Sunday, May 22, 2011

Disgraceful Abuse of Power (Equal Rights In Peril)

My compliments to those Democrats (and one Republican) who stood on the floor of the Minnesota House and spoke so eloquently in support of Equal Rights for all Minnesota citizens.
 
The proposed Constitutional Amendment under "debate" on the House floor - the first ever proposed Constitutional Amendment in Minnesota to deny Equal Rights, rather than expand those rights - perfectly reflects modern-day Republican views and values. They believe that they were elected into office to cut - no matter what the consequences. Throughout this session, they've voted to cut all sorts of programs in this once proud state. They've voted to throw the poor and senior citizens under the bus, so why not vote against Equal Rights for everyone too?
 
The only arguments heard on the House floor by proponents in support of the proposed Constitutional Amendment centered on letting the people vote. The House author of the proposed amendment refused to answer repeated questions about the merits of the amendment or his thinking in authoring it. Instead he kept repeating only his prepared words - that the amendment gives Minnesota voters the opportunity to vote on an existing law. 
 
What a crock of "Bull Whoee." The original law was wrong, and now he wants to enshrine it in Minnesota's Constitution. 
 
Equal Rights are granted by the US Constitution. Revoking them should not be subject to pandering wrong-minded politicians and the bigoted special interest groups who support them. No politician, no special interest group, no group of voters, and no wrong-minded judge should ever be allowed to deny Equal Rights to American citizens.
 
In 2012, Minnesota's voters will, for the first time ever, vote on a Constitutional Amendment to deny Equal Rights to Minnesota citizens.
 
Between now and then, Minnesotans will be bombarded with messages and commercials, both pro and con.
 
I have heard nothing from the Republican majority to indicate why denying Equal Rights to all should be enshrined in Minnesota's Constitution. I've heard nothing to support a legitimate state interest in denying same-sex marriage - in fact, all legitimate evidence supports the benefits of a loving relationship, including relationships between same-sex couples.
 
Shame on Minnesota Republicans. Shame on those equally wrong-minded citizens who elected them.
 
The fight for Equal Rights continues, despite this appalling setback. And, as with all past Equal Rights struggles, this setback will (eventually) be corrected. History shows that Equal Rights will eventually prevail. But, it's unfortunate that the once proud Republican Party has turned its back on Equal Rights, and all this country is supposed to stand for.
 
Shame on you Republican Majority.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Un-Equal Rights Amendment Nearly Set

Last week, the Minnesota Senate voted to add a constitutional amendment to the ballot in 2012. If approved, the amendment would deny equal rights to certain citizens of the state. This week, the Minnesota House is expected to vote to approve placing the measure on the ballot. Minnesota's Governor cannot veto this bone-headed legislation.

I've never been so ashamed of Minnesota's Republicans, and the downward spiral they've been forcing on this once great state.

I listened to a portion of the Senate "debate" (or at least what passes for debate these days). Among the arguments heard supporting the amendment were:

1) It's the "people's right to vote" on such "monumental" issues.

2) Other states have approved similar amendments to their Constitutions.

3) It protects something which has been in effect since the founding of our great nation.

4) It respects and protects our religious traditions. Religious leaders support this.

5) This amendment is needed to prevent "activist judges" from deciding the issue.

The Republican votes to place this constitutional amendment on the ballot appear to be historic. In reviewing the list of past proposed constitutional amendments (found on the Minnesota Secretary of State's web site), one finds that there have been some civil rights amendments placed on the ballot before. Yet all past proposed civil rights amendments seem to have been designed to promote equal civil rights, not to deny them.

As I reviewed the list of proposed amendments to the Minnesota Constitution, some involving civil rights stood out:

1865 - To authorize Negroes to vote (Rejected)

1867 - To authorize Negroes to vote (Rejected)

1868 - To authorize Negroes to vote (Adopted)

1875 - To authorize the legislature to grant women suffrage in school affairs (Adopted)

1877 - To authorize women to vote in local option elections. (Adopted)

1898 - To permit women to vote for and serve on library boards. (Adopted)

It appears that modern day Republicans have become the southern politicians of past generations, attempting to block equal civil rights at every turn.

When this country was founded, we already had a massive civil rights problem. Our "free" nation allowed slavery. Due to a political compromise designed to appease southern states (and the business interests within those states which "required" slaves in order to run viable, profitable, businesses) slavery was partially enshrined within the US Constitution. Slavery was not only allowed, but slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for taxation purposes and for determining how many representatives each state was allowed in the US House of Representatives.

I won't go into the long struggle to abolish slavery and grant blacks full citizenship, voting rights, and equal rights. There was a Civil War. And, there were many bone-headed politicians, judges, Church leaders, and voters involved who made bad decisions designed to deny equal rights to all American citizens.

The same bigotry and arguments used to deny equal rights to Blacks were also used to deny equal rights to women. Like Blacks, women were deemed to be inferior. They were the "property" of - and must be subservient to - their husbands. Women were "too ignorant" to be allowed to vote.

The absurd arguments continued as each state decided whether or not to allow women to vote. While some states allowed women to vote (either in all elections, or only in some) before then, it took the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution (on August 18, 1920) to secure full voting rights for women in all states (Interestingly, the state many Minnesota Republicans seem to want to emulate, Mississippi, finally voted to ratify the 19th Amendment on March 22, 1984, after originally rejecting it nearly 64 years earlier, on March 29, 1920).

Again, along the way, there were many bone-headed politicians, Church leaders, and voters involved who made bad decisions designed to deny equal rights to all American citizens.

It took a long time, but eventually those who attempted to block equal rights were proved to be totally misguided and wrong. Yet, bone-headed politicians, along with some Churches and hate groups, once again conspire to deny equal rights for all.

The current civil rights struggle is over same sex marriage. Assuming that the Republicans have their way, the current legislation would require that the 2012 ballot have the question "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

In answer to some of the arguments heard in the earlier Senate "debate" on this civil rights matter:

1) It's the "people's right to vote" on such "monumental" issues.

No. Denying civil rights should not be up to the whims - and prejudices - of the voters. Expanding civil rights, when bone-headed politicians refuse to, is valid. But enshrining bigotry, hatred, irrational fear, and discrimination, in our Constitution is wrong.

2) Other states have similar amendments in their Constitutions.

That's no reason to add such an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution. Until Republicans took control, I mistakenly believed that Minnesota had higher standards than other states. This legislative session has severely shaken that belief.

3) It protects something which has been in effect since the founding of our great nation.

Past discrimination should not be used to condone current or future discrimination. There is absolutely no state interest in requiring that marriage be limited to being between one man and one woman. Denying equal rights to same sex couples is discriminatory and wrong.

4) It respects and protects our religious traditions. Religious leaders support this.

Again, this is not an argument for amending the Minnesota Constitution. Some churches, and some religious leaders, have repeatedly been proven wrong in some of their teachings (And, it's important to note that some religions still deny equal rights to women). At one point or another religious leaders in various areas promoted the idea that: The earth is flat; The Sun revolves around the earth; Negroes are inferior and should not be allowed their freedom; Negroes should not be allowed to become citizens of this nation; Women are inferior to men, they must obey their husbands, and they must not be allowed to vote; Marriages between those of different religions are wrong and must be banned (even today, in some cultures, persons who ignore such teachings may be put to death); Interracial marriages are wrong and must be banned.

Bone-headed. Extremely Bone-headed.

Some Churches, and some religious leaders, still hold to their past misguided teachings. Minnesota's laws - our Nation's laws - must not be based on the misguided teachings of any Church, religious leader, or politician. There is no valid state reason to deny same-sex couples to right to marry.

5) This amendment is needed to prevent "activist judges" from deciding the issue.

This is so wrong. In recent years, Republicans have labeled any court decision that they didn't like as being the work of "activist judges." This is appears to have been designed to further erode public trust in government, laws, and the courts. Sure, there have been bone-headed decisions handed down by judges over the years. Yet, eventually the courts and/or the people have come down on the side of equal rights.

While it's far too early in this century to declare same-sex marriage as "The civil rights issue of the century," it's shaping up as such. And, Republicans are on the wrong side of the issue.

With this bone-headed and embarrassing constitutional amendment (apparently) heading to the voters, I can think of three constitutional amendments I'd like to substitute:

1) Any individual, or leadership of a group, who conspire to release a misleading, inaccurate, or false campaign ad (or issues oriented ad), shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by not less than 10 years in prison and not less than a $50,000 fine. Upon conviction, they shall permanently banned from holding elective office and voting in any election.

Rationale: To reduce or eliminate the number of false or misleading "attack ads" run during political campaigns. We don't allow businesses to run false or misleading ads to sell their products. Such ads shouldn't be allowed to "sell" politicians either. We cannot have respect for our elected representatives if they're elected on lies and misrepresentations. We need to "raise the bar" and not allow our representatives to start lying the minute the campaign starts. If they "approve" a false or misleading ad they're subject to felony arrest. If a special interest group, an "independent PAC," or even a single individual, runs a false or misleading ad, those responsible are subject to felony arrest. The stakes for the nation are just too big to continue to ignore fraudulent ads.

2) Any individual who signs or otherwise pledges their loyalty to any special interest group, regarding any issue likely to be considered as part of their elected duties, shall be permanently banned from holding elective office (Federal, State or Local) representing the people of Minnesota. If they are currently holding elective office, they shall be immediately terminated. The vacant office shall be filled as provided by law.

Rationale: Too many politicians have been compromised by pledges made to special interest groups. As such, they are incapable of representing the people of Minnesota. Like judges, we must expect our politicians to listen to all sides of an issue, and attempt to find the best solution to each. They must not prejudge the merits of any issue. They must not simply represent special interest groups. We must demand better of those who hold elective office.

3) Any politician who votes to restrict civil rights and equality for any Minnesota citizen without demonstrating a clear legitimate state interest for doing so, shall forever be banned from holding elective office (Federal, State or Local) representing the citizens of the state of Minnesota. If the politician currently holds such an elective office, they shall be immediately terminated. The vacant office shall be filled as provided by law.

Rationale: This country was built on the concept of "liberty and justice for all." Hatred, bigotry, irrational fear, or misguided religious beliefs should not be allowed to enter the Constitution or laws of the State of Minnesota. Any politician who facilitates any effort to limit equal civil rights, and equality under the law, should not be allowed to hold elective office representing the citizens of the State of Minnesota.

In spite of years of Republican statements denying it, Minnesota has been a great state to live and work. While it's suffered from years of bone-headed Republican support for only the state's wealthiest five percent of the population, and a misguided belief that honest negotiation and compromise are wrong, it still may eventually return to its former glory. Cutting programs, jobs, and safety nets for our poor and elderly won't accomplish this. Nor will simply raising taxes. A compromise of carefully cutting some programs, and adding some taxes would start us in the right direction.

Boneheaded adherence to special interest groups demanding divisive and discriminatory "social issue" legislation is not the way to go. It's 2011, Republicans. It's time to stop repeating the sins of the past.

Friday, October 29, 2010

Toddler Meltdowns & Today's Politics

Raising children, as most parents - especially those with toddlers - will attest, can be very challenging. Toddlers tend to have very short attention spans. Toddlers lack the reasoning capability to analyze conflicting thoughts. They typically can't determine what's best for them now, and certainly not into the future. When a toddler wants something, they want it NOW.

Even those who never experienced it with their children, have certainly seen it - A young child visits a store with his or her parent. The child spots something they want. When their parent says "no," or otherwise doesn't provide what they want immediately, the child quickly enters "meltdown mode." Some adults - usually parents - look on sympathetically. Other adults shoot judgmental looks at the parent whose child is flailing about on the floor, crying and shouting, "I want it. I want it. Pleaaasseee. I want it," as if to say "Why can't you control your child?"

There's a reason toddlers - and older children - are not allowed to vote. We want them to develop their reasoning powers, before allowing them to vote in our nation's elections.

According to the "talking head" pundits and pollsters today, the American public - and likely voters - are signaling that they're content to behave as if they are toddlers.

Collectively, we're mad as hell. And, like a toddler in the midst of a meltdown, there's no reasoning with us. We intend to take out our anger and frustration over lost jobs, lower wages, lost savings, and failure to deliver on "our" special interest demands, on everyone we can, even if they're not the real problem.

This election year, our choices are very clear. Do we vote based on our "inner toddler" or our "inner adult?" Do we vote out of frustration, anger, and fear? Or, do we vote for our future, the future of our children, and the future of our nation?

There's still time to decide.

To prove the pundits wrong, we need to seek out unbiased sources of information (as best we can in today's angry, highly polarized, nation). We need to carefully listen to opposing viewpoints. We need to research all the issues, not just the issues involving "our" special interests, but also those issues supported by others. Which, if any, of these issues will allow our nation to move forward?

As adults, what we do will affect generations of toddlers to come. We need to demand of ourselves, what most of us demand of our children as they grow older - Don't yell or fight. Study hard. Seek out answers. Think before you act.

Analyze the real issues (usually not found in vicious attack ads) thoughtfully and carefully.

Then, VOTE.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Job Killing - Tax Cuts?

Republican candidates continue to run ads accusing their Democratic opponents of advocating "Job Killing Taxes." They preach that our nation's problems can only be solved through lower taxes and less regulation. It's the same message they've continued to preach for decades. And, after Enron, Arthur Anderson, AIG, millions of jobs lost, and the near total collapse of our economy, I don't believe it anymore.

I know that economic theory advises that lower taxes "should" help the private sector to provide good jobs. But, one thing the theory apparently didn't factor in is Greed. If we didn't know it before, we do now: "Greed Trumps Theory."

Sure, Republicans were successful in implementing historically low taxes for businesses (some of which reportedly make use of provisions in our bloated tax code to pay no Federal taxes) and the wealthy. But, their "Trickle Down Economics," as it was originally called, failed to produce any of the promised benefits to the nation as a whole. Greed took over. Big Business and the wealthiest 5% of our population have done quite nicely under Republican policies. The remaining 95% of our population lost ground.

Over the last few decades, millions of good jobs were shipped overseas. Millions of additional jobs were lost as Big Business and Wall Street greed nearly caused a total collapse of our economy, resulting in a severe recession which we're still looking to recover from. One can only wonder just how much farther our decline might have been if Republicans had been as successful in destroying good government jobs as their Big Business benefactors were in destroying good private sector jobs. Somebody needs to buy the goods and services businesses provide, and the rich can't (or won't) buy enough to help our economy recover.

Until Big Business starts hiring again, and average Americans begin to have enough confidence to resume spending, our economy will remain weak. Big Business can't have it both ways. As long as the only economic security they provide is to their top executives, consumer confidence, and our economy, will continue to falter.

If the events of the last few decades are a guide, keeping low taxes for Big Business and the wealthiest 5% of our population will not provide the jobs our country needs. And, with the possible exception of greedy CEOs, it will not guarantee good paying jobs into the future. It will only help to increase our country's debt.

Think about it. What has "Trickle Down Economics" done for our nation? Are you more financially secure than you were 10 years ago, or 20 years, or 30 years ago? For the majority of our nation, the answer is "NO." If you answered yes, you may be lying to yourself; Or, you may be extremely wealthy; Or, you somehow managed to sidestep the housing melt-down, the financial fraud, the sharp losses in the market, and unemployment. Most in our country weren't nearly as lucky.

Do you really want to vote out the Democrats who, despite obstructionist Republicans who refused to help, actually passed some laws which will ultimately be good for our nation? Why, after allowing Democrats only two years to fix the mess they inherited, and when our economy has started to show signs of improvement, would you want to return to power Republicans whose policies did so much to help destroy jobs and the economy?

Job Killing Taxes? Like the politicians who claim that they will create jobs (private sector jobs, not the government jobs they despise), I suspect the phrase is just another in a long series of political lies.

I just find it very offensive when it's used to pander for votes when so many are without jobs, and our country is drowning in debt.

Friday, October 15, 2010

Our Nation Depends on Us - Vote Wisely

Less than three weeks from now, this year's Political Silly Season will be over - except for the inevitable analysis of why we voted the way we did.

According to the "experts," my fellow independents and I hold the key to this year's election. It's predicated that our anger and frustration about the poor state of the economy and lack of jobs will cause us to vote to "throw the bums out." Unfortunately, in doing so we may sweep some "good players" out of office, replacing them with extremists who will continue to obstruct positive moves to improve our country.

I intend to do as I've always have done, and examine each candidate individually and attempt to determine which ones would be best for our country. It's a tough task with so much disinformation being produced.

One thing we've seen over the last few decades is that, in politics, half truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies seem to rule the day. This has been fuelled by self aggrandizing bloggers and supposed news organizations more interested in promoting controversy to drive ratings than in encouraging reasoned debate and accurate reporting. Every day during the Political Silly Season, most of the political ads seem to consist of misleading statements, if not blatant lies. After a grueling political season, it's no wonder that so many politicians are ultimately believed to be dishonest. To get elected, most have started with "misleading" ads. It's maddening. We deserve better.

I continue to watch and read as many differing opinions as I can, even the ones with which I strongly disagree. Ironically, some of my subscriptions once resulted in a major political party attempting to recruit me to be a poll watcher for them (I declined, while keeping to myself that I found most of their views hateful and wrong).

Unfortunately, many of us don't bother to listen to different opinions. Instead, we tend to listen only to those we most agree with. Anyone who disagrees with our opinion is an irrational zealot (or whatever derogatory term we choose to label them). I wonder if the majority of us would still believe that the earth is flat, if the Internet or Fox Newz ("It's like the news, only different") existed at the time that that belief was widely held. I long ago learned that the notion that the "collective wisdom of the public is always correct" is usually flat out wrong. Wall Street continues to make big money from those who follow the "collective wisdom" of others. Typically, those who follow the herd - without thinking - end up buying high and selling low, a recipe for losing significant sums of money, while further enriching Wall Street brokers.

I fear for the future of our country. Collectively, we seem to have become a nation of lazy idiots. If we read something in a blog, or hear it repeated (over and over and over) on an alleged news channel, we automatically believe it to be true. If we receive a "chain" email with a message which seems to bolster what we've seen on the Internet or an alleged news channel, we believe it - we even pass it on to our extended circle of friends. We don't analyze anything. We accept as true anything we hear from our "news channel" of choice. Because we're "true believers" we never fact check most of the opinions we see or hear.

Ignoring the truth was not a lesson I learned as a child. And, it's not a lesson I'd teach children today. Instead, my children were encouraged to not only learn the facts, but also learn how to verify and interpret those facts. Unfortunately, many choose to teach their children only what they believe to be true - even if it isn't - then blame the public school system when their child fails to learn.

It's been reported that the nation as a whole believes that the Health Care Reform Act is "bad" for the country. Starting with the angry shouting matches about "death squads" and other such lies, and continuing through the lies surrounding attempts to use abortion politics to defeat it, there was little reasoned debate before it became law. One side absolutely refused to offer any meaningful solutions, instead labeling (incorrectly) the legislation as a "Government Takeover of Health Care" (it isn't). Many continue to mislead the American public. They don't give a rat's ass about what's best for the country, only that private-sector businesses can make huge profits, while we continue to overpay for our healthcare.

Some politicians have actually produced ads exploiting the public's misconceptions (which they had helped to promote) about the Health Care Reform Act. One ad supporting a Wisconsin Republican candidate for Senate even attempts to use rising health insurance costs to show that the law isn't working (even before fully implemented) - His Democratic opponent, who voted for the law, should be thrown out of office, to be replaced by the Republican candidate, just because insurance costs went up again this year. This, of course, is ludicrous.

Health care premiums have been rising at a rate far exceeding the inflation rate for years. When the Republicans were in power they did absolutely nothing to help reform the system. Unless, of course, one counts enacting an unfunded Medicare drug benefit while refusing to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, as an example of reform. It's also important to note that businesses have a habit of raising rates/fees right before laws looking to curb their excesses take effect (have we already forgotten what the credit card companies did before the law to reform that industry took affect?).

Our founding fathers designed our government to have three co-equal branches - the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. For at least the last three decades, one major political party has done its best to destroy what the founding fathers created - all while waving the flag and declaring that they support the Constitution.

They've attempted to starve government, lowering taxes for the wealthy, while giving a blank check to big business to do whatever they want with zero accountability. They've tended to ignore any law or constitutional dictate they didn't like (Warrantless phone taps? Equal protection? Torture? Seriously?). They've attempted to undermine our country's faith in its government and in the nation's judiciary. They've done this by labeling any law which which aims to directly improve the life of its citizens as socialism, any law which attempts reasonable regulation of business as "job killing," and any court decision they do not like as being the work of an "activist judge." Hogwash.

For the last three decades or so, the Republicans have preached "Trickle Down Economics" (whether or not they've called it that). They've enacted laws to reduce taxes for the wealthy, while attempting to eliminate reasonable regulation and oversight of business. If nothing else, the last decade should have clearly demonstrated that "Trickle Down Economics" DOES NOT work. Greed trumps theory. While Republican policies have helped to further enrich the wealthy, every one else lost ground.

The Republicans have nearly destroyed the middle class. Poverty has increased. The Republicans turned their backs on the working class while companies shipped millions of good jobs overseas. They turned their backs as company after company cut or eliminated defined benefit retirement programs in favor of 401(k) plans (which were never intended to be a primary vehicle for retirement savings). The net result has been a loss of economic security for the typical worker. Corporate executives, however, fared quite well. Their economic security increased. Executive salaries surged, as did stock options, and executive retirement funding. Quite a few walked away with multi-million dollar severance payments after they destroyed the companies they worked for - with more jobs lost by people who lacked such "golden parachutes."

Sure, some executives were forced to take pay cuts as the economy soured. And yes, their net worth may have declined a bit. But, their salaries still exceeded the salaries of their workers, making it easier for them to survive the temporary setback than it was for lower paid workers. Besides, many companies offered extra stock options to their executives, allowing them to reap huge rewards when their company's stock price rebounded.

As our country's economy declined, and millions of jobs were lost, and our deficit soared, the Republican message has never wavered: "Lower Taxes." They would even further increase the Country's deficit and debt, so that the wealthiest 5% of our population can continue to enjoy their historically low taxes.

This election (as with most) is vitally important. The Republicans, and especially their Tea Party fringe, would have us return to the failed policies of the last decade. They would further erode the middle class, while preaching that they'll lower taxes to create jobs. In fact, no politician can create private sector jobs. As the last decade showed us, historically low taxes did not create private sector jobs - they were shipped overseas in droves. A further continuation of the failed policies will surely result in more people reaching the Republican Nirvana of "No taxes" - When one can't find a job, and is living in poverty, their Federal income tax liability does tend to be zero. But, I don't see the unemployed rejoicing in the fact that that they don't owe Federal taxes. I can't imagine many would want to live in poverty, to avoid paying Federal taxes.

I pray that my fellow Independents will look beyond their anger, frustration, and fear and vote for the candidates who will best represent all the people of this great nation - not just narrow special interest groups preaching greed, fear, and intolerance.

Please think carefully. Attempt to learn the facts. Attempt to analyze them correctly. Vote wisely. Vote for hope, not fear. Vote for the future, not the past.

Our nation depends on us.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

The Fox Newz Effect

Recently, a study found that nearly 25% of Americans believe - Incorrectly - that President Obama is a Muslim.

I see this as part of the Fox Newz (It's almost like the news, only different) Effect - after hearing the same lies over and over again, Fox Newz viewers start to believe them.

It's unfortunate. Many Fox Newz viewers are arguably otherwise intelligent individuals. But, by only listening to a single "entertainment" source for their news, they tend to be badly misinformed. They are slowly being brainwashed by a "Big Business" agenda which has also managed to buy the lock-step allegiance of a major political party.

It's sad. The country - and the world - has numerous problems. None will be solved by ideologues pushing extreme agendas. Yet, while ignoring their own extreme view, Fox Newz supporters have been trained to label any view which differs from the prescribed view as extreme (or in the case of the courts, activist).

For any Fox Newz viewer who happens to read this, I would encourage you to explore actual news outlets to obtain your news. While addictions can be tough to break, I'd encourage you to swear off Fox Newz for a month while seeking out objective news sources.

At the end of the month, I'd expect you to be better informed, and probably much less angry than you are now. But, you'd also probably know that President Obama is not a Muslim. And, weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq.

I know it's a hell of a challenge. But, America needs all of its best minds to work together to solve the problems we face. We can't afford to continue following loud mouthed "entertainment" ideologues more interested in ratings than in promoting truth and accuracy.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Are you a Mormon?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - the Mormons - have been running a series of feel good ads around the country. In them, they introduce some of their members. The ads seemingly stress that they have a diverse, inclusive, membership.

The problem is, the Mormons also ran a hate filled ad campaign in California, which encouraged voters to vote against equal rights for all citizens. The ads favored fear and bigotry.

Religious beliefs can be important in people's lives. But past religious beliefs have been shown to be wrong, too. Remember - the earth was once believed to be flat. It was also believed to be the center of the Universe. And, some religious leaders preached that [pick your minority] are inferior to whites.

Whether supported by organized religion, or by Target Corporation donating to support the campaign of a hate-filled candidate, it's wrong.

Hate only breeds more hate.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Michele Bachmann Again

Jim "the Election Guy" in Michele Bachmann's TV commercials appears to have an unnaturally wide stance that Larry Craig would have been proud of. It looks strange. But, at least he's haunting our TV's rather than airport restrooms.

While the visual stance is weird, the commercials seem to be vintage Republican. One even features the old Republican campaign phrase of "Tax and Spend."

There's no mention of the fact that cutting taxes for the wealthy, while starting two unfunded wars nearly caused the total collapse of our nation's economy. And, there's no mention of the fact that Republicans are the party of "Borrow and Spend."

Sadly, voters continue to respond to false Republican claims about the economy.

Under Republicans, the wealthy can expect to receive lower taxes and preferential treatment. What's left of the middle class can only expect higher taxes and "fees" along with fewer services.

As was the case over the last 10 years, tax cuts for the wealthy will be paid for by our children and grandchildren.

This time, however, the stakes are higher. If Republicans are successful in returning to the policies of the past, a double dip recession will most likely become a reality. The suffering of the middle class will far exceed anything we've seen since the Great Depression.

But, at least companies like BP will thrive, as Michele absolves them of any responsibility for their spills.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Kudos to Fox Newz

Yesterday, Fox Newz (it's like the news, only different) interrupted the entertainment programs on their broadcast stations, to cover President Obama's signing of the recently passed Health Care Reform law.

It was quite a victory party for the Democrats after a brutal battle.

Fox deserves kudos for covering the event live.

The three major network news organizations, as has been their standard practice, also interrupted the entertainment programming on their broadcast networks to cover the event live.

The main difference seen between the three real news organizations and Fox Newz (not to be confused with any real news organization) came after President Obama's speech. ABC, CBS, and NBC each offered a brief, balanced, analysis and summary of the differing views on the new law. Fox's analysis was decidedly negative. There was no hint of balance.

To be fair, I didn't switch over to watch continuing coverage (if any) on cable TV. It's possible that Fox Newz managed to come up with a balanced analysis and summary on cable.

I doubt it.

But, hope springs eternal. Just like health care reform must begin with the small steps included in the new law, perhaps Fox Newz is taking some small steps to attempt to become a real news organization.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Common Sense Talking Points?

As the latest round of maneuvering and voting on Health Care Reform slowly grinds to conclusion later today, I've listened to some of the proceedings in the House of Representatives.

It's amazing the amount of time wasted in conducting a "debate of Talking Points" from the floor of the House.

It's also amazing to think that many of the same elected representatives who pushed us into an ill-advised, unfunded, three trillion dollar (estimated) war, continue to be worried that a cost of one trillion dollars - properly funded - to provide health care coverage to Americans is somehow too expensive.

Our priorities - and moral compass - needs correction.