"You're not making an impact if you're not pissing someone off"

Monthly Archives: January 2012

It’s been about a year since Congresswoman Gabriel Gifford was nearly killed by a lunatic gunman who likely reacted in part to some of the vitriolic rhetoric that permeates our national political intercourse.  Now another similar act arises in a small Arkansas community that shows this social disease is still with us.

Freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness. 

This quote from Viktor Frankl’s best seller “Man’s Search for Meaning” struck a chord with me after reading about a recent incident that occurred in Russellville, Arkansas.

 Last night, Jake Burris, Ken Aden’s campaign manager … and his four kids had come back to their Russellville home.  As they were getting out of the car, one of his children discovered their family cat dead on the front porch.  One side of the animal’s head had been bashed in and an eyeball was hanging out of its socket.  But there was something even more horrifying to be found on the corpse.

Written across the animal’s fur in black marker was the word “LIBERAL“.   This is terrorism.  There’s no other word for it.   SOURCE

Such a heinous act is clearly that of a psychopath but the political overtones are clear in this bitter partisan environment we find ourselves in today.  The extremes by which politics is often communicated to the general public feeds into the deranged minds of a few who are convinced that things in their idealized world have soured so much that only the death or threats of death to certain “perpetrators” perceived by this sick view will afford some relief.

Who knows what it was specifically that set this monster (or monsters) off, killing a child’s pet to terrorize someone who simply holds different political views.  But the increased rancor and bitterness conveyed in politics today has to take some responsibility for the way their messages are being received, wrongly or rightly.  Speech that uses mean-spirited or over-the-top metaphors is oblivious to the likelihood that some listeners may take it literally.

Political discourse often devolves into demonizations of adversaries and outright abusive behavior is too often applauded by zealous crowds, many who too easily contend that “our freedoms” are being taken from us by a “socialist, liberal” government and covered up by an overblown liberal media, but only where sacrosanct market principles are challenged.  The same people are much less vocal about the threat to personal freedoms when national security efforts eaves drop on, detain, arrest and even assassinate their own citizens.  They would rather dismiss the theft of millions by institutions too big to fail than they would for those who challenge the status quo and their crony capitalism that has allowed the income gap in this country to widen at an unnatural rate.

Representative Joe Wilson calls President Obama a liar on national television during his 2011 State of the Union speech regarding his misconception about badly needed health care reform.  Republican Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who feels the federal government is not hard enough on illegal aliens, meets the president on the tarmac where his plane lands earlier this week and is shortly seen wagging her finger at the Chief Executive as if scolding him like a schoolboy just caught throwing spit wads in class.

The GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell tells a national audience that their primary goal as a political Party is not to address the economic issues of jobs and financial malfeasance that have hurt this nation for the last three years but to make sure that Obama “ is a one-term president”.  From GOP House Speaker John Boehner to most red-state congressman, legislator and city councilman, compromise is a non-issue and there are conservative operatives like Grover Norquist who foster this adversarial mentality amongst the electorate.  All of these public expressions connote a contempt for the office of the President and the political process that has worked pretty well for us for the last couple of centuries.

The hateful speech of national columnist like Ann Coulter, Walter Williams, Charles Krauthammer, Cal Thomas and Thomas Sowell who spew out the word “liberal” as if it were synonymous with “Satan”, fill the editorial pages of daily newspapers each week.  Then of course there are the frequent attack commentaries by those who get paid to do so on FOX News, and of the top twelve most listened to radio talk shows, eight are right-wing programs who frequently bash liberals.

“Hate speech against vulnerable groups is pervasive in our media—it is not limited to a few isolated instances or any one media platform. … Indeed, many large mainstream media corporations regularly air hate speech, and it is prolific on the Internet. Hate speech takes various forms, from words advocating violence to those creating a climate of hate towards vulnerable groups. Cumulatively, hate speech creates an environment of hate and prejudice that legitimizes violence against its targets.”  SOURCE

These are not people who lurk in small obscure groups or on seldom-read blogs but are national figures that get a lot of exposure from the mainstream media.  I have seen my share of dangerous and threatening rhetoric emanating from the left but who on the national level besides Bill Maher and Ed Schultz comes to mind today who brandishes fiery rhetoric that simulates that which comes from the right.  Maher is a professed comedian and not expected to be taken seriously and Schultz tends to attack certain policies favored by the right rather than attacking conservatism as an evil ideology.  Keith Olbermann, often labeled as a liberal hate monger by the right, no longer airs on a nationally televised broadcast.

How does such uncivilized action reflect on the notion of freedom?  Do public figures who are supposed to represent the leadership in this country see freedom expressed in virulent, unabashed commentary that belittles and disparages people, especially those who disagree with them?  Is one-upmanship that misguidedly attacks an individual’s character the norm now for those who largely control the media outlets in our nation?  Where is the real character of an individual who sees this type of behavior go on relentlessly and though not actively engages in it themselves but are deafeningly silent towards those who do?

Individual freedom is not separate from the collective unity it takes to ensure society functions in a productive manner.  The “lone wolf” persona is the rare exception, not the norm and is often a more mythological character we create in our vivid imaginations.  We share space with other people we may not agree with or even like but antagonizing those differences does nothing but ensure greater chaos and destruction of civility.

Individual freedom does not and cannot exist in a vacuum.  We are by nature social creatures but we are also individuals who can make choices and judgements within any social context.  We need to make sure that personal freedom is not restricted to one mind-set.  In order to do that we need the type of leadership that fosters differences of opinion and sees that challenges to them are done in a civil fashion that demonstrate we have respect for each other, rather than threaten harm to those that don’t bend to our will.

Freedom is indeed in danger of degenerating, not only into mere arbitrariness but into mean-spirited, physically threatening behavior by those sociopaths who get their cues to act from the hateful rhetoric of a political figure or media personality who mindlessly blurts out what civil society finds unacceptable.


Taking Ideology To The Grave

A middle-aged, single man was found dead in his home in a remote part of Liberal, Kansas.  It appears the deceased, Homer Glickman, froze to death as a result of a blistering snow storm that spent several days in the southwestern part of the state.  The advance of this deadly storm was broadcasted over all of the local media sources days before.  People were warned that there might be power outages and that they should take all necessary precautions.   But it appears that Homer’s reluctance to respond to these media alerts was a factor that was expressed in this bumper sticker  found on his 1992 Suburban.

Homer was found frozen stiff in his lounge chair with a beer and cigarettes on an end table nearby.  The TV was broadcasting the GOP primary debates on FOX and a copy of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” was found clutched in his right hand.  He was apparently trying to keep himself warm with a thick layered “Don’t Tread on Me” flag that appeared to be made from the tanned hides of squirrels.


According to a Center for Public Integrity analysis super PACS have already spent $30 million in the states where the 2012 primaries have been held.  Most of this comes from a handful of very wealthy people who hope that their “speech” will drown yours out.

In a recent presentation before the South Carolina Bar last Saturday,  Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia cavalierly dismissed those who have criticized the 5-4 decision in the Citizens United case which for all intents and purposes called money the equivalent of speech, thus allowing unlimited corporate funding of political ads.  His logic is simple but somewhat naive and appeals to the popular concept of individual liberty – change the channel or turn off the TV.  “I don’t care who is doing the speech – the more the merrier,” Scalia said. “People are not stupid. If they don’t like it, they’ll shut it off.” 

Antonin Scalia - Caricature

Justice Antonin Scalia

The presumption here is that “people are not stupid” and will essentially see through any ad that is less than factual or not to their liking.  We know that a lot of people who do see these ads are indeed not stupid and will reflexively dismiss those ads that don’t appeal to their particular political orientations.  Clearly there will be those who will filter out any message that doesn’t speak to a preferred script as we witnessed in one South Carolina GOP primary debate where audience members applauded and shouted down their disapproval of a values question aimed at Newt Gingrich’s infidelities in marriage.  The same mindset that went after Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky affair less than two decades ago was now chastising the debate moderator for raising it with one of their own.

But that’s not really who these ads are aimed at.  Sure, they serve as a source to fire up the fringe elements and the Party’s base.  Their primary target however are the less sophisticated, poorly informed voters who are not locked into the politics of our day.  They are presented with all the advanced technological special effects to appeal to some emotional element that is sure to persuade an otherwise naive voter to see an issue from one particular side.

Surely there’s value from an onslaught of political ads that accurately state the positions a candidate stands for.  Such positive ads would give poorly informed voters something to assess about the man or woman running for office though there would be no guarantee that once in office an elected official would would play out those positions.   But that’s the political environment we live in and the election process does give the candidate the benefit of the doubt while giving voters the power to vote them out later for failure to live up to expectations.

The problem however is that the ads in recent campaigns are mostly attack ads aimed at a political adversary. Rather than put their own positions out there that can be closely scrutinized by an astute electorate and critiqued over the airwaves and internet blogs, the public is instead seeing ads that disfigure an adversary right before their very eyes Voters are not being allowed to weigh the pros and cons of a candidate but instead are being manipulated into voting for his opponent by default.

He who has the most money to drown out the other’s counter-ads to offset this image is likely to win in a social culture that has short attention spans and where people know more about their favorite sporting event than they do about the political policies on the local, state and national level that determine whether their kids’ school will be adequately funded each year or that coal-fired power plant is going to get another pass on reducing their toxic emissions our kids breathe everyday.   Welcome to Antonin Scalia’s view of democracy.

The expression attributed to Voltaire that says one may not agree with what another says but will defend to the death the right to say it is incorporated into our values and our founding documents.  For this, Scalia is correct in his thinking.  But these are not the days that this “original intent” justice pines for where any man could stand upon his soap box on any street corner and express his views while challenging views were being equally aired on the other corner.

The corner soap box has been replaced by a medium that influences millions of people in 30-second spots.  Wealthy interests can crowd out the corners of free speech in this new medium and thus deprive citizens of a fair and balanced hearing to help them make sound decisions that affect them and future generations.  If the overwhelming content heard by the average voter is a distortion of the truth then honest choices are denied.  Repeated often enough a lie becomes the new reality and that new reality will start paying obeisance to them that brought them to the dance.

Where we once relied on an objective free press to expose political deception we are now presented with formats on corporate-owned TV and radio that gives equal weight to both the unfounded charge and the facts.  The naive and unsophisticated voter is now led to believe that a baseless charge is on the same footing as factual data.  Once the lie or distortion is out there, time, energy and money must now be spent to dismiss it.  If the truth isn’t backed up by enough monetary support to get its message out, unlike the soap box debaters of a bygone era, that message simply won’t get the attention it deserves.  So be it says justice Scalia because right now the money is in that political arena that he palys ball in.

Justice Stephen Breyer, in that same presentation before the South Carolina Bar that Scalia made his comments at pointed out that by nature, when a decision isn’t unanimous, “somebody is making a mistake”.  The notion that people are not stupid is a mistaken concept when it relates to politics and religion – social constructs that rely too often on gut feelings and personal intuition rather than studied analysis and thoughtful reflection.

The biblical tale where the apostle Thomas needs to touch “the risen Jesus” before he can fully believe speaks to that human concern of being deceived by smoke and mirror presentations and thus are less likely to accept an image of something unless they can lay their hands all over it.  This Citizens United decision and the flippant attitude of Justice Scalia makes it more difficult for many of us to fully grasp the rapid fire messages that are now part of the political process in this country.  Messages designed only to effect the voting behavior of targeted crowds rather truly inform and give a full and accurate accounting.  And let there be no doubt – both sides will employ this tactic and it will be those who have the most money that will most likely win.  The general public will be the losers.

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities” Voltaire


A message for dads: You can’t impress on teenage boys their responsibilities to prevent teen pregnancies in a culture where women are seen as mere objects of male sexual desire and sex education is deficient or non-existent.  

After writing my last piece on teen pregnancy that emanated from a new government study suggesting a lot of teenage girls are clueless about their chances of getting pregnant, I felt the need to discuss how boys are also often clueless in their attitudes towards the teen girls they get pregnant.

There is a mentality in our culture that presumes any young girl or woman who dresses “seductively” is asking to be raped.  This is a standard defense when a young man has been accused of rape in this country where two legal age individuals are involved.  There is also the notion that has been exaggerated by males who insist that when women say no, they really don’t mean it.  “They want it is as bad as we do” is the common refrain with young testosterone-energized males.  There’s an old tune popularized by Dean Martin in 1949 that may have helped create this perception with the men who fathered the baby boom generation.

You fooled me dear, now for a year

My heart you tantalize

But without a doubt 

I have found out

The secret in your eyes

Your lips tell me no, no

but there’s yes, yes in your eyes

I’ve been missin your kissin

just because I wasn’t wise

I’ll stop my scheming and dreaming 

Because I realize

Your lips tell me no, no

But there’s yes, yes in your eyes

Dino’s song was perhaps innocently enough referring to the seductive wiles we attribute to women but it was never meant to be anything more than a suggestion on how women communicate their attraction towards men.  To ascribe to it some implicit right for men to force themselves on women is an uncivilized response by the stronger sex who simply can’t control their sexual urges.

But if such suggestive lyrics led to misconceptions for young men at that time, today’s lyrics often heard in rap music and hip hop leave no doubt how women are viewed by some male teens.  Rap and hip hop is the music genre that evolved from that socio-economic culture where teen pregnancy rates are at their highest.

Psychologists said their findings from a three-year study presented a worrying picture of how popular music affected the attitudes of boys and girls to sex.

Rap music and hip hop, with their particular emphasis on sex and demeaning depictions of women, were blamed for encouraging early sexual behaviour, leading to the spread of disease and underage pregnancies.

Dr Steven Martino, who led the US study published in the latest edition of the journal ‘Pediatrics’, said that “sexually degrading lyrics” – many graphic and filled with obscenities – caused changes in adolescents’ sexual behaviour.

He said, “These lyrics depict men as sexually insatiable, women as sexual objects, and sexual intercourse as inconsequential. Other songs about sex don’t appear to influence youth the same way.  SOURCE 

In his NY Times opinion piece, “The Ways of Silencing”, Jason Stanley was describing how political operatives in today’s partisan charged environment “undermine the ability of a person or group … to employ a speech act by representing that person or group as insincere in their use of it.”   In doing this he used the findings of Jennifer Hornsby’s 1993 paper entitled “Speech Acts and Pornography” that addressed how “men are led to believe that when women refuse a sexual advance they don’t mean it.”

Women, then, will not be understood to be refusing, even when they are. If certain kinds of pornography lead men to think that women are not sincere when they utter the word “no,” and women are aware that men think this, those kinds of pornography would rob women of the ability to refuse. Using “no” to refuse a sexual advance is what is known as a speech act — a way of doing something by using words.

This is the environment that some teen boys find themselves in today.  Many have been raised without the proper training from their fathers or some other dominant male figure in their young life that teaches them to respect women.  Couple this with various forms of media that portray women as mere objects of male sexual desires and it’s not hard to imagine how males will often fail to meet traditional social expectations, taking advantage of those girls who want to please them and avoid spurning them.

Just saying no is not a preventive measure when aimed at a boy who thinks he knows you don’t mean it.  Sexual urges are strong human instincts that, according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs,  disregards “maintaining a birth rate adequate to survival of the species”, but because civilized society revolves around family and community, restraint of these urges is required.  This restraint has to be impressed upon young males by those male authority figures early in their life.  Too often this expectation has fallen on the female and allowed boys to be seen as victims of a woman’s perceived body language;Your lips tell me no, no but there’s yes, yes in your eyes”.

Viktor Frankl, in his book, Man’s Search for Meaning, directs us to what he feels gives true meaning to life – purpose.  Without a purpose, life is pretty much meaningless and will determine how honorably we will behave under stressful conditions.  This was something that became pronounced for Frankl during his own imprisonment and torture in Nazi concentration camps.  He overcame the brutality of this existence and lived to talk about it because he gave purpose to every effort he used to defeat the inhumane treatment he experienced.  At the base of this drive to find purpose was a spiritual and moral belief that held all humans in respect.

It could be understood and forgiven if Frankl failed to live up to this virtue, which there were times when he did.  The urge to violate every character strength he had been raised with was tested under the worst possible conditions.  The strain of such life and death situations however are not what young boys in our society face today but many do lack an empathetic, dominant male figure to help mold and enhance a moral set of values by which to guide their interaction with the so-called weaker sex.

It’s  a shame that some boys are raised without a father due to divorce, abandonment or death of the father.  But it is a greater shame where there are fathers who raise their son’s with the dysfunctional notion that getting laid is more important to their son’s value than teaching them how to respect women and create a loving relationship where sex is much more fulfilling than simply “getting your rocks off”.

As a society we would hope our adolescent children would abstain from sexual intercourse until they were older and married or at least had a meaningful relationship where they were willing and able to take on the responsibilities of having a child that results from their natural urges.  This simply isn’t going to happen and time has shown us that all the threats of religious taboos and promotion of abstinence-only programs have had little influence on teenage sex.  We will continue to experience unnecessary rates of teenage pregnancies unless we couple our efforts to develop principled kids with the information they need to prevent a life altering event they are unprepared for.

Sons will mimic their fathers. Make sure they don’t get the wrong message.



Momma don’t let your babies grow up to be gullible

That may sound like a title to a Willie Nelson tune but it is clearly a message that is aimed at nullifying a horny, naive adolescent girl’s misconception of what it takes to get pregnant.

A new government study suggests a lot of teenage girls are clueless about their chances of getting pregnant.

In a survey of thousands of teenage mothers who had unintended pregnancies, about a third said they didn’t use birth control because they didn’t believe they could get pregnant.

What were they thinking, exactly, isn’t clear. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey didn’t ask teens to explain their reasoning.

But other researchers have talked to teen moms who believed they couldn’t get pregnant the first time they had sex, didn’t think they could get pregnant at that time of the month or thought they were sterile.  SOURCE

This nation is in trouble if such notions about what it takes or doesn’t take to get pregnant comes from parents, especially mothers.  But what is most likely occurring is that there is either no information about sexual relationships coming from parents or they are only giving scant information found in “abstinence only” instructions which studies show fail to inform teenage girls and boys “about the most basic topics in human sexuality such as puberty, reproductive anatomy, and sexual health.”

In my home state of Texas, the Christian fundamentalist capital of the world, where teen sexual activity is higher than the national average – 52.9% versus 47.8% – it shouldn’t come as a shocker that what sex education is available for teens, 94% of it comes from abstinence-only programs.  The school curricular in Texas omits basic information about sexuality altogether.  That too shouldn’t come as a shocker with a governor who omits factual information about climate change and feels we can pray our way out of years and years of drought.

There is little to no information provided about anatomy and physiology, puberty, menstrual/ovulation cycles, planning of pregnancies, stages of pregnancy, signs and symptoms of STDs, how and where to be tested for STDs, effective methods of preventing pregnancies and STDs, and other related topics.

Many rural school districts where kids are raised on farms rely upon nature’s instruction between the cows and sheep to inform kids about the results of having sex.  In their research on sexuality education in Texas, Dr. David Wiley & Dr. Kelly Wilson from Texas State University-San Marcos, found that at least two central Texas school superintendents reported that “farm animals provide reliable sexuality education for students in [their] district.”

But let’s get back to those explanations some girls gave explaining their deflowering that led to their giving birth to those “baby lambs and calves”.  Without proper knowledge from concerned adults, our daughters are left to the wits of young boys whose hormones are blazing to fend off sexual advances that exist equally strong in young girls.

It doesn’t take much imagination to realize who put some of these absurd notions in their head.  Male teens are just as accountable as girls to prevent teen pregnancies.

A likely scenario that could possibly lead up to such consequences might be where the young girl and her boyfriend are making out in the back seat of his car on Sweetheart’s Ridge.

“Come on Sue.  Let’s me show you how much I REALLY love you”  

“No Peter.  I know when the cows do such stuff on our farm that it usually results in a baby calf.” 

“Awwhh horsefeathers Sue.  That’s because they’re full grown animals.  Girls your age can’t get pregnant the first time they have sex.  Besides it’s the first week of the month and everyone knows girls are sterile during that period of time.” 

“Really?  But momma told me to say no if you made such advances Peter.”

“I’ll buy you an ice cream sandwich afterwards sweetheart”

“Oh Peter.  Take me, I’m yours”

I make light of this subject here but do so to illustrate that there is a mentality out there with some parents that feel if they actually talk to their kids with facts about their sexuality that it will just encourage them to become sexually active.  This might be funny if it weren’t for the fact that teen pregnancies are on the rise in the U.S. for the first time in more than a decade.

We need the parents to quit relying on their children to discover the consequences of sexual intercourse on their own by watching farm animals or through the vague information they receive through abstinence-only programs.  People become sexually active whether we openly discuss it or not.  That’s how we’re wired.  What they don’t always discover until it’s too late are the consequences for responding to that urge unless the adults who brought them into this world start properly and thoroughly educating them.

 


Here’s a news item that exposes the threat we face as a nation today for our failure to implement a strong energy policy decades ago that addresses the hazards of increased carbon-based fuel use.

Oil demand has fallen for the first time since the 2008-09 global financial crisis, a result of the weakening economy, a mild winter and high crude prices, according to new estimates from the International Energy Agency.

The industrialised nations’ watchdog said oil demand dropped by 300,000 barrels a day year-on-year in the final quarter of 2011. While still forecasting overall growth in demand for 2012, the agency revised down its outlook for this year to growth of 1.1m barrels a day, from 1.3m b/d, and said further downgrades were possible. Global oil demand in 2011 was 89.5m b/d.

David Fyfe, head of the IEA’s oil industry and markets division, said the drop in demand late last year reflected the mild winter, which was in sharp contrast to the cold winter of 2010-11. But it was still surprising. “It is quite rare” to see an absolute contraction, he said. “We’re flagging that there are clearly downside risks to the global economy and to oil demand.”     SOURCE 

It may not grab those who aren’t looking for it, or worse, who are in denial, but part of the reason oil demand decreased was the result of a warming climate this winter, a trend defined as “season creep”  by phenologists, that will continue as the planet continues to warm at an alarming rate.  Deny all you want that increased rates of CO2 from using fossil fuels is the culprit here but the evidence is mounting to not only support this view but such evidence also further debunks some of the old arguments that attribute rapid increases of global warming simply to the sun and reflectivity.

As jobs are lost, less demand will occur for coal, oil and natural gas to heat homes and businesses.  Unless those job losses are offset by new ones in the renewable energy field, the economic impact in northern most regions, like the upper continental U.S.,  will be significant.

But not only will warmer, shorter winter seasons effect jobs, it will affect overall health.

As climate change causes winters to warm and seasons to shift, a host of exotic invasives and destructive natives are marching their way into our lives at an ever increasing rate.

According to a new report from the National Wildlife Federation, these climate invaders will continue to spread disease, destroy valuable natural resources and push out the native plants and wildlife Americans cherish if global warming continues unabated.  SOURCE 

Our short-sightedness to plan for this eventuality is evident with the current efforts by the fossil fuel industry and pro-pipeline labor unions to push through the TransCanada pipeline known as known as Keystone XL, which would bring approximately 800,000 barrels of oil per day from the Canadian oil sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast.  Both sides of this argument dispute the number of jobs this pipeline would create but whatever the number is, the bigger picture of what the environmental impact will be from this pipeline seems to play second fiddle to the more immediate need of job creation.

It a tough line to tow for policy makers and the GOP and their corporate backers are making as much hay about this as they can to get the Presidential permit needed to move this project forward.  Sarah Ladislaw, senior fellow with the Energy and National Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. illustrates the quandary the fight over the Keystone XL pipeline makes:

[The] denial or approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline will not bring the United States any closer to discovering real answers about how to pursue a lower-carbon pathway in this country. Many in the environmental community argue that we should be investing more in alternatives to oil, and they are right. But in the absence of coordinated U.S. policy to do this on a more expedited basis, it is nearly impossible to force that kind of a transition by stopping oil production one pipeline at a time. U.S. policymakers should not be let off the hook on this larger policy question by placing disproportionate focus on a single pipeline debate.  SOURCE  

She makes a succinct point but then seems to forget that our energy policy battles are not something new, as I point out shortly.  But first, I would argue that a line needs to be drawn in the sand (no pun intended) somewhere and it might as well start here.  A strong case needs to be made to point out that the tar sands are some of the dirtiest sources of oil.  The International Boreal Conservation Campaign released a report that explains how “tar sands extraction and refinement is the most polluting and carbon intensive oil process on earth, draining wetlands, diverting rivers and stripping all trees and vegetation from the forest.”

Canadian tar sand pits

Where this pipeline runs through Nebraska is an underground aquifer that provides drinking water for several states.  A rupture in this line could taint it and make it unusable for millions of people who depend on this source of water for their families and businesses.

The long term affects for pushing this and other fossil fuel initiatives through for short term job gains needs to be presented in a manner that the public can easily discern the risks involved in picking one course of action over the other.  Sadly, most people can’t see or won’t look beyond their own immediate wants and needs to realize that 2 to 3 decades from now their kids and grandkids will be paying a high price in terms of costs related to health care and preservation for choices their parents made today.

Ms. Ladislaw and others may feel that we need to lay the ground work for an energy policy that addresses the short term energy needs to the long term adverse affects before attempting to stop oil production “one pipeline at a time”.  But the overwhelming evidence that such slow moving efforts will be negated has been apparent for sometime.  The ill-effects of anthropogenic global warming today are the result of policy makers 30-40 years ago failing to come to terms with this issue back when it was first presented to them by the climate science of that period.

We have already passed the point of no return where our ability to limit CO2 created by man’s activities will prevent some of the adverse affects, like longer, warmer summers and shorter winters, massive ice melts and acidifying large areas of sea water.  To argue that planned policy must be put in place first no longer has the reasonable appeal it once did, before the current threats manifested themselves.  We need the courage to act more dramatically now and pay what consequences may arise; consequences that will surely hurt some but will be less painful and less enduring than those consequences that will come from further delay.

Making policy under such adversarial conditions won’t be that problematic.  We know what the problem is and what the best solutions are.  We just need to get past the corporate self-interest that hang tenaciously on and the reality that there will be slightly higher fuel prices initially.  Once we achieve this we can set a course that gives some assurances to our progeny that their future will have a measure of security instead of being victims of climate change that in large part resulted from our failure to reduce and ultimately eliminate dependence on fossil fuels.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Keystone XL Pipeline Backers Dwarfed Opponents in Lobbying Efforts

Dubious Pipeline Assertions on Jobs


It is a failure that has serious consequences for us all as those within the ranks of the 99% continue to support the wealthiest 1% for the wrong reason

In a video from Bill Moyers’ new show, Moyers & Company there is a segment where members of his team are interviewing people at the Zuccotti Park’s Occupy Wall Street movement in lower Manhattan.  I was captivated by the presence and comments of a Wall Street-type investment banker from Florida named Stephen Hays.  He clearly stuck out from the OWS crowd as he and a friend with him were dressed like the Wall Street bankers they were.  He was having a conversation with a market executive from Oregon, Peter Craycroft.  Craycroft was speaking optimistically about the Occupy Wall Street movement and particularly how the OWS encampment was a “perfect kind of forum for us all to come and talk about [our concerns]”

Hays was smirking as Craycroft explained how he had “seen many souls change” on both sides.  “Really” Hays said dismissively, then proceeded to lecture his peer:

“I went through the Woodstock generation, Hays said, and I thought it was just back to business as usual.  Just sort of … it was a big party.  That’s what I see this as, (gesturing to the OWS crowd gathered around him) a party with no cover.”

Hays then turned his attention to the Moyer’s reporter:

“I’m a defender of money, freedom, individual freedom, rich people.  Cause I’m still … even though I’m still trying to be one … because the more money I have, the more good I can do.  And it will be my decision on how I allocate that good.  How I allocate that capital.

And when I look around at all of these buildings, hospitals, colleges … I don’t see many poor peoples names.  They’re all rich people.

Reverend Ike, a black minister use to preach up here in New York, and he used to say ‘if you curse the rich you’ll never be one’”

When  challenged by a passerby who questioned whether rich people will actually allocate their resources in a manner that benefits society as they see fit, Hays circumvents the question by  condescendingly pointing out that the guy questioning him has “a nice camera, nice clothes” alluding to the fact that it was the free-markets that made that possible.  I just can’t be so pessimistic” Hays tells the man.

We hear that a lot from the supporters of rich people and money.  The fact that many of the 99% can have cheaply made gadgets and other commodities totally misses the point that we are only able too because they were made in cheaper foreign labor markets.  Labor markets that took many American jobs and have ultimately created the condition we are seeing today where wages in this country have to more closely reflect those cheaper wages abroad.

Where Peter Craycroft from Oregon saw opportunity to address the core issue with the OWS crowd regarding the growing income disparity in this country, his counterpart in investment banking, Stephen Hays, only saw a new generation of hippies threatening his income source as they “party” with no meaningful solution to the problem – “no cover” as he referred to it.

Stephen Hays had pre-conceived notions before coming down to Zuccotti Park.  It seems pretty clear that he left with them completely intact.

To people like banker Hays the OWS crowd represents a direct threat to the iconic status of the career he has chosen.  The belief in money, individual freedom and rich people that Hays defends seems to come across however as a defensive reaction that isn’t willing to accept the reality that this choice has some serious flaws.   It isn’t easy for people to come to grips with the fact that their choices they have aspired to for years has lost some credibility.  People who don’t share their views will automatically be seen as a threat.  Demonizing this threat is an act to reinforce their own self-worth.

But there really isn’t any threat out there from the OWS crowd or anyone else for that matter who feels like large corporations should have some government oversight, contrary to what Stephen Hays thinks.  The Occupy Wall Street movement is not an anti-capitalist, socialist movement as has been portrayed by Wall Street.  It’s a reaction to the overwhelming evidence that Wall Street is occupying nearly every facet or our lives, the 99%.  The American middle class is slowly disappearing while 1% of the nation’s income earners expands astronomically as this chart shows.

Left unchecked this rapid income-gap expansion could see this once great economy that people from all around the world wanted to emulate turn into something closer to those nations run by despotic oligarchies.  Let’s put things in perspective so people like Stephen Hays can have a more realistic view of the problem we’re having in this country.

Sean F. Reardon and Kendra Bischoff of Stanford University put out a report entitled Growth in the Residential Segregation of Families by Income,1970-2009, that demonstrated how a severe income disparity can affect the character of the local areas where people currently live, going from once stable, middle income neighborhoods to more crime ridden, less sociable poorer ones.  As people lose their jobs or suffer wage decreases they ultimately lose the ability to keep up with mortgages or buy homes homes that are in good neighborhoods.

What slowly tends to happen is that mixed neighborhoods where there is a blend of affluent and moderate income families begin to disappear creating greater segregation between the haves and have-nots.  As this income segregation grows it may well lead to inequality in social outcomes.

Income segregation implies, by definition, that lower-income households will live in neighborhoods with lower average incomes than do higher-income households. A large body of research suggests that the neighborhood context one lives in can directly affect that person’s social, economic, or physical outcomes.  This suggests that income segregation will lead to more unequal outcomes between low- and high-income households than their differences in income alone would predict because households are also influenced by the incomes of others in their community.

What this portends is that more and more children today are less likely to be upwardly mobile than their parents were.  Current census data has shown that “a record number of Americans — nearly 1 in 2 — have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income … [depicting] a middle class that’s shrinking.”

Coupled with this is a report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that shows a pattern here that could prove economically disastrous for this country as “the gap between rich and poor in O.E.C.D. countries has reached its highest level for over 30 years.”  O.E.C.D. countries are not third world nations.  They are some of the most prosperous nations in the world.   Of the 22 nations rated, the U.S. has the 3rd highest rate of income disparity, trailing nations like Denmark, Luxembourg and our neighbor to the north, Canada.

Paul Krugman elaborates on these findings, explaining that “we actually have less intergenerational economic mobility than other advanced nations. That is, the chances that someone born into a low-income family will end up with high income, or vice versa, are significantly lower here than in Canada or Europe.”

And there’s every reason to believe that our low economic mobility has a lot to do with our high level of income inequality.

Last week Alan Krueger, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, gave an important speech about income inequality, presenting a relationship he dubbed the “Great Gatsby Curve.” Highly unequal countries, he showed, have low mobility: the more unequal a society is, the greater the extent to which an individual’s economic status is determined by his or her parents’ status. And as Mr. Krueger pointed out, this relationship suggests that America in the year 2035 will have even less mobility than it has now, that it will be a place in which the economic prospects of children largely reflect the class into which they were born.  SOURCE 

So let’s return to Stephan Hays’ defense of wealth and his right to allocate his capital as he chooses.  This is not simply about one’s “individual freedom”.  It’s about a way of life that has developed over the last century where upward mobility has been a given.  It resulted not because we waited for the wealth of a few to trickle down to everyone else but because their was an ethic within our government and society to provide for the general welfare.  An ethic which saw that a decent living wage and basic health care coverage made good economic sense and enhanced growth.  An ethic that provided good education for all its citizens and provided quality roads, schools and parks so that upward mobility would be possible.

Mr Hays was also wrong about how only the names of the rich people were on the all the buildings, hospitals and colleges.  Yes, there are those private institutions whose wealthy benefactors have insisted that part of the deal for laying out the funding include plastering their name on the building.  However, every public school, public library, county hospital and state university system are there through the taxes that we all pay for.  Those along with every private institution are built not by rich people but the labor of hard working low and middle income people.

Most of that wealth generated to pay for that labor came from a prosperous middle class that could afford to buy the products and open savings accounts that ultimately provided investment funds to construct great depositories of business, medicine and education.  Take that middle class away by reducing their income and it will be matter of about two decades where fewer such dwellings will be in place.

When everything becomes owned by the private sector then only people with enough money will be able to utilize their services, slowly eliminating more and people as that income for most of the 99% fails to keep pace with the 1%.  The public commons will eventually exist no more.

Mr Hays should be grateful that this “new generation of hippies” is out their trying to save capitalism from itself so he can continue to aspire to be wealthy.  Follow their lead Mr. Hays if for no other reason than you own survival is at stake.  No one is “cursing the rich” because we don’t want to be like them.  We merely want a livable income so we can prepare our kids and grandkids to take advantage of those opportunities that are all but disappearing from their grasp.

RELATED ARTICLE

Inconvenient Income Inequality (Charles M. Blow, NY Times)


Time to convey another piece on music appreciation and share with you a group and one of their tunes that I find remarkable.

There’s a wonderful band called the Tedeschi Trucks Band that has a great sound that their website refers to as “a mix of many great traditions like Delta blues and Memphis soul, Sixties rock and Seventies funk [and they all] flow together naturally, blending with an entirely original, modern sensibility.”

One of the signature pieces on their “Revelator” album is a soulful gospel tune entitled Bound for Glory.  In fact when you first hear it you’ll honestly believe it’s sung by some professional black gospel group.  The female lead for this group is Susan Tedeschi whose rich alto chords are the perfect pitch for this piece with background vocals and brass, accompanied by her partner/husband and lead guitarist Derek Trucks.  The lyrics to this “rowdy revival” piece were written by one of their male vocalist, Mike Mattison, whose concept wasn’t the imagery of a boisterous hand-clapping, foot stomping tent revival, though that’s the sensation you may experience.

As Susan tells it in a video on how this number was recorded, it’s “about when you’re asleep and you’re sort of in that dream and you’re trying to finish that dream and, you know, you don’t want to get up because you don’t want to miss out on what’s going to happen at the end of that dream.”

Whatever the inspiration though it is one of those rare tunes that you just cannot sit still to.  You are compelled to stand up and move your body in rhythm to the beat with your eyes closed and your hands clapping, almost expecting to hear a voice shout out “thank you Jesus”

Tell your story
Roll the truth around your head
Bound for glory
I ain’t getting out of this bed
The sun comes struggling on
Yesterday’s dead and gone

Tell your story
Put the night back in your veins
Bound for glory
I ain’t coming to again
The sun comes struggling on
Yesterday’s dead and gone
And I feel I’m bound for glory
Dreaming in a cowboy song
I feel I’m bound for glory

Can you feel it?
Bound for glory!
Can you feel it?
Glory bound!
Can you feel it?
Bound for glory!

Tell your story
Roll the truth around your head
Bound for glory
I ain’t getting out of this bed
The sun comes struggling on
Yesterday’s dead and gone
And I feel I’m bound for glory
Dreaming in a cowboy song
I feel I’m bound for glory

Can you feel it?
Bound for glory!
Can you feel it?
Glory bound!
Can you feel it?
Bound for glory!


1870 – The donkey was first used as symbol of the Democratic Party in Harper’s Weekly.  

 

 

 

1964 – Teamsters negotiate 1st national labor contract   

 

 

 

 

1973 – Last airing of the hit TV Western series, ‘Bonanza”   

 

 

 

 

2008 – The FDA determines that cloned pigs, cattle and goats and their offspring are safe to eat and require no labels informing consumers that that packaged hamburger is derived from cloned animals.

 

 

 

 

 

2011 – Woodgate’s View published it’s first post, Gabbi Giffords’ Recovery: A Metaphor for the Nation  

Little is known about the historical events I have listed above so by adding my blog’s inaugural with the others, I think it’s safe to say I am likely to suffer the same fate.  But it’s clear that I have had a lot on my mind after publishing 262 posts since then.

My political views haven’t attracted that many readers and of the nearly 41,000 page views since kicking this site off, my highest count day of June 6th, 2011 with 976 hits was the result of an article I did that had a picture of Anthony Weiner with his wife.  We all know what was going on with former Congressman Weiner back then.

Two of the most enduring pieces of mine that see hits every week and most days of the year are the tribute to George Harrison and “My Picks for the Best Native American Movies”.

But if I were really looking for fame and fortune as a blogger I would be digging up sleaze like Andrew Breitbart and cramming every ad I could get onto my blog’s homepage.  Or even more banal, something along the lines of the 5th most visited blog on-line, Perezhilton.com which is all about celebrity and those who live vicariously through them .  Poor Andy, he didn’t even rate among the top 50 political blogs cited on a right-wing website.

Thanks to all of you who have faithfully followed me over this last year.  Your comments and your own blogs have richly rewarded and encouraged me; giving me a community that allows me to share thoughts that can only be conveyed intelligibly in the written form.  Otherwise they would remain in a state of chaos in my sensory overloaded brain.


“Give ‘em number 1 Harry”

A new book out by Matthew Algeo, Harry Truman’s Excellent Adventure: The True Story of a Great American Road Tripdoes an excellent job of showing readers a side of Truman that most Americans, then and now, never saw and, I think, will make  the man from Independence more appealing to the general public.

It’s about the road trip Truman took just a few months after leaving office in 1953 and details how the former President and his wife Bess, unescorted by any Secret Service agents or other securities measures, hit the road in the summer of that year to travel in his new Chrysler New Yorker from his home in Independence , Mo. to Washington and New York and then back.

A lot of the book uses aspects of Harry’s trip to give the history of the time along with interviews of some of the people who were witness to this trip nearly 59 years ago.  It also includes little known stories about the former President that show a side seen only by a few of his staff.

One doesn’t often view Truman with a bawdy sense of humor but one story in Algeo’s book dispels this notion. Truman of course was anything but passive regarding politics.  During the 1948 Presidential campaign while Truman was attacking the Republicans in a whistle-stop speech in St. Louis, one man yelled out, “give ‘em hell Harry”, Truman quickly responded that “I don’t give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it’s Hell.”

In his book, Alegro conveys Truman’s ability to delight in a bit of bawdy humor, showing too how he took his politics serious with a dollop of humor.  This account took place early in Truman’s administration following Roosevelt’s death as Harry traveled in the Presidential plane, nicknamed the Sacred Cow. Anyone familiar with Truman is well aware of the political friction between him and his political adversary, Ohio Republican Senator Robert Taft

DAYTON, Ohio — Douglas VC-54C “Sacred Cow” at the National Museum of the United States Air Force. (U.S. Air Force photo)

Duly alerted by [the plane’s pilot, Lt. Col Henry] Myers, that the Sacred Cow was flying over Ohio, Truman would walk aft to his lavatory.  Moments later, after the president had returned to his seat, Myers would get a presidential command over the intercom to activate the waste disposal system ….  The discharged liquids, of course, evaporated quickly in the cold, dry air outside.  But it was Truman’s way of having a private joke at {Taft’s expense], his political nemesis.


FROM THE NURSE’S LOUNGE

This came in an e-mail from the wife, a school nurse, which had been forwarded to her by another nurse.  This is but one of hundreds she has sent to me over the years.  Somehow bawdy sexual humor seems to emanate from this profession.

 

Three dogs were sitting in the waiting room at the vet’s when they struck up a conversation. The Black Labrador turned to the yellow Labrador and said, “So why are you here?”

The yellow Lab replied, “I’m a pisser. I pee on everything….the sofa, the curtains, the cat, the kids. But the final straw was last night when I peed in the middle of my owner’s bed.” The black Lab said, “So what’s the vet going to do?” “Gonna cut my nuts off” came the reply from the yellow Lab. “They reckon it’ll calm me down.”

The Yellow Lab then turned to the Black Lab and asked, “Why are you here?”The Black Lab said, “I’m a digger. I dig under fences, dig up flowers and trees, I dig just for the hell of it. When I’m inside, I dig up the carpets. But I went over the line last night when I dug a great big hole in my owners’ couch.” “So what are they going to do to you?” the Yellow Lab inquired. “Looks like I’m losing my nuts too,” the dejected Black Lab said.

The Black Lab then turned to the Great Dane and asked, “Why are you here? “I’m a humper”, said the Great Dane. “I’ll hump anything.. I’ll hump the cat, a pillow, the table, fence posts, whatever. I want to hump everything I see.” Yesterday my owner had just got out of the shower and was bending down to dry her toes, and I just couldn’t help myself. I hopped on her back and started hammering away.” The Black and the Yellow Labs exchanged a sad glance and said, “So, it’s nuts off for you too, huh?
The Great Dane said, “No, apparently I’m here to get my nails clipped.”

FOR THE RECORD:  For people like Rick Santorum who associate “man on dog” sex with same sex marriage, please be advised this is lewd humor, NOT reality



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers