Thursday, July 28, 2011

GOD'S APPROVAL RATING

You'd think that the world's best-selling book, The Bible, which sings God's praises from cover to cover would help raise God's image in the public relations department, especially in a Nation like America where Christian evangelicals claim that a majority of our citizens want Christianity adopted as our national religion, but you'd be off base if you thought so. According to the results of a poll just released by Public Policy Polling, a North Carolina firm, only fifty-two (52%) of Americans approve of God's job performance. While only nine (9%) flatly disapproved, thirty-eight (38%) percent had no opinion on the matter.

Pundits across the religious and political spectrums will no doubt spin those survey results to support whatever position they champion, but I'm kind of interested in finding what criteria those who answered the poll used to judge God's job performance. Were answered prayers a factor? Was prayer response time taken into consideration? What about assistance with smiting one's enemy? Inquiring minds like mine would like to know.

The one amusing point that emerged from the poll in question is that Americans see God as doing a better job than our politicians. I guess that's a plus for God, but to those of us who see God as being all-wise and understanding, a 52% approval rating seems kind of low.

BOOGITY, BOOGITY, BOOGITY, AMEN

I admit that I'm not a car racing fan, but I was tickled by the reports of Pastor Joe Nelms' pre-race prayer at a racing event in Nashville, Tennessee last Saturday night. During Nelms' invocation, he thanked God for Dodges, Fords and Toyotas. He thanked God for Sunoco racing fuels and for Goodyear tires. And just for good measure, he thanked the Lord for his, and I quote, "smoking hot wife." I've never seen Pastor Nelms' wife, so I'll just have to take him at his word. Nelms finished his prayer with the following words: "In Jesus' name, boogity, boogity, boogity, amen."

Some think the pastor's prayer was blasphemous. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. All I know is that my wife, an ordained pastor, has never referred to me in a public prayer as her "smoking hot husband"…and I feel a bit slighted. Boogity, boogity, boogity, amen!

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

WORLD NEWS FROM RIGHT-WING EXTREMISTS

Let's start at home with our very own radio talk show host, Glenn Beck. On his Monday broadcast, Beck trashed the government of Norway for running the Utoya Island camp for youth interested in careers in politics. The Utoya island camp was the scene of last week's massacre where a right-wing extremist, Anders Breivik, brutally killed scores of youngsters and camp counselors. Beck suggested that the camp was turning out "Hitler Youth" and said, "Who does a camp for kids that's all about politics? Disturbing."

It sounds like Beck was justifying Breivik's mass murder, at least that's how the Norwegians took his comment, and why not? Breivik's so-called "manifesto" contained the same anti-Muslim immigrant ranting that Beck's been spouting since the day after September eleventh.

Here in the United States, Beck has made a name for himself by touting the Second Amendment as in insurance policy for common citizens to overthrow the government if it doesn't cede to their demands. In the next breath, Beck says the U.S. government isn't listening to its citizen's demand to keep out Islamic immigrants. Breivik said the same about the Norwegian government and he used his firearm to get the government's attention. It's no wonder that Beck focused his indignation on the Norwegian government instead of on Breivik. Deep down, Beck and Breivik are two-of-a-kind…except that now Breivik has a higher body count to his credit.

P.S. My daughter is attending church camp this week. Who does a camp for kids that's all about God?

~~~

Heading East to Africa, over 11 million Somalians face starvation as a result of the worst drought in that country over the past 60 years. In some parts of that country, it hasn't rained for over five years. The United Nations and European Union are trying to arrange airlifts of food supplies to the region, but right-wing extremists (of the Islamic variety) are doing their best to thwart outside assistance from reaching the starving masses.

Of course, that's nothing different from what the Tea Party and the Republican Party are attempting to do here in the United States. I guess starvation is one of those tools that the right-wing finds most effective.

~~~

In Syria, right-wing dictator, Bashar al-Assad continues his bloody and torturous crack-down on anti-government demonstrators in an attempt to keep the "Arab Spring" from flowering in Syria and ousting him from power. Syrian tanks routinely bombard anti-government towns with mortar fire and the Army has carried out systematic executions of known political dissidents in a move to quash criticism of the Assad regime. Plus, the neighboring right-wing theocracy in Iran is lending Assad all the support it can muster. Last year's "Green Revolution" in Iran woke the Ayatollahs to the fact that no rulers in the Middle East were safe from overthrow. That's one problem situation the Ayatollahs are trying to prevent.

~~~

A right-wing Taliban suicide bomber killed the mayor of Kandahar earlier today in Afghanistan. The Mayor, Ghulam Haidar Hameedi, was killed when the bomber detonated a pack of explosives hidden in the bomber's turban. It's just another day of senseless right-wing violence!

I'm guessing we'll see a "ban the turban" bill in Congress in the near future.

~~~

Farther west, China continues its right-wing government led crackdown on Internet users who employ that medium to criticize government policies. Apparently, free speech is alive and well in China, as long as you don't exercise that speech to criticize anybody in power. I doubt Glenn Beck would last five minutes in that environment.

~~~

Let's end this tour back in the United States. FOX news (America's right-wing mouthpiece) continues to tout the claim of Texan Republican Congressman John Culbertson that VA officials at the Houston National Cemetery refuse to allow Christian prayers at military funerals. Culbertson claims he conducted his own undercover operation to confirm his accusation. There's no video or audio recording to back-up the charges…just the word of a Congressman – whatever that's worth.

But let's not be hasty here. After all, this is a FOX news story we're talking about. The last thing you'd expect is 'fair and balanced' coverage…and FOX doesn't disappoint.

At issue is the Veteran's Administration's requirement that military honor guard personnel first receive permission from the widow or family of a fallen soldier before using the word God in remarks at a graveyard service. The regulation was put into place to prevent military personnel from offending any grieving relatives who were atheists or agnostics or did not believe in the same God as the majority of our military personnel. The regulation was not instituted to prevent the mention of God at military funerals or to prevent Christian prayers, as Culbertson and FOX news charge. It was instituted to respect the wishes of grieving relatives.

Buried in the print of the FOX news story was Congressman Culbertson's admission that military honor guard members didn't want to have to bother a grieving widow with such a request. To Culbertson, I guess having the honor guard make such a request is a trite and senseless task. However, if I were an atheist (which I'm not) and I had just sacrificed my son or daughter's life for the benefit of this nation, being asked about my wishes at a graveyard service seems like something I'd be entitled to. If that's too much to ask of the military, FOX news or Congressman Culbertson – tough!

Saturday, July 23, 2011

AMERICA'S RIGHT-WING KILLERS

Yesterday, Anders Behring Breivik, a right-wing extremist brought terror and death to scores of people in Oslo, the capital of Norway, via bombs he planted and detonated in government buildings and by shooting innocent youth and counselors on the island of Utoya, a government run youth camp. Breivik's actions were the work of a sadistic individual with no sense of compassion for humanity.

Closer to home, U.S. House of Representative Speaker John Boehner and his henchman, House majority whip Eric Cantor, right-wing extremists of a home-grown sort, planted and detonated their own political bombs by walking out of debt-ceiling talks with President Obama, a move that will trigger a default by the U.S. government on its debts and indirectly cause the death of thousands of people world-wide who depend on assistance from the United States for their very survival.

Boehner and Cantor don't care that they are sending thousands of innocents to their graves. All they care about are the dollars millionaires and billionaires will save when the tax man visits. Their actions are the work of sadistic individuals with no sense of compassion for humanity.

It's maddening to recognize that a man like Breivik could be considered a greater humanitarian than Boehner or Cantor, but Breivik's killing days are over. Boehner or Cantor's have just begun.

Friday, July 22, 2011

PIZZA AND PARTY POLITICS

For all the zeal Republican presidential candidates put into flag waving and other patriotic themes, you'd think they'd be equally zealous about guarding the rights guaranteed by our U.S. Constitution, but you'd be wrong. Only guns and flags are sacrosanct. The other stuff is window dressing.

Take Herman Cain, for example. "Who's Herman Cain," you ask? Well, he just the most recent addition to that pantheon of Republican gladiators vying for an opportunity to slay the Christian Obama in next year's presidential election. Cain first made a name for himself in the pizza business, which everybody knows was very appealing to gladiators with an appetite for dough, tomatoes and cheese, but Cain has found a new calling – laying waste to the U.S. Constitution.

Cain asserts quite forcefully, that communities in this nation, where the First Amendment unequivocally guarantees freedom of religion, nevertheless retain the right to ban Islamic mosques and the practice of Muslim religious traditions within their boundaries. Cain also stated that he would not permit any individual of the Islamic faith to work as part of his Administration; never mind that such a stance is forbidden by Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes which ban discrimination in hiring based upon religious belief.

After hearing Cain speak, it's hard not to imagine him wearing a toga like Caesar, the emperor, because the ideas that he champions belong in a dictatorship, like Rome of yesteryear. It's too bad that Little Caesar pizza chain isn't looking for a new spokesman. Pizza is clearly Cain's forte.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

NOT AS SELF-EVIDENT AS PALESTINIANS WOULD HOPE

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." – The Declaration of Independence (unanimously adopted by the Continental Congress, July 4, 1776)

Every time I read this section of our Declaration of Independence I am filled with a sense of awe by the language contained therein that recognizes the God-given right of every people to self-determination and the right to form their own government. Our Declaration of Independence begins with a profession that those rights are "self-evident", but judging by the United State's current position vis-à-vis the Palestinians living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, those God-given rights are not as self-evident to America's leaders in 2011 as they were in 1776. If they were, America wouldn't be threatening the Palestinians to prevent them from declaring themselves an independent nation and seeking recognition of that status in the United Nations. We'd be steadfastly backing their bid to self-determination.

Instead, America has chosen to sacrifice our founding principles in favor of maintaining close foreign ties with the Nation of Israel, who by its continued military occupation and annexation of Palestinian territory, denies Palestinians the very right of self-determination we Americans claim is God-given and self-evident to everybody. No wonder people in the Middle East view Americans as hypocrites and hold such distain for our principles. Apparently, we don't think much of our principles either, because we don’t follow them. That's a shame. Thomas Jefferson put a lot of time and effort into drafting the Declaration of Independence and the Continental Congress showed their wisdom by debating and then adopting it. You'd hope that such wisdom would survive the ages. Apparently not.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

BACHMANN & RACE-BAITING

When Republican candidate George H.W. Bush unleashed his race-baiting Willie Horton ad against then Democratic candidate, Michael Dukakis during the 1988 presidential contest, politics in America reached a new low in terms of using bigotry and racial hatred to advance a political cause. In doing so, the Republican Bush co-opted the race-baiting mantle of former Dixie Democrat, Governor George Wallace, and used that mantle to secure the White House.

Bush's campaign chairman, the infamous Lee Atwater, confessed in a Life magazine article published a month before he did in 1991 that the Willie Horton ad was "naked cruelty" and apologized to Dukakis for the dishonest tactics Atwater authorized to advance the Bush campaign. Atwater acknowledged that his actions were reprehensible, but he forgot to apologize to the people most hurt by his campaign smear tactics – the Black community at large. Dukakis only lost an election. The Black community lost a measure of equality to which they were absolutely entitled.

I'd like to think that the political race-baiting days of Bush and Atwater were relegated to the dustbin of history, but that is just a pipe dream I have about racism and politics. The reality is that race-baiting still sells in many parts of this country. Just ask GOP presidential candidate, Rep. Michele Bachmann. She promotes race-baiting every day, to thunderous applause.

Here's how it works. Bachmann stirs up her adoring fans, an angry pack of Tea Party followers hell-bent on the elimination of the federal government, with claims of oppressive taxation and regulatory burdens that would make living under Stalin's thumb a Sunday school picnic. Then, she further enrages the crowd with a litany of government expenditures that she characterizes as government theft of an honest man's wages. The crowd claps and chants with adoring approval. Then, Bachmann goes for the jugular. She angrily charges that the President (who we all know is Black) authorized $1.2 billion in payments to Black farmers and the payments were waste.

What Bachmann doesn't say is more telling. She doesn't mention that Congress, in a bi-partisan measure, approved the payments first. The President simply authorized the payment of the checks, under Court supervision that required verification of claims. She doesn't mention that the Black farmers were entitled to that compensation for official discrimination committed by agents of the federal government over a period that spanned 40 years. She also doesn't mention that in 2010, she voted to provide over $20 billion in farm subsidies to corporate farms, largely owned by whites, not to grow crops.

Candidate Backmann's message is clear. It's not okay to subsidize Black farmers for decades of government discrimination because it's wasteful. It is, however, not wasteful to pay $20 billion to white farmers to sit on their butts and let their fields stand fallow. If that's not the definition of racism and bigotry, nothing is!

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

THE LOGIC BEHIND INVESTMENT STRATEGIES OF THE WEALTHY

My wife is a Republican. I'm not. She has an investment counselor. I don't.

Recently, I accompanied my wife when she met with her investment counselor. He's a die-hard Republican. He's also a very good investment counselor. Despite this country's current economic situation, my wife's investments have grown thanks to his guidance. My wife's happy about that. I'm happy about that too!

During the course of the meeting, the investment counselor reviewed my wife's financial holdings with her and explained how each investment was doing in the marketplace. He reviewed the profits, dividends, increases and decreases in stock share price and his company's current view on the likely future rate of return for each of my wife's holdings. The counselor indicated that a few of my wife's stocks were under-performing and he recommended that she sell those securities and move her money elsewhere. All in all, it was a very productive meeting, and I'm very confident that my wife's investments are in very good hands. She is too.

I bring up the topic of my wife's investments not to boast about her good financial situation, but to comment on an observation I made with respect to the stocks and mutual funds recommended to my wife by her investment counselor. My wife's goal is to increase the value of her financial portfolio. I presume that's a pretty standard goal, and my wife's financial adviser tailored his advice toward achieving that objective. Like I said, he's a very good investment counselor.

My observation was this: only one of the twenty-two companies that my wife was advised to purchase or retain in her portfolio were companies seeking to add employees. Ten of those companies have laid off at least 10,000 employees over the past year.

The fact that a company has to lay off workers is not an indictment on a company. In fact, it's frequently an absolutely necessary step to insure that a company remains viable during an economic downturn. Sometimes, trimming payroll is the only way for a company to turn a profit. That's basic economics and I have no beef with that situation. After all, it's helped boost the value of my wife's portfolio.

My beef is with another situation – the refusal of Republicans in Congress to raise taxes on the wealthy (coupled with spending cuts) to bring our national debt under control. Their steadfast opposition to making the wealthy share in our national sacrifice is maddening. It's also based on a bold-faced lie.

The lie goes like this: "We can't tax the wealthy because that money is needed to create jobs."

Bullshit!

The wealthy handle their investment portfolios in the same manner as my wife does. My wife's goal is not to create jobs. She invests her money to create a profit. Wealthy people act in the same manner. My wife invests in companies that turn a profit and pay dividends. The same goes for the wealthy. In bad economic times such as these, the companies that are turning a profit are the ones that are laying-off employees, not the ones hiring them. If you handed a wealthy man a million dollars, he wouldn't invest it in a company that was not turning a profit. He'd pour the money into a company that was profitable. It's a lie to say otherwise.

The truth is the wealthy do not create jobs. They create more profit for their own benefit. That's called capitalism.

Jobs are created by demand for a good or service which are not currently available. When large sectors of the population are unemployed or have no money to pay for a good or service, there is no demand to fill and wealthy individuals will not invest to create a job where there is no demand, and hence, no profit to be made. That's capitalism too.

The only national strategy for job creation that has ever worked has been a government-funded job creation program wherein the government itself has hired millions of individuals to work on our nation's infra-structure. The demand for products and services created by millions of those new working individuals then fueled the potential for profits that lured the wealthy into investing in companies that would hire more workers.

With Congress unwilling to increase the debt ceiling or tax the wealthy to enable the government to create more jobs, America is further miring itself in the mud, and wealthy investors won't be offering a shovel anytime soon.

Monday, July 18, 2011

HATRED IN ACTION

There are few words in any language that can adequately describe the horrible nature of Afghan Taliban fighters whose recent execution-style killing of sixteen Pakistani policemen has lit up the Internet across the Middle East. The Taliban fighters in question filmed the killings and the subsequent abuses committed to the corpses, and posted a video of the massacre on the Internet, no doubt meant as a generator of fear to all who would oppose them. Instead, the video exposes the Taliban as the vilest form of evil that anyone could become. Their acts are all the more repugnant since they claim to be acting on behalf of God.

This recent massacre hasn't been the first such evil performed in the name of God, nor will it be the last. It does, however, give me pause to consider how men could commit such atrocities in the name of a deity. What fuels their lust for killing? What drives their thirst for blood? I surmise it is hate…and the more the world encourages hatred, the more atrocities will be committed.

Sunday, July 10, 2011

THE YELLOW PRESS OF THE 21st CENTURY

FOX news aficionados here in the United States pay little regard to the power of the network's owner, Rupert Murdoch and the media empire he controls. Murdoch can use his media power to disseminate as much right-wing propaganda as he chooses and FOX news viewers eagerly feast at the trough of misinformation he provides. That's why over 90% of FOX viewers favored the decisions to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and over 60% of non-FOX viewers didn't. But that's old hat!

In England, folks are wising up to the ways of Murdoch and his propaganda machine, and they're getting a good lesson in just how far the media mogul and his machine are willing to go to spread a pack of lies. You see, News of the World, Murdoch's flag-ship newspaper in England, has been, by reported accounts, hacking into the telephone lines of relatives of dead UK soldiers. It's been surmised that the hacking was prompted by efforts of the newspaper to discredit the individuals in question and/or stifle dissent against British participation in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

British citizens have raised a cry of outrage over Murdoch's hacking scandal and efforts are underway in that nation to deny Murdoch's request to take control of Britain's large entertainment broadcaster BSkyB. I'm glad the people of Britain have come to their senses. I wish my fellow citizens here would wise-up too. Murdoch is a dangerous man and our democracy suffers greatly as a result of his propaganda.

Saturday, July 9, 2011

REPORTING THE LOST

In yesterday's piece, I mentioned the legislative proposal introduced by Oklahoma Republican Paul Wesselhoft to require parents to promptly report the death or disappearance of their child. I thought it was a good idea and I said so.

I also think Wesselhoft's measure is constitutional. States have a valid interest in protecting its youngest citizens and seeing that those who harm them are brought to justice. Despite the fact that parenting is a guaranteed constitutional right, there is no rational argument that a prompt reporting requirement would unduly infringe on a parent's right to raise their child as they see fit.

Here's where Wesselhoft and I part ways. I think the same logic applies to requiring gun owners to promptly report lost or missing firearms. Wesselhoft doesn't. Then again, he belongs to the N.R.A.; I don't.

In every study ever conducted on the matter, researchers found that the overwhelming percentage of firearms used in street crimes were stolen from their legitimate owner and made their way to the black market where would-be criminals purchased them. However, according to U.S. Department of Justice studies, less than ten percent of those firearms were reported stolen by their rightful owners.

This begs the question: Don't gun owners care about their stolen weapons which are being used to terrorize our society? Apparently not - or at least not so much so that they feel compelled to report those thefts to authorities. I confess. I just don't get it.

The National Rifle Association and gun owners around the country vehemently oppose requiring gun owners to promptly report lost or stolen firearms. They say such a measure would infringe upon their constitutional right to possess firearms. They claim the matter is none of the government's business.

When I look at the Caylee's Law proposal and prompt reporting of stolen gun proposals, I see a difference without a distinction. Both concern a protected constitutional right. Both are addressed to protecting the safety of the state's citizenry, and both entail no more of a burden than picking up a phone and making a call. Is that really too much to ask?

Friday, July 8, 2011

CAYLEE'S LAW

Paul Wesselhoft, a Republican legislator in the Oklahoma House of Representatives has introduced a worthwhile measure in that state's House to require parents to promptly report the death or disappearance of a minor in that state. Wesselhoft submitted his proposal, aptly named "Caylee's Law" in response to the Florida acquittal of Casey Anthony in the murder trial over the death of her daughter, Caylee.

Wesselhoft's proposal is a good idea. Casey Anthony's failure to promptly report the death of her child played a significant role in the inability of forensic examiners to determine Caylee Anthony's cause of death. Jurors cited that missing evidence as one reason they voted to acquit Caylee's mother of murder charges. People can argue with the reasoning of those jurors all they want, but there's no escaping the fact that Caylee Anthony's manner of death could not be established, and that lack of evidence was due to Casey Anthony's actions. Wesselhoft's bill will address that injustice. I hope it is enacted in Oklahoma, and hopefully in other states too.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

ERRING ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION

Packing parachutes in the pouches used by skydivers is a perfectionist's job. That's because there's no room for error. An improperly packed parachute will not deploy correctly. Lines become tangled with the canopy. The canopy does not expand and fill with air, and when that happens, the result is near-certain death of the skydiver.

If you've ever watched the packing of a parachute, you quickly come to recognize that the process is a tedious one that requires a meticulous attention to detail. If, at any point during the process, the packer feels as if a mistake has been made or a step has been missed or performed out of order, the protocol for packing parachutes requires that the parachute be fully extended and the process started over from the beginning. Error on the side of caution is a parachute packer's number one rule.

Few people would argue with the prudence of the parachute packing protocol. Skydiving is universally recognized as an extremely dangerous endeavor and the likelihood of death from an error in parachute packing is widely understood to be extremely high. In fact, the risk is regarded to be so high that many skydivers insist on either packing their own parachute or personally observing the process as it is being done. With the possibility of death being so great, everybody understands why a skydiver would insist that the utmost caution be taken with packing a parachute. A skydiver's life precariously hangs in the balance and the risk of death is simply too great to ignore.

Why then, can the same not be said when the issue is global warming? Why do vast numbers of people in our society cavalierly choose to ignore the issue? Does our society not recognize that our own lives and the lives of our children hang in the balance? Do we not understand the risk of death we face? Is it that easy or convenient to ignore?

Climate change is already occurring. The polar icecaps and glaciers around the globe are melting. Droughts in arid regions have worsened. Rains in traditional rainy regions have intensified. Areas where flooding frequently occurs have expanded. Tornadoes and hurricanes are developing in much greater number than ever before in recorded history. The average temperature of our atmosphere has climbed.

Scientists the world over have been warning us of the cataclysmic dangers we face if we continue to ignore the build-up of hydrocarbon emissions in our atmosphere, and yet, our nation continues to stick its head in the sand, pretending that a problem doesn't exist. Some, who do acknowledge the problem, say that the problem cannot be solved. Others say that the solution requires too high a price. There are even people who believe they can survive whatever calamity Mother Nature throws at them and are willing to take the risk of doing nothing.

If you ask the average person on the street whether they would skydive from an airplane flying 5000 feet above the ground, most folks would say no and justify their answer by saying that the risk of death was too high to justify undertaking such activity. You'd figure that those same people would not want to risk death by ignoring the consequences of global warming, but you'd be wrong. Things look different on the ground. It's only when people get to 5000 feet, when they realize that all that's standing between them and death is a properly packaged thin string that people start to appreciate the concept of erring on the side of caution.

Unfortunately, by then it's impossible to do anything to correct the situation.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

DEBT CEILING DILEMMA IN A NUTSHELL

I ran across an editorial on the BBC (British Broadcast Corp.) website that sets forth the stupidity of America's debt ceiling crises in better detail than anything I could say on the subject. It's a must-read.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13906274