inthetrunkroom

You’ve Heard of IT, How about ID

The Congressman from the Illinois 8th ranted on and on one day on the value of the family in his approach to policy. This from a guy who is over $150,000 in arrears on his child support.

The congresswoman from the Washington 8th is a charter member of the GOP Women’s Caucus. In a recent interview, she proclaimed that her party and these women were standing up for the rights of women across America. The Caucus membering twenty-four has the following recent voting record: twenty-two voted against the renewal of the Violence Agianst Women Act; twenty-one voted against insurance coverage for birth control for women; fifteen voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and thirteen of that fifteen voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act.

The Congressman from the Ohio 8th literally screamed on the floor of the House that the Administration had produced no jobs bills while the House had sent numerous to the Senate which were blocked. The facts – the Senate failed to pass the Administration’s Jobs Act because of a filibuster by the Republican members on a procedural issue ; the House sent twelve bills to the Senate for approval but none was a jobs bill. All were bills focused on deregulation.

The presidential candidate from Pennsylvania, a self proclaimed conservative Christian and a Catholic, while espousing his so called ” faith based pro life” posture, was high on the idea of attacking Iran and reengaging in Iraq. Does his pro life stance end at birth ?

A well known Baptist minister living in Florida , while  strong on his  “christian conservative values ” is set against universal access to health care, decries the current President for supporting insurance for birth control for medical reasons and still maintains a close association with one David Barton,  a well known and  avowed Christian extremist who reportedly believes that only Christians should be permitted to hold public office and that Jews should not

The Congressman from the Wisconsin 1st District, Chair of the House Budget Committee, has proffered a budget for F Y 2013 which eliminates Medicare as we know it, privatizes Social Security, cuts billions from federal retirement benefits, eliminates federal unemployment benefits, cuts billions from Medicaid while reformatting it into block grants to states, cuts Food Stamps by  billions,  and calls for the repealing the Affordable Care Act, which would cause denying access to heath care for millions. All this singularly vanishing the safety net for millions and his agenda is, according to him,  in concert with his Catholic faith.

The examples of these contradictions could go on and on and are not limited to one party or the other, even though these days, the GOP seems to be so much front and center and in your face with it all.  These are not only contradictions in many ways but Intellectually Dishonest  -that I D thing – in epidemic proportion.

In academia, the term “intellectual dishonesty” is exhibited when one’s personal beliefs interfere with the pursuit of the truth; when relevant facts are purposefully omitted if they contradict the hypothesis ; when the facts are presented in a consciously misleading way to advance a theory.

In the “Urban Dictionary”, ID is defined as “…advocacy of a positon known to be false ; an argument misused to advance an agenda in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary”.

Webster’s Unabridged defines “intellectual” as a rational person who relies on intellect rather than emotion. It defines “dishonesty” as a lack of honesty, having a disposition to lie and cheat. In short, Fraud.

While this lack of character is found in virtually all sectors of our world, it takes a particularly prominent place in the world of politics.

I would submit that this condition is so pervasive on all levels that it  jeopardizes the entire political system, such as it is. It is beyond a sad state of affairs. It is bordering on criminal, especially when one considers the stakes and the price paid for these tactics. Evidence the invasion of Iraq !

Now I don’t purport to have an answer on this one. I am not certain there actually is one. Society has been plagued with this forever and, truth be know, we all have a share at one time or another on one instance or another. However, in the public sector among elected officials, the level of dishonesty has reached intolerable proportions and I hold that the best way to remedy at least some portion of this is to continue to expose those preeminently guilty of it. I am not the consummate idealist I once was, at least according to some. I accept I have been jaded by my experiences, especially my professional experiences. The gang inside the beltway, though, has a much higher responsibility and we need to be demanding a rather high level of honesty in their dealings. The stakes are life itself for many and ought not be taken as lightly as I see many there do.

It is long overdue to demand this from our representatives in government or take the initiative to remove them from office.

 

At the time she announced her candidacy for the presidency, Michele Bachmann,  Congresswoman from Minnesota, declared that her first task would be to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – so called ObamaCare. Literally screaming at the audience, she  decried the Act as a “job killing law” and, parroting the House leadership, she quoted an alleged CBO ( Congressional Budget Office ) study that showed the Act would cost over 800,000 jobs before 2020. Of course, the facts were quite different. In fact, the so called CBO study she was quoting was not a CBO study at all. It was  actually a study done by the NFIB , conducted in late 2008 and released in January 2009, a full year before the Act was enacted. The Study was conducted by the NFIB, a well know opponent of the Affordable Care Act  and was commissioned by the U S Chamber of Commerced -likewise a champion of repeal. The actual facts, promulgated by an independent study by The Lewin Group, puts the job loss at around 200,000 and most of these would be minimum wage positions. There would be accordingly, a projected gain of over 800,000 jobs, including for hospitals, clinics and insurance companies. The CBO agreed with these calculations.

The other evening, I listened to Greta Van Susteren discuss the state of the deficit, blaming the Obama Administration for the deep vat of red ink. She stated with great surety that the  Bush administration left us with a 4.1 trillion dollar national debt and the remainder was solely the fault of the Obama Administration. The actuals seem slightly different. At  the close of FY 2001 there was a budget surplus with a modest national debt as compared to the previous administration. By the close of FY 2008, the federal deficit was raised to $455 billion dollars and the national debt was raised by 71.9 % to a level of $11 trillion dollars.

All of this is by way of making the key point of the message. I accept that most news outlets have their particular biases. Some lean to the left in presenting their version of the news. Others favor the right. The days of flat out objective newscasts  are gone . [ Fox News, well, that’s another story for another time but suffice it to say that several recently conducted studies concluded that, if your sole source of news was Fox News, you were less informed than if you had watched no news at all !! ]One must watch, read or listen to several sources and then decide on which version to accept as reputable. This is true for regional and national news, as I see it. [ Local news is a bit of a different stripe.] So, whether you choose CBS, NBC, ABC or MSNBC, understand there’s a bit of “leaning” to it all.

The key element here is to spend some serious fact check time. Kind of like “spell check” in a way.  If it matters – and it should – one doesn’t want to sound like an idiot looking for a village as so many these days do.

Back to Rep. Bachmann, I am sure she had little or no clue about what she was proclaiming that evening in North Carolina. What I am sure of is that she parroted what the GOP leadership told her. And therein lies the proverbial rub. The audience there and audiences all over television land probably believed her. That is, except those who either knew the facts or took the time to verify her stern warnings !!

We are plagued with misinformation and prevarications generated by individuals and groups intent on furthering their own agenda. The “commonweal” is of far less concern and of little or no interest when their own successes are at stake. This is especially true for those many single issue organizations, such as the NRA. I tire greatly of not only of the misinformation and some people’s obsessive adherence to it because their ” party loyalty ”  requires it but also of the rampant intellectual dishonesty which prevails in the political arena. In the face of even recent facts – not to mention video evidence of it – it seems that convenient amnesia paired with revisionist editing has reached epidemic proportions. The problem is magnified by what I term an audience ripe with ignorance. No apologies. I have stated on numerous occasions that the level of political ignorance in the U S is frightening and this makes for an easy target for fiction rather than fact.
The preeminent scholar and statesman, Daniel Patrick Moynihan is quoted as having said you are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.  It is a simple but most compelling creed by which to guide one’s words.

And should you be wondering – Rule #3 is: ” Don’t believe what you are told – double check “.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To S.B. OR NOT TO S.B.

We find ourselves these days in a presidential election year and with that all the expected mud slinging, fact twisting and general mayhem all part of that process we endure every four years. There is scant attention to fact – a topic to be dealt with on a later post – and widespread amnesia over how we got to the point we are with each side blaming the other.

There numerous issues on the table, among which are the pressing concerns over job creation, the shaky economy and national security. However, there is, among these, one issue which has bearing on all of these elements. That is the issue of illegal immigration.

This topic sparks discussion and often heated debate nationwide but in the border states, it is of particular and compelling interest. In  Arizona it has become not only the focus of debate and demonstrations but now is the focus of a U S Department of Justice investigation – the target of which is the Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio. The issue before the Court now is not the law, per se,  but as I see it, the implementation of it. The focus of the action of USDOJ is the discriminatory nature of how Sheriff Joe is enforcing the Arizona law, S.B. 1070.What needs to be put out on the table are those other issues which come to the surface because of the “interpretation” and “implementation” of  laws and what effect it is having on so many people.

As I noted in my opening statements “ABOUT” this site, I am urging discussion , not increasing the angst level. There are several sides to this complex issue and, while I strongly hold to the premise that we are a nation of law, there must also be a side of us that looks at the effect of law and take necessary steps to either repeal, reform or further clarify how law is used in governing.

I do not purport to have the answers on this one but I sense that, with some rational debate, a solution that will be acceptable to all sides can be reached.

That being said, allow my take on the subject.

Recently, a young lady graduated from Arizona State University. She achieved honors level GPA from the School of Engineering and was the valedictorian of the senior class. The problem – she will be unable to secure a career here as she is a “illegal”, brought here by her parents when she was very young.

More than once in the recent past, a man was arrested for being  in the country illegally. He and his wife were about to be deported. Then there was the question of the children. The Constitution holds that if one is born in the United States, one is a citizen of the United States. Legal scholars still debate whether or not this applies to children of aliens or of those here illegally, however, the fact remains  that if one is born here, one is a citizen. So, this complicates the deporting of illegals when their children are citizens, does it not ?

As you go out to dinner, or for that matter, have dinner at home and you serve a salad, complete with lettuce or spinach and , say, topped with avocado, there is a darn good chance that your lettuce and spinach came from Yuma  County, Arizona and your avocado came from Southern California. And more than likely, it was all picked by workers here on questionable status at best. The harvesting of these vegetables is not only a source of work for  those thousands hungry for an income but it forms the economic mainstay for a large portion of Southwestern Arizona and Southern California.

So, where does that leave us ? Families being broken up, local economies being crashed, homes not being built and, sadly, seriously capable engineers unable to work and contribute to turning around the skills pool which is at an all time low, according to some compelling research.

And what is the solution. Well, therein lies the yet to be an unanswered question – at least not answered in a fashion which makes social and economic sense.

This will not be easy. Nor will it be accomplished in the obstructionist atmosphere created by the Tea Party Republicans in Congress as it is congress that will have to formulate policy and guidelines to, if not remedy this problem, at least minimize its  negative effects.

Key here is the willingness to view the whole picture and  not the narrowly defined strict letter of the law as written.

For the record, Arizona’s S.B. 1070 provides for “…any lawful contact..” and “..reasonable suspicion” needed to demand proof of citizenship. It provides that its implementation  “…must be in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration and the protecting of the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of U S citizens…”

There is not much doubt that a large majority of those here in the Southwest illegally are from Mexico and Central America. It is not, though, the sum and totality of illegal immigrants.

The expected opinion of SCOTUS notwithstanding, I submit that wholesale “sweeps” of largely Hispanic neighborhoods does not equate to “lawful contact” nor does it equate to “reasonable suspicion”.

 

We will take up this topic again to discuss some strategies but for now, I suggest that the Sheriff’s agenda is simply fodder for orchestrated xenophobia.