the beginning average is about $31,800.Special Education teachers have an average starting salary in the range of $33,000 to $40,000, depending on the area. This requires a Bachelors degree plus state certification.Remember, many of those jobs in question in this discussion are tagged as “unskilled” and, at least in earlier times, were pretty much held by high school and college kids paying for their expenses with part time and summer employment. Now things have changed and many are forced to take these heretofore second income type positions as their primary source of income. The point here is that starting at $15.00 per hour would mean a wage not much lower than what “skilled “ and in some cases “professional” position entry level salary levels are offering . One needs to ask, is it – meaning the job – worth it. In some cases, after years on the job, perhaps. In most, especially when the turnover is so high, there is serious doubt.

    And this brings us to that third area – that of policy.
    In earlier years, there were numerous job training opportunities, taking different forms depending on where one was located. They ranged from the famous OIC in Philadelphia to the Job Corp camps around the country. Over time, these opportunities have dwindled. Most recently, the President signed in to law the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which repealed or replaced many previous federally funded job training programs and updated it to more current skills set training. However, like so many laudable efforts inside the beltway, the full funding for this has been stalled, and along with the now probably defunct Jobs Bill of 2011 which focused on jobs rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, we are left with little or no support for this agenda. Sadly, there are continuing statements by corporate HR staffs that for one hundred positions, there are barely sixty qualified applicants.
    The country has not learned the lessons of the past nor has it heard the discussions of labor advocates who while decrying the constant outsourcing of jobs to the Far East,are screaming for new job training opportunities, or at the very least, for corporations to embark on serious investment in the domestic labor force with training programs of their own.
    While many, if not most employers provide both entry level training that is task specific ( mostly !) and ongoing OJT, there does not seem to be an overall concerted effort to foster serious skills training that reflects not only the contemporary job market but also the job markets of the not too distant future. As for career positions, including professional positions, well, let’s say that’s a discussion for another time. Suffice it to say there are numerous training opportunities but most are out of reach financially for many, especially if one is out of work or underemployed.
    It is time indeed for a complete overhaul of the training schema of things and until commerce and government understand that a real partnership on this issue is the only way to succeed, there will be little or no progress.
    In the meantime, one has to ask those questions posed by this discussion and wonder if raising the minimum wage to a level to which many retailers cannot or will not support will do more harm than good and will cause more in the way of strain on the economy.

Archives
Authors
Michael Saunders's avatar

Michael Saunders

Recent Posts
Pages
Calendar
June 2026
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930