A Simple Approach to Education and Politics

As the new school year commences, education is under attack in our country. Who's attacking education? Isn't education a good thing? True education is learning HOW to think, not just absorb information. To learn history, what actually happened in the context of the time. To recognize that education is not a casual and superficial attempt to obtain a degree of some sort. It's about training your brain to obtain wisdom.

When students ask me what my political views are, I say that I support education, science, the environment, and, of course, the democratic principles that allow for free voting, free expression--which includes the individual pursuit of happiness--legitimacy of institutions, and peaceful transitions of power! 

 

A Culture of Guns Feeds the Kind of Violence We Just Witnessed in Orlando. Which God Instructs His Children that Homosexuality is a Horrible Sin Worthy of Death?

If only there was another good person with a machine gun, or at least an assault automatic weapon to take down the Orlando shooter before he killed all those good people. Same, with all the other instances where unarmed civilians are gunned down by crazies all of our beloved country of ours. 

Now, I'll keep a moment of silence, after which I'll pronounce that my thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. All of these acts, of course, will do nothing to help the past, present, and future victims of gun violence. 

The NRA is defending the interests of the gun sellers and manufacturers not the gun owners. It gets support from knuckleheads who believe that the more guns the more freedom people have. This is a libertarian paradise where the enemy is always the government, the communists and the non-xtians. Except we had this ...paradise in the early days of our republic--where Trump wants to take us back to--and it didn't work.

Yes, a gun in the hands of a good person may stop a bad person with a gun, but there are downsides as the proliferation of guns leads to more deaths. This is a fact. I include deaths from disputes with people having access to deadly weapons, suicides, children who shoot themselves or others, etc. There's no good reason, in my mind, why civilians should have access to assault rifles and high powered guns with big ammo clips. Such weapons must be banned. And, yes, it can be done in these United States if we wanted to. We have had a violent past (and present), a history of the vast frontier, wild men and untamed nature. But, so was Australia. They banned most weapons there and they have a huge reduction in crime involving firearms. 

Now, there's another sensitive issue in relation to the mass shooting in Orlando on Sunday. Many have said that the crazy gunman may had been offended by the gay culture but, guess what, his actions had nothing to do with religion!

Really?! All three Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--teach that homosexuality is an abomination, a sin, worthy of the most severe punishment in human societies and in hell. The Abrahamic god is not tolerant, or loving, but angry, petulant, vindictive against the children of his creation, who are designed with imperfections and are worthy of condemnation and punishment of death for exercising their right to pursuit of happiness.

If you still choose to remain silent, sorry to say, you're part of the problem and for perpetuating violence and primitive superstitions. 

Update 6/14/16: This video by Samantha Bee just came out and it nails the points I'm making here.

The Democrats Make History But Most of the Work Begins Now Until the November Election. Oh, and Trump is a Man-child Loser.

Taking America back to greatness;
ah, the good 'ol times!

We're going to have a woman president for the first time in our nation's history, but this is not the most important reason to look forward to this election and beyond... It's the progressive direction--through executive action and per Supreme Court--that our country will take, and perhaps we may get a modern conservative party instead of this medieval GOP.

Young Trump at the Chipendale auditions.
He didn't make the cut,
because of his small hands.

Polls aren't accurate at this point, though based on several variables--like demographics, and economic indicators--Hillary Clinton should be able to comfortably win this election. I think Trump is not a uniter, and even though many Republicans will fall in line, there won't be a united effort. It looks like 1964 again. If I had to bet right now, I'd say we'll see a repeat of a Lyndon Johnson drubbing of Goldwater. 

One way to look it, though not necessarily a predictor, is whether Trump can do better than Romney 4 years ago. Yeah, you say, but there's no incumbent president and it's not the norm that the same party gets a third presidential term.  However, the economy is doing OK, low unemployment and no inflation, so Trump's argument (which is absolutely bullshit) he can make better deals won't look as credible alternative, especially when more Americans learn about the deals and the scams he's done building his empire.

So, Romney got 59% of the whites to 39% of Obama, and 27% of Latinos. I don't see Trump doing better with these numbers. Then how about the women who are the majority of the voters? In 2012, Obama won the women's vote by 12 points, whereas Romney won the men's vote by 8 points. It's expected that Hillary will get more that 12 points among women voters in 2016.

Images of the Great Leader everywhere in Trumpmurca,
by decree of the Dear Leader.

What's worse for Trump is that where he's very strong doesn't really help him--he may be getting 90% of the white voters in the South, but in many "blue" states he will lose the white vote. The Latino/Hispanic vote will most definitely not be as good as 27% for Trump as it was for Romney. In addition, millions of new Latinos are being registered to vote, and there's a real movement to vote against a bigot like Trump.

KAOS will be defeated

I watched both speeches last night as the two presumptive nominees spoke after their last round of victories. Hillary was amazingly good I thought. Unless you're totally blinded by bias, there's only one person qualified to be president. I'm not talking about policy or ideology; I'm talking about maturity, temperament, and skill.  I think this is the theme Hillary should pursue and not engage in mudslinging; let others attack Trump and get under his skin by talking his language. This doesn't mean that she can't be critical, but she should refrain from making statements like he needs a psychologist to figure out why Trump says whatever... 

Bernie ran a needed campaign but he may have gone a bit too far. Still, he can be a very important player in this election by marshaling his army into a "stop-Trump" movement. He has to tell his supporters that Trump is not an acceptable choice for president, and that the Dems need to take back control of the Senate so he, Sanders as a leader in the Senate, can push through more progressive legislation, and, oh, let's not forget the Supreme Court, where the Dems can confirm liberal judges to the high court. In the next 4 to 8 years, Hillary will nominate at least 2 new justices. The court can finally speed up the progressive direction of our country.

What's Obama's Game with His Nomination to the Supreme Court?

Many progressives are aghast at the president's nomination to the Supreme Court, for two main reasons. One, judge Merrick Garland is in his 60s, and two, he's a centrist. This is not the best we hoped for. Yes, he is qualified, and under an ideal environment whereas the Republican party was a centrist, and a Republican president would also nominate a centrist, Garland would be acceptable. Those days are long gone though.

President Obama may be in his moderate self, trying to reach across to the other party, as he's tried to do all these years. He should have learned by now, that moderation ain't working. On the other hand, maybe the president calculated that the obstructionist GOP senators will not budge and thus his nominee is a sacrificial lamb to highlight how extreme these senators are by not accepting even a reasonable nominee.  

However, I would not have advised the president to do this. Things can happen, like public pressure that may make the Senate give in and consider this nominee, and, who knows, he may get confirmed if the conservatives realize they may lose the control of the Senate and get a more liberal nominee under president Clinton. So, again, not a good idea to nominate Garland.

No matter what the Republicans choose to do, this supreme court's annual session will end by June with no new justice being seated. Soon after that, the conventions will take place, and there will be lots of national polls about the strength of the two presidential candidates. It's possible that, if Trump is being blown out of the water by Clinton, the Republicans might reconsider their stance and re-examine Garland's nomination.

But, I'm also betting these Republicans aren't acute enough to realize the gamble they're undertaking by not holding hearings for this nomination. And, they may be stubborn enough to be willing to lose control of the Senate too. If I were advising them, I would have called Obama's bluff when he leaked that he was considering a former Republican governor of Nevada for the Supreme Court. The conservatives should have said, yes, if he's the nominee, we're most certainly interested! They should take Garland, because they can't be sure they'll get a better one even under president Trump. (OK, I fell off my chair as soon I put "president" and "Trump" together)

What should Hillary Clinton do in this matter? Well, we all hope she'll nominate a much more liberal and younger judge--one who can stay on the high court for 30 years, like Scalia. I'd also argue that she should nominate--and already begin to indicate--a very liberal judge, because the democratic base will demand it, the public would be disgusted by the obstructionist Republicans, and it'll be natural for her to nominate an exact opposite of Scalia.

I think Hillary will be more politically savvy than this president, who wasted 1,5 years when he took office by delegating to Congress two of his top agenda items, immigration reform and health care reform. He lost his momentum. Political capital--and he had plenty when he took office--must be spend quickly or it evaporates. He should have told Congress that he's the new boss in town, having won by a landslide, that he wanted this and that and no less. Instead he squandered precious time and a Democratic majority in both chambers in Congress.

If Hillary wins there should be no wasting time and no need to compromise with a broken, dysfunctional Republican party. It is that party that needs to move to the center to be a partner of reasonable politics. The GOP as it is caters to the extremes, like the Dems did to the KKK in the 1920s. That Dem party killed the moderates, like Al Smith from New York, and eventually had to be broken up, until a new winning coalition was put together by FDR.

I may never vote for a Republican but I do want a sensible, centrist GOP; it'll be good for our country. The way our system is designed, with power dispersed among the branches, and that the executive doesn't have control of the legislature, compromise is often necessary; that's how we get things done. But compromise has to be among reasonable people who at least agree about reality. 

It's natural to disagree about priorities and values, but facts are facts, science is science, etc. Sadly, this Republican party is divorced not only from modernity but also from reality. All modern advanced liberal-social-democracies have a parties that form a consensus on reality, like science, education, environment, and many social safety net features. No, not our Republican party.

As for the third "super Tuesday" Trump not only won most states but he was fortunate to lose Ohio to Kasich. The latter will stay in the game and in the next 17 winner-take-all states, Trump only needs the plurality to win all the delegates.  

Some other random thoughts

• Kasich is not a moderate, only appears so compared to the extremists of his party;
• I can't decide if I want Trump to win the majority of the delegates before the convention or watch hand to hand combat later at the GOP convention if he's a little short of the majority. I think of all the candidates of both parties, some 20 of them, only Trump puts himself above his party, which means he may break the party up if he's denied the nomination.  
• I used to believe that Cruz would be a more beatable Republican in the general election since he's so bat-crazy. I also thought that the GOP might change after suffering another crushing defeat with a true conservative as its nominee; they would own the defeat with Cruz  as the nominee, but not necessarily with Trump--who may be dismissed as not a true Republican. 
• I now think Trump spells bigger problems for the GOP, so I'm looking forward to an entertaining campaign season. However, I wish this charade didn't take place. We shouldn't have charlatans, con artists, and gutter politics in such prominence; they belong in the lunatic fringe.

Divided Government, Stark Partisanship & Gridlock, but Elections Matter because of their Consequences

As amazing as it may sound to those who follow politics, many people in our country don't really understand the role the US Supreme Court plays. They see the fight between president Obama and Congress about nominating a new justice as another political game. Many of my students when asked how does the high court affect their lives couldn't come up with specific cases that determined the conditions and direction of our country. A few mentioned the Roe v. Wade case and then a couple others remembered the decisions about "Obama care" and same-sex marriage.

It's the same view the general public has that things will work out, more or less regardless who's on the Supreme Court, and to similar extend in Congress. Oh, yeah, there's partisanship and some hot-button issues, but most of us have picked a team (like in sports), and we hope for the best while we expect to be disappointed by the way our political system works.

I hope this issue of getting the 9th justice on the supreme court is an educational opportunity in many ways. For starters, it highlights the principle of division of power, checks and balances. Or, how the US model separates the executive (president) from the legislature (Congress) in contrast to most western countries where the executive (usually a prime minister) control the majority of seats in the legislature (parliament). 

On this topic, I wish the media asked the presidential candidates the following question, "How do you expect to do all the things you say you will do when we have a divided government, and in all probability--judging from the last many years--Congress will not go along with your plans?"   

As for the supreme court, the president gets to nominate, and eventually gets someone he chose confirmed. The Senate cannot reject or delay forever. I can see why the Democrats might have opposed a G W Bush nomination in 2008 a few months before the election, but conservative presidents choose conservative judges, like liberals choose their kind. The times of "mainstream" or truly independent candidates for the supreme court are over. The two parties are far apart, primarily because the Republican party has left the mainstream.

Also, an appointment to the high court with its eventual effect on our society is part of a president's legacy. The stakes are high, especially in a politically, and I dare say culturally, divided country. That's why presidents now look to nominate someone in their late 40s or early 50s so they can stay on the court for 30 years!  Funny, thing, I asked my students if they could imagine themselves age 50 and they almost fell off their seats. They got the point though that the next ..supreme will be on the high court making decisions affecting their lives until they reach age 50!


Heck, that's a good reason to register and vote!

Lincoln's Decision to Use Silver to Kill Vampires & Warewolves Instead of Buying Slaves Cost the Nation Dearly! (Enjoy Your Black History Month)

We like to believe what makes us feel good; it's called confirmation bias. So, why look any further? Oh, I don't know, it might be OK to keep in touch with reality, because understanding reality may have something to do with the decisions we make in real life.

How about history, the past? Bygones let them be bygones. There's no harm in revising history to fit a narrative we promote in contemporary politics. Racism, bigotry? All in the past. No need to have legal protections for people who may have had problems in the past--as the conservatives on the Supreme Court now tell us when they rule that racism is practically over, and that uninhibited access to voting, especially in the South and in GOP-dominated areas is good and dandy.

Personally, I find willful ignorance annoying. Those who spread stupidity and lies--like almost everyone at Faux News--are doing a disservice to our country. If I were to use their rhetoric, they're like Hitler holocausting history, and committing treason for betraying our country's noble mission statement, all men are created equal, and of-by-for the people.

 Revisionist history of the worst kind. The bullcrap of Faux News

 Just before Black History month ends (February), the vile opinionators (like that ass judge Napolitano in this video) at Fox News attempt to distort reality again. Jon Stuart's show has the perfect comeback.

President(s)' Day Thoughts.

President(s)' Day today honoring... well, whatever states want, though the federal holiday is about George Washington who was born not today (2/17th but on the 22nd). Several states mark the occasion differently. Guess what? Lincoln's birthday (2/12) is included in this except in the South. I wonder why. So the third Monday in February is set for "president(s)" to sell all sorts of consumer stuff and some patriotic version of history.

The General with a maid in his headquarters, Newburgh, NY

I feel patriotic, so stop the caustic emails. But, this doesn't prevent me from trying to learn about the truth--as much as it can be ascertained--and examine causes and effects. Let's start by asking, what is patriotism? And, where, why did it start? The notion of patriotism begins with the notion of patris--country. So, how did the British citizens in the 13 colonies see themselves in the 1770s?

Musket warfare

Under the mercantile economic system, there was a zero-sum game: for every winner it had to have a loser. The colonies were a source of wealth for the then empires, and under imperial policy, the colonies were there to exploit the local resources and populations for the benefit of the mother country. It was forbidden for the colonies to trade with anyone else. But, that didn't prevent the American colonists from breaking the law to enrich themselves. When Britain turned the screws, they rebelled. Yes, the economic elites in the colonies had an economic reason for self-governance and thus a revolution.

The Tea Party rebellion? Well, it was triggered by Britain's decision to give the East India Co. the monopoly of the tea trade, thus crippling American economic interests, not withstanding that the EIC tea was cheaper and of better quality. The colonies had enjoyed a relative independence to conduct their own "internal" affairs and the New World had unique conditions, like the reality of the expanding frontier. All these factors made for a different breed of a citizen. 
 

Harbrouck House, New Paltz, NY.

Yet, even at the break of the revolution, most Americans in the colonies [let's not forget they were other "Americans" in the continent too] were British citizens. Even the Declaration of Independence demonstrates that the colonists believed they were denied their British rights of life, liberty and property, and, therefore, had a right, indeed a duty, to replace a government after a "long train of abuses."

The ideology of liberalism with its "natural rights for every man" that came out of the Enlightenment was used as the foundation of the regime of the new country to be. But, it would take a long time to turn those Americans into patriotic United States of America citizens. Patriotism primarily evolved along with the formation of the modern state in the last 2-3 centuries. Allegiance was to one's own tribe, ethnic or religious group, and later to a city-state or a larger state, like New York. Most Americans then identified their loyalties to their particular states, not the US. Fully 1/3 of the colonists remained loyal to Britain; most were expelled, many were killed, a few remained.

Class System, Order of the Universe

The belief that the universe had an ordained, divine order was widespread. A rigid class system prevailed too. Yes, it was possible for merchants to elbow their way into the upper caste--like the despised nouveau riche by the "old money" aristocracy--but everybody "knew their place." Old Europe operated on this scheme, so it's amazing that the ideas of liberalism sprouted and even used as ideals for a new state/country. Of course, anyone who has watched docudramas of the last 200 years or has visited the mansions of the rich knows how society worked those days.

The elites often went to war against each other for power and wealth, but they had their code of honor which meant that death would be visiting primarily the lower-class soldiers and civilians. It was against military honor to shoot at officers of the opposing army! George Washington could have been killed by British snipers on a couple occasions but he was spared because he was an officer. The Americans didn't shoot at British officers either...  Well, some American riflemen, often despised by both sides, broke this code by indiscriminately killing British infantry and officers. Nowadays, taking out the enemy command is standard military strategy; not back then, which is incredible if you think about it. The thinking, I'm going to let the enemy generals be so their army can be more effective against me and my side, is totally crazy unless....

At first, it seems natural that the French would side and aid the American colonists in their war of independence. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, as they say. But, it was a troubling decision since rebelling against the crown was a no-no among all royal houses of Europe. Yes, royal factions could engage each other, even in civil war, but challenging the notion of monarchy was evil. 

George Washington could have been king after the revolution, though to his credit he did not wish it and admonished those who proposed a monarchy for the new country. While in Newburgh, NY, he communicated with many domestic leaders and urged for a constitutional republic. The constitution of 1787 provided a blueprint for a federal country, which is still evolving today. Many of the good changes and ideas come from the top, the educated elites, but also as the result of bloody conflicts.

The country the presidents we're celebrating today knew is much different today, and I think for the better. It's OK to appreciate the effort and the good ideas of past leaders, but I don't think we need to idealize-idolize them. Some were very progressive while most were trapped in their time & culture. There's no divine order in human society; it's what we make of ourselves, our understanding of the important issues, and the policies we can muster for a good life for every citizen, indeed a human being.

Fictional rendition of the Delaware river crossing (note the "U.S. flag")

Goodbye Pete Seeger. Many Thanks to this Great American Patriot

At the Strawberry Festival, Beacon 2013

The machine that kills hate! Pete's banjo

Sad news today that a symbol of civic activism and engaged citizenship has died. Yet, Pete Seeger lived a full life, inspiring several generations of Americans (and not only) to affect change to benefit the poor and the middle class. I met the man several years ago, when I moved to the Hudson valley and kept bumping into him at various events. He lived in Beacon, NY, where he had built his own cabin decades ago.

I wasn't really surprised the see a 90+ year old man to lead one march of the Occupy Wall Street when that movement sprouted a few years ago in NYC. It was Pete's kind of thing to support such causes.

I took this picture at the Strawberry Festival in Beacon, 2012

A self-described communist (with a small "c") and a people's advocate, he was often persecuted by various authorities in the US. We like to think that our country always had the best democracy and copious amounts of freedom, but it ain't true. Pete was given one year sentence for contempt of Congress after he refused to cooperate with Congress's witch hunt of those engaged in "un-American activities." Later this sentence was overturned. But, he was blacklisted and

"Backstage" but always ready to perform

barred from radio and tv for many years because of his political beliefs and activism. No matter, he continued to perform all over the country to big audiences. At it is often the case, radicals of one era are venerated later and recognized for their contributions. In 2009, Pete performed at the inauguration of Barack Obama.


The Hudson river is one of the great rivers in the US. I live by the beautiful Hudson so I take the time to look at it every day from my house, and of course sit by it for long periods at various locations up and down, on either bank. Pete loved the river and helped many efforts to clean it up. He supported the Clearwater Sloop--a boat and an organization devoted to the preservation of the river. The Clearwater Festival takes place in Croton on Hudson, usually in June; two days of music and awareness. Great place to be. Pete was there last summer. Pete liked to tell lots of stories and I'll always treasure those and our brief chats about political activism.


We'll miss him. 


*Click on the pictures above to make them bigger. I retain the rights to these pictures.

A Summer Break of Sorts....

The widest point of the Hudson river. There are many places around where the night sky is visible as light pollution isn't bad.


***

This summer is fleeting as far as I'm concerned. If I were a lifeguard, I'd be having the winter blues about now. OK, I promised myself to take any opportunity available this August, which just started, to do something interesting and create memories. Yes, we are who we are to a great extend by the experiences we have and our memories. Even if all else remained the same--disposition, character, intelligence, etc--without the particular memories I have, I wouldn't be the same person, for better or worse.

Anyway, I've been engaging in all sorts of projects and thus haven't taken many pictures, which is one of my favorite hobbies.  But, I do keep my eye on the surroundings and I make frames in my mind. Much of photography is about framing. The focus, the emphasis, the point of view. 

From a recent gallery exhibit in Beacon, NY, titled "the XXX show" or something like that.

Photography has changed humanity, because this technology has enabled us to capture moments that many can't be replicated. A camera can be seen as a time machine. Recording, documenting, and ultimately reinforcing our memories.

The visual often has a greater impact on people's minds. Human rights abuses, civil rights movements, natural phenomena & catastrophes, for example, sensitize a greater number of people.

It's the generations after the late 1980s or more likely the 1990s that have their lives documented so much in pictures and videos, oh, and emails, and other social media. The older among us know that it wasn't always like this. We don't have many pictures from our earlier life. I grew up with film photography. I learned the art working with a totally manual camera--all the settings had to be adjusted depending on the conditions--which meant I had to understand what aperture, speed, ISO, clouds, sun, flash, etc, all did. The film had 24-36 frames and it had to be developed; no instant feedback nor gratification. 

It got to be very expensive and my Olympus SLR was getting old. Needed new expensive lenses. I dropped this hobby for many years until the new digital technology arrived.

I got my first digital camera in the early 2000s, and a good one (for its time) in 2004 while working for a US presidential candidate in Cleveland, Ohio, as part of the media team. Once I made the transition I was elated I could take up my old hobby and enjoy it even more. So many more options and possibilities. Easier to share too.

***

We've heard how the TV played a major role in the election of 1960. By that time almost every household in the US had a TV set. That period marked the transition from party politics to media politics. The candidates increasingly relied on TV images to get their message out and attract votes. The party power decreased as a result. Nowadays, it's the candidates themselves that raise most of the money, decide when to run and on what issues. 

Under the George Washington bridge on the Jersey side

By the way, one of the problems in our system is gridlock, divided government is often the norm, that is, different party blocks control power; one the Executive and another the Congress (or one of its Houses) so there's gridlock. 

What's stranger is that the members who can cause dysfunction come from areas of the country that are far from the mainstream. For example, the Senate Minority leader--whose stated priority has been to make Obama a failure under any cost--comes from very conservative Kentucky. His political fortunes depend on representing this brand of backward conservatism, because the votes for his (re)election come from there. As conservative as he is, he'll have an even more conservative [I say, a wingnut tea partier] challenger in the Republican primary!

I shouldn't have started on politics, but maybe there's no free will as Sam Harris (among others) contends, so I steered into the political sphere inadvertently.

The Bear Mountain Bridge I cross often

Looking south from Bear Mountain, NY. The Hudson river is very interesting!

Professional Cowards: US Senate Blocks Sensible Gun Control Legislation. At Least They're Protecting Us from the Gay Apocalypse... (tsk)

 Ah, Freedom!Which one makes more sense?

In case you didn't figure it out, it's a wedding picture!

Which is more important item for freedom in the US? A gun or a vehicle? It's the latter for it allows freedom of mobility, access to jobs and opportunities, etc. Yet, we have to be tested as operators, we have to obey lots of laws and regulations, need to register, inspect, and insure our vehicle. But, do you want a gun, sure go ahead. Wait, are you crazy? Are you a criminal? No? OK, then, we'll trust your word, here's a semi-automatic weapon that fires 30 big caliber rounds in few seconds. Enjoy hunting or whatever you intend to do with this and the rest of the arsenal you're amassing. 

How Some Prostitutes Give a Bad Name to the Profession

Today the US Senate showed how our elected officials can go against the wishes of a big majority of the American people. Reasonable gun control, including background checks amendments didn't pass. Cornyn's (R-Dumbfuckistan) amendment was the highest vote-getter, 57. This amendment would weaken gun control by requiring states with stricter laws to accept the licenses from states where anyone could get a gun.  Oh, wanna bet that these @holes take the opposite position when it comes to same-sex marriage?  Yeah, gays/lesbians are a bigger threat to society and their marriage would be like ..Hitler invading Poland if the Fed forced the states to recognize such marriages.

Systemic Problem

 The US political system was an experiment in government at a time when they weren't any liberal democracies. So the founders improvised, compromised, got a few things right, and some things very wrong.

One of the problems was to disperse power into three branches, but even within the legislative branch they created 2 chambers. These plus the president must pass identical bills before we have law. Unlike in other advanced democracies, our executive (the prez) doesn't control the legislature. So every president who runs on an agenda on the national level must get Congress to agree; and the members of Congress are elected from localities. Furthermore, Senate rules give a small minority the ability to kill legislation through the filibuster. 

I think it's time to use the so-called "nuclear option" and declare this rule unconstitutional so we can get things done more efficiently. The constitution provides for super majorities in the Senate for various decisions, like impeaching the president. Regular legislation should get the chance for an up or down vote. It was OK when only 3% of the bills were filibustered in the past. The minority could reject a few really objectionable bills. But, when nothing moves because of this obstruction tactic in the last decade, then there's something seriously wrong with this system.

The best way to fix some of our problems would be a couple constitutional amendments, but this is not very likely. The other way would be citizen engagement and mobilization. Let's see why a people's majority is so arrogantly ignored by some elected representatives. 

Change often comes because the people demand it. Let's prove that we do have a representative democracy, a system that works for the benefit of the people. Otherwise let's call it what it is and stay home. It's not enough to have myths, and slogans. We have to talk the talk and walk the walk!

Slavery By Another Name is Unknown History

People want to believe in something. What makes them feel better is preferred to that that makes them uncomfortable, so sometimes reality is not preferable. 

As Black History Month draws to a close, I wanted to help promote this program, aired on PBS recently. It's painful to think that these conditions existed in our country not so long ago, as recently as in 1950s, and it's a history that many Americans don't know or want to know about.
 

If one is to understand politics in the US since the colonial times, the issue of race and slavery is of fundamental importance. Even since WW2, elections, the law, and the trajectory of the political parties, all have been influenced by this reality. The Democratic Party used to be the party of slavery and segregation until the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s when it traded place with the Republican Party. The latter, through its Southern strategy made the South a fortress and a solid base for electoral victories. 

This, however, has been changing, as Obama proved that a Democrat who's not from the South can win. Furthermore, the Southern states aren't as "red" as they used to be, like North Carolina, northern Virginia, etc. With other western states turning into swingers, the road to the White House doesn't have to go via the South at all nowadays.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party is beholden to a shrinking base that is also out of the mainstream America. Add to this the activism of another extreme element--the Tea parties and even the libertarians--and you have a recipe for disaster. Did I mention immigration and how Hispanics have been trending Democratic?...

Again, the PBS program, Slavery By Another Name, is worth a watch. In the video above there's the promo of this program, plus earlier discussions with Bill Moyers and the author of the book upon which the PBS program was based. 

Bill Moyers: The Need for Equilibrium Between Public and Private

"I think this country is in a very precarious state at the moment. I think, as I say, the escalating, accumulating power of organized wealth is snuffing out everything public, whether it’s public broadcasting, public schools, public unions, public parks, public highways. Everything public has been under assault since the late 1970s, the early years of the Reagan administration, because there is a philosophy that’s been extant in America for a long time that anything public is less desirable than private.

And I think we’re at a very critical moment in the equilibrium. No society, no human being, can survive without balance, without equilibrium. Nothing in excess, the ancient Greeks said. And Madison, one of the great founders, one of the great framers of our Constitution, built equilibrium into our system. We don’t have equilibrium now. The power of money trumps the power of democracy today, and I’m very worried about it. I said to—and if we don’t address this, if we don’t get a handle on what we were talking about—money in politics—and find a way to thwart it, tame it, we’re in —democracy should be a brake on unbridled greed and power, because capitalism, capital, like a fire, can turn from a servant, a good servant, into an evil master. And democracy is the brake on my passions and my appetites and your greed and your wealth. And we have to get that equilibrium back."  Bill Moyers

Bill Moyers has just published a book based on the PBS Bill Moyers Journal series--one of the highest-rated public broadcasting programs, drawing 2 million viewers weekly.  The PBS site has videos from his interviews, but the book should be on everyone's reading list.

It Doesn't Feel Like 2010 Ushered a New Decade Yet... Are We Stuck in the Past?

Oh, How Perceptions Change... Like the Definition of Marriage!


It doesn't take me too long to talk about politics, even in ..polite company. Why not, important decisions are being made that affect our lives and the lives of future generations. I have to admit though that my interest is there because I care about the outcome of policy not because I'm satisfied with the process and the results. I consider myself a very progressive liberal, a secular individual--which, at least in this country, puts me in a small minority. I have hope that "my side" is winning and things will turn our way... it's just the pace seems to have the speed of molasses.
Funny test I took online today, based on cases that have been decided by the Supreme Court. I scored 92% in agreement with justice Stephen Breyer!

This new year started with lots of problems for our country. The president and the Dems have managed to produced a health care bill [at least the current one being discussed in Congress] that most Americans don't like or understand. The public and the single-payer options favored by the majority of Americans aren't even on the table! The progressive base and those groups that helped the Dems wind big in the last 2 elections are either disappointed or not very enthusiastic. The GOP registers higher motivation among its faithful and this might be enough to bring it some success this year.

One seat the Dems should not lose next week is Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat. Strangely, president Obama isn't going to campaign for Martha Coackley! On the other hand, I think it will be good for the Dems to lose seats in the Senate this November. The "magical" number 60 will be no more, so there will be a true test of leadership to get things done without ridiculous compromises to get votes from Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln, Baucus, and Snowe (she never came through despite being declared the unofficial president last summer!).

So, Sarah Palin knew nothing about history or foreign policy or much about anything else--other that "it was God's plan"--when she was drafted as McCain's running mate. I guess now she'll dispense her wisdom working for Fox News. But, considering Fox's audience, she'll fit right in... along with Brit Hume, who urged Tiger Woods to convert to xtianity in order to redeem himself from his sex scandal. Whatever.

What's rather offensive is the conservatives' revision of history--that the Republicans kept the US safe. Even Giulliani forgot that Bush was in office for 9 months (and ignored Islamic terrorists) when the terror of 9-11 happened. When president Bush froze when he was told that "America is under attack." When the neocons started another war on false pretenses and taking the focus away from Afghanistan. When, in essence, the Bush-Cheney-neocons triad managed to divide our friends and uniting our enemies. Conservatives have been bad for national security. I just hope that the American people have better memories.

On the more amusing side of the spectrum, the Vatican condemned the popular movie Avatar as " simplistic....flirting with modern doctrines that promote the worship of nature as a substitute for religion".. OK. I haven't seen the movie, but I kind of like the idea of relating to something that has a physical existence and we can interact with than to imaginary friends and foes. But, that's me. Choose your own poison, as they say.

To recap, 2010 will be an interesting year with ups and downs like any other. Glad to see a Democrat in the White House and Congress not controlled by the crazy wingnuts. Enjoy the ride in good health.



Update: I found this gem. With leaders like these...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Hey, does it mean if these people don't get their way God is not on their side?

What's a Privilege Versus a Right? Health Care Can Be Boiled Down to this Simple Test. Ted Kennedy Got it Right!

I think the best memorial to someone is to remember his/her actions that contributed to making the world a better place to live--even if it's one person at a time. Ted Kennedy came from a family of privilege but advocated for the many who weren't as fortunate as the elites of this country.

Morality is how we treat others, not how one behaves in his/her private domain. Teddy believed that the government of the people should be in place to work for the people. ["by"the people has meant approval and not that the common people of modest means have a good chance of being elected to high office!] It's amazing when 72% of Americans want health care reform that includes a strong public option their representatives in Congress can't seem to get it!

High stake [steak?] game is being played in front of the American public. There's lots of willful misinformation and scare tactics that have nothing to do with a rational discussion on how to reform a broken system and ensure that thousands of Americans don't die & suffer unnecessarily. It does come down to a simple question: is health care (like education) a right or a privilege? I was stunned to hear many Republicans actually say [including presidential candidate McCain] it's a ..privilege!

As for the cost, of course we can afford it if we can afford to spend much more on armaments than the whole world combined! Besides, the skyrocketing of health care costs in the US, under the current system, cannot be sustained. There will be more "death panels"... when insurance companies deny claims for necessary medical life-saving procedures and when they reject people with pre-existing conditions. How can anyone defend such a system is beyond me...

Here's an excellent treatment on this subject, as recently shown on Bill Moyers Journal. Is there anyone who can argue against the main points raised? Honestly, those opposed to health care reform with a public option don't make sense. It's not just a matter of values and priorities--that would be understandable--but those opponents are incoherent. It's a failure of leadership to confuse the public, distort the facts [those facts], and allow Americans to suffer and die.

PROFITS OVER PEOPLE: Video on Bill Moyers Journal. It includes an interview with W. Potter who served the insurance industry for 20 years. The Money Driven Medicine video has excerpts from the acclaimed Critical Condition, "a documentary in which ordinary hard-working Americans tell their stories of battling critical illnesses without health insurance. They discover that being uninsured can cost them their jobs, health, homes, savings, and even their lives."

Here's N. Kristof's (NYT columnist) take on the issue:
Opponents suggest that a “government takeover” of health care will be a milestone on the road to “socialized medicine,” and when he hears those terms, Wendell Potter cringes. He’s embarrassed that opponents are using a playbook that he helped devise. “Over the years I helped craft this messaging and deliver it,” he noted. Mr. Potter was an executive in the health insurance industry for nearly 20 years before his conscience got the better of him.

Blue Dog (Conservative) Democrats & President Obama Share the Blame for the Impasse

Finally, I have to be extremely critical of president Obama. He's the only person who holds such a big megaphone. Now, I dare to ask: Can you tell me what is Obama's health care proposal? Seriously, try to answer this especially if you're a supporter of the president and for health care reform... He has failed to put forth a succinct plan and a clear message. Even his secretary of Health, Sibelius, said on national TV that a public option could be off the table! Really??!!

I hope that Kennedy's death can serve as a catalyst for meaningful health care reform that includes a strong public option.

Oh, by the way, Mr. President: FORGET TRYING TO GET BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT. IT WON'T HAPPEN. Get this damn thing passed with 218 in the House and 50 in the Senate! YOUR LEGACY SHOULD BE A GOOD REFORM NOT A COMPROMISED AND INEFFECTIVE LAW WITH REPUBLICAN SUPPORT.

This Day in History. Barack Obama Ushers a New Era in The United States

It may not be the most elegant thing to do during the celebration of a new president, but I couldn't help it.. Along with the crowd, a message to Bush... I did, too, uttered: Nananana, hey, hey, goodbye! Good riddance, once again. Gone but not forgotten, and I don't mean this in a positive way.

The legacy of Bush&Co: Torture, lies, waste and no-bid contracts, bad economy & the falling standards of the middle class, hurricane-size indifference, incompetence, violation of civil liberties, trashing of the US constitution, dumbing down, politics of fear, ignorance, religious nuttery, marring US reputation & standing in the world, etc, etc...

On to the future while remembering the lessons of the past. Cheers!

PS>The picture is from an art project, "drildo,"... and it may not be related to the story about the BushCo's legacy or any reaction to such.

Independence Day Could Be Happier Without King George [and his cohorts & enablers]

It's a nice, long holiday weekend, and even though the weather isn't all that great in the northeast these days, nevertheless the summer is in full swing. During this patriotic holiday it's kinda hard to wear those lapel flags, so if you're unsure of the level of your patriotism--and don't want to spend too much time thinking about it-- there a few things you can do to show your patriotism. So, go ahead, use the flag as underwear & bathing suits, have it plastered on sandals, napkins, and pizza boxes. Promote the use our national flag for any possible commercial reason except free speech. Yet, whatever you do, you can't possibly compete with the patriotism of car dealerships that fly a 20-acre flag! You may want to compensate though. Buy a bigger, gas-guzzling car and put a Chinese-made ribbon on it, "Support the troops". You can help kill dissent--because you know those who criticize el presidente are un-Americans. Above all, vote for politicians who are conservative Republicans!


I don't know why, but I just re-read the Declaration of Independence, and I read further than the first paragraph and these lines:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Look what I found:

• He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers...
• He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation...
• For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury...
• In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people...

Thankfully, we can change our ..prince and deliver a resounding defeat to him and his cronies this November.

McCain: A Military Hero Who's Got it Wrong!

On another subject, has anyone really examined Wesley Clark's statement about McCain? Clark praised the conservative senator but he just pointed out the obvious: that being shot down by the enemy and being a POW does not necessarily mean you can make the right decisions as the commander in chief of our military! McCain has served in the military and sacrificed for our country, and that's a fact. What did he learn from his military experience? We perhaps don't know all of it, but we do know that he won't hesitate to sacrifice many more Americans in a pointless, stupid, very expensive war in Iraq, even for another hundred years more! McCain has flip-flopped on torture, has refused to extend medical benefits to veterans, and even objected to GI Bill to boost veterans college education proposed by Sen. Webb (D-VA)! We're are not disputing his service (unlike the conservatives with John Kerry's record), but we can challenge his views!

Judging from McCain's public record, we can see that he has learned the wrong lessons from his military experience. Again, he is a conservative after all, supporting policies and promoting a ideology that belong to the past. He represents a Bush third term, and a threat of judicial reactionism--yes, here is a change for the worse. Think of the Supreme Court when you vote this November!

Conservatives Hail Jesse Helms Ideals

I can remember who said this, but to paraphrase it a bit, my mother told me to speak well of the dead... Jesse Helms is dead. That's good! Have you seen the praise conservatives have laid out for their departed friend? I almost gagged every time I heard a talking head offer good words for the bigoted former North Carolina senator, like this from a current Republican leader, Trent Lott: "He had a philosophy, had principles he believed in, and he stood and fought for them,” Lott said, adding that he admired that Helms accomplished his work without being "mean-spirited and disrespectful." Really??!!!

Why, I can think of many horrible persons who stuck to their principles! That's not a good attribute by itself! Stalin, by the way, was a very principled man! Helms, indeed, maintained his bigoted views throughout his life. Here's a FAIR article from 2001 when Helms was the conservative icon in the Senate.

• "White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races." Another ad featured photographs Helms himself had doctored to illustrate the allegation that Graham's wife had danced with a black man. (The News and Observer, 8/26/01; The New Republic, 6/19/95; The Observer, 5/5/96; Hard Right: The Rise of Jesse Helms, by Ernest B. Furgurson, Norton, 1986)
• The University of North Carolina was "the University of Negroes and Communists." (Capital Times, 11/22/94) Black civil rights activists were "Communists and sex perverts." (Copley News Service, 8/23/01)
• Of civil rights protests Helms wrote, "The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights." (WRAL-TV commentary, 1963) He also wrote, "Crime rates and irresponsibility among Negroes are a fact of life which must be faced." (New York Times, 2/8/81)
• Over the years Helms has declared homosexuality "degenerate," and homosexuals "weak, morally sick wretches." (Newsweek, 12/5/94) In a tirade highlighting his routine opposition to AIDS research funding, Helms lashed out at the Kennedy-Hatch AIDS bill in 1988: "There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy." (States News Service, 5/17/88)
• Sen. Jesse Helms says the government should spend less money on people with AIDS because they got sick as a result of "deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct," The New York Times reported Wednesday.... "We've got to have some common sense about a disease transmitted by people deliberately engaging in unnatural acts," Helms told the Times.
• A year before the election, when public polls showed Helms trailing by 20 points, he launched a Senate filibuster against the bill making the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. a national holiday. (David Broder, Washington Post, Aug, 29, 2001)

Also, the Guardian got it right! Among other points,

In domestic politics he denounced the 1964 Civil Rights Act as "the single most dangerous piece of legislation ever introduced in the Congress", voted against a supreme court justice because she was "likely to uphold the homosexual agenda", acted for years as spokesman for the large tobacco companies, was reprimanded by the justice department and the federal election commission for electoral malpractice, and compiled a dismal personal record as a slum landlord."

Helms was a person that made our country worse by prolonging discrimination, racism, and sexism, among other regressive policies he promoted. I can't see why praise is appropriate here, except by those who share his convictions--in which case, we should take note who identifies with whom! Wink-wink, nudge-nudge, you know what I mean?

Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968)

How do you think such statements would have been received today in our country? Without the benefit of hindsight...

America's Age of Unreason: When Matters of Faith Dominate the Social Discourse

Updated, 3/30/08, below

Instead of cursing the darkness, light a candle!

When it comes to US politics, religion plays a big part, and, I guess, no one could be elected to a high office [well, maybe outside NYC, San Fransisco, etc] unless they profess their strong religiosity. Perhaps, it's not smart for me to start such a topic now, because this election should not be fought on who's a believer, i.e., who's on the side of the Christian God. Such a case would be a distraction at best. Seriously, unless the currency of understanding is reason & evidence, then not much can be discussed or minds changed.

Elections are not about educating the public on issues already decided in their minds. For, example, if you're convinced we're living in the end of times, with rapture around the corner, a political campaign isn't the appropriate time to talk you out of such a belief. Campaigns may inform on certain policy issues, but mainly they are a battle of ideas, of framing of the issues, and a candidate's personality & character. Rarely do they change any preconceived notions people have already formed based on an emotional decision.

I'm sure you know people who have an emotional reaction to an issue, thus forming an opinion, and then they look for any scraps of reason to support their view. The process of arriving at a decision is not important as much as how they feel about something. The scientific method & inquiry is the reverse of that. Here the process rules over the conclusions--which they follow based on evidence and reason. I'm in favor of such an approach to understanding the world around me, hence, my affinity for science & rational thinking.

However, there's a greater issue here about our national obsession with religion, and whether religious beliefs should guide our political actions. What happens in the US is actually the reverse than in most western European countries--where religion is mostly a private matter. Over there, atheists-agnostics actually are preferable to those who wear religion on their sleeves! Europeans think that an atheist/agnostic has no religious agenda to push and more likely to get on with the business at hand, for the state and the commonwealth. What a concept!

Often, many changes start slowly with a few voices, but it's important to stand up and be counted. I'm talking about maintaining a secular state here, not abolishing religion, but to stop the kind that wants to shove their brand down our throat. Yet, how can you deny that it is religion(s) that drive ignorance and intolerance? No, not all religious people are like that, but their most extremist elements are in control overall. If nothing else, their rhetoric reveals their prejudice & ignorance. How much of the world's suffering today (and for most of human history) is not "reasoned" by, promoted by, and spread through religious dogma?...

In the US, several states have an anti-science stance today! Why is it so? Is it because the facts aren't available? Is it because science hasn't given us answers? Why is there such a dumbing down? Is truthiness (how we feel about issues) our best way to understand? I recommend Susan Jacoby's latest book, Age of American Unreason as necessary reading on this topic.

I'm talking about teaching our kids science--you know, those theories that are based on facts not wishful thinking or on any hypothesis not supported by reason or evidence!

One in three Americans considers themselves "born-again" Christian fundamentalist, many believing in eschatology (the world is coming to an end soon).... I don't know if you realize it, but when the majority of Americans believe that, for sure (or think it's a good probability), Jesus will return in their lifetimes it has an impact on our politics! When so many people believe the world is going to end with Armageddon, does it not influence what we plan for the future? Heck, we have to look ahead--what the next several generations of our children and their children will inherit from us. The environment, energy needs, human health, the conditions for sustainable living, etc., are all very important. And, the window of opportunity to avert disaster is closing.

In a free society everybody can say & belief whatever he wants. But, it is frustrating to see so much ignorance and prejudice in this 21st century. Perhaps we are still very primitive in our thinking and behavior. On many levels, humanity does not live in or experience the same universal age. The less we know (or want to know) the more conservative we are.... We tend to conserve ideas, beliefs, culture, behaviors--even if they're impractical or outright primitive--when we don't know how to deal with change, especially the rapid changes of modernity. The sense of identity an individual has is extremely important.... and, it's has a personal definition. The more secure and confident a person, the more likely to think about change!

So, maybe we have our answer to this: How come people don't leave their congregation when their religious leaders make incredible claims? Or, that God is so angry & vengeful that he destroys everything in order to punish sinners and several of his faithful alike? Why the Falwells, Robertsons, Dobsons, Hagees, and all the others who preach hate and stupidity still remain relevant in an advanced society like ours? Well, they're relevant because they have millions of blind followers behind them! Their coffers bulged from donations when they pronounced that God punished New Yorkers on 9-11, New Orleans with Katrina, etc, etc.... Absurd, yes, but it's normal that people hold contradictory ideas in their head.


You've heard already about the comments Obama's pastor made and the hoopla that ensued. What's the problem here? Rev. Wright didn't say anything remotely worse than what those bigots I mentioned above have been saying all along. [see sidebar on the Hagee endorsement of Sen. McCain and the latter's elation for such!] Obama handled the situation well enough. Here's a good article by linguist & activist George Lakoff on this. Here's Wright's comments: video

The problem is with those people who are so convinced that they know the mind of God--what he wants and stuff--and are ..hell-bent in killing others in his name! It's rather unsettling to me that the religious fanatics here have so much influence on public policy--in a very negative way.

America and those successful countries where humans have achieved liberty and a higher standard of living owe their success largely on the conditions and the socio-econo-political environment. The three "Tees" are necessary: Tolerance, Talent, and Technology. Now assuming these are good things to have and maintain, the question is, what are we doing about protecting and enhancing those conditions that made us great? Or, are we so weak to buckle when we face the various crises and give up those conditions that made us great?

Think of the present--what's going on in our country--and of the future, where we're headed, where our children will be. Then watch this video. Hopefully, if you haven't done already, you'll stand up and oppose ignorance and intolerance!

UPDATE, 3/30/08

If there was a choice between Xenu, or those who support sacrificing young virgins to the sun god, and Sen. McCain, I'd choose the latter. But, to my relief, there are much better choices this year. Of course, this election is about the direction of the country. I'm a progressive liberal, and my the choices I make reflect what's pragmatic and what party, or politician comes closer to my beliefs.

Pragmatism, scientific approach (instead of voodoo), are some of the qualities I'm looking for in a US president. I understand that before someone wins the nomination and even the general election they have to say things they don't believe, especially in the case of religion. But, what do you make of the following?

* McCain supports Bush's policy: preach abstinence only; no other methods of contraception and/or counseling. [NYT, March 16, 08]. He takes advise from Dr. Coburn--the Rep. Senator from OK--who advocates the death penalty for women and doctors involved in any abortion under any circumstances! And, thus, McCain supports the stupid policies that don't work regarding sexually-transmitted diseases. Like saying in Africa, AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse!

* McCain is happy to have the endorsement and support of Rev. Hagee. [check this video]

* McCain wants to take America back to the 16th century. [Is this video evidence of his major flip-flop?]