conTEAmptuous!

Newt Gingrich see an evolving role for the Tea Party, as the " militant wing" of the Republican Party.

He makes that observation with a certitude befitting the groups recent activities.

The dominance of the two party system almost certainly puts the Tea Party in the Republican camp, given their conservative bent, and their obvious distaste for everything Obama.

A recent poll confirms Newt's prescience regarding the group:

"The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45."

Also, according to the same poll, these white males aren't hayseeds, poverty-stricken, or likely to be, and neither are they grade-school dropouts.

"Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class...."

Assuming the accuracy of the poll, these aren't the typical malcontents, the usual suspects we might find protesting the size of government, or its overreaching ambitions to usurp state powers.

These aren't your "bitter" white men clinging to their "guns or religion." Obama captures this group with deft words, but is later skewered for it:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

"And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

We have a new breed: These are "bigoted" white men, clinging to their 401(K)'s and the religion of non-governmental interference in free-market activities.

It doesn't matter that this selfsame market and its unscrupulous adherents nearly brought our economy to near collapse. What's important is that it remains "free".

And this is the mantra that emanates from this movement.

Liberals, with their misguided efforts to address society's deficiencies, and ills, are perpetrating the greatest crime, the unforgivable offense: They're depriving Americans of their constitutionally protected freedom.

The freedom to participate, or not to participate.

It doesn't matter that that freedom was a myth, almost from the inception of this Republic, Tea Partiers are intent on resurrecting that myth, and expanding the mythology.

They distance themselves from regular, run-of-the-mill Republicans by holding "more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as 'very conservative' and President Obama as 'very liberal.'"

And Tea Partiers are "angry," more angry than their fellow conservatives:

"And while most Republicans say they are “dissatisfied” with Washington, Tea Party supporters are more likely to classify themselves as 'angry.'"

Given the movement's emphasis on a "smaller government," you wouldn't expect it to give thumbs up to Social Security and Medicare. Yet, it does.

Even more telling is the group seeming antipathy for the poor:

"Tea Party supporters’ fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich."

I suppose Tea Partiers see Obama as some modern-day Robin Hood, who takes from the rich and gives to the poor.

Were that the case! For decades we've seen just the opposite: The rich get richer, and the poor, poorer.

Take a look at what has happened to our automotive industry, and the once proud City of Detroit, and why a bailout of General Motors (condemned by Tea Partiers) may have kept the city from becoming as bankrupt as the car manufacturer itself.

Investment bankers have rigged the game to favor themselves, even if it means the collapse of our economy in their pursuit of more and more wealth, and the means of maintaining that wealth, using "too big to fail" as their edge in the game, all but insuring their survival while their less-powerful competition falls by the wayside.

And the most telling aspect of the poll is this revelation:

"They are more likely than the general public, and Republicans, to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people."

At the risk of painting this group with a broad brush, they have shown themselves to be ultra-conservative to the point of dismissing the poor, and the concerns of blacks, regardless of their merit.

The Tea Party folks are showing what may be the true face of America, a face that I'm all too familiar with.

How do we measure our greatness as a nation? Do we measure it by how many of our people have health care, or by the exceptional quality of our health care system; by the quality education extended to all, or by the state of our educational system for those who can afford it; by the number of people on welfare, or the number who don't require it at all; by the opportunities afforded to all regardless of social status, or race, or the number who are privileged with it from birth by virtue of color?

We're only as great as the number of us who have access to that greatness, the number of us who can rise as high as our talent, skills, and intellect will carry us, without, first, having to throw off the weight of social stigma, and racial inequalities.

Who's Minding the Mines

The tragic West Virginia mining accident (It's hard to call a thing an accident that could have easily been prevented.) that took the lives of 25 coal miners, landing two in the hospital, and stranding four* deep within the earth (those four with a slim chance of survival, even if a rescue team can reach them once the methane gas has been pumped out) is emblematic of our economy as a whole--a microcosm of what's wrong with our country, when the virtues of capitalism are taken to an absurd extreme.

Here are the findings on the mine disaster that were submitted to congress:

"Parts or all of the mine where at least 25 workers died were ordered closed 61 times in the past 15 months, according to information from the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

"The information was provided in a summary to several congressional lawmakers after the accident at the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia. The summary has not been made public but was provided to NBC News.

"Despite what experts said is an alarming number of so-called withdrawal orders, a total of more than 100 since 2000, federal regulators never took stepped-up action to cite the mine for a "pattern of violations" even though the mine met the criteria."

As with the financial sector, oversight of the delinquent mine, the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia--owned by Massey Energy Company--suffered as a result of regulators too cozy relationship with mine owners, and a governmental structure that favored the interest of mine owners over that of mine workers who risked their lives daily for a paycheck that put millions of dollars in the pockets of owners; and not to forget bankers, who turned to the government and taxpayers to bail them out when their financial woes threatened to bring down their greed-built empires; and, again, thanks to taxpayers who shouldered the risk, these bankers were able, over time, to hand out to themselves billions of dollars in bonuses.

Because taxpayers assumed some of the toxic assets of banks, but not all (a huge shift of risk), certain banks were allowed to remain solvent. Here, too, regulators failed, more eager to protect the interest of bankers, than the public, while the likes of Alan Greenspan (Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board of Governors, 1987-2006) enabled bankers to borrow federal reserve dollars at such low rates, that they tripped over themselves to loan and invest it--most of the time not too wisely.

But who cares, if the money is so cheap and you're "too big to fail."

With the nation's economy on life support, and many Americans having suffered an economic mortal wound--foreclosures on their homes, bankruptcy, maxed out on their credit cards, and credit scores lower than perhaps at anytime in their lives--it seems that it will take a miracle to resurrect the corpus delicti, if it comes to that.

In the same way as owners of this non-union mine, bankers used every trick at their disposal, especially large donations to politicians, for one, to dissuade legislation and ensuing regulations that would have compelled greater responsibility on behalf of bankers and miners, and would have provided targeted oversight from regulators with power to actually do something about abuse--something other than warnings and fines.

In the same way, bankers put profits above people, almost always a sure recipe for disaster: For those who work in mines, injury, and a possible loss of life, and for John and Jane Citizen, an economy on crutches, and a loss of wages as a limping economy sheds jobs faster than it creates them.

In the same way as the owners of this mine, bankers are unrepentant. Even now, both bankers and this reckless mining company are resisting reforms that would have assured the lives of these luckless mine workers, and the continued health of our economy.

These persistent economic conditions--regulators too chummy with those they should be regulating, a governmental structure that favors corporations over the working stiff, incessant bowing, and toadying, to those who create capital, and employ people, and a government that facilitates, and enables abuses, further strengthening the hand of corporations so that they may unconscionably elevate profits above the welfare of people, and do it with impunity--are the Holy Grail of capitalism.

I'm not opposed to capitalism, but I rather doubt if we have truly seen it in actual practice in this country. What we have is some chimerical version of it, a voracious beast made of many parts, not all of which may be easily identified, or easily niched.

Consider for example, derivatives: "Securities that derive their value from other financial instruments that are used by the insurance company to hedge its bets on which direction the market is moving."

What in the hell does that have to do with the creation of capital? Wealth? Tangible assets? Goods and resources?

Capitalism is to "free market" what greed is to unrestricted.


*I have learned, since writing this piece, that the four missing miners were found, but found dead. This brings the total of mine workers dead to 29. We'd have to go back to the year, 1970, to find a disaster of similar magnitude. I have also learned that has offered to pay for the burial of the mine workers. This should bring comfort to the families--and I'm certain that Massey will receive all the attention that's coming to it, for this most beneficent of acts.

Happy?

I haven't blogged here for somtime. I have posted on other blogs, and just in case you may have missed them, I'm reproducing a couple of those posts here.

To the question, Who decides who makes you happy?, I left the following response and expanded on the notion brought up in the comments section that "selfishness" and "self-centereness" spoil many realtionships where "happiness" is sought:

You are the single most important person in the world, indeed, the universe.

And if you're having trouble with that statement, read on.

If you're not having trouble with that statement, read on.

If you're that self-assured--as to believe that you're the single most important person in the universe--then the elevation of the self comes pretty easy, a walk in the park, falling off the proverbial log.

It's okay to be selfish. To be self-centered. I know: some may get this twisted. What comes to mind readily are some of the comments upthread that equates "selfishness" and "self-centeredness" with the pursuit of one's own needs, whether sexually, or emotionally, at the expense of others.

That's not the kind of selfishness and self-centeredness of which I speak. That kind is not truly self-centered, or that kind wouldn't be seeking outside of his or herself that which only the self can provide.

I hope what I'm going to say next will surprise or even shock: You shouldn't need anyone. You shouldn't need anyone to love you, to cherish you, or to make you happy.

As someone upthread has suggested, and I state plainly: No one outside of yourself can make you happy. It's impossible.

And if you turn to others, a mate, friends, your family, or strangers on a plane, to make you happy, you'll be sorely disappointed.

They don't have the power to do so. And many marriages, and other relationships suffer drastically, because one or the other in the relationship is looking to the relationship to provide what is missing in one or the other.

No one. And I mean no one can give you what is missing in you, or what you think is missing in you. No one has that power.

And even if you find someone who you believe is giving you what is missing in you, he or she will resent you for it, because you will make unreasonable demands for it, and blame him or her if those demands aren't met.

You may not see it as such, but a need is an addiction. And like any addiction, we're always, at least most of the time, in need of a "fix," and when we don't get it, or in sufficient quantities to suppress the craving, we languish miserably within our world, and within our universe, bitterly blaming those we look to--to provide the fix--for failing us. (and those others may show up en masse or serially).

Disillusioned, you may eventually fall back on the person who created the need, and who can offer the fix to remedy the need. You. Yourself.

Here's what you need to know: Within is where all your supposed needs may be met. In time, you may come to realize that you have within all that you have sought to find without. Love in abundance. Self-acceptance in abundance. Self-forgiveness in abundance. Joy. Happiness. Peace. All in abundance.

You merely have to turn to the self in earnest, and do what many on this thread has suggested: Love yourself. Forgive yourself.

Perhaps then you'll find that decisions have power. You can decide to be happy, notwithstanding the seeming absence of conditions to evoke it; decide to be joyful, notwithstanding the seeming appearance of a joyless surrounding.

Does that mean, then, that relationships are no longer important, of whatever kind? No. They become more important than ever!

But now you enter them, not seeking something, wishing for something, desiring something from the other. You enter them for a much grander reason.

Further, you will easily know those others (They will now stand out!) who are seeking, and entering relationships for the purpose of fulfilling, satisfying, a need that they perceive within themselves.

You will pass them up, not because they're inferior in some way, but because you don't have what they're seeking, what they're needing.

You will seek out those like yourself. Those who have turned within and found a treasure trove of fullness, and completeness.

And you, with them, will use the relationship to celebrate your completeness, and celebrate your fullness.

There's no other reason to establish a relationship, than to harmonize your life with that of another.

Out of your fullness and completeness, do you share the essence of who you are.

Responding to my comment, one commenter observed:

"I never quite got how one could be happy without the actualization of some dream or desire being fulfilled or interaction with others."

I followed-up with this:

Let me attempt a response. Happiness is not about what you're doing, it's about what you're being.

Otherwise, you set yourself up to fail at the outset, if doing, or having, or interacting dictate your state of mind, or state of being.

It's what you're being why you're doing what you're doing that should be your goal.

But even then, people confuse the two. Oftentimes, you hear the saying, "I was happiest while pursuing my goal. Now that I've achieved my goal, my happiness has dropped considerably."

It dropped because they believed that the doing brought the joy, and not the other way around--that their joy (which they brought forth at their behest) attended the doing.

Your state of mind belongs exclusively to you, and is always yours to do with as you choose.

Were it otherwise, our dreams, desires, and external fulfillments would be at the mercy of life's many vagaries, which, oftentimes, would place our dreams and desires outside of the control of most of us.

It doesn't have to be that way, but that discussion is outside the scope of this one.

Let me illustrate:

If it's your desire and dream to be an astronaut, and that dream and desire is thwarted because of a heart so severely damaged that it disqualifies you--forever ending your hope of attaining what you may have worked your whole life toward--you may choose to be unhappy, or you may choose to remain untouched by the loss of the dream.

You see: The choice is not outside of you. Your state of mind is still yours to control, is still yours to command.

It's the same with interactions, and with relationships. If we put our happiness in the hands of others, then we're forever at their mercy. If they withhold that which we say makes us happy, or don't deliver it in sufficient quantities, then the outcome is predetermined.

We experience unhappiness.

We become emotionally dependent, when what we should be aiming for is independence, where we call the shots as to our state of mind, and not others; where we decide how we will feel about a thing, and not others.

Don't take this to mean that all dreams, desires, and interactions should be abandoned.

They shouldn't be.

What should be abandoned is the power we give them to shape our state of mind, to tell us whether we shall experience joy or sadness, a sense of fulfillment or loss.

Ruyard Kipling in a poem entitled "IF" states it best:

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

We're always at choice.

THIS, TOO, I'VE SEEN

Christmas is but a couple days away. I was composing another entry, but decided, at the last minute, that I should write something more in keeping with the season. More years than I care to recall, I wrote the following poem.

For all its failures, with a few lines, it offers an insight into my being that would require a tome to match. If you find the meaning of it, you will learn more about me in a few minutes of reading that years of observation, and study would never yield.

I'm humbled that you think enough of what I write here to come by from time to time to read it, and leave your comments. A blog author can't command a readership; he or she can only hope that a gem or two of worth may be found among the cloddish earth of prosaic words that variously pass as opinions, fact, insight--and, with a little luck, something approaching wisdom.

Christmas is not my favorite day. Every day is my favorite day. Yet, Christmas is special: It brings a message of hope, peace and goodwill. Each year Christmas reminds us of what life on earth could be were we to dedicate ourselves to bringing more of that hope, peace, and goodwill to our world--first as a new born (a new resolve), and extending that resolve throughout the year.

Merry Christmas to all!

Now my poem:

THIS, TOO, I'VE SEEN

I want to show you where I've been,
And tell you all the things I've done.
I've saddled up the westward wind,
And ridden high above the sun.
I've haunted dusty halls of times gone by,
And left my footprints there.
I've trampled fences of the future with a vagrant's glee;
This I've done without a care, without a moment's empathy.
I've seen the silver cord of life:
I've watched it leave a trail behind,
And follow as some burdened wife,
Along the passageways of time.
My ears have thrilled to music never heard before;
Heard voices sing sweet melodies that made sad hearts to soar!
I've heard eternal sages,
Recite their catechisms ageless.
These things I've seen and heard, and more!
These things are hidden in the Word,
And locked behind your door.

This, too, I've seen, and wish to tell and share:
Of all the things I've seen and heard,
Of all the places been and seen,
No sight has been more fair,
No wisdom's been more keen,
Than the sight of those who love,
And the sound of those who care!

Sex, Lies, and Videotape (& Cell Phones)

I detest liars. Yeah, I've told a few whoppers in my day, so I include myself in that detestation. As much as I'd like to be, I'm not some paragon of virtue. And so, I won't tell you that I have never lied.

But I will tell you, most of them have been mainly of the innocuous variety--the little "white lies" that we're all guilty of telling, from time to time, to ward off personal embarrassment, to avoid awkward social moments, to be polite, or to keep things from becoming hopelessly complicated.

I told c.c. that I would blog about lying and cheating one day, and that day has arrived, a little sooner than I anticipated.

And so that the air is clear: I'm discussing this very normal, but unfortunate, human failing in an impersonal way. I have no one in particular in mind, unless he or she is public, and then only to serve as examples, or illustrations for the topic at hand.

Sadly, I can choose from thousand of instances. But, neither space, not your patience is long enough to accommodate that kind of comprehensive treatment.

One of the now familiar and infamous attempts to brand one as lying comes from that chamber of decency, ethics, honor, honesty, morality, and purity, that we all know as our U.S. Congress. It came during a certain Joint session of Congress, while the President of the United States stood speaking on the subject of health care reform, before that very august body of lawmakers, and the American people:

"You lie!"

It was the shout heard around the world. And because it violated congressional decorum, convention, and customs, you'd expect that person, who committed such a violation, to be slapped with censure, at the very least. Well, the House did manage a "reprimand," and that was that, and Joe Wilson went on to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from grateful Republicans.

Most recently, Tiger Woods was caught in a lie, and cheating. Many critics believe that Tiger could have spared himself a great deal of public ridicule, and private angst had he come forward with a full disclosure of marital infidelity from the outset.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

We can never rewound events and take an alternate path, just to see which crossroad decision would produce the most favorable outcome.

But this much we do know: In Tiger's case, the truth would have silenced much of the speculation that ensued from his accident, and his short stay in the hospital. Had he beat the clock on disclosure, professional crisis managers believe he could have gotten out ahead of the controversy, and took control of the dissemination of information, rather than leaving it up to the news media, the tabloids, and cable news to run with it, and shape the story more sensationally than it deserved.

Of the two examples I've provided so far, it's not the Tiger Woods indiscretions that disturb me the most (although I'm sure for Elin, and her family, it's paramount), but the Joe Wilson lies, deceptions, distortions, and political machinations. They are the ones that do the most harm to our national welfare.

Sarah Palin lied when she said that then candidate, Barack Obama, palled around with a terrorist. She and McCain didn't win, but she netted a lucrative book deal, became a contributor on Fox News, and is paid at least a hundred thousand dollars as a much-sought-after speaker.

Sarah and others lied when they said that health care reform had provisions for death panels that could, substantially, "pull the plug on grandma." Polls have shown that such lies and others about healthcare reform have a rather large following.

Curiously, the only "death panels" in operation these days are those inherent in our current health insurance plans, where thousands are denied health insurance annually because of preexisting conditions, or because they have been dropped from their health plans because their insurers believe them to be financial liabilities. These are the real death panels. Some studies say as many as 45,000 of our fellow citizens die annually, because they don't have health insurance, but that doesn't stop Sarah Palin and other Republicans from misrepresenting the health care bill currently under congressional consideration.

Our politicians, those having the public trust, and the prestige that goes with it, are not only caught periodically cheating, and sent to jail, but are caught daily lying, fudging, distorting, and misrepresenting the truth. And they're, mostly, unrepentant when found out, or when the truth surfaces, or is shoved under their nose. Several come to mind, but exVP Dick Cheney stands out as poster boy, and visual definition of dishonesty and political grandstanding.

Many republicans trashed the Economic Stimulus Package, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, in the Halls of Congress and on radio and television, but smiled broadly behind oversized checks as the money is doled out to their constituents, or they credit the Stimulus as a job creator, or job saver, when it is politically safe to do so. Hypocrisy and lying coming together to create an effect that only congresspersons can create.

Have lying and cheating become a way of life here in America? Is it our lot in the same way that wide-spread corruption marks other cultures--that's not to say that we don't have our share of that, too?

Did you know that a survey--almost a couple of years old now--rated women leaders smarter and and more honest than their male counterparts?

If only politicians, Wall Street Bankers, health-care insurers, and lobbyists, were the only ones who practiced the fine art of "ripoffology" (I made that up. But I like it.). But when Tax Preparation chains urge you to lie and cheat, or end up lying to, and cheating you, when all you wish to do is comply with your civically mandated duty to account for your annual income, you know the nation has stooped to an all-time low.

A tax preparer discussing his elderly client's disastrous tax experience a year earlier--who is now getting a tax refund, and is in tearful relief, because she is in desperate need of the money--paints a horrible picture of greed, dishonesty, and, as far as I'm concerned, elder abuse.

A year ago, things didn't go nearly as smoothly. She had paid just under $200 to file her taxes with a tax preparation franchise and was expecting a refund of about $600, which she desperately needed. Her eyesight wasn't very good, and she didn't understand how to report income from the form RRB-1099 that she received as a result of her husband's old job with the railroad. In addition, she had a handful of old stocks, mostly shares of utility companies, that paid out interest from time to time. She explained to me, almost in a whisper, that up until his death, her husband had taken care of everything. Now that he was gone, she wasn't sure what to do.

She was living from check to check, dependent on her husband's retirement income, and the bills were starting to pile up. She knew she would be getting a tax refund --she always did -- and a neighbor told her she could get her money back faster by asking for a RAL, a Refund Anticipation Loan. In fact, the neighbor told her, she would get her money the very next day.

At the franchise, the woman who took her money at the front desk told her she was making the right decision. Otherwise, she was told, she could expect to wait up to 12weeks to get her refund. My client didn't think she could wait that long.

She paid a "processing fee" of $75, an additional $60 "service fee" (equal to 10% of her expected refund amount) and a $50 bank fee. Combined with the tax preparation fees, she paid nearly $385. By the time all of the fees were paid, she was left with just over $200, about one third of her initial refund.

Where on the list of honesty does our nation fall when measured against other nations? Did you know that there's a National Honesty Day? "[T]he day was established by M. Hirsh Goldberg, an author and former press secretary to a governor of Maryland."

Would you like to know why he established it?

The founder of National Honesty Day, celebrated each year on April 30 as a way to encourage honesty in the workplace and the marketplace and to honor the honorable, has called for a nationwide emphasis this coming year on honesty to prevent the increasing examples of lying and fraud that are harming society and damaging our nation's quality of life.

M. Hirsh Goldberg, former press secretary to a governor of Maryland and author of five books, established National Honesty Day in the early 1990s after spending four years researching and writing The Book of Lies (Morrow), which has been translated into Japanese, Korean and Chinese. National Honesty Day is now listed in Chase's Calendar of Events, a repository of special occasions found in most public libraries. April 30 was selected, said Goldberg, because April begins with a day dedicated to lying and should end on a higher moral note. Source: prnewsnow.com.

Did Goldberg foresee the coming collapse of integrity on Wall Street, a collapse that nearly wrecked our economy, and wanted to head it off?

How much did the Great Depression result from a crisis of integrity, and a hearty appetite of rapacity? Perhaps what we label as cyclical economic activities in the markets is nothing more than cyclical movements around a wheel of right and wrong, greed and more greed, and are as predictable as the hearts of men and women. Perhaps we can follow the ebb and flow of the economy and the markets, simply by sampling the ebb and flow of human fealty to what is right and just, and our adherence to moral and ethical standards of honesty and public goodwill.

We need a Greedometer, a Truthometer, and a Heart Chart, one that tracks and plots, not our heart rhythms, but the frequency of major misdeeds in society, so that we can know where we stand economically, and socially, the way the Doomsday Clock is used to apprise the world of just how close we're edging to a nuclear Armageddon.

Movies have been written exploiting this character weakness mostly for laughs, but dishonesty is no laughing matter, if you have had your identity stolen (the protection of which has created a burgeoning market of identity theft protection services, a market, if not in the billions, soon will be).

How long can a nation endure--remain strong, healthy, and prosperous--when lying and cheating have become a way of life, our national pastime, and our national shame?

Say it ain't so....

Say it ain't so, Joe! Joe the Plumber is back. You know, Samuel "Joe The Plumber" Wurzelbacher. I didn't miss him. So now that he's back, I'd like to not miss him again.

I'm guessing he's back because he'd like to expand his 15 minutes of fame. Joe knows he can restart the clock each time he reinvents himself.

This time he's doing it by trashing John McCain (That John McCain that gave Joe a political spotlight, and future paychecks.). Without McCain, he'd just be Joe the Plumber without a book deal, and not being invited to all the big political bashes. He's learned well. If you have nothing but being famous to sell, like Paris Hilton ("famous for being famous"), you have to keep the shelves well-stocked.

I believe, too, Joe is positioning himself to be a bigger player in the Tebagger Movement. And since John McCain is out of favor with the Republican Party, and the Teabaggers (They're supporting a candidate to run against him.), Joe's exploiting McCain just as McCain exploited him. Yet, he needs to tread softly with his criticisms of Sarah Palin: Sarah Palin appears to be, for the moment, a darling of the movement. And he can't speak too nicely of the president, even if he means it:

"Wurzelbacher also reportedly said that while he believes Obama's 'ideology' to be 'un-American,' he credits the president for being 'one of the more honest politicians.'"

He needs to stick with the following lines, or find himself fighting off the wolves of disfavor:

"I don't owe John McCain shit," he said, according to reporter Scott Detrow. "He really screwed my life up, is how I look at it."

"McCain was trying to use me. I happened to be the face of middle Americans. It was a ploy."

"Wurzelbacher says it's his duty to take advantage of the platform he's been given," Detrow wrote. "He wants to talk up the issues he cares about, and encourage the grassroots tea party movement."

Say it ain't so, Senator Evan Bayh! Why would Bayh announce his retirement from the Senate within days of a deadline looming for new candidates to file their intention, with requisite signatures? His retirement announcement makes it now 5 incumbent Democrats, and 6 incumbent Republicans looking for greener pastures, or to be put out to pasture. The number keeps changing from one site to another.

"Bayh is the fifth Democratic Senator not seeking re-election. He joins Sens. Chris Dodd (Conn.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Ted Kaufman (Del.) and Roland Burris (Ill.) on the sidelines. Six Republicans are retiring: Sens. Kit Bond (Mo.), George Lemieux (Fla.), Judd Gregg (N.H.), George Voinovich (Ohio), Sam Brownback (Kans.) and Jim Bunning (Ky.)"

Bayh give these reasons for his sudden announcement to retire:

"My decision was not motivated by political concern," he added. "Even in the current challenging environment, I am confident in my prospects for re-election."

"But running for the sake of winning an election, just to remain in public office, is not good enough," Bayh said. "And it has never been what motivates me. At this time I simply believe I can best contribute to society in another way: creating jobs by helping grow a business, helping guide an institution of higher learning or helping run a worthy charitable endeavor."

"Two weeks ago, the Senate voted down a bipartisan commission to deal with one of the greatest threats facing our nation: our exploding deficits and debt. The measure would have passed, but seven members who had endorsed the idea instead voted 'no' for short-term political reasons," he said. "Just last week, a major piece of legislation to create jobs -- the public's top priority -- fell apart amid complaints from both the left and right. All of this and much more has led me to believe that there are better ways to serve my fellow citizens, my beloved state4 and our nation than continued service in Congress."

Is Bayh leaving because he's a moderate feeling the squeeze from extremists on both the Left and the Right? He says Congress is dysfunctional, and blames both sides for contributing to this dysfunction. Is he doing this to blunt the criticism on both sides, and to pacify those voters that sent him to Washington?

Some have speculated that Bayh's positioning himself to run for governor of Indiana, perhaps for president in the future, or perhaps to change parties, and become a Republican. He, himself, hasn't ruled out becoming a lobbyist (Good God, all we need is another legislator turn lobbyist!).

I don't think he's looking to change his party. His actions are those of a man angry with his party. I'm not an insider, with insider knowledge of the Beltway, but Bayh's actions are consistent with someone who feels betrayed, and wishes to hit back. You don't leave your party, a party struggling for every vote possible to pass filibuster proof bills, in a lurch, deciding just days before a filing deadline that you're not going to run again, especially when you're a shoo-in, if you do.

Again, in politics, you can't take anything for granted. Not even the loyalty of members of your own party. Especially members of your own party. Perhaps in the days ahead, we'll learn if there's more to the Bayh story, or we'll learn that he left for the reasons he stated.

Say it ain't so, Harold Ford! Harold Ford has unabashedly declared himself a strong supporter of Wall Street. You could say that he's Wall Street's candidate for the Senate, as he will be working largely on their behalf, as a Senator from New York. This declaration comes at a time when the reputations of corporations--those from the financial and health insurance sectors, in particular--are in disrepute, and the recent Supreme Court decision on behalf of corporate free-speech rights, threatens the integrity of our democracy.

Ford also rolled out a couple of new ideas for dealing with the still-shaky economy. For the first time, he proposed cutting the payroll tax for all businesses for six months as a way to "put more money in people's pockets."

And in a proposal sure to play well on Wall Street - where Ford is taking a leave of absence from his job as vice chairman of Merrill Lynch - Ford said the federal corporate tax should be reduced to 25% from 35%.

The latter drew a biting response from Team Gillibrand.

"Harold Ford is clearly running as Wall Street's guy," said Gillibrand adviser Jefrey Pollock. "While Kirsten is working to cut taxes on small businesses that create jobs, Harold is advocating for more Bush economics - giveaways to big corporations with no strings attached."

Wall Street Corporations need an "inside guy" like they need regulatory reform to force them to play fairly within a "free-market" structure. Practically every senator in the Senate are their "inside guy." In 2008, health interest alone spent more than $478.5 million dollars to influence Congress.

Well, read it for yourself:

According to a study by The Center for Responsive Politics, special interests paid Washington lobbyists $3.2 billion in 2008—more than any other year on record. This was a 13.7 percent increase from 2007 (which broke the record by 7.7 percent over 2006).

The Center calculates that interest groups spent $17.4 million on lobbying for every day Congress was in session in 2008, or $32,523 per legislator per day. Center director Sheila Krumholz says, “The federal government is handing out billions of dollars by the day, and that translates into job security for lobbyists who can help companies and industries get a piece of the payout.”

Health interests spent more on Federal lobbying than any other economic sector. Their $478.5 million guaranteed the crown for the third year, with the finance, insurance, real estate sector a runner up, spending $453.5 million. The pharmaceutical/health products industry contributed $230.9 million, raising their last eleven-year total to over $1.6 billion. The second-biggest spender among industries in 2008 was electric utilities, which spent $156.7 million on lobbying, followed by insurance, which spent $153.2 million, and oil and gas, which paid lobbyists $133.2 million. Pro-Israel groups, food processing companies, and the oil and gas industry increased their lobbying expenditures the most (as a percentage) between 2007 and 2008.

Now, this was just for 2008. Can you imagine what the outlay was for 2009? If we the people aren't getting enough democracy, and not enough representation from those we send to Washington, it's because we stop governing, and stop protecting, our own interests when we send someone to Washington. Until we put an end to lobbying abuse, and wring the money out of the system, it will always be business as usual on the Hill. But will we? The Tea Party movement seems more interested in curtailing government spending, than in curtailing special interest spending, more interested in turning the clock back, than in taking their country back. We can never expect Washington to be fiscally responsible, as long as we allow special interests to call the shots.

Their interest doesn't always clash with that of the people, but who's going to step in when it does? The Courts? The people? Our Representatives? Anybody?

Say it ain't so!

eRaceable?

Politics generally consume my thinking to the exclusion of other issues. But it's not an all-consuming preoccupation. Yet, if you're a regular reader of this blog, you'd not know that, because it is a primary focus.

That's because politics frame so many of the issues which face us as a nation: healthcare insurance reform, financial regulatory reform, climate change, terrorism, two wars, and putting brakes on what still threatens to be a runaway a recession.

But today, I'm going to diverge, and travel a road less traveled by, and see where I end up.

Not too long ago, I read a post on a blog I frequent occasionally. The commenter is white. The post was naked in a way that caught me off guard. I wouldn't have been anymore startled had a person walking ahead of me, stopped suddenly, turned, and belted me. It had that kind of impact.

That's enough of a buildup. I promise: Your patience will be rewarded, because I'm going to share that post with you. I don't think the person will mind. He (I think the person's male) doesn't visit my blog, at least not to my knowledge.

I copied the post, thinking that at some point I'd share it in a blog entry of my own. In preparation of that, I returned to the blog and learned that the person left other posts in response to several queries for more information, and clarification. The person leaving the posts seemed sincere, and is a regular on the blog. Here's the first of three posts:

"OK I'm sorry to change the subject but I have to bring this up, I'm sorry.

"I realized last night that I'm racist. You see, I was watching a reportage on the French channel about this (white) French-Canadian family so eagerly and lovingly adopting a little girl from Haiti (black), waiting at the airport with tears of joy with the entire white-as-rice extended family in tow. They're all so moved and so happy. I see the new daddy hugging her tightly carrying her off, such a tender scene.

"And I felt revolted, like it was gross or something. It was visceral, I couldn't help it. In fact I'd even go so far as to say it's not my fault because I was very alarmed by my honest reaction.

"Now mind you I don't see this child as undeserving or inferior in any way and I would never dream of denying her opportunity or what have you based on the color of her skin. But my God I can't believe it!!!

"Well there you have it. I'm sorry. "

Yes. There. You have it! It's quite an admission. And for the record, I didn't respond, but others did. I wasn't at a loss for words, just momentarily stunned, and not quite sure how to respond. How do you respond to one's admission of being a possible "racist." I say possible, because the reaction may have come from another place in that person's psyche that had nothing to do with racism. His next post seems to suggest that possibility:

"The more I think about it the more I think it also had to do with the poor little girl herself, she had these annoying pig tails, no expression of any kind on her face, and she looked pretty unhealthy and skinny and stuff so she wasn't cute. Today I saw pictures of more children being adopted and they were real cute so I dunno. Maybe if it had been some gangly un-cute slavic kid I'd have been revolted too but I doubt it. It just seemed forced and unnatural or something. I guess that makes me racist. What can I do? Sorry folks. At least I admit it."

Okay. He doesn't mention color. Or that the little girl reminded him of a monkey, or an ape. Only that she wasn't "cute," appeared "unhealthy," and was "skinny." Nothing out of the ordinary there. And one of the responding posts pointed that out, and suggested that perhaps he has an aversion to unattractive children, and that he wasn't actually racist. What I can say with some certainty is that the juxtaposition of black and white in an intimate setting seemed to be "forced and unnatural" for him. He practically admits that, and assumes he must be racist.

Let's move on. The third installment. The third, and final, post:

"I guess the question is not whether one is inherently racist but whether they act on it to discriminate. I think the term racist implies that the discomfort with POCs automatically means they are intolerant and discriminate. I do not discriminate.

"It's like a psychopath who has urges to murder people, well that's not his choice, he can't help it. But if he gives in and goes on a spree then he can be condemned. Same with people who are attracted to children. As long as they never act on it then it's merely a thought crime.

"So what can you do about racists and these other people? Send them to re-education camps, clamping their eyes open like in A Clockwork Orange to try to change their wiring like in A Clockwork Orange? Some would argue then that gays have the same malfunction that needs repair (not me.)

"So maybe the term racist has been overloaded, is there a term that describes someone with a visceral discomfort for something (or an unusual liking for things) but does not act upon it to discriminate or break the law? An asshole? But doesn't being an asshole require a will to be the thing that makes one an asshole?"

Okay, some good questions. The images invoked are a little disturbing (a homicidal psychopath, and child molesters), but then it's his account, using examples that resonate for him. Alright. I'm still in the game.

So to the question: Can you call yourself, or another, a racist, if you, or they, never act upon said racism? Is racism a thought, a belief, or merely an act, or both? And if it's an act only, and a person never indulges that act, can he be said to be a racist?

To fill in the blanks a bit: The person posted to a black blog, and, for the most part, wasn't helped much with his perplexity, because no one seemed able to unravel the knot of his problem, or to satisfy his knowing one way or the other--that is, whether he's a racist or not.

He implies discomfort around people of color, but wasn't squeamish about posting to a black blog, nor being found to be a racist, nor sharing the revelation of learning that he is one. Certainly, being anonymous, even with a handle, can make a difference.

Here's a working definition of racism:

rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

I can't say that this person is truly a racist or not, and will take him at his word. I'm not sure if he's all that certain. Yet, if you're truly racist, believing that your race is superior to another, then, in my book, that makes you a racist, whether you act upon that knowing or not, just as a person who believes that he's Baptist, will accept that definition of himself, whether he does anything to show that outwardly or not, and Catholics a Catholic, whether they attend church, or follow any other practices expected of those of that faith.

Help me out with this one. Give me your thoughts. And feel free to disagree.

I could be wrong, but I don't think there's such a thing as benign racism (as implied by the comments in the posts above). I agree that racism is not always overt, not always in your face. But that's only one kind of racism. The harm of overt racism is clearly seen. And the victim and the perpetrator easily identified. Here's what I think: People can believe in certain faiths, believe themselves to be a serial killer, or a child molester, or a racist, and, whether those people go beyond those beliefs and indulge their self-definition through actions, those beliefs will color their attitudes, their behavior, and their words.

If they can control the urge not to kill a person (which I doubt), a psychopathic killer will kill something: cats, dogs, or goldfish. Or the goodness, love, hope, joy, or peace of another. A child molester will molest something. Insinuate feelings for children, whether they touch them inappropriately, or not: with looks that may be disturbing, words that are suggestive, and body language that may make children and adults uncomfortable. Racist may not discriminate in ways that we'd call racist, but in other ways that show their racism. What I call passive racism, racism of avoidance: not attend a movie, a sporting event, live or do business in a certain part of town, not stop to help someone in need, avoid a sales clerk--inactions, of a sort (not openly racist), when it involves those of the wrong color.

And then there's racism that purports to do good. Frantz Fanon speaks of it in his writings, I think in one of two books, Black Skin, White Masks, or The Wretched of the Earth, where he makes the following observation: White colonials marry black women (an ostensibly harmless act), believing that their offspring will improve the black race, elevate it by virtue of the two races coming together, one race benefiting the other, because of its natural, evolutionary, superiority.

And then there's paternalism, the need to guide, correct, and govern the behaviors of others, because of the mistaken belief that they lack the civilizing means to conduct their own affairs in fruitful ways, or in accordance with proper social standards, and expectations. This tendency of some peeks through the racial clouds from time to time, in both the real and virtual world. It can be subtle, or it can be bold enough to make you wince.

In none of the racial instances above, would the people I described necessarily be called racist. The instances are too ambiguous. Yet, the racist knows. In all the examples above, whether the person's a psychopathic killer, a molester, or a racist, the person ultimately victimizes him or herself, whether, or not, he or she acts on his or her pathology.

There's always victims.