inthetrunkroom

In the 1991 movie “City Slickers”, a group of  three city guys in the midst of a mid life crisis of sort find there way to a dude ranch type program where they take on a real life Cattle Drive. They meet up with the trail boss, Curly, played by the inimitable Jack Palance – a real character with a whole bunch of , shall we say, idiosyncrasies. In the course of a conversation between Curly and Mitch ( Billy Crystal ) , Curly speaks about “the one thing “. Now, This may work on a cattle drive and for some, might be good advise in the business world. A single product or service honed to the top of the game.. All in all, perhaps a reasonable way to go. However, is this good practice in the world of politics or in the process of deciding an election. Allow me.

Recently, a Memorandum came out from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) requiring that firearms dealers located in the border counties in California, Arizona , New Mexico and Texas alert them to multiple purchases of semi-automatic rifles with the capacity for exchangeable magazines. The purpose was to alert ATF about possible dealings across the Mexican border, a rather lucrative business these days. Without getting in to the blatant stupidity of the “Fast & Furious” project and the mess that followed,  this requirement seemed to be a rational idea. It was not intended to outright ban the sale but rather to alert ATF as to who was buying in bulk, so to speak, especially semi-automatic assault type weapons.

Immediately, the NRA pounced on this as being a clear infringement of rights under the Second Amendment. Of course, that it had little to do with infringing didn’t seem to matter. I called the NRA office in Virginia and spoke with a young lady who, over and over, gave me the company line about the Second Amendment. That this requirement was one way to address the pressing issues in border counties and weapons trafficking made no difference. I tried to press the discussion but then she abruptly hung up.

So, the NRA’s position appears to be this – no matter what the consequences, no matter what the effect, especially those of an international importance,  the NRA will stand for the Second Amendment, or rather their interpretation of it and anything which in any way SEEMS to be any sort of infringement under the Second Amendment will be fodder for its canons.

Many Catholic groups today as before are  hard at pointing out that the Democratic platform supports access to birth control. The opposition to birth control stance – no matter if it is for medical purposes or for actual contraception – is one which the Church has consistently taken as part of its philosophy and tenet of  faith. Whether or not one agrees with it or not is up to the individual. What I found to the point at hand is that many Catholics were perfectly willing to vote, for instance in the 2008 election, based  a lot on that single issue, for the opposition – Senator John McCain. The same senator who doesn’t believe you’ve served your country unless you’ve fought a war ! The same senator who testified before a senate committee expressing regret that funding and involvement in the Viet Nam war was discontinued and  then stood by as the Bush administration lied its way into war in Iraq.

Simple examples of how single agenda lobbying or interest groups – and I fold churches in to that group – can sway an entire voting block. I don’t particularly fault the lobbying group. It is, after all, their role to press their point of view and push their  often singled  minded agenda. However, is it not the responsibility of the voting population to sift out what is valuable and what is not ? What is compelling and what is not ? And most of all, what is the broader view of the agenda of either the political party or the candidate himself or herself as it impacts the society as a whole.

The current election race is a prime example. While some may like the GOP side of having big business control so many facets of our lives, including health care, and get rich doing it,  are you willing to have the principle elements of the Ryan budget become the paradigm for government while sacrificing education, clean water and air and a safe interstate highway system ?  Should you be  willing to eliminate Medicare and other safeguards for those who do or will need it ? Should you be willing to subsidize the wealthiest corporations in the world while forty-eight million children are food insecure ? ( Cf.Feed America .Org and the Con Agra Food Foundation )

These are indeed the questions one must ask. While taking a look at certain aspects of  rule or precept, one must also take the broader context into consideration. Simply put, policy myopia has no place in  the discussion or the decision process if one is to be rational about it all. To stand in concert with the beliefs of one’s church is one thing.  To inflict – and I mean inflict the agenda of the GOP and the Ryan budget  – an agenda which would be nothing short of a catastrophe for the country – is not what I think any church should be all about. It must  take the broader context into consideration on this one. The issues around sectarian rules, whichever church we are addressing, need to be a matter  for the individual.

The context of ones church is similar to non sectarian organizations or associations. They have certain creeds and beliefs, if you will, and that is usually what attracts their membership. All well and good. However, my take is that it is contingent upon the leadership of those organizations to, if not support a particular platform or plank within, at the very least  provide factual information from both sides of the question. This is what I hold is the honest and ethical way to proceed. Then, after all, when one enters the voting booth, it is all up to the individual.

Every four years we grind out a presidential election. It is sometimes a battle between parties, sometimes a virtual three ring circus. Most of the time most voters are casting their vote for one of two reasons. Either it is for a candidate or, more usually it is against a candidate. However, in this year of 2012, we are faced with a quite different reality. This time  it is more about the future of our nation and particularly the state of the union over the next decade and whether, or better, who will survive and in what condition will they find themselves. The presidential election for 2012 has implications for so many on so many levels. It is more than an election. It is, indeed, a choice of monstrous importance and of frightening consequences.

On the one hand, we have the incumbent Democrat.

While there are some flaws in the path that the President has taken, the intent to bring this nation back on to some level of an even keel is clearly evident. While he has been criticized for increasing the debt, one must acknowledge that, as did FDR, the administration rightfully found it necessary to spend in order to stimulate. According to Professor Joseph Stiglitz, noted economist, former Vice President of the World Bank and professor at Columbia University, “… no national economy practicing austerity policies has succeeded in turning around economic crisis.”During the past three plus years, the administration has made some progress on a domestic agenda, in spite of calculated gird lock in Congress.We have seen the passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act which, while it has some issues to be worked out, does or will in fact open the doors to health care for millions who previously could not afford care, assuming SCOTUS doesn’t screw it up. We saw subsidized COBRA for the unemployed with an extension of benefits to ninety-nine weeks – a provision only to be reduced to fifty- nine weeks by the GOP controlled House, causing over 230,000 unemployed to lose benefits in June 2012.We saw the Lilly Ledbetter Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act , passage of the the Dodd-Frank Act, the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau, the Violence Against Women Act ( blocked by the GOP in the House) and the rescue of the auto industry. In the face of blatant obstructionism on the part of the GOP, there are some things to celebrate.

And one MUST present the picture of what the economy was at the start of this administration in January 2009

After a period of Democratic control , with fiscal controls engaged, a reduced debt level, we had an actual budget surplus, At the end of FY 2000, a Democrat finally not only balanced the budget but handed over at the close of his term, a budget surplus of over $237 billion dollar surplus. By the end of FY 2001 -September 30, 2001, the Bush Administration had already decreased that surplus to  $127 billion, having incurred a $33.52 Billion dollar deficit by year’s end – ( source- CNN Money and other sources ).  Through fiscal policies which included unpaid for massive tax breaks for the upper 10 % of income earners ( costing to date over 2 trillion dollars ), an unpaid for wars in two theatres  (in Iraq alone the bill was $829 billion, covered by loans to the Overseas Contingency Fund ) and unpaid for pharmaceutical plans, the previous Republican administration  added 71.9 % to the national debt,  bringing the debt to over $11.2 trillion dollars. This was the fiscal starting point in January 2009.

On the other side of the coin is the GOP presumptive nominee. This is a  highly successful venture capital business executive who specialized in take over profiteering to gain hundreds of millions in profits. Acknowledging there were a number of companies who succeeded under Bain Capital, many were destroyed and the taxpayer was left holding the bag for pension funds. Is this the type of model we wish for government ? Remember Hoover and his business model ! This is a candidate who is already on record as unequivocally supporting the Ryan Budget Plan- one which would eliminate Medicare and replace it with a “Supportive Voucher” plan, forcing seniors to go to the private insurance market for coverage ; one which would cut Medicaid by $810 Billion and block grant it to the states with the provision to opt out entirely. A plan, which according to the CBO, would in fact add over $240 billion to the debt. A plan which would make permanent the Bush era tax breaks (costing to date over $2 trillion in revenue ), sacrificing even more revenue at a time when it is needed he most. And one needs to ask the question, do we want someone in the White House who wants to eliminate EPA, Commerce and Education ? One who at one time supported universal health care with the individual mandate but now is adamantly opposed ?  One who believes that if you can’t afford college, shop around for a cheaper style of education ? One who believes that the auto industry should have been left to crash into bankruptcy ?  Should government be all about profits? And all this while maintaining Cayman Island and European bank accounts to avoid paying taxes.

It should be clear where this will go and I fear that, paired with widespread political ignorance and wholesale misinformation flooding the media, along with an extremist far right anti government mentality gaining more and more traction,  this nation will continue down a road to perdition. But that’s my take and, in the end, the decision is up to each individual voter and huge money special interests notwithstanding, that still remains the CHOICE !

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.