We are our own worse enemy?

Unfortunately, many people don't appreciate the link between THEIR spending habits and why businesses seek cheap worldwide labor in the first place.

Many Americans own a boat-load of foreign crap - often because they didn't care its place of origin when they were buying it; or if they did care, they chose the cheaper goods, which are nearly always imported because they are manufactured in countries with non-existent labor or wage standards. 

The primary impetus for outsourcing is the consumer. i.e. All of us. Look in the mirror before you cast aspersions at companies who manufacture overseas to produce cheaper goods that Americans have shown a preference for by their purchasing decisions.

And shame on those Americans who have suddenly mustered outrage towards companies catering to their purchasing choices.

Vote Your Conscience. But, be Cognizant

As an example, if people want to vote on abortion and ignore what a party does for their economic future, that's their prerogative. But, they shouldn't blame other people when that party pays lip service to their abortion views while ignoring their economic concerns. Even if you believe Hillary Clinton is a "murderer," don't pretend that the "pro-life" party you are voting for won't lower your wages, strip you of healthcare and subject your retirement savings to the whims of the "free market." When Republicans do precisely that, don't blame Democrats. At least be honest with your rage.

Words are Cheap. Focus on Actions.

I never trust ANY politician at their word, as words are cheap. Ditto for photo-ops. I care about what someone has DONE and what they DO. What they claim they will do should be measured by the past.

Why? Actions speak for the heart. The rest is noise/fluff.

In that regard, I cannot put my trust in Trump to abide by "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me." Trump's history and current rhetoric give me no confidence that he has Christ-like values towards "the least of these."

Forgive me for basing my assessment on "by their fruits ye shall know them."

But, then again, as an unbelieving heathen, what do I know? I'd say just about as much as Thomas Jefferson who separated the wheat from the chaff when he composed his work: The Jefferson Bible.

Trump's pursuit and elevation of greed and lust betray whatever else he might allege to profess. That there aren't more Christians skeptical of a 70-years old man who has converted on guns and abortions (to name just two issues) just in time for a presidential election says more about their gullibility than whatever rewrite the candidate is trying to engage in.

Moving on from Conservatism

Let us move UP from conservatism, a once respectable idea (in the tradition of Edmund Burke) of implementing progress and change incrementally (vs. not at all; or worse - rolling back progress already made).

Modern conservatism – certainly in the USA – is a reactionary force – rather than a practical or governing force. Railing on about what you are against only gets you so far.

Up from Conservatism by Michael Lind

https://www.amazon.com/Up-Conservatism-Michael-Lind/dp/0684831864

"If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal'." --John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage

Let the Right-wing Witch Hunt Begin (again)

If there's any doubt about the right-wing foaming at the mouth to profit from another Clinton presidency, I offer a correspondent I received today from a "Miss Fran Griffin" promoting a 1990s book called "Hustler: The Clinton Legacy" by Joe Sobran.

Right-wingers are shameless in pursuit of their fantasy demons. And lazy, too, as they apparently can't be bothered to create new material for a new generation of right-wing dupes.

Why did I receive this solicitation in the first place? Because I was once an anti-Clinton Republican.

I've gotten smarter and wiser with age and no longer fall for this kind of manufactured nonsense. But, I do get joy from wasting their money when they send me easily recyclable trash and collectible stamps.

Trump Fails the Character Test

The New York Times may have uncovered the fact that Donald Trump has not paid taxes, possibly for many years.

The sad part is that Trump probably did it all legally, thanks to loopholes Congress has put in place to make it easier for the wealthy to skip out on their responsibility.

Recall the Republican gospel is that taxes are too high on the "producers." It was only a natural extension of that ideology to go to bat for the wealthy any way they could, including the tax code.

For those who take the admonishment “to whom much is given, much is expected” seriously (like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, etc.), they accept their responsibility (in what they say and what they pay) rather than evade it.

Trump has failed the test of: "Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking."

Well, everybody is looking now.

Realism: Manufacturing Jobs Aren't Coming Back

Nobody can bring blue-collar jobs back - assuming you don't force companies to come back or stay here. And, I doubt a free-market proponent would be in favor of government coercion in capital choices. But you never know. Republicans were against deficits (Clinton), before they were for them (Bush) before they were against them (Obama). Also, what about the irony of Trump going after free-trade that his own party has been selling for the last 30+ years? Sure, triangulating Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, to his everlasting shame. But, by and large, free-trade has been a cornerstone of modern GOP economics. And many of the same people voting for Trump are the same ones who voted for candidates of that very same GOP!

The only way companies would voluntarily choose to come back is if there were incentives in place that would reduce their COGS (cost of goods sold) - which would require reducing COGS such that they were less than what they would be overseas. The chief component of COGS is often labor - and that translates to lower wages, which is not what America needs. What America needs is to become more competitive in the higher-paying white-collar jobs -- e.g. engineering. This means re-training former blue-collar workers into those higher paying jobs; or re-training them for labor-intensive jobs that are on the forefront of technology - e.g. solar, wind energy design and installation. America also needs to prioritize STEM education (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) because those are the cornerstone of high-paying jobs. Why have those jobs filled by Indian or Chinese workers when we can focus on our own citizens pursuing STEM careers? But all of this requires forward-thinking and investments that a reactionary Congress seems incapable of focusing on. They are missing the forest for the trees by staying entrenched in their ideology - or their need to be right - or their hostility to the occupant of the White House, etc. The world is going to pass America by if America does not get its act together and starts behaving like the super-power it is, not just militarily - but with investments in its people and its infrastructure. Progress is not cheap. But, leaders must be willing to make the hard choices when deciding where to invest and how much. Right now, the US has no such leadership.

Was Mother Teresa a Saint?

According to Pope Francis, Yes. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pope-francis-proclaims-mother-teresa-a-saint_us_57cc0153e4b078581f136836?section=& I have my doubts. I'm sure Ms. Teresa did many wonderful things and I'm not going to undermine that by saying she added no value to human existence. She did. Her tireless toil was unmatched. But, at the same time, by perpetuating Catholic teaching against family planning and contraception, she needlessly spawned new generations of poverty by burdening families with children they could not properly educate, clothe or feed. If your only "moral" goal is to procreate, she was a stunning success. If your goals also included ensuring children are loved, cared for, sheltered, clean, educated, healthy, etc. maybe not so much. Ms. Teresa was "old school" in many ways - and I can't fault her for being a product of her times (that makes her human - not a saint). But, I can foster skepticism towards the accolades being unfurled upon her.

Compassionate Drug Companies

Per the "EpiPen" outrage stirring in the news recently, I had to chuckle at the company's (Mylan) efforts to "remedy" the situation: "the company would not cut the price of the injectors, but would increase the maximum it would offer to families in its copay assistance program from $100 to $300." This gesture is not compassion or meaningful. It's a loophole drug companies now use to continue to receive the same jacked-up payment from insurance companies. In other words, drug company revenues are not affected and it keeps all of our insurance premiums high. Drug companies may create an illusion by offering "assistance programs," but those are written off in other ways that benefit the company in terms of their bottom line (net earnings- read: profit). I know. I used brand Lipitor for years and when my insurance companies tried to bring costs under control by promoting generics, Pfizer started an "assistance" program ... which had virtually nothing to do with customers who could no longer afford their products. What it did was ensure Pfizer continued to receive the same whole-cost payment from insurance companies - who would still pay for named brand ... but expect the insured to pay the difference between brand/generic, which Pfizer would now (mostly) cover with "assistance". It's another loophole the elite in Congress have created to keep the profits of the insanely rich protected, so they can continue to fund that political elite, helping them keep their jobs. It's win-win for the rich and elite. For the common folk, not so much.

Subsidizing Health-care is Smart and Effective

When people show up at the Emergency Room without health insurance, we're all paying for it. Unless, you believe for-profit hospitals eat the cost of services provided to people without health insurance. Hint: They do not. They pass it on to those of us who do have health insurance by raising the prices of drugs, services, equipment, fees, etc.

So, unless people think laws should be repealed and permit denying health services to those in need of it (something doctors could not oblige given their Hippocratic Oath), there is no getting around the fact that those of us who can afford taxes/insurance, will subsidize (one way or the other) the healthcare of those who cannot afford it.

In terms of cost effectiveness, the Affordable Healthcare Act (a/k/a Obama-care) is an improvement in that it allows people to get annual physicals and receive preventative healthcare advice, which is far less expensive than going without and showing up at an emergency room with a condition (e.g. a heart attack) that could have been prevented altogether had the person been getting annual check-ups.

Actions Speak Louder than Words

I'm reminded of a PBS documentary several years back, showing American bible-belt Christians leaving their churches on Sunday morning with smiles beaming from their faces ... making their way to watch/cheer a public lynching.

It apparently had entertainment value for followers of Christ. If only they correctly interpreted his inspired words, they wouldn't have been so horribly wrong (again). Where's that Holy Ghost when you need it?

It should teach us ALL one thing: Words don't amount to squat no matter how many flags or holy books they are wrapped in. ACTIONS (where life is) is all that matters. 

It's where the rubber meets the road. The rest is noise and distraction ... that politicians use - to great success - to get themselves (re-)elected.

No More Faux Patriotism

I remember after 9/11, when flag-wavers came out of the woodwork offering me a flag to put on my office door, even though I had one there long before it became fashionable to "wave." Then, these situational patriots had the nerve to question my patriotism when I didn't jump onboard the Bush War Train.

Patriotism isn't waving the flag when everyone else is. It's waving the flag in your heart that nobody sees during moments of peace. Like religion, patriotism does not need to be worn on one's sleeve to make it genuine. In fact, I'd argue the opposite. Faddish and situational patriotism is shallow.

The American Way of Using Religion as a Stick

So, it has become known that the DNC had it in for Bernie supporters, just as his supporters suspected.

Which tells us that even Democrats are not beneath GOP-tactics of using religion to undermine a candidate.

Jew, agnostic, atheist, who cares anyway? I mean, don't actions speak louder than words? Words are cheap. Actions are where life is.

I've seen some pretty bad things done by those who carry holy books around or profess faith in a deity; and I've seen some pretty good things done by those who are not religious or may be agnostic (not-knowing) about the whole theism thing.

The point isn't to say anyone has a monopoly on "goodness." It is to say one's position on religion or theology is irrelevant to one's public behavior.

Thomas Jefferson was attacked for being an atheist, for daring people to "dare the existence of God" in the name of enlightenment.

Thomas Paine is all but forgotten, because he chose to write The Age of Reason, which undermined organized religion (even though Paine's Common Sense was a huge broadside in pushing the American Revolution forward).

It's always been the lazy politician's (or wonk's) approach to undermine a candidate by accusing him of not conforming to the majority's belief system.

Shame on those in the DNC who went down that route. And shame on the party leaders (DWS and HRC) for not calling them out and shaming them, if only internally.

How the South was Lost

I just watched LBJ (Brian Cranston) last night on HBO and was amazed (not really) how much the appearance (white/male) and rhetoric (state's rights, unconstitutional, etc.) of those opposed to civil and voting rights legislation in the 1960s is the same as today's GOP. Not much has changed. The reactionaries have objectively not evolved in half a century, other than to tone down their speech ... i.e. until Palin and Trump arrived. It does get a bit confusing though, since the South was predominantly Democratic then and that is where much of the opposition came from. LBJ accurately predicted that the Democratic dominance in the South would be lost for at least a generation as a consequence of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Political party allegiances began to invert nearly immediately and has continued apace ever since, with many Democrats (starting with Strom Thurmond) bolting to the Republican Party, that was more (conservative) hospitable to remaining opposed to change (esp. regarding minorities) they felt was "too quick" and upsetting (to their racist constituents).

Republicans quickly seized on the opportunity with their Southern Strategy, that worked extremely well for them. For the country, not so much. Fifty years later, and the "Party of NO!" still thinks any change is "too quick."

19th Century Republicans = Modern Democrats

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican of the 19th century variety.

The philosophical impetus that drove Lincoln evolved since the Civil War and eventually landed in the Democratic Party (the former South/slavery-supporting party) during the mid-20th century when Civil Rights legislation passed.

After that, along with the "culture wars" since, we had an inversion in America's political parties with a good many Democrats abandoning their party to become Dixiecrats (see: Strom Thurmond) or became Republicans in protest of Civil Rights legislation (along with welfare, and liberalism) beginning around the Johnson years.

By the time Reagan came along, the political solidification of the South was already well underway which is why national "party" heat maps show the South as being predominantly "red."

Republicans invoking the name of Lincoln to establish "creds" without qualifying it with historical context is dishonest, at the very least. And, manipulative at worst.

Angry Old Man Changes Tune ... not

After the recent Supreme Court ruling that struck down Texas regulations on abortion clinics as arbitrary and/or lacking sound medical basis, abortion foes pounced on Donald Trump for not saying anything about it.

Shocking, I tell ya! A man who supported abortion all of his life not having much to say about lifting restrictions on abortion!

Of course, it is shocking only to those who actually believe Donald Trump had an 8th-decade conversion to the "pro-life" cause. Along with support for unregulated gun access and reading the Bible daily. Etc.

It appears the Religious Right is as clueless as the NRA.

A 70 year old man suddenly has a change of heart over Jesus, guns and abortion ... all at the same time. How stupid do you have to be to NOT recognize this as a CON job? The right-wing's irrational fear and loathing over Hillary has made them pliable dolts. 

For the Religious Right, who is instructed to "have the faith of a child" (per Jesus), I'm not completely surprised at their lack of curiosity and absence of skepticism. And, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the NRA either since its #1 goal is to maximize the profit of gun manufacturers under the rubric of an absolutist 2nd amendment.

No Sacred Amendments

There is nothing sacred about the Bill of Rights, in terms of permanence.

The Bill of Rights are simply the FIRST ten amendments to the Constitution.

They were added to the Constitution AFTER it was ratified by the States.

The people OF THOSE TIMES supported those amendments, just as Americans since then have supported amendments to support abolition of slavery and the right of women to vote, to name but a few.

We are no more bound by the amendments of the first American generation than future generations should be bound by amendments we support today. That's the whole point of a democracy, after all. It evolves, grows, learns, etc. - tempered by experience and reality. Not frozen in time.

Those who believe any amendment is beyond modification or even retraction simply do not understand how our liberal democratic system was setup to function.

This is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about change:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

I'm sick and tired of hearing that we should be held hostage to what people in the 18th century thought about guns and their role when muskets and canons were the primary weapons of violence and war.

As a gun-owner myself, I'm quite content to use basic defense weapons for target practice. I don't need or want anything more. And, even if I did, I would give up access to higher-grade weapons as I'm not so selfish as to demand a right to recreational high-power target shooting at the expense of crazy people using same high-power weapons to decimate my fellow citizens.

Kudos to Labor

Nothing happens without the physical world - molecules, atoms, electrons, etc. From bridges to microprocessors, they all require labor to bring to fruition in some fashion or another.

People who focus on using their brains in their career (e.g. Engineers, of which I am one), we figure out ways to use and manipulate the physical world to enhance the way we live. And, we are rightfully and handsomely rewarded for that. But, what should not be lost in all of that is that those who implement the objects of our creative minds are people who use their hands - and also their brains - to bring theory to market.

This has been forgotten in this day and age of outsourcing and focus on the professional sector. But, as an engineer, the way I see it is that the efforts of my intellect-centric labor (telecommmunications, in my case) would be for naught were it not for those in the trenches (literally) laying the fiber optic lines in the backbone and running data connectivity to curbs and cell towers to make it all a reality.

Near where I live, a man died from a 200 foot fall from a cell tower. It was a story in the local news so long as the helicopter had good footage. But, after that, not so much. Was this person who fell a hero? You bet. He (or she) had just as much to do with expanding broadband telecommunications access as I do. The difference being that their focus was more on labor and realizing tangible infrastructure rather than engineering know-how that drives the use of that infrastructure.

But, all the same, we're all in this together and deserve equal accolades for realizing enhanced technology.

Engineers may be different in areas of skill and knowledge per our formal training. But, we are not different in our common humanity. Our contributions are no more or no less important than those who convert knowledge to tangibles - i.e. those who apply what engineers are able to imagine and create.

Kudos to Labor.

Reactionary Christians and Human Progress

There are so many things we take for granted today that fundamentalist Christians opposed once upon a time before they could no longer withstand the wave of change or just plain died out.

For example, Christians who were part of the abolition movement were largely progressive - the kind Falwell(s), Pat Robertson, et. al. love(d) to demonize and deplore.

Conversely, you can find much in the historical record of Southern Baptists and other fundamentalists (not all southern) denouncing abolition as evil and anathema to God's will.

The moral of the story? Fundamentalists should be the last ones in the world to be trusted to judge what kind of change is worthy of human dignity and progress.

For those who haven't read it, I recommend "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom" by Andrew Dickson White, the founder of Cornell University, in 1896.

It outlines example after example of how reactionary/conservative Christians opposed science (just one area of human knowledge). When you read the examples, it will remind just how far we have come despite the persistent presence of religious reactionary forces.

Obviously, the book only takes you up to the 20th century, and I'm sure other authors have documents plenty of examples since then. But, it's a good place to start to get some historical perspective on fundamentalism's anti-progress role through the ages.

Christian Rapture Mania

When I was a fundamentalist in the 1980s, even then I couldn't understand why so-called Christians were writing books, making terrorizing plays, etc. to hypothesize about how close we were to the coming of Christ (as if no other generation had done that before ... try all of them!).

Or the craziness of thinking Reagan was the anti-Christ because his first, middle and last names had six letters each. Or the nonsense about P&G symbol on toothpaste being a Satanic symbol; or Russia being the Bear from the Book of Daniel, etc. And so many people buying into all of the nonsense!

In any case, from the 1970s book, The Late Great Planet Earth, and numerous other venues (e.g. Word of Life traveling circus) used to whip this up, I thought hasn't anybody taken the biblical passage "no man knoweth the hour..." seriously?

In retrospect, like most else in our money-driven culture, it probably had more to do with $ rather than theology.

It was a sad affair then. And as an agnostic today, I feel bad for those who take it seriously. But also angry by the moral hazard it poses to spawn complacency and inaction among those thinking the end is nigh.

For example, I have family members who are still fundamentalists and they aren't the least bit interested in recycling. They don't see the point when Jesus is coming any minute and global warming will be the least of the problems of those left behind. If they end up being wrong by 200 years or forever, that's a big act of irresponsibility and selfishness in my book.

National Day of Reason

RE: proposed bill http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c114:H.+Res.+670:

I'm an agnostic which, I guess, makes me a practical atheist. In any case, a "Day of Reason" is long overdue. After all, it has been reason and science that has provided for our modern amenities of medicine and technology. No prayer or homage to a deity gave us any of this.

Absurd Heavenly Math

Robert Ingersoll makes the following comments in Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 4, p. 266-67:

"Christ, according to the faith, is the second person in the Trinity, the Father being the first and the Holy Ghost third.

Each of these persons is God. Christ is his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both.

The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was begotten--just the same before as after. Christ is just as old as his father, and the father is just as young as his son.

The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but was equal to the Father and Son before he proceeded, that is to say, before he existed, but he is of the same age as the other two.

So it is declared that the Father is God, and the Son and the Holy Ghost God, and these three Gods make one God. According to the celestial multiplication table, once one is three, and three time one is one, and according to heavenly subtraction if we take two from three, three are left. The addition is equally peculiar: if we add two to one we have but one. Each one equal to himself and to the other two. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the Trinity."

Fundamentalist Frauds Have a Day of Reckoning

I almost feel bad for the religious frauds who have forsaken Christ for political influence. A Christ quote updated to apply to the 21st century: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not advocate tax cuts and promote the free market; and rail against abortion and homosexuality per your Old Testament Father's mandates?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

For God so Loved ...

For God so loved the world that … he drowned the entire population except for one worthy family and several lucky animals. If that’s what a benevolent God does to his friends, I’d hate to see what he might do to those he doesn’t befriend!

Fast forward a few millennium and you have the (in)famous New Testament quote about “God so loved the world” made popular by persistent American football fans occupying end zone seats!

But, even the new version of God’s love is absurd to all except those raised to believe it since occupying a crib.

I mean, Vietnam War prisoner John McCain likely suffered worse in terms of agony and duration of pain. Granted, I’m not saying it was a pleasant experience for Christ, but give me a break.

Countless people before and after Christ have fared far worse in pain and suffering than him, including many who died at the hand of Christ’s followers during the Dark Ages.

And, all those poor souls didn’t possess the knowledge that they would only be dead for three days after all their pain and suffering.

So don’t count me among those jumping to congratulate the Christian God for any meaningful sacrifice. 

Maybe leaving Christ dead forever like the rest of us would have been a true sacrifice to allow the rest of us to live forever. Making it contingent on us accepting the sacrifice and being grateful for it seems like a fair deal.

Any, why not? After all, who said Christ had to come back alive to make it a true sacrifice? What does resurrecting the sacrificial lamb accomplish?

But, you say, there cannot be only two members of a Trinity. This is true enough. But, who exactly invented the notion of Trinity? It was Yahoo himself! Whatever he decreed would have been believed in any case, so why confuse the math?

LGBT Rights as a Political Pawn Piece

I still don't understand why the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) came out so early for Hillary Rodham Clinton, except to think they really like the initials in her name!

Anyway, HRC (the organization) is part of the power-establishment in my analysis. For example, if you look at their magazine, it has lots of sponsors associated with banks, military contractors and the like - the usual money-interest suspects. The kind HRC (the candidate) likes to give speeches to for money.

HRC (the organization) knows who pulls the strings and they don't want to rock the boat given the tenuous nature of human rights, in general and LGBT rights in particular.

In any case ...

You can always count on the backwards people of this country to react to progress. And, I suspect things are going to get worse before they get better until the WASP population diminishes enough in size and power; and right-wing politicians stop kowtowing to them.

But right-wing politicians are not going to kill the golden goose prematurely. They'll milk the reactionary mob for as long as possible. And they'll buttress it by rigging the system with gerrymandered districts and making it more difficult for forward-thinking people to vote. But, even that will eventually succumb to demographic realities.

One's Allegiance to Country; not Symbols (e.g. Flags)

The Chinese use the flag as a litmus test for allegiance to the State. And hence, they outlaw its "desecration." I have no such allegiance to the State and so decry using a Flag to define said allegiance. The U.S. Flag, as a symbol and history is beautiful and worthy of understanding and appreciation. But, my allegiance is not to a Flag or any other symbol; but instead to the Principles upon which it was Founded - including the right to dissent even to the extreme case of burning a country's Flag.

Being Civilized ... Politically Speaking

My family is right wing politically; combined with religious fundamentalism. It's always been a toxic brew but we managed to get along before Facebook, where people say stuff they wouldn't say to your face. We also worked hard to follow the advice of our parents: "Never talk religion, politics or money in polite company."

Well, our offspring did not follow that advice and Facebook and other online venues have thrown that completely out the window. I've parted many a ways with high school friends and some family members because of deep political differences, made worse by unnecessary toxic and hurtful language.

People need to think before they speak/write/post.

For example, when you are accusing a president of being treasonous, besides the fact that you should provide evidence, you need to think about what you are implying to your friends and family members who support that president - that they are knowingly and willingly supporting a president that should be impeached. You're impugning their integrity as well, even if implicitly.

It is fair to talk about unlawful actions if it is based on evidence and is discussed rationally and reasonably. However, posting or regurgitating something inflammatory you read somewhere on the internet or heard through the grapevine; just because you don't like someone is not helpful.

Culpability in Undermining the Working Class in America

There have been some recent books attempting to place blame on Democrats for destroying the Middle Class.

But I believe the analysis of many of such attempts miss the mark. Relatively speaking (versus other political party choices), the Democratic party has been more pro-worker, blue- and white-collar.

Of course, I’m talking about economics here and not a discussion of “values” and how that has been used to distract many working voters from the economic savagery they were being subjected to, starting with Reagan’s assault on unions.

Reagan’s presidency was the beginning of when a sufficient number of blue collar workers chose to prioritize nationalism, militarization and “family values” over their own economic interests. And, it has been down-hill ever since.

It is true that Clinton’s embrace of the “moderate” Democratic Leadership Council agenda moved the Democratic Party more towards an embrace of the Republican worship of the free market and the havoc that wreaks when left unchecked.

This, in turn, led to disastrous policies that make both parties culpable for gutting the rust belt, worker rights and good-paying jobs. As our elected leaders paid lip service to the future of better-paying professional jobs, they failed to help factory workers and the like transition to the “new economy.”

But, choices have consequences. And as the book, “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” points out, the working class itself made choices. And, those choices were not inconsequential. If people put as much stock in the substance of what politicians delivered as a whole instead of being soothed by their cheap words, single-issues or party affiliation, we’d all be a lot better off.

Justice Scalia and Originalist Doctrine

The "Originalist Doctrine" is an idealism that does not address the very real hurdles that modern Americans have today to solve problems through the legislative process.

There are historical (read: deep-seated, ingrained, institutionalized) reasons for this sad state of affairs that pre-date Justice Scalia's birth.

But, the reality is that Benjamin Franklin's democratic "republic if you can keep it" set up for us 240 years ago is broken. And, its broken-ness has only been exacerbated by the disastrous SC/Scalia decision on "Citizens United."

While in a perfect world, the courts would not be used to create law, it came to that reality long ago. Citizens United, which undermines citizen democracy, will only make it more likely that courts will be forced to play a central role in order to remedy legislative and executive branches that becomes less interested in the concerns of common voices; and more in favor of those able to fund campaigns.

If Scalia's idealism was intended to correct our democracy back to using the legislative process most frequently, he (along with many other originalists) may have inadvertently produced the opposite effect.

Sorry Presidents

G.W. Bush says "I am sorry" for:

• Having 9/11 happen on my watch.
• Having the financial meltdown start on my watch.
• Having gas prices go to almost $5/gallon on my watch.
• Having the real-estate market meltdown start on my watch.
• Starting a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
• Failing to get Osama bin Laden and saying I wasn't too concerned about it.
• For not punishing a country (Saudi Arabia) that did have something to do with 9/11.
• Declaring "Mission Accomplished" long before the job was done (and still not done).
• Being responsible for the death of thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.
• Being responsible for the maiming of thousand American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.
• Failing to address the increasing number of Americans without health insurance.
• Increasing the militarization of America (Police State) a/k/a The Patriot Act.
• Spending $800+ billion taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street and banks.
• Creating a Third-Reich-sounding "Department of Homeland Security".

The reality is that Bush has never apologized for anything. And, it's not because he's never been asked. My guess is that it's either in his MBA training to not look back (or at least to publicly admit mistakes if you do); or he has no capacity for introspection and the subsequent personal growth that comes from it. In either case, I pity him for his inability to evolve personally.


Barack Obama says "I am sorry" for:

• Not starting another war, killing thousands of American soldiers and innocent civilians.
• Not starting another war, maiming thousands of U.S. soldiers and innocent civilians.
• Providing healthcare for more Americans, even if unappreciated by the uninsured.
• Not driving up gas/heating prices from launching a war that was not necessary.
• Killing Osama bin Laden (and several others) leftover from G.W. Bush regime.
• Reducing gas prices from $4 to below $2. You're welcome, petroleum-lovers.
• Increasing US oil production to its highest ever (is this drill baby drill?).
• Giving go-ahead to take-out Somali pirates who took over U.S. ship.
• Keeping economy from spiraling out of control (saved capitalism).
• Increasing wind and solar power utilization (+273%).
• Reducing unemployment to near historic average.
• Putting a floor under US housing market.
• Wall street market up over 100%.
• Petroleum imports down 62%.
• New car MPG up 19%.
• Rebounding 401(k)s.
• But you still suck?

Next time you see a liberal, thank them for their centuries-long struggles to incorporate humanism and sanity into ideas on "the General Welfare":

• Graduated Income Tax
• Family Medical Leave
• Consumer Protections
• Second Bill of Rights
• Anti-monopoly Laws
• Eight-hour work day
• Five-day work week
• Same-sex marriage
• Women's suffrage
• Highway System
• Social Security
• Labor relations
• Public works
• Medicare
• Medicaid
• Abolition

Much of these "socialistic" ideas were stirred around in the late 19th century, but were brought to fruition in the 20th century. 

And, if you can imagine, one proponent of many of the early 20th century liberal victories was a fundamentalist Christian (William Jennings  Bryant), who was a Democrat! Sacrilege!

You see, back then, Christians actually followed Jesus' admonition to help the "least of these" among us. And not to just be shills for a party that tickles their theology to "win" their vote. 

Bryant was in favor of helping the common man, using government to protect the vulnerable from a laissez-faire capitalism run amok and that was steamrolling the average American worker for maximum corporate profit. Sound familiar?

How non-College-educated Americans are Disadvantaged

Both American political parties are near-sighted. Maybe, one more than the other. But, they've both abdicated on their responsibility to ensure that gutting the Rust Belt did not leave people hanging out to dry - to fend for themselves (a process ongoing for decades). 

 
Smart policy would have been to incur the short-term expense (read: higher taxes) to help our fellow Americans improve their skills/education to be more competitive for the more affluent jobs. This strategy would have paid for itself many times over in terms of increased productivity, more tax revenues, less need for social welfare, etc. 
 
Instead, the unemployed were left twisting in the wind, which has been far more costly to them and us -- productivity lost and not replaced by higher productivity jobs; and higher cost to taxpayers to supplement their lost income (Medicare, SS, food stamps, etc.) because we're not monsters towards our fellow citizens (at least, I hope). 
 
To add insult to injury, the same negligent politicians delivered to their corporate masters by making it easier for foreign educated workers to fill the void of high-tech jobs and other intellect-oriented professions. 
 
From there, you can question who advocates policies more conducive to bootstrapping American workers to be competitive. As someone who reads legislation and watches our supposed deliberative congressional bodies, I know that one party is far less interested in asking about or solving these difficult problems. 
 
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure that out for themselves if they’re so inclined toward inquisitiveness. If you're honest, you'll discover the reality of the situation by watching for yourself (from the horse’s mouth) and not by being told "facts" from partisan publications and TV.

Fundamentalist Endorses Greed Candidate: Big Surprise

So, Jerry Falwell Jr. (of Liberty University), endorsed Donald Trump, who has almost no values preached by Jesus and many values Jesus warned against (e.g. pride, greed, wrath). Camel passing through the eye of the needle and all that (Matthew 19:16-26).

But, hey, the Falwell clan and Liberty University have never been about the Christianity of Christ, but rather the Christianity of Reactionary-ism and the Republican Party. Or more accurately, the version of Christianity that Republicans have found useful to hold/gain political power by recognizing and exploiting the red meat that this brand of Christianity feeds on.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." --Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Falwell, Jr. is merely extending his father’s practice of politicizing Christianity for his own purposes; and making Republicanism and Fundamentalism a blurred distinction. The shame of their act will be paid for one way or the other. Either in hell, if it exists. Or by the march of progress that steamrolls them as it did Falwell Sr.

Falwell Sr. concocted God in his own image – by preaching a gospel that re-enforced the Old Time Gospel’s Hour preacher’s philosophy, politics, prejudices, etc. So, what’s new? That’s what every believer does. It’s called projection. There are as many flavors of God as there are theists.

The peak of Falwell Sr.’s absurdity was when he wrote a 1994 World Net Daily article rationalizing how God was Pro-War. Why did Falwell do this? Because Falwell Sr. loved the Republican Party because they promised to roll back progress that Falwell opposed (e.g. “the Gay Agenda” and all that fear-mongering claptrap). The GOP was Falwell’s ticket to impose his own version of what he thought God wanted (something all believers of all faiths do, by the way). Also, Bush Jr. was endorsed by Falwell Sr.

So naturally, Falwell Sr. had to rationalize and justify the unconstitutional Iraq War 2 because his reputation was on the line. So, Falwell did what all good religionists do – dig through their holy book to find verses to justify what they already want to “prove” beforehand. After all, it’s not as if God actually sat next to Falwell and spoke into a recording device to share "his" actual thoughts on the matter. Funny how God talking to people never happens in reality. Only in stories. But, I digress.

Justifications and Rationalizations always originate in the mind of believers. It’s the nature of belief. And, it’s the nature of not having actual empirical or testable means to verify what you believe. You essentially have to make stuff up that sounds good enough to be believable by the non-discerning and has no means of being disproved.

That’s how you end up with Christians on opposite ends of an issue (e.g. gay marriage), yet each fervently and honestly believing the same Bible proves their points. Obviously, this cannot be the case. At least if one is to believe in inerrancy and guidance by a Holy Spirit. But, alas, a better explanation is that it’s just a book held needlessly in high esteem that has been used by individuals to justify what’s in their minds already. For better or worse ... throughout the centuries.

Every step of progress in the United States has been made with constituencies of believers of the same faith coming down on opposite sides of the progress and yet all claiming equal backing by the same God (ex. Abolitionism).

In the ebb and flow of U.S. culture, we’ve had periods where progressive religious forces have prevailed (e.g. those that were part of the now out-of-style “social gospel.”). Of course, today the pendulum has swung the other way, largely as a reactionary mood emanating from the rapid change and progress of the 1960s. It’s hard to imagine that 50+ years later.

But, as you can see with modern events, reactionary-ism is global and not limited to fundamentalist Christianity. They won’t admit it, but fundamentalist Muslims and Christians share more in common than they may care to acknowledge. They may differ in means to achieve their goals, but they are largely anti-science, anti-education, anti-progress and anti-modernity.

The Second Amendment is not Absolute

In fact, no amendment is absolute. Let’s take a few examples.

Amendment I – free speech. Yell “fire” in a crowded theatre and you’ll soon discover that this particular form of free speech is deemed a danger to the public and there are often penalties for exercising it. Societal good trumps this particular expression WITHOUT throwing out the entire amendment. No slippery slope here.

Amendment XV and Amendment XIX – extended voting rights because the right to vote was never absolute from the get-go. Women and slaves were excluded. Yet, even now, after having those exclusions removed, voting rights are still not absolute. Ask prisoners who have been stripped of their right to vote. Permanently in some cases when they are unable to exercise that right even after they’ve paid their debt to society. This does not kill voting rights altogether. No slippery slope here, either.

But for some reason, many Americans imagine that putting restrictions on certain expressions of Amendment II (e.g. owning weapons deemed as assault or military grade) will lead to ban/confiscation of all guns. Apparently, this amendment is more prone to a slippery slope than the others.

Those who believe in an absolute interpretation of Amendment II, dig up quotes of activists who want to ban guns outright, saying that there are “enemies” of Amendment II in its entirety and therefore caution and vigilance for this amendment is particularly warranted.

In the first place, these people are not “enemies,” but fellow-citizens exercising Amendment I to petition their government. Secondly, given how many gun-owning citizens there are compared to complete-gun-ban citizens, this isn’t even a realistic concern. And even if there should come a day when there are more of the latter than the former, it will be democracy at work. Because no amendment is permanent (see Amendment XVIII).

The framers put mechanisms in-place specifically for inserting AND removing constitutional amendments. And the first ten amendments (a/k/a The Bill of Rights) are no more sacred than any of those added later. To think otherwise is to suggest that the politicians and citizens of 1789-1791 have a right to permanently control certain existential aspects of citizens ever-after.

We can show admiration and gratitude for the framers and early citizens, but they were not divine, all-wise or flawless. They, like all humans ever born, were bound by space and time and tried to make rational decisions within the circumstances and constraints that existed at that time. This is what allows us to temper hindsight criticism (e.g. re: slave-owning framers) based on the fact that they were human – flawed and prone to make imperfect choices/compromises.

To elevate them, or somehow attribute near-divinity to their spoken and written words as if they were the second coming of Mount Sinai, is absurd. We can revise their words, decisions, amendments, etc. when circumstances deem it necessary for OUR times. And we can do so without denigrating or demeaning their legacy. It’s as much our right to add, revise and remove their effects as it was their right to declare independence. After all, rights do not come from government, let alone politicians that create those governments.