Response from the Right Wing

One of the responses I received about yesterday's blog was as interesting as it was amusing. It was from the same guy who told me two years ago that his mother would have hated me although she had never met me, never heard one word about what I stood for, what my opinions were, what I do, etc., You get the idea. As a result I do not know whether she hated me for my bad jokes (my family suggests that they get pretty irksome from time to time), the fact that I volunteer a substantial portion of my time in assisting others who need help (her son is a corporate lawyer who billed his services on a time basis, e.g.. a two minute phone call is billed for 15 minutes of his time and I cannot imagine him giving away any of his time to anybody for any purpose), or for what I believe. I suspect two things; first, I suspect that the son of this woman is the one who in fact, transposes his own feelings about me to his mother (he knows even less about me than his mother did, and she knew nothing) and second, he can't handle what he thinks he believes about what I believe. With this as background I share what his response was to yesterday's blog: "If you wrote this and believe it, you should call a neurologist and make an appointment for an exam." In response, this is what I believe.
1). More than one million Americans have died from gunshot wounds since 1968,
2). Eleven teenagers a day are killed in these United States from gunshots.
3). The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington and is THE ONLY ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA which does not have to disclose how much it spends or who it spends it on for its lobbying activities.
4). I did write the blog yesterday, Duhh.
5). I do believe what I wrote yesterday. It is my opinion. In a free society I am entitled to an opinion. I respect and encourage others who have different opinions to interact and discuss those opinions with me. That interaction is also what a free society is about. There is nothing wrong with sharp ideological argument, as long as partisans do not seek to demonize their opponents and make their cases without ridicule and threats. I did receive several intelligent and well thought-out responses to my blog from conservative friends.
6). I don't ever suggest that because someone disagrees with me, that they are suffering from a mental illness and that they should see a doctor because of the opinions they hold.
7). The fact is that the perpetrator of the carnage in Arizona was able to walk into a sporting goods store and purchase the murder weapon together with a loader allowing 33 bullets to be fired in a short time without the need for reloading. He was able to do this after exhibiting a pattern of strange conduct for several months that resulted in his expulsion from school, i.e., an obvious pattern of young adult-onset schizophrenia.
8). This type of loader was illegal until President Bush allowed the law to lapse in 2004 after specifically making a campaign promise that he would extend the law to protect the citizens of America. It has been widely reported that Bush caved in to the demands of the NRA to let the law lapse.

The Third Rail of Violence

The third rail in this tragic incident of the violent massacre of innocent people in Tucson, Arizona is one that is carefully avoided by politicians and the media alike. Thanks to the antics of the NRA and an extreme right Supreme Court, weapons of destruction are as available to the lunatic fringe of our society as candy bars are to children. The clout of the National Rifle Association has grown beyond the pale. There are few lobbies in Washington as powerful or protective of their interests. Any gun laws are seen as violations of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which cites the need for a well-regulated militia, stocked with arms.

The power of the N.R.A. is pervasive, both in national and state politics. When Democrats were trying to pass a campaign-finance disclosure measure last year, they had to write a special exemption for the gun lobby in order to secure majority support in the House. Liberal Democrats like Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio and the current victim, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords openly boasted of their support for gun ownership. Even if these politics could be countered, the courts, especially the Supreme Court, are raising new, and probably insurmountable, obstacles to substantive gun control. Last year, the court threw out a Chicago gun-control ordinance, the year before a Washington, D.C. law, both of which had the intent of reducing the daily slaughter of Americans by guns.

It is one thing to protect the rights of sensible, gun loving, responsible citizens, but it is sheer insanity to have created the present climate that allows unstable and obviously demented persons access to such weapons. The current tragedy is one of but a series of such events (e.g.,Columbine, Virginia Tech.) that are fostered by this climate, not to mention the daily killing of our citizens by guns which have become so common place that they rate hardly a mention in the news of the day. While the idiotic and hate-filled rhetoric of the Palins of our society are no doubt contributory to such incidents, the soil in which such activities ferment has been cultivated by a lavish devotion to the questionable language of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Until and unless the current tragedy brings these considerations back into the equation, nothing will change. One does not need to be a flaming liberal to suggest that reasonable limits on the rights of crazy people to obtain access to weapons are logical and appropriate. If I were a politician making such a statement, it is most certain that weapon worshippers would show up at my next public appearance openly brandishing their weapons.

Details please

Questions: What president raised taxes seven times while in office? What President claimed as a campaign promise to “read my lips, no more taxes” then promptly raised taxes after being elected? What president engaged this country in two wars and the largest drug giveaway to seniors in history by borrowing in excess of a trillion dollars from China? The answers to these questions are Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. So much for history serving as a guide to present conduct. Now that the current cabal of Republicans have spent nearly two years acting in unison to reject everything the Democrats tried to accomplish, including turning down proposals and bills previously supported and/or written by various individual Republicans themselves, they are finally going into action this week, in an effort that I will characterize as Gingrich-lite, a feeble attempt to claim a national agenda intended to sweep the Democrats out of office in early November. The platform without telling us how is to lower taxes and eliminate the deficit. Read my lips, no more taxes. A little short on details, however the “Pledge to America,” outlining their policy agenda promises to protect defense spending, social security and Medicare for senior citizens.. Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done the math. As he points out, the only way to balance the budget by 2020, while simultaneously (a) making the Bush tax cuts permanent and (b) protecting all the programs Republicans say they won’t cut, is to completely abolish the rest of the federal government: “No more national parks, no more Small Business Administration loans, no more export subsidies, no more N.I.H. No more Medicaid (one-third of its budget pays for long-term care for our parents and others with disabilities). No more child health or child nutrition programs. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress.”

Sounds to me like the ultimate Republican goals are for America to replicate the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Mosque Debate

One of my favorite readers (perhaps the only reader) of my blog has sent me an e-mail wondering when I was going to jump in on the Park51 ‘mosque’ debate. Being a conscientious and independent observer of the current state of American politics I wanted to wait until after I had taken time to sort out the details in my mind until there was sufficient information for me to write about it. I decided to do some field research so I jumped on a cheap air flight to New York and cabbed it to the area of the disputed ‘mosque.’ I walked around the area for a few minutes and noted that the chosen place was an abandoned clothing warehouse. I must admit that I was surprised by this because I thought the site was supposed to be ‘hallowed ground.’ I decided I needed to do more research so I looked around for someone to speak with. In addition, I was thirsty because my flight to NYC was operated by a carrier that charged five dollars for a soft drink or a bottle of water and I couldn’t bear to pay that much. So I found myself at the New York Dolls, a fashionable place located between the site of the former Trade Center and the proposed Islamic center. As luck would have it, I was instantly surrounded by any number of beautiful women, scantily clad, who were happy to chat with me about the proposed site. The twenty dollar cover charge and fifteen bucks for a glass of soda pop seemed like a small price to pay for the opportunity to conduct an in-depth interview. After all, isn’t that why I came to New York? What follows is a summary of my interviews. I apologize in advance for being a little sketchy on some of the details because it was pretty dark inside the club although it was only two o’clock in the afternoon and I was unable to see to make notes. I was able to rough out some of the responses on a paper napkin because the indirect lighting from the nearby stage was of some help. So here goes; I first spoke with Candi.
Q. What is your take on the proposed mosque?
A. If you promised you won’t tell the IRS (giggling), my take is about two to three thousand bucks a day.
Q. No, I think you have misunderstood me, what do you feel about the morality of building a mosque so close to the site of the Trade Center?
A. I thought you wanted a lap dance.
Q. No, I just want to ask a few questions about the First Amendment
A. So, you are with the IRS. (Standing and starting to walk away).
Q. Candi, come back.
A. Go bleep yourself. (She was already moving toward a couple of guys waving money at her at a table across the room).

I sat there, by myself, trying to figure out what to do next. In less than ten seconds another comely woman sat down next to me and asked if I would buy her a drink. Sure, I said, not wanting my trip to be wasted. “That’ll be fifty dollars.” I dug down deep in my wallet.
Q Your name?
A. Roxy.
Q. How do you feel about the building of a mosque so close to the Trade Center?
A. Are you a cop?
Q. No. I just want to know how you feel about this big controversy.
A. Let me see some ID.
Q. Do you have an opinion?
A. It’s been real good for business. A lot of guys didn’t even know we’re here. You want a private dance?
Q. Roxy, just give me a minute here. Do you think there should be a mosque here or not? If not, why not?
A. Those cheap bastards don’t drink. No, I think they should go someplace else. Just like you. (She was already smiling at the guy sitting at the next table).

I got up and left. As I stood outside the club waiting for my eyes to adjust to the bright sunlight, I thought to myself, ‘Maybe I should go across the street to the Pussycat.’ Instead I returned home.

So there you have it, a first hand report of my research conducted on the issue. As I am writing this, I am looking at an article in the New York Times entitled “Bikini-Clad Strippers Protest Church in Rural Ohio.”

The article reads (in part) “The strippers (dressed in bikinis) are protesting a fundamental Christian church whose Bible-brandishing congregants have picketed the club where they work. The dancers roll up with signs carrying messages adapted from Scripture, such as ‘do unto others as you would have done unto you,’ to counter church members who for four years have photographed license plates of patrons and asked them if their mothers and wives know their whereabouts. . . . The Club owner Tommy George met with the preacher and offered to call off his not-quite-nude crew from their three-month-long protest if the church responds in kind. But pastor
Bill Dunfee believes that a higher power has tasked him with shutting down the strip club. ‘As a Christian community, we cannot share territory with the devil,’ Dunfee said. ‘Light and darkness cannot exist together, so the Fox Hole has got to go.’”

I am also reading from another article from the NYT entitled ‘Far From Ground Zero, Obscure Pastor Is Ignored No Longer.’ It is a story about Terry Jones, an evangelical pastor in Gainesville, Florida, who plans to memorialize the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center with a bonfire of Korans. ‘We have to be careful,’ he said as he tapped a holster on the right hip of his jean shorts holding a .40-caliber pistol. ‘The overall response has been much greater than we expected.’

Our forefathers were prescient about the need for separation of church and state. That is why it is difficult for me to understand why a Republican candidate for Congress could tell a group of high school students last week that Islam’s plan “is to destroy our way of life “ and “It’s our place as Christians to stand up for the word of God and what the Bible says.”

A lot of people make a big deal of the contention that Muslims have not spoken out forcefully against the acts of terrorists, but I ask the same question here. Why aren’t real Americans standing up and defending the first Amendment with the same force and energy that they bring to Second Amendment?

This is Fun

Nineteen of the twenty two states that have brought suit against the federal government on the basis that the health care program is illegal have accepted millions of dollars from this “illegal” program. This is remarkably akin to Tea Party rants against government programs, particularly those which threaten Medicare and Social Security benefits. I suggest to the Republican party that their theme for the upcoming elections be “Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you.”

Overwhelmed

I must admit that I am feeling overwhelmed. The long term Southern strategy of the GOP is working to fan enough bigotry and racial cynicism that a host of Tea Baggers may take over Congress in the upcoming election. Point One: A church in Florida is organizing burning of the Koran to commemorate 9/11. Two: A Republican candidate for Congress tells his followers that Islam is a cult and therefore not entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. Third; RNC Michael Steele and Andrew Breitbart,of Shirley Sharrod infamy, will appear as headliners of a massive fundraising event in Beverly Hills. Those with short memories may remember that last week Breitbart distributed edited film of a speech by Sharrod that impugned her integrity and falsely cast her as a racist discriminating against poor white farmers. Fourth: I received an e-mail this morning from a member of an exclusive country club which depicted photographs of black people arrested for various offenses, all of whom were wearing Obama tee shirts or sweat shirts.

All this in the country I love, the country in which the basic underlying principle is that all people are created equal.

Hand in Hand

Is the issue of global warming limited to global warming? Is this a nonsense question or is there more than meets the eye to this simple query? As you may surmise, I respectfully suggest to all my conservative friends that global warming is one side of a coin the other side of which is the pithy common sense observation that the sum total of the world’s remaining oil and gas reserves will run out sometime in the next 100 years. In other words, the world, as we now know it is not coming to an end, but to a new stage which will be dominated by countries and technologies whose present-day efforts and commitments will place them is leadership roles in the near future insofar as the need for vital access to these new treasures as a means for survival. Let me put it another way; consider what happens to the millions of people in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran when oil revenues slow to a drip-drip-drip. (Iran currently receives 100 million dollars a day for its oil). Consider what happens to Americans when the depletion of the world’s oil reserves renders it impossible to drive the 15 mile round trip to work or play or visit relatives? One does not need to accept the scientifically valid concept of global warming to understand the other side of this looming situation. The solution is to begin to limit and, eventually, end our dependence on foreign oil while at the same time recognize that our own resources are exhaustible. Wind and solar energy, not to mention nuclear power, must be harnessed and brought into play on an urgent schedule. Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Oklahoma Republican Senator James Imhofe’s building of an igloo in February to mock the notion of global warming should not be allowed to replace the Nero example as the poster child of indolent neglect as our cities and states fall into ruin.

I am adding the following as a postscript to the above. This pithy comment appeared in the July 25, 2010 New York Times op-ed by Tom Friedman:

The last word goes to the contrarian hedge fund manager Jeremy Grantham, who in his July letter to investors, noted: “Conspiracy theorists claim to believe that global warming is a carefully constructed hoax driven by scientists desperate for ... what? Being needled by nonscientific newspaper reports, by blogs and by right-wing politicians and think tanks? I have a much simpler but plausible ‘conspiracy theory’: the fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds of billions of dollars of profits, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientific results. I, for one, admire them for their P.R. skills, while wondering, as always: “Have they no grandchildren?”