Point of View Columns

A History Lesson for Supporters of Bernie Sanders

As the Democratic presidential campaign moves from a New York State of Mind towards the inevitable Finale in Philly, it is quite possible that Hillary Clinton might be experiencing a sense of déjà vu – every time she runs for President a little known but charismatic senator comes out of nowhere to challenge her for the nomination. Except this time it looks like she is going to come out as the winner and supporters of Bernie Sanders are not happy – and that is why it is time for a history lesson.

Many supporters of the Vermont senator are passionate in their belief that he is a leader who will bring about “real change” in “the system”. Indeed, Bernie Sanders himself is calling for a “revolution”. And it is pretty clear that if revolution is the goal a moderate progressive like Hillary Clinton is going to seem like weak tea after swigging Red Bull Bernie ideology.

The dismay in supporting a losing candidate is understandable and commendable in a very real sense. It is good when people believe in positive change in this country. What is not commendable, what is both pernicious and dangerous, is when some Sanders followers say that the differences between Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders are so profound that they would rather vote for Donald Trump so that the revolution that they seek will occur sooner- out of the rubble that a Trump presidency would create.

Susan Sarandon, a prominent Sandersphile, has actually articulated the Trump alternative to Sanders supporters and Susan Sarandon should know better. As a millionaire many times over, she will not suffer one bit if Trump or Rafael Cruz or John Kasich become President and follow the Teapublican playbook and begin to dismantle the governmental apparatus and infrastructure. Additionally, since she was 22 years old in 1968, Susan Sarandon is old enough to know better.

In 1968 there was a tremendous amount of passion flowing through the Democratic Party. The Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson announced that he would not run for reelection in large part because of the raging opposition to the war, much of that opposition led by Democratic Senator Eugene McCarthy. Senator Robert F. Kennedy also entered the fray and brought with him the passion of a Restoration, in this case restoring the Kennedy Camelot that had been blasted in Dallas just five years earlier.

Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson’s Vice President was also a Democratic candidate and he was viewed by the raging McCarthy supporters and the passionate Kennedy supporters as a status quo agent of the “establishment” and absolutely unacceptable. And then this boiling political cauldron became superheated.

First, Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in Memphis in April of 1968. The national black community, a major cohort in the Democratic Party after the passage of the Civil Rights of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, was outraged and tried to burn many of America’s cities to the ground. Then Robert Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles in June of 1968. And with his death dreams of the Restoration of Camelot evanesced and the Kennedy’s followers were despondent.

Then came the Democratic Convention in Chicago with the police sanctioned violence and storms of political protest generated by supporters of Kennedy and McCarthy clashed. The ensuing catastrophe of carnage was broadcast worldwide and “Chicago” became the synonym for Democratic disaster.
And out of the ashes of that convention Humphrey emerged as the party’s wounded nominee. And many supporters of McCarthy and Kennedy saw him as representing the “establishment” and either opposed his candidacy outright or were lukewarm in their allegiance. The prevailing thought that there was very little difference between Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey and that election of the outright conservative Nixon might hasten the revolution that was sorely needed in this country.

The outcome was that Richard Nixon was elected president. The outcome was that Richard Nixon turned out to be far worse than the most wretched predictions of the McCarthy/Kennedy followers. The outcome was that Richard Nixon brought about the wave of conservative ideology which continues to sweep across this country.

Because the supporters of Kennedy and McCarthy stayed on the sidelines Richard Nixon begat Ronald Reagan who begat George H.W. Bush who begat (literally) George W. Bush. In the process we have seen the mass incarceration of the national black community, the onset of massive income inequality, the engagement of this country in regime change misadventures at the cost of trillions of dollars and incalculable loss of life. In the process we have seen Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist sit on the Supreme Court and roll back the reproductive rights of women along the with the marginalization of affirmative action and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.

So before the Sanders Supporters decide to opt out if/when they lose in Philadelphia, let’s hope they learn from history and that they remember that as bad as Richard Nixon was – Donald Trump, Rafael Cruz and John Kasich – embedded with the most conservative Congress in history – will be so much worse.

Standard
Point of View Columns

The New Supreme Court Justice is…………….

Since January 20, 2009, a significant segment of this country has lost its collective mind and tossed law and logic to the wind. Demented by his two national victories, Teapublicans have now decided that their beloved Constitution notwithstanding, Barack Obama’s presidency is valid for only three of the four years to which he was reelected. And a new tradition has been invented which requires a president to replace a departed Justice with a philosophical replica.

Before revealing the name of whom the new Supreme Court Justice should be, a word about the Teapublican opposition to President Obama even nominating a replacement for Antonin Scalia. The Teapublicans have proven themselves to be masters of invention. Consider the claim that there is a tradition that justices should not be nominated during an election year. History indicates that fourteen Supreme Court justices were nominated in an election year.

The Hate Anything Obama crowd would have this country believe that there is simply not enough time for a Supreme Court nominee named by President Obama to be considered prior to the election. In point of fact, of the remaining eight members of the Court, the confirmation hearings of seven lasted sixty days or less. The outlier in this case is Clarence Thomas, and the less said about the Silent Justice the better…..and even his confirmation hearing lasted a little over ninety days.

And speaking of Clarence Thomas, the Teapublicans have also literally invented the bogus “historical tradition” that requires Justice Scalia’s replacement on the Supreme Court to be his ideological heir and his philosophical doppelganger. The nomination of Clarence Thomas proves that lie, as Justice Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall.

Thurgood Marshall was an icon of the civil rights movement and lead counsel in the major court cases that resulted in seismic changes in the concepts of race and class in this country. In choosing Clarence Thomas, a known conservative, President George H.W. Bush proved once and for all that there is no such tradition.

As it turns out, Clarence Thomas is the exact polar opposite of Thurgood Marshall. He is the only justice who believes teenagers have no free speech rights at all. He is the only justice who believes that it is unconstitutional to require campaign funders to disclose their identity. And Clarence Thomas is the only justice who voted to strike down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. So much for the Teapublican claim of the existence of an “historical tradition”.

And the final fiction offered by the Teapublicans and closet Obama-haters is that with the election nine months away, “the people should decide” who should be the next Supreme Court justice. Of course the Constitution clearly excludes the Supreme Court justices from the electoral process and there is no basis for making the November 2016 a “referendum on the Supreme Court”.

It is hoped that President Obama will nominate Attorney General Loretta Lynch to the Supreme Court. She would be the fifth woman ever to be a Supreme Court Justice and her presence on the Court would mean that there would be an historic four women on the bench. She would be the first African American woman and the third African American to ever serve on the highest court in the land. And less than one year ago she was confirmed by a 56-43 vote in a Senate with a Republican majority.

It would be a delicious dish of irony served up by Chef Obama to watch the Teapublicans oppose the nomination of a person that was confirmed by a Republican Senate less than a year ago. It would be a pay-per-view spectacle to watch Teapublicans squirm and twist and contort as they explained why the historical confirmation of Loretta Lynch should be denied.

It is more than amazing to watch the convenient distortions of history and pathetically blatant misrepresentations of the Constitution being employed in the Teapublican effort to oppose President Obama one last time. To paraphrase Franklin Roosevelt, President Obama should “welcome their hatred” and nominate Loretta Lynch.

Standard
Point of View Columns

The Amazing Mr. Thomas

It is with a sense of involuntary amazement and fascination that one observes the life and career of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Being born in unimaginable poverty, his life narrative should be a testament to perseverance, overcoming, accomplishment and a clear commitment to success. However, Justice Thomas has used the platform of his career to not only attack and eviscerate the societal infrastructure that allowed him to succeed, he has also engaged in a view of his own life that alternates between neocon fantasy and unmistakable self-hatred.

Most recently Justice Thomas opined that in the modern era there is a baseless preoccupation with race in all phases of society. Choosing the ignore the racism and racist practices that are still found in America in 2014, he went on to say that life was actually better for black Americans in his home state of Georgia in 1960 than they are today.

Speaking at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Fla., Justice Thomas criticized a society that is more “conscious” of racial differences than it was when he grew up in Georgia – in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Justice Clarence Thomas is entitled to his opinions, unfortunate as they might be.  But he is not entitled to his own set of facts.

In 1960 there were 1,133,596 black Americans living in the state of Georgia. There were no black members of the Georgia state legislature, no blacks elected to state-wide office and no black people representing Georgia in the United States Congress.

It is difficult to understand how Justice Thomas believes that a state where virtually one third of its population simply did not exist in the state legislature could be a virtuous occurrence. It is impossible to understand how life for black Americans in Georgia could have been better than today.

In 1964, Lt. Colonel Lemuel Penn, a black Army reservist completing two weeks of training at Fort Benning, Georgia, was shot gunned to death on a desolate highway in rural Georgia. The white killers were acquitted by an all-white jury. A measure of justice was meted out when some of those killers were convicted under federal charges several years later.

Again, it is impossible to find the logic or reason in the statement by Justice Thomas that black people were better off in 1960 when the random assassination of black Americans was part of the Georgia way of life. And Clarence Thomas grew up in an age when the lynching of black men and women in Georgia were not a distant memory but rather they were a part of the daily news of those times.

That Clarence Thomas engages in this obscene form of neocon fantasy should just be the subject of pity or scorn. But, as a sitting justice on the United States Supreme Court, it is more than troubling that someone with such a defective and demented sense of history is permitted to partake in decisions which not only affect black Americans, but every man, woman and child in this country.

If Clarence Thomas were to deny the Holocaust suffered by Jews in Europe he would be rightfully castigated as being absolutely unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. In such a case, any sitting justice who would deny such an awful reality could not be trusted to comprehend the truth in the present tense.

Similarly, for Justice Thomas to blithely deny the suffering, terror and degradation suffered by black Americans makes him unalterably unqualified to sit as a justice on the United States Supreme Court. He should be allowed to wallow in his alternative universe, but he should not be allowed to participate for the rest of his life in court rulings that will affect Americans for the rest of our lives.

In all likelihood Clarence Thomas will continue to spew his misstatement of history and allow us to watch him self-indulgently engage in self-hate. Being that his appointment to the Supreme Court is for life, he should brace himself for scant praise more pity and scorn.

Standard
Point of View Columns

Weekend Edition – January 28, 2011

The first month of the new year has seen the renaissance of the Obama presidency, a massacre in Tucson and revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. Looks like 2011 is off to a flying start:

A Tale of Three Justices

Tradition holds that for the State of the Union address all of the members of Congress, the Cabinet (save one Secretary for security purposes) and the Justices of the United State Supreme Court are in attendance.

For the attendees it is not an optional event, it is part of the job. Attending doesn’t indicate political or philosophical support for the President; it is a matter of respect for the institution known as the government of the United States.

Somehow three Supreme Court justices didn’t get the memo. Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas did not attend -Justice Scalia having accepted a speaking engagement in Hawaii that conflicted with his being present in Washington on that day.

The fact that these three neo-con icons saw fit to disrespect the President and the institution that they represent should come as no surprise. They have routinely imposed their right wing political vision in the guise of judicial pronouncements.

The theft of the 2000 election by Justices Scalia and Thomas will go down as one of the great heists in history. The institutional damage to democracy in this country wrought by the three of them in the Citizens United decision is beyond calculation.

The absence of these Three Judicial Amigos was little noted but it should have been. Chief Justice John Roberts is no less a conservative than Scalia, Alito and Thomas, but at least he had the decency and respect to be present last Tuesday.

I guess they didn’t get the memo.

Along Comes Ms. Bachmann

At the beginning of this year’s Congress Representative Michele Bachmann from Minnesota was appointed to the House Intelligence Committee. For anyone familiar with Ms. Bachmann’s mindless ranting and raving this sounds like a punch line waiting for a joke. But its no joke, it is true.

This is a member of Congress who has called President Obama and his supporters Un-American and has publicly stated that the “Founding Fathers” were always against slavery. Of course, these would be the same Founding Fathers who were slave owners (George Washington and Thomas Jefferson among many, many others).

She claimed that President Obama’s recent trip to Asia cost $200 million per day (a lie). And she is now conducting an ongoing seminar on constitutional law for members of Congress – one of her faculty members is Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (can you say “conflict of interest” or “impropriety”?).

And, by the way, she is contemplating running for the presidency. I just don’t believe that Barack Obama could be that lucky.

Alternative Universe

Anyone watching the State of the Union address saw newly enthroned House Speaker John Boehner looking like a man who had swallowed a lemon and had a train to catch. I hope he doesn’t play poker because he doesn’t have a poker face.

He was clearly not pleased to have to listen to President Obama for almost an hour.
He also wasn’t listening.

The entire planet heard the President say “…..the United States is the greatest country in the world…” Then within 48 hours Speaker Boehner was quoted as saying that Barack Obama doesn’t believe in American “exceptionalism”.

Huh? We know that John Boehner is addicted to smoking cigarettes and that smoking is bad for your health. Obviously it is also bad for your hearing.

Have a great weekend!

Standard
Point of View Columns

Weekend Edition – November 19, 2010

Thanksgiving approaches and there are always reasons to give thanks…..and to there are always reasons to pause and consider:

Requiem for a Heavyweight

This past week the bi-partisan House Ethics Committee voted 9-1 to censure Congressman Charles Rangel setting the stage for a sad ending to a confluence of ethical standards and hypocrisy.

While the counsel for the Committee stated for the record that none of the actions of Congressman Rangel were “corrupt” or “self-aggrandizing”, the Committee voted to subject him the same punishment meted out to Congressman who were convicted of payroll fraud, sexual misconduct and the acceptance of bribes. One wonders if the other 434 members of Congress could withstand the scrutiny focused upon Congressman Rangel and whether censure would be the appropriate punishment in the final accounting.

Congressman Rangel asked for a delay in his hearing as he could no longer afford counsel. It turns out that the law firm that had been paid $2 million would not continue to represent him unless it could be assured that he could pay another $1 million.

Even if one can assume that this law firm actually rendered $ 2 million worth of legal service and counsel, how this firm could be so intransigent in its billing policy that it could not work out a fee payment arrangement with a client that had already paid millions of dollars is distressing and a depressing commentary on the practice of law.

Finally, newspaper columnists, bloggers and talking heads have been crowing and bellowing over the presumed demise of Congressman Rangel’s political career. An ounce of humanity or a drop of compassion is clearly in short supply these days. But it is worth pointing out that there are thousands of men and women who have been able to go to school, pursue careers, obtain decent housing and take care of their families because of the efforts of Congressman Rangel. His acknowledged imperfections cannot tarnish his accomplishments.

Those who sit in judgment of Charles Rangel, whether they are in Congress or in the media or in the street should look in the mirror to see if they measure up to the standards of accomplishment of the man that they now choose to pillory.

“Scottsboro Boys” – cont’d

The more that I learn about this travesty of a minstrel musical (it turns out that Rosa Parks makes a cameo appearance – the flesh crawls at this arrogant absence of good taste), I am baffled that there is so little protest.

It is not only black Americans that should be outraged. People of goodwill and good judgment should know that offensive material that poses as art should be subject to criticism at the very least.

I hasten to add that this is not a First Amendment issue. The producers and directors of this buck and wing spectacle posing as an historical perspective have every right to come up with whatever drivel that they choose. I am simply surprised at how anesthetized and desensitized too many of us have become.

Perhaps the outrages of the Tea Party and Glenn Beck, et. al. have permanently lowered our standards when it comes to good taste. If that is the case, then shame on us all.

Driving Miss Ginni Crazy

In a recent Point of View “Weekend Edition” I wrote about Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and her right wing of the right wing conservative organization. I then wrote about Mrs. Thomas and her bizarre post-dawn phone call to Anita Hill soliciting an apology to her husband.

Now it has been announced that Virginia Thomas is suspending the activities of her conservative cheerleading outfit because of “too much controversy”. Perhaps after the elections of November 2nd she feels like her mission has been accomplished. We can only hope that we have heard the last of her.

But I doubt it.

Have a great weekend!

Standard
Point of View Columns

Weekend Edition – October 22, 2010

November is nearby and so are the midterm elections. Rhetorical pyrotechnics, no matter how brightly they coruscate in the sky, do not seem to be enough to awaken the somnolent legions of progressives and moderates who are ceding the high ground and the low ground to the right wing of the right wing. Winter may come early this year and for years to come if the G.O.Tea Party has its way.

Race and the Tea Party

Recent news reports have highlighted the apparent attraction that the Tea Party has for angry voters. That anger reportedly stems from the maddening perception that the government interferes too much in the lives of Americans and that the principles of the Founding Fathers should be the sole guiding principles for all governance.

It might be useful, however, to consider the rational basis for this anger and what kind of voter the G.O.Tea Party has attracted. After all, there are some fairly subtle constitutional debates that arise when considering the strict interpretation of the United States Constitution given that it was written over two hundred years ago at a time when slavery was legal, women could not vote and rapacious and persistent genocide was being perpetrated against Native Americans.

Most historians and legal scholars would agree that the unique exceptionalism of the Constitution is that it is an organic document, designed to change. This change can take place through judicial interpretation or amendment. The idea of the Founders was to create a document that could evolve and adapt over time. Otherwise, we would be living in a country where slavery was legal, women couldn’t vote and the physically disabled would not deserve any special consideration as a matter of law.
Simply put, the Constitution was never meant to be the Ten Commandments.

The flawed constitutional analysis of the G.O.Tea Party is paired with a mystical desire to “get government out of the lives of Americans”, even though it is very unclear what aspect of government should be out of our lives. Rand Paul, the Republican candidate for senator in Kentucky believes in removing government from our lives. This would be the same Dr. Rand Paul that accepts Medicaid and Medicare payments for fully 50% of his patients.

Sharron Angle, the Republican candidate for senator in Nevada receives medical insurance and healthcare coverage through her husband’s federal pension yet she is part of the G.O.Tea Party movement to get government out of our lives.

Would it be the government that devised and implemented the G.I. Bill that is absolutely responsible for the creation of a true middle class in this country? Would it be the Food and Drug Administration that is responsible for making sure that market forces don’t result in a failure to adhere to basic health standards in the production and delivery of what we ingest daily?

Perhaps the G.O.Tea Party would eliminate unemployment insurance (that would be Joe Miller, G.O.Tea Party candidate for senator in Alaska)? That is the government program that has helped countless millions of Americans and their families avoid homelessness and hunger during this economic depression.

Perhaps G.O.Tea Party is in favor of eliminating farm subsidies that skew and destroy agricultural economies around the world? Not likely.

So what aspect of government should be out of our lives? The military? The Federal Aviation Administration? The U.S. Parks Service? The Army Corps of Enginers? The Postal Service? It is difficult to understand how these critical government services are the source of such rage.

Perhaps we should examine this rage more closely. Since its inception, barely three months after the inauguration of President Barack Obama, the Tea Party movement has attracted overtly racist supporters, including some of the most dangerous white supremacists in this nation.

Tea Party rallies have featured President Obama being lynched in effigy, dressed in Africa garb and painted like a minstrel. Questioning Barack Obama’s birthplace and mocking his name are all part of a racially-based disaffection with this President that transcends policy differences and constitutional debates.

Congressman John Boehner, who is salivating at the prospect of becoming Speaker of the House as you read this column, was quoted as saying that President Obama could save money on his inauguration by having a “fried chicken dinner”. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that he and his G.O.Tea Party cohorts intend to teach Barack Obama a lesson (blessedly, he did not refer to the President of the United States as a “boy”).

If the policy differences regarding the presence of government are false straw men, and if the constitutional debate is at best the result of subtle philosophical perspectives regarding the United States Constitution, what is all the fuss about? Clearly the mere presence of a black President of the United States has been enough to throw logic, common sense, good taste and equanimity out the window.

And the silence in the presence of this onslaught is deafening.

Driving Miss Ginni Crazy

Last week in Point of View’s “Weekend Edition” I wrote about Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, pointing out the disquieting aspects of her raucous and loud rhetorical attacks on the President of the United States while her husband sits on the Supreme Court. The ensuing free speech debate was discussed and ultimately tabled.

This past weekend Ginni Thomas took time off from attacking Barack Obama to call Anita Hill at 7:30 in the morning to demand an apology from her. The news reports of this bit of unfathomable hubris read like something from the National Lampoon, except that it was real. One wonders at the source of her empowerment.

Is it because, as a new leader of the right wing of the right wing she felt that she could simply call Anita Hill and demand that she apologize to her husband? Did Ginni Thomas take her “Miss Daisy” pills that morning and decide to put an uppity black woman in her place?

Or was she channeling Michael Corleone from Godfather II who famously said, “Today we take care of all family business”? Perhaps she was giving us a prequel of a Tyler Perry sequel, “Diary of a Mad White Woman”.

Maybe she was just warming up for the glow of victory that she anticipates on November 2nd?
I only hope that she is disappointed when she wakes up on November 3rd. Instead of Miss Daisy pills perhaps she will be eating humble pie.

Have a great weekend!

Standard
Point of View Columns

Weekend Edition – October 15, 2010

The miraculous rescue of the Chilean coal miners reaffirms the potential for triumph in the human spirit. The spiraling inane insanity of political discourse that has conferred legitimacy to birthers and tea partiers and Nazi wannabees is breathtaking in its capacity to dismay. And the beat goes on:

Clarence and Ginni
A few mainstream news articles have begun to focus on the rather interesting story of Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The facts are that Mrs. Thomas, affectionately known as Ginni, is the founder and head of Liberty Central, a nonprofit political action group that committed to “ending the tyranny of Barack Obama” and other right wing of the right wing principles.

While no one can deny the freedom of speech rights of Mrs. Thomas, the appearance of propriety is critical to the legitimacy of jurisprudence and there can be no doubt that the spouse of a Supreme Court justice appearing of Fox News with a Lady Liberty crown and braying about the need to reclaim America and hurling epithets at the President of the United States has to cause one to wonder.

I wonder, for example, if there is any way that a nominee to the Supreme Court would be confirmed if their spouse engaged in these kinds of high profile political forays – regardless of political affiliation or philosophical point of view.

Further, there is the very real matter of the Citizens United case which was decided by the Supreme Court. Citizens United held that corporations can make unlimited campaign and public contributions since corporations have the same rights to free speech as citizens.

This contorted perversion of the Constitution has not only skewed the political landscape throughout this country, it also legitimized an unlimited flow of funds to —- you guessed it — Liberty Central, a 501© (4) corporation that does not have to disclose its corporate donors, including the two companies that provided her with $550,000 to get her hatchet job operation started a few years ago.

One would think that, at the very least, the esteemed Justice Thomas (the favorite Supreme Court Justice of Sharron Angle, by the way) would have recused himself from the Citizens United case as its outcome directly affected the work of his wife. But there is no shame and very little observation of propriety on the right wing of the right wing and Justice Thomas chimed in with his fellow Blocks of Granite on the Supreme Court, Justices Roberts, Alito, and Scalia to make certain that this godforsaken decision went forward.

What is most distressing is that the Thomas-Thomas-Liberty Central connection is not news and has not been revealed through investigative reporting. These facts are known and have been known for quite awhile.

And then think about the hue and outcry if the wife of Justice Stephen Breyer, a noted progressive on the Supreme Court, was a regular contributor to Truthout or The Huffington Post or Point of View.

Clearly we are in an era where the right wing of the right wing doesn’t even pretend to adhere to basic principles of propriety and decency. And just as clearly, the progressive cohorts in the political fray have yet to find their voice.

Dazed and Amazed
Every day there are polling reports and surveys to the effect that Republicans and their Tea Party progeny are “enthusiastic” about voting in the November 2nd midterm elections and Democratic Party supporters are lukewarm and reluctant on the subject.

I confess to being dazed and amazed by this continuous news flow. The G.O.Tea Party has been very clear in setting forth its agenda to roll back each and every legislative achievement of the Obama Administration to date – from health care, to nuclear disarmament, to equal pay for women. The right wing of the right wing has declared its intention to dismantle key elements of government like the Department of Education and the Department of Energy.

Some avatars of the right have questioned the constitutionality of unemployment insurance (Joe Miller – Alaska) and the need for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Rand Paul – Kentucky). Others have engaged in such reprehensible personal conduct (Carl Paladino – New York) and have made their fortunes promoting misogyny and violence (Linda McMahon – Connecticut).

And I am dazed and amazed at the reported apathy of the progressive and moderate sectors of the electorate. Can it be that people simply don’t believe Joe Miller when he says that he thinks that unemployment insurance is unconstitutional and that he will not vote for any legislation that is not expressly permitted in the Constitution (a document that was written over two hundred years ago)? Can it be that the promise of Senate and House of Representatives populated by former witches (Christine O’Donnell – Delaware) and Nazi wannabees (Rich Iott – Ohio) is not enough to get people to go to the polls and vote?

I understand that political battle fatigue may have set in given the all out assaults from the right wing of the right wing and its Fox News megaphone. But now is not the time to retreat and hunker down. There is a promise of a darker tomorrow on the horizon. Stemming the tide of witches and wrestlers and Nazi wannabee and strict constitutional constructionists is not simply another cause.

There is a cause for alarm right now and if there was ever a time for mobilization and taking a stand against the outrageous proposition that this country was better in some mythical past, now is the time.

Or to be perfectly accurate, November 2nd is the time.

Burn Baby Burn
Recently, in Obion County, Tennessee a residence burned to the ground while the fire department stood by. What was the reason for their inaction?

The owners of the home had not paid an annual $75 fee for fire protection service. The family in question had paid in previous years, had forgotten this year and offered to pay on the spot. The firemen refused the payment and the home burned to the ground.

That eloquent voice of the right wing of the right wing, Glenn Beck, praised the Tennessee firemen for standing up for what is right and teaching a lesson to Americans who would “sponge” off their fellow citizens. As bizarre and heartless as this statement seems, Mr. Beck was supported by his fellow travelers who call themselves conservatives and libertarians.

Terms like cruel, heartless and clueless come to my mind. But keep in mind that the point of view expressed by Mr. Beck and his colleagues is held by many who would put into action these views if the G.O.Tea Party and the Blocks of Granite on the Supreme Court have their way.

VOTE ON NOVEMBER 2nd!!!

Have a great weekend!

Standard