Mumbling, Meandering, Melancholy Musing

I suffer from PF -- "political fatigue." Seriously, folks, it's not bad enough that my choices are between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney this go-round. We also have to be subjected to the usual ridiculous ads (Mitt Romney killed my wife and doesn't know and doesn't care...) as well as news articles on topics that are old, tired, and crazy or completely blown out of proportion.

Is there any good reason for the statement of the restaurant chain owner of Chick Fil A to occupy the attention of the media for well over a week? The media couldn't have helped that restaurant chain more if they were trying -- and I don't think they were trying.

The sad fact is that we live in a country divided almost evenly. About half the population tends to lean left and the other half tends to lean right. Each election is a crap shoot - you really just don't know what's going to happen. Both sides bend over backwards, insanely contorting themselves, to try and make a point that will stick with the people who don't pay attention otherwise.

Is there some ground on which people can agree? Not really... apparently. One would wish that we could all agree to disagree respectfully and with a measure of dignity, but that doesn't appear to be possible, either. It would be nice (and far more productive) if we could argue the issues based on fact and reason instead of pointing our fingers and shouting, "Liar liar pants on fire," or vilifying those who disagree as "evil," "Hitler," or other now-meaningless jibes.

Should the practice of abortion be legal? Should we have same sex marriage in the US? Should crazy people be allowed to protest the funerals of anybody? Should we have a nationalized health care system in which care is rationed differently from how it's rationed now? Should the country continue to spend, spend, spend even though the money isn't there? Is spending the money nationally going to make money for the country? Is it the government's job to put people to work? Can the government perform such a function and if so, how?

These are all issues needing to be discussed, not only by the politicians (heaven help us when they start up), but by voters all across the country. The problem is that very few voters are capable of having a rational, intelligent conversation about such topics. Having an opinion is easy... having an informed opinion is a bit more work.

I've heard it said numerous times that voting is not only a right, it's an obligation... a duty. But it doesn't do anyone any good if a bunch of uninformed boobs go to the voting booth and vote. I think the mantra needs to change. An informed, intelligent vote is a citizen's duty. If you're not going to do the work of informing yourself, you have no business in the voting booth. If you cannot intelligently discuss the issues facing the country (which means being able to articulate your viewpoint instead of simply attacking the other side), then it's your patriotic duty to stay home.

Blame Bush Part Infinity

Anybody else tired of hearing our current sitting President blame the last one?

The GSA (General Services Administration) apparently went crazy on a conference in 2010 -- spending over $800,000 on their good times near Vegas. Obama's reaction? "Don't look at me... look at what Bush did!" Seriously. Very much like our national debt... his response to the current issues with spending and the national debt? "Bush did it, too!"

I'm not kidding. Their argument was literally that the cost of the conference increased mightily under George W. Bush. Here are the facts: Conference in 2004: $93,000. In 2006: $323,855. In 2008: $655,025. (Is your blood boiling yet? Should be... George W. Bush's administration sure loved to spend our money...) Obama's administration in 2010? $840,616.

Obama's argument is a little like a small child who was caught eating the chocolate cake out of the cupboard. He was just going at it... and he points to his brother who also has chocolate on his face and says, "He ate some, too!!!"

Yes, Bush did it. It made us mad. Bailouts and high spending irritate the tar out of me, no matter who is responsible. But stop pointing your dirty fingers at the Bush administration as a way to justify your own bad behavior. It's juvenile, it's unattractive, and it's stupid.

Short rant today -- but there's really not much else to say on that.

Up Is Down, Black Is White, Wrong Is Right

Sometimes the news makes me tired. Tired, I tell you! Okay, and maybe a little bit riled up. Maybe if I didn't get so worked up, I would have some energy left when I finished reading.

Seriously, though... where to begin?

There is, of course, the news about health care and the Supreme Court. The mainstream news media are working hard to work it so that whatever happens, somehow they can turn it to Obama's favor. The NYT appears to be somewhat irritated that the court even took the case, citing all the cases the court is hearing in the next few weeks followed by the statement, "It can seem that the court is prepared to decide every major controversy in American life."

Also in the New York Times, there is an article by Gina Kolata (published April 2, 2012 "The ABC's of the Health Care Law and Its Future") which "defines" the law as:

It's a series of policies and regulations and subsidies and mandates. That's the reason it's so complex. It builds on an incoherent medical system with all kinds of public and private insurance and tries to patch the holes. And it affects different groups of americans in different ways at different times.

But it is transformative. If it is implemented, it would be the most important health care law since the enactment of Medicaid and Medicare in 1965. It brings us closer to the ideal that all Americans should have access to care regardless of income or health status.

If I may pick this apart on a separate rant for just a moment... Why in the world would we want to "build on" something that's incoherent? The definition of incoherent, as relates to a system, is "internally inconsistent; illogical." Well, HEY. Let's build on that, shall we?? Actually, sounds like something the government would typically do, which is why everything they touch turns to something nasty.

Also, I have to point out that all Americans DO have access to care (and even many non-Americans living in America). Because the other argument that is continually put forward is that it's not "fair" for some people to simply go to the ER and receive their health care and force others to pay for it.

President Obama climbed up on his high horse to squeak out some "stern language" to the Supreme Court on Monday afternoon. Ha! Stern language... that's funny. President Obama doesn't (shouldn't) have any influence over court proceedings. And yet there he is... saying that his health care law will be "over.... UPHELD." Yes, he seriously did almost offer up "overturned" before he self corrected.

He also claimed that overturning this law would be "unprecedented" and an "extraordinary step." Funny stuff, coming from someone who prides himself on being a professor of constitutional law... Roe V. Wade, anyone? Of course, he would have been remiss to not point out that judges are not elected (no... they're appointed by the President -- two on the bench were appointed by his highness himself). The dude's got some chutzpa, I'll give him that... not a lot of wisdom in what he says and does -- but the stupid things he says are usually full of gall.

And speaking of gall... here we go, again on Monday (Obama had a very busy Monday):

"It's worth noting that I first arrived on the national stage with a speech at the Democratic convention that was entirely about American exceptionalism and that my entire career has been a testimony to American exceptionalism."

Woot Woot!!

Of course, he also sort of entered the national stage with a speech on how his entrance was going to turn back the tides and reverse global warming, etc... It's too bad he limits himself so much.

And now I see that this post has been just a long-winded rant, aimlessly floating from one topic to the next. Sigh. I had better stop before it gets any worse.

Three Tragedies For the Price of One

Trayvon Martin. Innocent child? Or hoodie-wearin', trash talkin' gangsta?

Big sigh.

Chances are really good, especially now, that nobody will know what really happened on the day he died. And that's really, really sad. For everybody. Trayvon Martin is dead. Whether he was a choir boy or a drug dealer, that's sad. He was seventeen years old, and he was a person. George Zimmerman is a man who has gone into hiding because of threats against his life -- who is also dealing with the stress of having killed a person. Assuming he's even a halfway decent human being who has a conscience, he's gotta be having a rough time.

By my count, that's two tragedies right there.

And then... there's the press.

This is a perfect example of how our news media operates with an agenda. NBC reported the incident and played portions of the 911 call between George Zimmerman and the operator. On March 27th they aired a tape that played like this:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black.

In the full version, it goes like this:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

911 Operator: Okay. And this guy... is he white, black, or hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

I don't pretend to understand what NBC gets out of painting Zimmerman as a racist. Does he hate black people? I don't know. Neither do they. But editing a tape in the way that they did certainly shows they want OTHER people to think he hates black people... as if the color of their skin somehow makes them appear to be up to no good.

Barack Obama did his part, of course, in stirring up more tension. He made certain to make note of Trayvon's skin color, even if it was in a (very) slightly nuanced way. Saying, "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon," is saying, "See? He's black - like me." I certainly don't think that President Obama saw a picture of Trayvon and thought, "Geez. That boy looks so much like me he could be my kid!"

And we have news outlets who are printing pictures of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman immediately next to each other. George Zimmerman's picture looks like a mug shot and Trayvon Martin looks like he's about nine years old. (Anybody trying to mold public opinion in one direction there? You think?)

Then we have various politicians making statements and wearing garments they wouldn't otherwise wear to score some political points. And we have people in the streets demanding the arrest of George Zimmerman. And we have Spike Lee trying to sic the public on George Zimmerman, but in getting the address wrong, ends up driving a nice little old couple out of their own home.

I don't think we can even rightly call this a circus anymore.

I had a friend send me an email, asking me to blog on Trayvon Martin. So there. I've done it. Three tragedies in one -- Trayvon Martin is dead. George Zimmerman's life is a serious mess (if the rabid public even let him live). And our media once again showed its true colors. But I guess that's a tragedy that happens every day. Oh - and tragedy number four. The American people just swallow the trash the news media dishes out. Truly it seems that people are unwilling to think for themselves anymore. No wonder our country is in such an unholy mess.

Affordable Care Act

So here we are... the Supreme Court has begun listening to arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. (Of course, as usual, the legislation is named the exact opposite of what it will accomplish...but I digress.)

According to a New York Times poll, two thirds of Americans want congress to repeal all or some of the Affordable Care Act even while large majorities support a few of its major aspects. The parts that people want to keep crack me up, though. It explains a lot about why we are where we are as a country today.

The least popular part of the bill is the individual mandate. Here, I proudly stand up and say, "I am opposed to this, too!!!!" Okay, in the interest of fairness, I should just say up front that I'm opposed to the whole darned thing. But the government forcing me to buy a product of any kind in order to be alive in the US is ridiculous. I know that there are laws out there requiring me to purchase car insurance if I'm going to drive a car... but this is not the same thing. There is no law requiring me to buy a car... I can take the whole package or not, as I see fit. Having three children I have to drive around, I choose the car - and the insurance requirement that goes along with it.

The Obama administration is touting a new poll that shows (supposedly) an equal number of people wanting to repeal the law as want to expand it. Expand it to what, I am not sure -- expansion of what appears to be already in place sounds ludicrous to me. Supposedly, though, I am alone in that. Because David Plouffe of the Obama administration declares that people don't want to go back to square one.

It seems to me that too often people come to their conclusions about political ideas without putting enough thought into the consequences of seeing their ideas enacted. 85 percent of Americans polled approve of requiring insurance companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions. On an emotional level, this sounds lovely. But it's not reasonable or sustainable. (And I speak as one of those people who has been considered "uninsurable" because of a pre-existing condition.) To require insurance companies to accept folks like me would further raise the cost of insurance. Hate to break it to you, but insurance companies exist to make money. This being the case, they have to raise their rates on either the people with pre-existing conditions (which is fine), making the cost of purchasing the insurance ridiculous -- or they have to raise the cost of everybody's insurance, making things more difficult for everybody in order to make sure that I can get mine. Eventually, you have too many people dropping out of the insurance pool because the cost has become crazy, and then the cost goes up even more, etc... etc... So to require insurance companies to accept me is not a good option.

Sixty eight percent of Americans polled like the requirement that insurance companies have to allow "children" to remain on their parents' policies until they're 26 years old. Again, this is not going to happen for free. It's another one of those things that makes an emotionally compelling argument, but doesn't really stand up to common sense. **Rant Alert** At what point can we reasonably expect people to grow up? We're going to tell people that they're old enough to drink at 21. They're old enough to vote and influence national and local political policy when they're 18. But they can't manage their own health care concerns? How silly. If they can't take care of themselves properly, they certainly shouldn't have a say in who is going to make decisions for the country.

I have friends and family with chronic illnesses, and I know that this issue is a difficult one. But when we're making decisions about public policy and the constitutionality of laws, the decision should never be an emotional one. It's time to stop the government's overreaching. I would love to get back to the basics, where the government is actually limited as the Constitution says it is, but I don't foresee that happening anytime in the near future. As it stands, however, I will be happy with a Supreme Court ruling that at least goes along with the Constitution in this case.

The Affordable Care Act should go.

On Herman Cain... Again

I've been watching the Herman Cain fiasco. Fascinating... truly. For a while I was not quite sure what to think. I know that he habitually says stupid things, so I didn't think it impossible for him to have said something stupid to a woman somewhere along the line. Stupid and offensive? Sure, I can see that. Easily.

Woman after woman "coming forward" supposedly with claims that Herman Cain sexually harassed them... (insert big sigh here). But nobody willing to put their name out there? Nobody willing to actually say what the man did? Hmmm... somewhat suspicious, but possible. Given my cynical nature, I have to assume that it's possible that Herman Cain did something terrible to multiple women. Of course, given the same cynicism, I also have to believe it perfectly possible that Herman Cain said something stupid to one woman and Cain's opposition is feeding the "story" with false accusations to take him down.

To be honest, I had been considering both scenarios to be equally probable. But now here comes woman number 4. Ah... yes. Sharon Bialek. I had to watch the press conference. Of course I had to see it. I heard that she was "represented" by attorney Gloria Allred. (Her website describes her as "Gloria Allred - Discrimination Attorney/Feminist Lawyer" on Google.) Ms. Allred has sued the Boy Scouts for excluding girls (huh?), and she sued a drugstore chain for having toy sections labeled "boys" and "girls." She litigated a lawsuit against Arnold Schwarzenegger for... wait for it... sexual harassment while he was running for governor. This lawsuit was later dismissed. She has represented numerous famous people in various predicaments (child custody disagreements, sexual harassment cases, she was part of the OJ Simpson mess, Tiger Woods' mistresses, ad nauseam...)

So... this I gotta see.

So... I saw.

And I don't believe.

The story is just... too much. Allred starts out the press conference by establishing that Bialek is a "registered Republican." She goes on to give a general report of Bialek's credentials and lifestyle. According to Allred, Bialek is a college graduate, has hosted a cooking show, and has spent the last two years as a full-time, stay-at-home single mom. (Again, HUH?) The "evidence" presented by Allred at the press conference consists of two pieces of paper she waved around of which she would not release any copies (supposedly of affidavits signed by "pediatrician" and "businessman."), and a copy of Sharon Bialek's business card from the time she was supposedly vigorously harassed (copies released of this, of course). "Pediatrician" and "businessman" are the only names we have for the evidentiary corroborative statement makers.

Bialek then took the stage and read a statement. She was smiley and perky throughout most of her statement. She accuses Cain of upgrading her hotel room, taking her to the "offices" of the NRA, and then (perkiness suddenly gone, slightly choked up) "he suddenly reached over, he put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals. He also grabbed my head and brought it towards his crotch. I was very very surprised and very shocked. I said, 'What are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend. This isn't what I came here for.' Mr Cain said, 'You want a job, right?' I asked him to stop and he did. I asked him to take me back to my hotel, which he did. Right away." She said she didn't file a complaint since she wasn't employed by the Association when the harassment occurred. (Conveniently mentioned in her statement is her supposed tea party activism as well.)

Sharon Bialek has shot to instant morning-show fame. She supposedly wants Cain to "admit what he did and move forward." I do not believe her story. Certainly not in its entirety.

But here's the rub. The press has a lot of power. Far more power than is healthy, actually. Because while I do not buy the story, I do suffer from Cain fatigue. There is a part of me, and I must admit it's a rather large part, that just wants the entire thing to go away, including Cain. As I've said previously, there are some things about Cain that gave me pause (his enormous lack of tact being one of them). So now I'd like to just see him go away. And that's sad. Even believing Cain to be the victim of dirty politics and lynching by the press I still don't have any fight in me. Just... just go away.

Perhaps this, too, is the result of an ever-increasing cynicism within me. I should probably be troubled by this, but I'm afraid I'm too cynical for that as well.

Edge of Insanity

I spoke with a friend yesterday regarding our country's social and political structure. I must admit, I am left with some serious concerns.

My friend describes himself as a "social democrat." I had posed a question to him a year and a half ago regarding socialism... my question being a relatively simple one: What to do about human nature? Under a socialist system, human nature being what it is, there will always be more takers than workers. Thus, the system quickly will run out of either workers or freedom.

He went on a gentle rant last night about the inequities in our system. The disparity between the rich and the poor, the ever-widening gap... the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are unable to rise out of their station, etc. Are the rich getting super rich while the poor are not rising at all? Well, no... not really. The poor in this country have better lifestyles than poor people ever have. Is it true that there is a widening gap between the rich and the poor? I honestly don't know, and I really don't care. If one person is getting far richer than another, how does this hurt? Is it true that a poor person cannot work hard and pull themselves out of being poor? NO. Is it true that many poor people have a mentality that gets in their way? YES. But there are examples of people who did not hold onto that same mentality, and they managed to work their way out of poverty.

When he finished his rant, I pointed out that he still had not really answered my question regarding human nature. His answer? He doesn't want a perception that human nature is flawed to get in the way of change. Also, he doesn't believe that human nature IS inherently flawed. My friend is a humanities teacher -- I pointed to history and asked him to show me a time when we were able to clearly see that humans, at some point, operated without flaw. I then went on to say that one cannot rationally argue that human nature is not flawed. "Ah...," he says. "I am not a rationalist." I asked him, "So what does that make you - a wishful thinker?" He laughed and said that he prefers "dreamer."

My concern: There is a group of people who are wanting to change the entire social and political structure of the world. These people appear to wish to deny reality in order to hold on to their dream of a utopian society. To eschew rationalism in favor of dreaming is the height of foolishness. To see reality and refuse to admit it's real because it doesn't fit with what you would like to be real is folly.

An even greater concern is his assertion that the fix to the world's problems is "literacy." He specified that he meant real literacy -- not just the ability to read and write, but the ability to digest and think about information, drawing conclusions and coming up with real results. Yes, yes, YES! But... but... how can one claim to be literate in such a fashion if one is rejecting rationalism? Can a person be a literate thinker while living in a dream reality that denies the existence of what is really real? It seems to me the person who believes such a thing is possible is tip-toeing to the edge of insanity.

The stakes get higher and higher all the time.