Phew, that felt good to get off my chest

Thanks, Garrison Keillor

I think he covered just about everything except for the gun nuts.

Very Proud

I know I've said some very disparaging things about the average American (and rightfully so) but my heart is filled with pride tonight that Americans refused to be denied their rights and went out and voted -- standing in long lines to do exercise the right that ALL AMERICANS have, to help determine the outcome of elections that will help determine their futures.  And I'm very proud also of the people who came to the aid of those who waited to vote by bring them food, water and warmth.
I'm obviously happy with the result of the Presidential election and think that result is very telling as well, and that the vast majority of the wingnuts in Senate races lost as well.  Maybe there's hope for us after all.
In the immortal words of George W. Bush, "I've earned some capital in this election and I plan to spend it."  The people have spoken.  If you're not going to help, get the fuck out of the way.  I think this election also proves that the people are still stronger than the vast amounts of money and influence of a few, something that I wasn't so sure of too long ago.
Finally, congratulations to Angus King, our new independent Senator from Maine.  Now we've elected three independents to very high office.  Good night, America.

Character

One of my best friends from high school is a self-described "lifelong Republican" and for the past eight years has been the State Representative in my hometown area, the one I was raised in, went to school in and moved back to almost two years ago.  There is a reason we were friends, at least from my perspective anyway, because Stacey Fitts was a genuinely good person of character.
At this point I'll stop blowing smoke up his ass and let his own deeds and words make the point.  The following is a recently-released commercial "starring" Stacey urging Mainers to vote yes on  Question 1 this fall.


I have actually not seen the commercial yet on television.  Where I learned about this was from Stacey sharing this editorial on Facebook that was written by Bill Nemitz in the Portland Press Herald entitled One Man's Turnaround Reflects a Sea Change.  It is a very well-written article and provides a great deal of background to this story.

This is not the first time he's publicly disagreed with his party and has continued to do so even now that Republicans control both Houses in Maine and the Governor's office.  He has sat on energy-related committees and has always formed his own opinions, some in disagreement with his own party, and has not been shy in publicly disagreeing with Governor LePage.  Recently he wrote the following op-ed in the Bangor Daily News chiding the Governor for making Maine's energy policy a political football.  I know when I read what Stacey has to say on these issues, I'm getting it fair, honest and straight, whether I agree or not.  I wouldn't expect anything less from the man I've called my friend for at least 40 years.  Hey buddy, if you read this, the next Fresca's on me.

I do need to add that this piece as it initially formed in my head was supposed to be a piece in support of Question 1 and legalizing gay marriage in Maine, as opposed to being back-slap for Stacey.  But since it has sorta turned into that, I want to thank him for his eight years of honest service to this community and the people of Maine, and to thank him for his support on this issue.  Make sure you vote in November no matter how you feel about these issues but make sure you have as much honest information as you can get.

It's not about team

Watching the first of the Presidential debates, at the same time seeing my Facebook wall plastered with status updates from my conservative friends along the lines of "Obviously Romney/Ryan are right," thus the President isn't, coming from people who would gladly take George Bush back today if it were possible, rooting for their team because it's their team.  No way on earth will you ever convince me that a single one of them has any idea what the President has done, what he will do and what he stands for.  They don't care because he's on the other team.
I guarantee you that if I put the President's positions in front of them but put a picture of a man, preferably white, with a Republican label on him, they'd lap it up.  How else can you explain them being for a guy, Romney, who stands for nothing except for everything when it's convenient depending upon who he's talking to at the moment?  They blame the President for the very things his predecessor, that Bush guy again, did, while they stood back and did nothing but applaud.  Many, many of the things the President has put forth and done were previously supported by Republicans, even originated with Republicans, before a Democrat decided to do some of them.
So I'll say again, if you switched the labels in front of these guys and somehow made them both unknown to conservatives, they'd pick the guy they don't want to pick.

POST DEBATE UPDATE:  First, let me say that I'm very disappointed in the President's performance tonight.  Not once did he really in some way, shape or form call Romney the liar that he is or take him to task for sounding like a Democrat tonight -- yet another reincarnation from the Supreme Flipflopper.  Now he's for things the President and liberals are for and I can still see my conservative friends lapping it up.  They truly are not paying attention.  Color me scared that this is even possible.

A Call to Action

Get Money Out

The discontent of the American people regarding their ineffective, wasteful, corrupt big-money-owned government has been simmering for some time, boiling over at times with the rise of the Tea Party and then again with the Occupy Movement. Now I'm not saying these two divergent sides believe in the same things but they do, despite not realizing it, believe in some common things. One of those things happens to be the biggest threat to our democracy, the fact that our government more and more everyday is bought and paid for.
It takes an enormous amount of money to get elected to almost anything these days. To get the money necessary, it means you've obligated yourself to return the favor; and then those same power brokers spend millions on lobbyists to continue to manipulate the system in their favor. Once a person is elected to high office, the money and power become a drug, effecting their every decision.
Well, it may have taken far too long to happen but the American people are wising up, as it were, and they're mad as hell. As a result, we're starting to see a pushback and recently that pushback has started to produce organizations with the means to fight back with media exposure and organization.
Which brings me to the logo and link above. At last count over a quarter of a million people have joined this group and signed the petition to get behind possible Constitutional amendments to get the money out. I would encourage you to follow the link to Get Money Out and at least learn what they/we're about, and hopefully you'll be as impressed as I am and want to also sign the petition.  They may have the money but we have the power of numbers if we act.  The time is now.

Apparently we're just a country full of lazy whiners

If this were being used to applaud someone who's overcoming a rigged system, that would be one thing; but it's being used to tell people who are speaking up against a rigged and unfair system that they're just a bunch of lazy whiners. The fact that any child in this country (the country that was established for and by the people) has to go to these extremes just to break even is not something IMHO to be applauded. It serves to continue to enable those who take our money in tax breaks, bailouts, etc, and reward us with crappy, low-paying jobs
If we, the 99%, had that attitude about things, then the Wall Street banks would not have gotten their bailouts and the system would've crashed. Then anybody who was hurt from that crash through no fault of their own , it would've been their fault because they're just lazy losers? There are good elements in that piece but overall it's basically calling everybody who complains about unfairness is a lazy whiner. Bullshit.
What about the people who worked hard, saved their money, invested wisely, didn't go into debt but yet lost their retirements in the crash?  That was their fault too?  
So the young mother of two who decides to leave her abusive husband, she should stop her whining and stay?  If she leaves and can't find a job that will pay enough for her to put a roof over their heads and food in their bellies, that's her fault because she's just lazy and looking for a freebie?  It has nothing to do with the fact that the median income in this country has hardly risen in 30 years while the cost of everything necessary to survive has gone up at a much higher rate?  It has nothing to do with the fact that the biggest corporations in this country are paying less taxes than ever before, are making much larger profits than ever before and yet not creating new jobs with the tax breaks we're giving them?  It has nothing to do with the fact that Wall Street owns the Government of the United States, the government that's supposed to be "by and for the people."
Did you know that now corporations can spend money on elections just as if they were people?  But if you're a corporation, you can hide behind your corporate status and not be held libel for the decisions made by the people who make up that corporation.
As William Buster says in this interview with Charlie Rose, (sorry, there's no embed but I highly recommend you watch) "Occupy Wall Street has been depicted as anti-business.  We're not.  We're not anti-business, we're not anti-banks, we're not anti-government...we're anti-corruption and we're anti-systemic corruption."
I always get a kick out of the right always using personal attacks on the messenger without even trying to understand the message...whatever garbage Fox News puts in front of them, they swallow.  They use things like the note above to try and divide us.  If you want to know what class warfare is, that's as good an example as I can imagine.
This quote from the Vanity Fair article on Elizabeth Warren (that I'll do a post on shortly)  may sum it all up as well as any, “There’s been such a sense that there’s one set of rules for trillion-dollar financial institutions and a different set for all the rest of us. It’s so pervasive that it’s not even hidden.”

The Sacking of Shirley Sherrod

I've wanted to write something about this incident but working 8 straight evenings since last Tuesday and my daughter's wedding coming tomorrow, I haven't had the time to research and write a decent piece.  Let me say I share the thoughts of my friend, DCHomer whose post I'm putting here.

DCHomer:  "These are NOT my words. They are the blog comments of my fraternity brother, Attorney Chuck Hobbs of Florida."


The Sacking of Shirley Sherrod---President Obama should Reinstate Her Immediately

Posted 7/21/2010 12:44 PM EDT on tallahassee.com

Reject! Repudiate! Condemn!

In today's 24 hour political news cycle it seems as if not a day passes without some politician, lobbyist or talking head making a statement that so vexes his or her ideological opponents that summary calls for rejection, repudiation or condemnation soon hail forth.
The latest example is Shirley Sherrod, a heretofore relatively obscure black employee of the United States Department of Agriculture who in March addressed a NAACP gathering and discussed her own peregrination toward racial enlightenment. The blog Big Government recently decided to cut and post only
part of her statement where she describes, back in 1986, how she nearly used her authority at the USDA in a wrongful and racially tinged manner.
In her speech, Sherrod describes how she felt that a white farmer “came in acting superior to her” and that “she debated how much help to give him.”  Sherrod also stated that "I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with helping a white person save their land."
Standing alone, such comments certainly reveal racial bias by a government official charged to assist farmers regardless of color.
The problem, however, is that there was a second part of her statement that certain individuals, for reasons known only to themselves, conveniently chose to leave out.
Sherrod went on to state that the situation “opened (her) eyes…that whites were struggling just like blacks, and helping farmers wasn’t so much about race but about the poor versus those who have.”  Instead of Sherrod being hailed as a shining example of how one can overcome their own latent biases to treat people fairly, she was fired this week by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack who, like the NAACP, rushed to condemn the partial statement without having the gumption to ascertain whether there was more to the story---which clearly there was.

But then again...

It could be a whole lot worse, like it was not long ago.
While I've been in a dissatisfied mood with President Obama of late, I recognize it has as much to do (leaving the Gulf spill aside for now) with not doing all that he said he would and a few things he's done that he said he wouldn't.  I should also be fair and step back a bit and look at the big picture.  The big picture is that an awful lot has been done legislatively and culturally.
Since I'm lazy but most importantly need to be spending my time looking for a job, I'm going to take advantage of those who get paid to point these things out to you.  First, I'd encourage you to read this excellent article by Peter Beinart that's currently at The Daily Beast.   I saw an interview with him a few weeks ago with Charlie Rose, and I couldn't help coming away from that with one overriding thought..."that is one incredibly smart guy right there."  You just know it when you see it and it is a very rare quality these days unfortunately.
And just because it's always fun to be enlightened by Jon Stewart, I'll share the clip below.  If you watched the show last night, you saw about an 8 or 9 minute interview with David Axelrod; but if you go to The Daily Show website, you'll see there's a much longer unedited version of the interview.  What's below is part 1 of 3, that totals about 20 minutes.  There doesn't appear to be one file containing all 3 parts; but if you start with the first, it'll jump to the next when it ends.
So again, I'm far from satisfied and am dissatisfied in many ways but it should be remembered what the other options could have been.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
David Axelrod Unedited Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Because that matters most of all, Mr. President

Mr. President, in case you didn't realize, there's a big difference between the loyalty of the left versus the loyalty of the right.  On the left, while we may be very patient and gracious with the benefit of the doubt, we will call you out when we disagree and the bar of expectation is higher.  One category where the bar is higher is regarding your word, especially your word that your administration would bring back things like truth, justice, honor and principle to the Presidency.
So here's how it works with us:  If you're upholding those standards that we most believe in and cherish, then we'll be patient when it might appear you've made a mistake in judgment or calculation because we believe your heart's in the right place and your decisions are based on the greater good.  We'll even cut you a huss or three if you were simply wrong, again provided that we believe that you see the world the way we do and your word is good and you're upholding the standards we believe in.
But when more than a few chips start to fall in the wrong direction, when we start to wonder just how good your word is, then we'll turn on you too.
We're not happy about how you and your administration have handled the mess in the Gulf.  All things considered, we'd just voice our displeasure but still be on your side because you did all the other things that you said you would do that were most important to us.  Well guess what, our patience is wearing thin.
Our friend, Jon Stewart, who's always funny and nearly always right, does a very good job of laying out why we're getting fed up in this hysterical piece from last night.  He lays it out much more succinctly and certainly is more entertaining doing it than I could ever be.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Respect My Authoritah
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

I for Integrity (Representative Govt VI)

As it is becoming more and more painfully obvious that those we've elected have betrayed us, we must find the strength of conviction to set aside our partisan tendencies to believe those we want to believe and instead think for ourselves and demand from each and every one of them a strength of conviction, the courage to stand alone if need be and do what is right. Those who falsely hide behind the R of Righteousness and those who hide behind the D of Defender of the common man, only to prey on our society for their own gain, must be replaced by those of true Integrity, by those whose only motivation is to serve the country. Country before party, country before narrow ideology, country before self. They do exist and more of them will step to the fore with the winds of change...all we have to do is encourage them by voting for the independent thinker at every opportunity.

We are as much to blame as the politicians for the unfortunate state of our country, of our society. Where once we were trusted and looked upon as a country to follow, as a country whose government and citizens prized above all else the betterment of all, we are now seen as a country of pariahs, as a country with no integrity, as a country swayed by political winds at the expense of mankind.

If our elected officials will not have the courage and conviction to change their ways, will at least the voters of this country come November have the strength to look hard and strong in the mirror of self-examination, of realization that they do what they do at our bidding and that we now bid adeau.

There is still time, still an opportunity to vote not for a candidate who claims to stand for your prized issue at the expense of overall good but to vote for candidates who will in your stead examine every issue on balance. Do you have the courage to vote for independents, knowing that you could be "wasting" your vote and risking giving an election to the "enemy?" We all fear that, and it is that fear that's kept us from exercising our true power and reforming this political nightmare. But remember this, while the Republicans try to rally their base and Democrats will do likewise, if we independents all vote for independents, the others can rally all they want in futility because there are more of us than either of them alone. That would send a message for sure, but wouldn't it send an even stronger message if their bases did turn out but voted for independents as well?

Is it more important to you that your side wins and that, therefore, your handful of favorite issues might prevail or is it more important to you that this country is set once again on a path of intellectual reason over almighty dollar? There is no time like the present to start to turn this around. I for one plan to vote for every independent I can come November. Maybe I'll be wasting my vote, but I'll sleep well knowing I didn't encourage a process where he who has the most to spend wins. I'll know that if my underfunded candidate wins, that person will not have been bought by special interest. I encourage every one who reads this to do the same, cast a vote for Integrity, for Independent thought and Independent political power.

Cross posted at Watchblog

government politics citizens independent vote reform

A Good Thing? (Rep Govt V)

So the Republican Party ascended to power over the last 25 years by polarizing the nation with its "you're either with us or agin us" tactics, by falsely setting itself up as the moral center of the country, and by taking advantage of what it's traditionally done best and Democrats have failed at...governing.
Now that the current inept and uncredible administration has shown us what we get when we vote by "tradition," by sound bite and by focusing on the possible negatives instead of proven positives, the Democrats have a chance to regain power, either half or all of Congress this year and perhaps the White House in '08. But will it be a good thing for the country if they do so by using many of the same tactics, by rallying its base further to the left and making the country even more polarized, thus leaving the majority of the country in the middle essentially unrepresented?
So while we're left to decide between a course without a plan or a plan without a course -- or is it neither -- keep in mind that we should be voting for candidates who represent positions on issues held by the majority of us, which can be substantially different from what we're told our majority position is, a sadly successful tactic because far too many of us wait to be told what our position should be or we're told what supposedly the majority position is and then go along with it.
The only way we can truly have a government that represents our views is to have views based on as much unbiased and divergent information as possible.
government politics citizens independent vote

When politicians speak (Representative Govt IV)

Editor's note: Hi everyone. This is something I've been working on off and on for weeks. Since being back at my old job is as time consuming as ever, I thought I'd just put this up to have something new published.

When politicians speak, who are they talking to? Are they talking to other politicians of their own party? Are they talking to the voting members of their party? Could they be talking to undecided voters? Perhaps, but what's their true motive? Are they talking to those who've funded their campaigns, which is most likely?
Even when someone says all the right things to us true independents or swing voters, can we trust their motives? Are they just using buzz words like reform simply because they know that's what we want to hear? Even if they propose or vote for things we want, such as reform, can we trust that it's not based on political expediency, thus political survival?
How do we tell the difference? I propose one way to tell the difference is for the American voting public to stop having such a short memory. When politicians tell you they stand for something, we need to remember what they stood for, when and why. We need to be willing to research voting records and quotes in newspapers when those issues arise again. We need to ignore what members of their party tell us is that person's motivation, their position. We need to base our opinion of their motives and their positions on their actions and nothing else.
We most certainly need to drop our mental magnets that make us blindly nod our heads in agreement because the person making the statement or opinion is a member of the party we're aligned with. If that politician says something, evaluate it case by case. If you agree with that person 90% of the time, that's fine if you call them on the other 10% and if there's a true basis for agreeing with them the other 90.
I feel being an independent, which helps me keep my mind open to all views, has served me well in ensuring I have a basis for supporting a particular politician; and I've voted for nearly as many Republicans as Democrats and a fair number of indies through the years. I was raised that way and come from the only state, Maine, that has elected two independent governors through the years.
I would really appreciate the thoughts of others on both sides and the middle on this one, or I'll be forced to write a blog I've been thinking about doing related to why people rarely comment on blogs.

If you're interested in a life and work update, please check out All Things Zebster. I appreciate your support.
politicians independents voters Democrats Republicans reform politics