The rise of the disgruntled

Just about seven years ago, shortly after President Obama took office, pockets of unrest started forming throughout the nation. Some of those groups began identifying themselves with variations of the Tea Party name, holding rallies and other events that generally focused on fiscal matters. Some of these independent groups said that their use of the Tea Party label was a throwback salute to the rebellious Boston Tea Party event of 1773. Others were more specific, saying that the TEA acronym stood for “Taxed Enough Already” and that their push was for major cuts in taxes at all levels, even if that meant eliminating some government services.

It seems strangely (and conveniently) coincidental that the movement grew to prominence at precisely the time that Democrats regained the White House with the election of the first non-white president. Defenders of the Tea Party’s honor have made claims that the roots of their cause took hold well before 2009, though one is hard pressed to realistically remember any such activity. Of course, people have been complaining about taxes since the first tax was collected.

As the assorted Tea Parties were gaining strength, the USA saw growth within another sub-culture… the sovereign citizen movement.  Essentially believing that the federal and most state governments have no authority, these individuals often refuse to pay taxes or fees imposed by government agencies. Many don’t register their vehicles, obtain driver’s licenses, or even use ZIP codes… as these are enacted by a government they don’t recognize.

Probably the most famous personality of the sovereign citizen realm is Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who for over twenty years has refused to pay fees for grazing his cattle on federally owned land. Bundy became somewhat of a cult hero when a standoff developed between the US Bureau of Land Management and a group of armed supporters. The matter ended without violence when government officials withdrew, effectively giving Bundy a victory. As this column was being written, three of Bundy’s sons are organizers of an armed occupation of federal property in Oregon, clearly emboldened by their family’s previous encounter.

There have been other notable occupations of federal property -- Alcatraz, Wounded Knee -- that ended in violence. But then, those occupiers weren’t white dudes with Twitter and Facebook accounts. But I digress.

A third faction that has gained in popularity over the past few years are militia groups. Usually heavily armed and self-trained, less than 200 of these anti-government groups were known to exist in 2008. Fueled by fears of a possible government crackdown on gun ownership helped the growth of these groups throughout the country, even though no real effort to limit the rights of Americans to own guns has materialized. Of course, just the implied threat, real or imagined,  is enough to motivate gun sales and discourage most elected officials from considering legislation that could be seen as impeding the average American from purchasing whichever weapon he so chooses.

It is right about here that someone will argue that President Obama’s plans for executive orders that, if fully enacted, could curtail gun sales. But most of what the president is offering are just suggested guidelines, and the strongest would require funding that the Republican-led Congress is not about to approve. Meanwhile, gun dealers are reporting a huge boost in sales… so let’s put aside any worries about how the government is going to empty out the Average Joe’s gun cabinet.

Nope, there’s no way the government is going to do anything to disarm the citizenry. But it is also clear that the government is no closer to solving the problem of gun violence.

So far, we’ve discussed the Tea Party, sovereign citizens, and militias. As diverse as these groups may be, they have many similarities. They all distrust government. They all have big problems with government actions like taxes and regulations. And they all saw intense growth in reaction to the 2008 election.

And… the lines between them are increasingly blurred.

I’m not saying that these three groups have exactly the same goals. But it’s really hard to tell where one stops and another starts. Log onto a random Tea Party website and you’re just as likely to see a discussion about the Second Amendment as you are efforts to trim taxes. Talk to a militia member and you’ll hear complaints about entitlement programs. And the Bundy family is proof that a large feature of the sovereign citizen movement is the combination of anti-tax sentiments and gun proliferation.

One thing is certain: you won’t find too many Democrats in those groups. And that’s a big problem for the GOP. You see, if the Republican party allows itself to be defined by those on the fringe, it has virtually no chance to field candidates who can draw votes from outside their own party.

And that’s a recipe for disaster come Election Day.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald January 7, 2016.)

Born in the USA?

My great-grandfather was born in Europe. He met and married my great-grandmother there and a few years later moved to the USA. Over time, they raised a family. They were poor by most standards, but they worked hard -- my great-grandfather was a cobbler and his bride was a seamstress -- and they were good members of their community.Their children were born here… in the United States… and were each given a priceless gift at birth: citizenship. Because she was born within the borders of this nation, my grandmother instantly became a citizen, something that could never be taken away.

Or could it?

There is a growing movement in certain political circles aimed at ending the practice of birthright citizenship. It’s a hot topic on the presidential campaign trail, and the opinions on both sides are strong, even if the arguments are a bit weak.

The Fourteenth Amendment officially became part of the Constitution in 1868 and since then its opening sentence became the standard for recognizing who is, actually, an American. The amendment’s Citizenship Clause states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

There it is, plain and simple. If you were born here, you belong here. You’re one of us. (Of course, there are a few exceptions, such as children born to foreign diplomats.) But not everyone is happy about that.

Growing out of the long-running debate over immigration reform, the question of whether to continue the practice of birthright citizenship has taken its place as one of the key discussion topics in the current race for the White House. Candidates, commentators, and coffee klatchers are arguing, sometimes fiercely, about whether a baby should have such a right.

Naturally, those in favor of changing the status quo are quick to point to undocumented immigrants -- the so-called “illegal aliens” -- and calling for rejection of automatic citizenship for their children. Those who seek to preserve the 14th Amendment as is are just as forceful in arguing that its language was carefully selected to assure that all born here are given equal treatment despite the origins of their parents. After all, some of the first to benefit from the amendment were former slaves who previously had no legal claim to citizenship.

You can be sure that those on the side calling for change would claim that they are only concerned with the undocumented, that they would have no problem with granting citizenship to the children of immigrants who are here with legal documentation. But I have to wonder if it would stop there. Given the power to strip away birthright citizenship from one group, how could we stop the government from ruling that others are also not worthy? Couldn’t such authority lead to refusal of citizenship to people of a certain race or religion?

Couldn’t we see a government that would make such a change retroactive, thus revoking citizenship… and all of its privileges including the ability to vote… from existing citizens? It sure would be an effective means of shutting down your critics, wouldn’t it?

What makes me even more suspicious of the intentions of those pushing this movement is that we aren’t hearing anyone complaining about babies born of parents from places like, say, Norway or Italy or Canada. No, the argument is firmly centered on the children of immigrants who cross our southern border.

What’s further troubling is that the argument is coming from the political right, whose party is sorely lacking in support from the Latino community. Such an unbending stance against citizenship at birth… especially one that is clearly aimed at people who come to the USA from Mexico and other nations to our south… is certainly not helping the Republican Party in its efforts to include people of color under its tent.

That is, if the GOP is still making the effort.

I just read a report projecting the 2016 election turnout broken down by race and its results aren’t enthusiastic for a party that alienates non-white voters. In fact, a party that turns its back on people of color will find that it is virtually impossible to win on the national stage.

I'm not a political consultant, but if someone came to me and asked what I thought would be a good strategy, I'd suggest that being a party of ideas and goals makes more sense than building your platform on exclusion and turning back time.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald September 3, 2015.)

Ain't Nobody's Business

If I should take a notion

To jump into the ocean

'T ain't nobody's bizness if I do

Bessie Smith made that song famous in the Twenties, and singers ranging from Billie Holliday to Hank Williams Jr have offered their own versions over the years, all with the same fairly explicit message: don’t stick your nose where it doesn’t belong. Sure, you may be curious about what someone else is doing, but there are limits to your involvement.

Say for example: your next door neighbor hires a contractor for a home improvement project. As long as your own property isn’t affected, your neighbor is under no obligation to provide you with specifics of the plan.

What if your co-worker takes a few days off for medical leave? You might be a bit concerned for his well-being, but you shouldn’t expect him to share the personal details of his diagnosis and treatment.

Or, turn it around. Perhaps you had intended to join a friend on a shopping trip but suddenly had to cancel because you needed to post bail for your brother-in-law. You’d probably not want to talk about such an embarrassing situation.

Clearly these are examples of how people should mind their own beeswax, right? Unless it affects you directly, life is on a need-to-know basis and you don’t need to know. But why do so many people think the opposite is true when it comes to private, intimate relationships?

Later this month, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments that may lead to the high court deciding once and for all if same-sex marriages should be legal and recognized by all 50 states. There are opponents who are declaring that such recognition would devalue what is seen as “traditional” marriage between one man and one woman. Similar arguments were made years ago in defense of anti-miscegenation laws that criminalized interracial marriage and intimate relationships, but the Supreme Court rejected those statutes with its ruling in Loving v Virginia in 1967. From that point forward, no state could prevent interracial relationships or marriage. Remarkably, it wasn’t until 2000 that Alabama became the last state to remove such laws from its constitution. Loving v Virginia has been cited in some same-sex marriage court cases as a legal precedent, though it’s too early to tell if the nation’s highest court will concur.

Others suggest that the national legalization of same-sex marriage would be a slippery slope ruling, leading to recognized unions of other types. Again, such arguments were made by those wishing to prevent marriages between different races but their predictions have failed to materialize into fact.

Let me be clear: the notion that what two people do within the privacy of their lives together somehow changes the definition of your personal relationship is laughable. If you think that recognition of same-sex marriage will somehow magically cause your own heterosexual union to be worthless… or worth less… then the real discussion should be about why you don’t place more value on your own marriage.

Of course, opponents of same-sex marriage may also point to their religious beliefs as justification. While the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment -- “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” -- guarantees each one of us the freedom to worship as we please, it does not grant us the ability to use such beliefs to infringe upon the rights of others.

On a related note, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law which many say would allow individuals and businesses to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender [LGBT] individuals.

In the wake of this law, the backlash against Indiana’s economy has been swift and continues to grow. Companies such as Angie’s List are withdrawing expansion plans; others are threatening to boycott products manufactured in the state.

Many of the same religion-based arguments used in opposition to same-sex marriage are being cited by supporters of the law; most notably, that a person’s strongly-held beliefs should be considered as justification for that person refusing to do business with members of the LGBT community.

I’m sure some readers find what I’m saying here to be unsettling, and I’m sure I’ll be confronted with assorted scriptural references. Trust me, I’ve heard them before. Remember, we’re not talking about whether someone’s personally held religious beliefs are inherently wrong. Rather, we’re looking at how those beliefs can be used to harm others.

Quite a few people seem to be on a never-ending quest to attack those of a difference sexual orientation. I wonder how much good those politicians, pundits, and prominent religious leaders could do if they channeled the same energy into something positive.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on April 2, 2015.)

Trust never sleeps

Walter Cronkite, who as long-time anchor of the CBS Evening News, was known as “the most trusted man in America”. He and Edward R Murrow were seen as the epitome of honesty and integrity in journalism. Those two and many others set the standards for televised journalism, sifting through the nonsense to give Americans a clear, concise understanding of the events and people around us.

That was then. This is now.

NBC anchorman Brian Williams embellished his experiences during the first Gulf War and has lost practically all journalistic credibility. Williams claimed that he was riding in a helicopter that took on enemy fire when it turns out his aircraft was not in harm’s way. His recent retelling of the false story has resulted in a six-month suspension though it’s unlikely that he will be allowed to return to his job.

Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly has twisted the facts of events in his career, both on his television show and in his bestselling books. He has claimed to have reported from a war zone when he was actually over a thousand miles away... and he told various tales of witnessing violence, including suicides and murder, though there are recordings that prove that he did not experience those events in person.

Now, I’m not here to rip on Williams or O’Reilly. They’re big boys who will weather these storms. Both are financially secure and will continue to be well-compensated. O’Reilly, for one, seems to be thriving from the publicity as his TV ratings have inched upward in the wake of this controversy. And while Williams will not be a network news anchor ever again, it is quite possible that he will succeed Jon Stewart as host of The Daily Show later this year.

No, there’s no need to shed tears for either.

The thing is… we the viewing audience are expected to believe what we’re told by the people in front of the camera. Somehow, we believe that the person on television has credibility simply because of their stature… that certainly they are trustworthy or else they wouldn’t have been given such a prestigious post from which to report. Often, such as in the case of Williams and O’Reilly, we are misled. Our trust is broken. In some cases, we demand justice in the form of dismissal.

But perhaps we are too eager to be trusting. Just because people are made famous because of their position doesn’t automatically grant them some form of trustworthiness. I want someone to earn my trust. I have no intention of flipping the channel to some talking head on the news and granting that person my undying loyalty simply because he looks like someone who is telling the truth. I expect more, and so should you. Listen to what a person says, but do your own research. Don’t be so willing to be spoon-fed a few headlines when you should hunger for the details… so you can piece together your own informed opinion.

Now, before you think that I am too cynical for my own good, let’s pause. Yes, I do grant unilateral trust in people I barely know… and, to be honest, in people I will never know. And so do you.

You trust that the driver of the car coming in the opposite lane will maintain control. You trust that your doctor and pharmacist are knowledgeable and will do their best for your good health. You trust that the person who made your sandwich washed his hands first. All these mundane, routine occurrences of life… we trust others in part because we just don’t focus on those details.

(If, by mentioning these few things, I’ve made you feel a little bit paranoid… I apologize. Rest assured. Odds are the other driver IS in control, the doctor and pharmacist ARE using absolute care with your health, your sandwich IS free of contamination. Probably.)

By now, I’m starting to sound like I’m on some “good old days” kick, harkening back to a time when we didn’t have to worry about such things, a time when your neighbor was as good as his word. Sorry to burst your nostalgic bubble, but those days never existed. Mayberry USA is a figment of your imagination. People have been lying and cheating and conniving since the dawn of civilization. No one era was more innocent than any other, not is the modern generation more corrupt than those of the past. We’re just more aware of it now… with more options to be informed, even if those options are misleading.

I’ve gone down this rant pathway before, but it’s worth repeating: just because someone rich or famous or pretty says something, don’t allow yourself to believe it unconditionally. Invest some time and effort and look into the facts yourself.

And don’t just take my word for it. After all, I’m just some guy sitting in front of a computer.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on March 5, 2015.)

A rare moment of clarity

Possibly the most commonsense thing said by a Republican member of Congress in a very long time:

"Hopefully we're gonna end the attaching of bullshit to essential items of the government" - Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL)

Object, but Respect

Remember back in 2009 when then-unknown Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted "You Lie!" during President Barack Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress?

He became an instant hero to the Tea Party and other low-information 'Muricans... despite the fact that he threw the whole notion of civility and gentlemanly behavior out the window. Imagine the reaction if a Democrat had done this when President George W. Bush stood before Congress and lied about those WMDs in Iraq... or when President Ronald Reagan looked into the cameras on Nov. 13, 1986, and told this whopper: “We did not — repeat — did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages — nor will we.”

Yet, Fox News and other political organizations masquerading as media outlets paraded Wilson as some sort of champion, giving him plenty of coverage (and boosting his fundraising as a result of that outburst).

By the way... what was the "lie" that inspired Wilson to interrupt the president? It was the moment when President Obama made it clear that the Affordable Care Act would not mandate coverage for undocumented immigrants. Despite Rep. Wilson's interruption caused by his ignorance... the president's statement was, indeed, truthful. But, to an audience eager to have its own disgust justified, Wilson remains idealized.

Look, there’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with our elected officials. From 2001-2009, I tolerated the Bush/Cheney administration. I spoke out when they led us into war in Iraq by making Americans believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. I spoke out when they abused their Homeland Security credentials in order to win re-election. I spoke out when that administration's economic policies led us to the brink of depression.

But... through it all... I maintained respect for President Bush because... whether I liked his politics or not... he was the president. Given the opportunity, I would have gladly shaken his hand... and I still would today... but I would also use that opportunity to express my feelings in a respectful manner.

Yes, you will see political writings from me that point out what I consider to be outrageous actions and comments... and, yes, most of them will probably be about people from the 'Right'… or, at least, the ‘Far Right’. But everything I publish is based in fact, and I'll gladly enter into a debate on the issues with you any day, any time.

Today... if you disagree with President Barack Obama... that's your right. But if you wish to disrespect the office of President of the United States, you’re on shaky ground. Intelligent, mature discussions have no room for conspiracy theories, 'funny' pictures that are hate-fueled, or personal attacks on members of the president's family.

And let’s dispense with the idea that American politics and religion have to be inseparable. The Constitution -- specifically, Article VI, paragraph 3 -- forbids the concept of any religious litmus test. The Founders made it clear that religious favoritism, which was a key factor in 18th Century England, would not be tolerated in the United States of America. The Framers’ intention was to prevent the government from involving itself in its citizens’ religious beliefs and practices.

Of course, a person’s character can come into play when he or she seeks office, but how they choose to worship… or if they choose not to… is not to be a means to prevent them from holding office.

Now, I do have questions for President Obama regarding Jeremiah Wright...why he remained seated in that church, not speaking out against Wright’s assorted tirades until the pressures of the 2008 campaign made it clear that such a break was necessary. But we can’t criticize one politician and one preacher while ignoring the harsh words of others.

Just this week, Pat Robertson continued his repeated attacks on President Obama’s personal faith, suggesting that the imposition of Sharia law in the United States is imminent and that because the president spent part of his childhood in Indonesia that he is in on the imagined plot. John Hagee, who infamously preached that Adolf Hitler personified the fulfillment of God's will, had the audacity just last month to declare that our president is anti-Semitic.

And Franklin Graham has gone so far as to propose that Russian President Vladimir Putin, a one-time KGB agent of known ruthlessness, is leading his nation to a higher moral standard than the USA, a country that has made Rev. Graham very rich and very famous.

Who are we to condemn Wright… yet allow Robertson, Hagee, and Graham to make such pronouncements without objection?

Yes, they have the right to express their opinions, just as the rest of us have the obligation to challenge them to be honest.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on February 5, 2015.)

Stuck in the Middle

My favorite sport is baseball. I fell head over heels for the game when I was a young boy, and that love affair continues today. There’s nothing like the satisfaction of turning a double play, the crack of a wooden bat as it slaps the ball between two fielders for a base hit, the feel of a leather glove that you spent weeks pounding into shape so it practically became a part of your hand. And then there’s the math! Baseball is all about math: batting averages, slugging percentages, calculating the Magic Number as your team tries to clinch the pennant.

The games themselves can be decided in nine innings… or they can go on and on and on until one team is victorious. You may argue close plays… you may dispute an umpire’s call… but in the end there are clear winners and losers; there are no ties, and the losing team goes home disappointed but anxious for the next game.

My second favorite sport is politics. I fell for that game in my teens but really became a fan in my late twenties. There’s nothing like the satisfaction of watching the election results scroll along the bottom of the TV screen, the crack of a smile on a winning candidate’s face, the feel of the leather chair you plop into after a long and successful campaign...

Meh. Who am I kidding? Politics isn’t fun like baseball, at least not anymore. Politics has become a necessary evil. Our system of government depends on the game of politics, but the game has lost its glory. Gone are the days when elections were a choice between two or more qualified candidates, when the point was to find the best person for the job. Yes, popularity was always a factor. It’s no secret that John F Kennedy’s charming smile was a key factor in his 1960 presidential victory. Dwight Eisenhower stood a better chance of winning than Adlai Stevenson thanks to Ike’s status as a military hero. And let’s face it: any Democrat was destined to win in 2008 thanks to a pair of unpopular wars and a very unpopular financial crisis.

But popularity isn’t enough. The Kardashians have a huge following but I don’t see anyone making the argument that any member of the family should hold elected office. What we need are men and women who have a sense of the huge obligation that comes with accepting such positions. What we need are men and women who understand how important the job is and are willing to accept the responsibilities of the post with maturity and common sense. Unfortunately in recent years our elections are giving us the exact opposite.

Even a casual observer can see that our current Congress is populated with bad-tempered fools and their numbers are growing.  One Senator can place a ‘hold’ on a nomination and prevent his colleagues from taking any action, even if the other 99 are in favor. In the House, a committee chairman can simply refuse to call for a vote on a measure… and legislation dies, even if a majority of representatives want to vote for the plan. Do Americans find it entertaining to have their elected officials act like petulant children rather than adults who can work together to accomplish common goals? In many ways, I think the answer is ‘yes’. We are going through a phase where both politicians and pundits have tapped into a well of anger and fear and will do whatever it takes to keep those emotions flowing. My guess is most of these people couldn’t tell you specifically why they are angry or afraid, but their radios and televisions are encouraging those feelings and that’s all the justification they need. So they tend to elect candidates who reflect those same emotions.

Sadly, there’s no simple fix for the problem. In this 24-hour news-cycle world we have created, you’re less likely to find a sensible person willing to toss a hat into the ring. Who among us would welcome the scrutiny? More important, who among us would want to be the target of so much negativity? It’s incredibly easy to plant a false story about an opponent that will quickly take root and command the attention of reporters and onlookers.

America has become the Land of the Uninformed. That may sound ridiculous, with such easy access to information on our computers, tablets, and smartphones. However, what we read and watch is easily tainted… manipulated, distorted, fabricated… so that we may be glued to our electronic devices but we’re not any smarter as a result. For example, there’s a reality TV star who has been able to single-handedly control large amounts of news coverage by merely suggesting that a birth certificate isn’t a birth certificate. Such wild goose chases dominate our radios and televisions, and there is a large audience eager to waste time on this nonsense.

I’m not trying to turn my readers into a swarm of cynics. What I am hoping is to see are larger numbers of people who take the time to filter the news to see what does and doesn’t make sense. The more outrageous the story, the more it deserves the common sense filter. Listen, really listen, to what people are saying. Maybe… one step at a time… we can bring back some civility to American politics.