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.)

Home of the…?

I’m beginning to wonder if it’s time to rewrite the national anthem. Not the whole song, just the lyrics… and only a small part. Really, just one word.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not knocking the anthem or the sentiment of the verses. It’s just that one word. We don’t seem to be living up to that word.

Now don’t get excited. There are many, many Americans for whom that word is appropriate. Some, like retired U.S. Army Captain Florent Groberg who was recently awarded the Medal of Honor, it’s inadequate. Capt. Groberg was part of an elite security detail in Afghanistan when he confronted a suicide bomber. His efforts to shove the man away from the other soldiers in the patrol saved many lives, though Groberg himself was severely injured.

Groberg’s story is one of true heroism, but it’s not unique. Military personnel, law enforcement, firemen… I’m sure you can think of plenty examples. And let’s not discount everyday heroes… the people who put in a hard day’s work, who wring every last drop of sweat equity out of their paychecks, knowing that they could be downsized or outsourced at any minute.

And we need to recognize the boys and girls who do what’s right even if it means risking acceptance by the popular kids… standing up to bullies and, respectfully, challenging authority when a wrong has been committed.

These and more are… brave.

Unfortunately, the people who speak on our behalf… those that we entrust with the most valuable possession we Americans have, our votes… typically display the least courage. Some would argue that casting a “no” vote here and there or making a chest-thumping speech on C-Span takes an iron will and a steely spine, but I’m not buying it.

Politicians, you want to show me an act of bravery? Then let’s see you support something that is beneficial to everyone, not just your big-money contributors or your political base. Let’s start by agreeing to fix our roads and bridges, and I don’t mean a scheme that shifts funds away from other public services. Roll up your sleeves and come up with a plan that makes our highway system the envy of the world once again. Make it more functional and safer.

And for crying out loud… spend the money to get it done! We Americans kick in a huge chunk of cash every year. The least you could do is spend it on things that we need. Yes, we need a well-funded military, no argument here. But don’t focus too much on dropping bombs halfway across the world while ignoring the infrastructure that’s crumbling here at home.

While you’re at it, take a stand for what’s right… even if it means a handful of extremists will scream at your at your next town hall. Let’s hear you say something positive about independently-owned family farms, public school teachers, or even (gasp!) journalists. Acting like a grown-up might mean you’ll face a primary challenge from the fringe. But if you show up and do your job like we pay you to do, you’ll give us a good reason to vote you back in.

On the subject of showing up for work, let’s see you do something about your schedule. When House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy unveiled the 2016 calendar for Congressional House workdays, there were too many empty spaces that need filling. What were you thinking? Only 110 days in session?!?!? That’s even less than the 133 days on your schedule in 2015. Is it asking too much for us to expect you to put in a string of 40-hour weeks?

Spare me the stories about how you need all those other days to catch up on “district work” when we know you use that time to give stale speeches at fundraisers and play golf with your special-interest lobbyists.

There’s one more thing you can do to show that you’re worthy: be honest in all that you do and say. Telling blatant lies may be a great way to get yourself booked on the most popular talk shows, resulting in more and more campaign contributions, but it just makes us trust you less and less.

We’ve got people running for the most powerful job in government who act like they’re allergic to truth. They tell huge lies and when confronted with the facts, just tell bigger lies. Is that the kind of leadership we deserve? Based on the crowds they draw, I’m beginning to wonder.

Here’s one more way you can show you’re worthy: reject and condemn the candidates whose campaigns are filled with bigotry and unkindness. Do what’s right… even if you face negative feedback… and we’ll be more willing to consider you “brave”,

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

Get out of the kitchen

We are less than one year away from the election that will determine the next occupant of the White House. We’re not quite to the point where the real action takes place -- that’s reserved for after voting starts with the Iowa caucuses -- but things are starting to heat up. We’ve already seen a handful of debates, and the first of the failed candidates have dropped out of their respective races. In this 24-hour news cycle that we live in, we are constantly bombarded with the slings and arrows from both sides of the battle. To be honest though, the candidates on both sides are waging relatively boring campaigns. Maybe they’re just saving the good stuff for later.

From what I’ve seen and heard so far, the arguments seem more like childish taunts than legitimate discussions on policy. If you could bottle the most prominent comments by presidential hopefuls these days, you’d have an impressive collection for your whine cellar.

Contenders from both parties have made quite a bit of noise about the style and staging of their debates. They don’t like the questions. They don’t like the moderators. They don’t like the private conference rooms provided to them. They don’t like the temperature settings in the auditoriums. They don’t like the information that appears on the TV screen. They don’t like it when other candidates ask them questions.

And they whine about not getting enough questions, often spending more time complaining about not getting enough attention when they could use that time to (gasp!) actually answer the question.

Essentially, they don’t like debates. But they love the large audiences and free airtime the debates provide.

Let’s be honest: the overwhelming majority of candidates in both parties aren’t seriously trying to become president. What they really want is to boost their chances at making huge sums of money on speaking tours… or hawking their latest books… or maybe landing an easy money job with a cable news organization. Some just like to be the center of attention.

Oh sure, many of the contenders sound like they’re in it to win it all. But before you get excited about any one of them, I encourage you to view this presidential election from the right perspective: treat it like a job opening with you as the employer.

The first thing you should do is consider the responsibilities of the position. Granted, the average person doesn’t know all of the daily goings-on in the Oval Office, but anyone who took a single civics class in high school should have a basic understanding of how our government is supposed to work and what is expected of the people we elect to run it.

It’s not much different than hiring someone to work on your car. You want to know that the person with the tools has a pretty good idea of what he’s doing. Like me, you wouldn’t want someone tinkering with your engine who doesn’t know the difference between a distributor and an alternator. In the same way, I don’t have much confidence in handing the reins of our federal government to an amateur. That’s not to say that someone with many years in politics will automatically do a better job, but at least he or she should have a pretty good idea of what’s involved.

Then again, we Americans elect 435 people to the House every two years plus a third of the Senate, and there are plenty of know-nothings in that bunch.

As the field narrows and the eventual nominees become clear, we should do whatever it takes to find out where they stand on the things we think are important. It’s a waste of time for candidates to talk about what they’re against. I want to hear them explain, in detail, what they are for. Yes, I know that they’ll say anything to get elected. Even lie.

Newsflash: they all lie.

But only the informed voter knows how to catch them in the lie… and to hold them accountable. The only way to be informed is to ask questions, especially questions that the candidates don’t want to answer. Which brings us back to the current debates.

Right now, many candidates are trying to mold future debates into something that makes them look better. They simply want to stand in front of the camera and give prepared remarks, the scripts they practice over and over. They definitely don’t want you to knock them off their stride.

You want to know how their tax plans work? Just trust them, they say, and don’t try to confuse them with math. You heard them say one thing last week and then the complete opposite this week? Don’t confront them with facts, they tell you.

Sorry, but if you want my vote… you’d better be ready to earn it. And that starts with being able to take the heat.

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

Welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends

The Republican Party’s effort to regain the White House kicks into high gear with its first debate. While it’s tempting to say that these events are lessons in futility, there are some valuable takeaways that can be expected from these encounters. You can learn about a candidate’s ability to string together a few talking points into what sounds like a coherent statement. You can get a feel for whether the candidate has a personality, generally displayed by a good sense of humor. And you will probably notice a few who clearly don’t do their homework.

Most everyone following these assemblies will tell you that the Republicans allowed themselves to get bogged down with too many debates in the 2012 campaign. Really, what were they thinking when they agreed to twenty such gatherings? Halfway through that schedule it was clear that the party was opening itself up to way too much self-inflicted damage, as candidates rose and fell in the opinion polls based on how they attacked each other.

In this campaign, the party has shown some wisdom by paring down the list to twelve scheduled debates, the last couple of which are tentative and could be dropped entirely. Still, is there much of an argument to make that a dozen debates are going to be effective in choosing the best candidate?

Essentially, these are not debates in the truest sense of the word. A debate follows a few relatively strict guidelines, keeping to a formal structure, and its moderator is expected to maintain order with an iron fist. These events are better described as multiperson press conferences where the participants seem to do their best to avoid answering the questions as presented, instead repeating as much of their prepared campaign speeches, slogans, and taglines. But certainly we all know this: if you want real answers to real questions, don’t ask a politician… especially one who is actively running for office.

In the last cycle there were ten candidates participating in the Republican debates, though never more than nine at any one event… and only two of those had perfect attendance in all twenty. This time? Seventeen candidates have formally announced, but you won’t get to see them all in action at once. Thanks to the GOP turning over decision making chores to Fox News, the first debate is limited to no more than ten participants, as determined by where they rank in the latest polls. By essentially slamming the door in the other candidates’ faces, Fox News has been granted enormous power to effectively kill some campaigns while giving others a higher profile.

Fox News will argue that its methodology is simply reflective of public opinion and that the news/talk channel isn’t responsible for making the selections. Rather, it would say, the people surveyed by those polls are making it clear who they are most interested in seeing on the stage. But public opinion polls are a flawed source for facts. No two polling firms use the same criteria, ask the same questions, or even seek out the same type of respondents. Each poll is subject to interpretation, and those who read the tea leaves might not understand the message. Remember, up until late on Election Night, Mitt Romney and his team were convinced that he was going to win the presidency… based on opinion polls.

At least this time Republican voters can hope for a more serious slate of candidates. At least there’s no Herman Cain, who based his campaign on his “Nine Nine Nine” mantra which sounded more like a pitch for a pizza place than a political foundation. At least there’s no Michele Bachmann, whose glazed-over eyes looked like someone who was about to announce the departure schedule for the approaching Mothership.

Nope, this time the candidates are a group to be taken seriously.

Except… this time you have people like former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a 2008 hopeful back for another crack at it… taking time away from his other job as spokesman for various quackery medications on the internet.

Except… you have Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and considered by many to be the worse leader of an American technology company in history. Notably, the company’s stock jumped when her forced resignation was announced, the news bringing in nearly three billion dollars in gains in a single day.

Except… you have Donald Trump, the current Republican frontrunner. It seems to me that the people who are excited about a Trump candidacy are the same people who think Sarah Palin is worthy of holding a national office. That pretty much tells us all we need to know about Trump.

I will be watching, and I encourage you to do the same. It’s better to be informed than clueless.

Come and see the show!

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on 8/6/15)

An Inconvenient Idea

There are reports that Al Gore is considering tossing his hat into the 2016 ring. Some writers, including Ezra Klein over at Vox.com, are hoping it's true.

Let's hope it's just a joke.

Money for... nothing?

Make no mistake about it: you can't run for president unless you have a lot of money. I mean... a LOT of cash.

Actually, you don't need your own money... though it helps. What you need are a lot of people who have a lot of money and are willing to give you a lot of money in exchange for favors.

So what does it say about Jeb Bush when he's asking his rich friends to not give him a lot of money... right now?

It says that Bush is just like anyone else running for president. He has connections who are fairly eager to spend whatever it takes to get him elected. He just doesn't want to scare people off right now, and receiving a bunch of big gifts... er, bribes... er, contributions right now might send the wrong message.

Later, of course, when he thinks the message would be just fine... he'll gladly take as much cash as they want to dump in his lap.

BUT... for now, Bush wants his friends to only give him up to ONE MILLION DOLLARS.

That's right. Jeb Bush has decided that the top threshold... the amount up to which doesn't look like people are trying to buy influence... is ONE MILLION DOLLARS.

Do YOU have ONE MILLION DOLLARS just gathering dust in your checking account? Me either. But the people who do? They can -- and will -- cough up the cash without any worries or hardships.

You and me? If we give a candidate ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS we're doing so at the risk of not being able to pay the electric bill... or buy a few groceries... or fill up our gas tank. But the people Bush is courting don't have to worry about those things.

Which tells you a lot about the people Jeb plans on listening to IF America decides it wants another Bush in the White House.

I think America can do better.

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)

Net Neutrality is NOT socialism, no matter what Fox News or Pat Robertson say

Today, the FCC -- in a 3-2 party lines vote -- decided in favor of Net Neutrality. What does this mean?
It means...
...that everyone, from the largest corporation to the smallest household, is guaranteed equal access to the internet.
...that internet providers can't limit or block access to some customers nor give special consideration to others.
...that internet providers can't give faster delivery to some websites (and charge high fees for the privilege) while slowing the ability to load from other websites.
...that internet providers CAN STILL charge consumers different fees for different speeds, just like they already do.
...that consumers can expect to be treated to a quality product.

What does it NOT mean?

It does not mean...
...that the government will be controlling what you can and cannot see on the Web.
...that internet service providers will suddenly not be able to offer delivery.
...that companies like Comcast, AT&T, Cox, etc will lose money (unless you count the massive profits they would have made by allowing some content providers to buy up bandwidth at the expense of others).

Of course, Right Wing talk radio & websites, Fox News, and a host of politicians and personalities -- I'm looking at YOU, "Rev" Pat -- are telling their collective sheeple that the notion of maintaining a fair and equitable internet is SOCIALISM! and EVIL! and JOB KILLING! and everything else including the END! OF! AMERICA! AS! WE! KNOW! IT!

Baloney.

The people who are angry at today's FCC decision are the same ones that want corporations to have no limits and no regulations... granting outrageous power to the few at the expense of the many.

Net Neutrality... in a nutshell... gives each one of us the freedom to access the internet just the same as we can access telephones, electricity, or water.
YES, we still have to pay for the service... but we're not prevented from getting our money's worth.

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.)

Another Example of John McCain's Poor Judgment

Pictured above is former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. The same Sarah Palin who continues to tell anyone who will listen that she is interested in running for president... who covers her Facebook page with all sorts of religious-themed posts... who wants you to believe that she is all about "family values"...

The same Sarah Palin who is praised by supposed Christian leaders like Franklin Graham...

That same Sarah Palin is shown here enthusiastically holding a sign with both a profane phrase AND a gun-flavored threat to filmmaker Michael Moore. (See the gunsight crosshairs?) And don't let anyone tell you she didn't notice what the sign says; that's her autograph in the lower left corner.

What a role model!

Yep, John McCain made a huge mistake in putting this fool on the ticket... giving this TV personality just enough exposure to get rich by saying and doing stupid stuff.

It's sad that Sen. McCain still refuses to admit that he was wrong to pick her as his running mate.

It's even sadder that there are a lot of people who faithfully follow her.

(H/T to Andrew Kirell, Editor of Mediaite, for finding this picture.)

The Absolute Hypocrisy of Mike Huckabee

Former Arkansas governor and perennial presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has been making a lot of noise recently in his criticism of Beyoncé. Huckabee has attacked Beyoncé's music as "vulgar" and denouncing President and Mrs. Obama for allowing their daughters to listen to the pop star's songs.

Yet Huckabee counts as one of his favorite performers one Mr. Ted Nugent who is known for songs like "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang", "Yank Me, Crank Me (But Don't Wake Up and Thank Me)", and his biggest hit, "Cat Scratch Fever", a song that Nugent recently performed on Huckabee's Fox News program... with Huckabee playing bass guitar.

The song has two clear meanings: promiscuous teenage (and pre-teen) sex and contracting a sexually-transmitted disease as a result. Though Nugent has denied the latter, the phrase "cat scratch fever" was a commonly-used slang term for syphilis in the Seventies. The lyrics suggest that Nugent's denials are not truthful:

Well, the first time that I got it I was just ten years old

I got it from some kitty next door

An' I went to see the doctor and he gave me the cure

I think I got it some more

On The Daily Show (January 19th, 2015), Huckabee told Jon Stewart: "That song is an adult song, geared for adults." Really? Tell that to the hormone-loaded teenagers -- myself included -- who bought Nugent's albums in the Seventies. Tell that to the parents of those Seventies teenagers who were shocked to hear their innocent children singing along with:

Well, I make the pussy purr with the stroke of my hand

They know they gettin' it from me

They know just where to go when they need their lovin' man

They know I'm doin' it for free

Of course, his criticism of Beyoncé's music is a small part of Huckabee's schtick... but it's part of his central theme of separating this nation into two parts: Bubble-ville and Bubba-ville. He is very condescending when talking about people from urban areas and those with advanced education while portraying the rest as more wholesome and practical. He attacks one in order to celebrate the other. It's the same tactic used by other political extremists like Sarah Palin who suggest that some parts of this nation are the "real America", as if they are the only ones worthy.

This is the type of behavior that causes rifts and makes the division between two sides grow much wider. Huckabee is exploiting domestic xenophobia, the fear and hatred some Americans have of other Americans simply because of their differences.

Huckabee condemns Beyoncé's music as "mental poison"... but he excuses the blatant pornography of Ted Nugent because:

1. Nugent's music fans are overwhelmingly rural
2. Nugent's political views are shared by many of Huckabee's followers
3. Nugent and Huckabee are in agreement on gun issues.

Huckabee may have moral standards... but his willingness to disapprove of some while glorifying others is pure hypocrisy.

Why so angry?

There’s nothing wrong with being angry. I don’t just mean upset or irritated or ill-tempered. I’m talking about pure, unadulterated, enragement. It’s okay. Clearly, we are supposed to be furious. The question is: what is irritating you today?

No, seriously… you have to get mad. Everybody says so. Name a topic and you’re on your way to an argument. We’ve reached a point in history where two people simply can’t be 100% in agreement.  

Okay, that’s not completely accurate. Two people CAN agree, but in an age of information overload it’s unlikely. That’s because those two people have so many available resources from which to form their opinions that it’s virtually impossible to expect them to reach the same conclusions on any given subject.

I’m not suggesting that anger doesn’t have a place. But what’s the point of screaming, “I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore” when you don’t know what you’re mad about?

I’ve made it clear in this column that, despite the vast resources available to the average American, we as a nation appear to be woefully disinterested in facts. We’re more likely to let some talker on radio or television tell us what to think rather than taking the time to gain the knowledge necessary to decide for ourselves. In the Google era it’s unbelievably easy to catch someone in a lie, yet too many people are willing to believe what they hear or read without bothering to do a simple fact check.

It depends on the topic. If I told you that I heard that the moon was a man-made Death Star that didn’t exist before it was placed in orbit five years ago… you’d know that I was talking nonsense. But if you read an email that said the government had a secret plan to take away your guns, or send people to internment camps based on their political registration, or was creating death panels designed to kill grandma… you might believe it without evidence.

You know those things are fantasy? Yeah, you’re right… but there’s a lot of people who believe that foolishness -- and get very angry about it -- just because someone they follow claims it’s true.

In politics, it’s no longer just about Republicans versus Democrats. Every policy, every individual, is scrutinized to determine exactly where they fall in the Left-Right spectrum. One of the most frightening things you can say to a Republican politician is a four word sentence: “You’re not conservative enough.” By whose measurement? (Can you imagine a similar approach on the Left, with politicians threatened with a primary challenge because they’re not liberal enough?)

Funny. The man trumpeted as the hero of the Right… the most-revered President of the conservative movement… was a divorced, distant father whose goal was making every young starlet his sexual conquest. Then, when elected, he moved to expand abortion rights, raised taxes multiple times AND supported terrorist organizations. And yet, HE’S the guy raised up on the pedestal as the symbol of family values, patriotism, and fiscal responsibility.

And now, the new Congress is underway. Mitch McConnell gets to be the guy in charge in the Senate. One of the chief architects of the Congressional slowdown of the past six years now has to prove that he can lead. In the House, John Boehner faced competition for the Speaker’s gavel from the far, far Right… from Louie Gohmert and Ted Yoho… as if either of those extremists has demonstrated any sense of leadership. Of course, in the past two years the true leader of the House of Representatives… the one person with the most influence… has been a member of the other chamber. Republicans in the House eagerly took direction from a Canadian-born Texas transplant who once stood in the Senate chamber and cluelessly read “Green Eggs and Ham” to demonstrate his hatred of trying something new. The concept of irony is completely lost among the willfully uninformed.

In the 2014 campaigns we heard plenty of grumblings from Americans about their elected officials. “Throw the bums out” was a common sentiment, as if removing incumbents would solve the problem. Even Rasmussen, the most conservative polling company, found that two-thirds of those asked rated Congress’s effectiveness as “poor”. If that was the basis of your performance review at work, you’d expect to be unemployed soon. Not with Congress. Nearly every incumbent in the House and Senate was reelected. Essentially, Congress has an approval rating of 95%. You say you don’t like them, that you want to replace them, but you keep putting them back in… and they reward you with the same do-nothing approach to their jobs. But we chose to give them another term in office. It’s our fault.

Now that’s something to be angry about.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on January 8, 2015.)

Let's talk about guns!

First, let me do my best to calm your nerves. I am not opposed to private citizens owning guns. You want a gun… or two… or two hundred? Fine. I have no problem with that. This nation was formed in no small part due to the ability of the average citizen to rely on a gun for protection of self, family, and property and to provide food for the table.

In the hands of a responsible, mature, trained individual, a gun can have great value. Guns are a useful device for hunting, sport shooting, and personal defense. But let’s be clear: much like a woodworker’s circular saw or a surgeon’s scalpel, a gun is merely a tool that must be treated properly with respect to its power.

Sadly, the news is constantly flooded with stories of people who misuse guns.

Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania: three people were shot and killed and two others wounded at a local government meeting by a man involved in a property dispute.

Jacksonville, Florida: a 17-year-old young man was shot multiple times and killed by a man who was angry over loud music.

Marysville, Washington: a 15-year-old student, upset that a girl refused to date him, shot her and four other teenagers in their school’s cafeteria. Three 14-year-old girls died, two 15-year-old boys were also shot, and the shooter took his own life. [Update: one of the boys has since died of his wounds.]

These are just three examples of people who decided that the only way they could resolve a problem is with a gun. They didn’t choose to walk away from a confrontation or seek another means of conflict resolution. Instead, they determined that a gun was going to give them satisfaction.

In none of these cases was the shooter’s life in danger; self-defense is not the issue here. Each of the shooters was the instigator; each caused the situation that led to the deaths of innocent victims. In all three instances, the person with the gun was at fault and is worthy of our condemnation. That’s not to say that each is evil… but each committed an evil crime that they themselves could have prevented.

Obviously, not every dispute ends with gunfire. But doesn’t it make sense to prevent even one such incident from occurring?

Naturally, this would be the point in the conversation where some people would call for the removal of guns from society. I am not one of those people. As I pointed out earlier, there are many reasons for gun ownership and possession, so you won’t find me playing the role of a bleeding-heart liberal seeking to remove all guns from society. The concept of taking away the right to own a gun is as foolish as saying that everyone should have access to as many and as wide a variety of weapons as he wishes. As much as I support an individual’s right to own a gun, I also support every effort to keep weapons out of the hands of those who intend to use them unlawfully. I have no problem disarming a violent offender… and I certainly don’t think the average citizen should be able to own fully automatic rifles and other weaponry that are clearly intended for the battlefield. You want to fire such weapons? Join the military.

Don’t worry, I’ve read the Second Amendment. I’ve also read numerous interpretations and arguments about its meaning. We could debate whether the Founding Fathers meant this or that, but this much is clear: the language of the Amendment does not grant anyone the right to use a gun to bully others into submission. Yet that is exactly what happened in the three cases I cited and many more besides.

I’m not a gun control advocate, not in the sense of gun removal. But I do believe in the need to control how we think about the proper use of guns.

For starters, we need our politicians and other prominent personalities to tone down their rhetoric. In her failed campaign for a US Senate seat in Nevada, Sharron Angle said, “...you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around?”

In a speech before the NRA, newly-elected US Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa told the crowd: “I have a beautiful little Smith & Wesson 9 mm and it goes with me virtually everywhere. But I do believe in the right to carry and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family, whether it's from an intruder or whether it's from a government should they decide that my rights are no longer important.”

What exactly are Angle and Ernst proposing? That if they don’t get their way politically, they’ll transform in Tony Montana? Is it that much of a stretch to imagine them ending a debate with, “Say hello to my little friend”?

Statements like these are encouraging some people to sling high-powered weapons over their shoulders as they stroll through the grocery store, clearly an act of symbolic aggression designed to intimidate anyone nearby. Open carry laws may make such actions legal, but common sense should reign supreme. Who really needs to tote an AR-15 while making a milk and bread run?

As I said, a gun is merely a tool. It should not be seen as the symbol of our self-esteem or the only thing that gives us confidence and earns the respect of others. Above all, we need to stop thinking of a gun as the key to winning an argument.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on November 6, 2014.)

Whose 'values'?

Summer has come and gone. I know this because football is in full swing, baseball is nearing the World Series, leaves are changing color, and America has just experienced the annual Values Voter Summit.

Created in 2006 by a group of conservative Christian leaders looking to become more influential in American politics, the event brings together a couple thousand or so attendees who listen to assorted radio and TV talk show hosts, politicians, and other prominent social conservatives as they enthusiastically condemn anyone who doesn’t agree with their point of view. It’s Us versus Them, with no middle ground nor hope for compromise.

Of course, that pretty much describes every political event… from the smallest town hall to the huge conventions held every four years by the two main parties. The speakers are just telling the crowds what they want to hear, and those at the Values Voter Summit got quite an earful.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann declared that the US is engaged in “spiritual warfare” with the terrorist group ISIS, clearly suggesting that the fight against this extremist group is a battle between Christianity and Islam. You would think that Congresswoman Bachmann -- an appointed member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence -- would be aware that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan have all carried out air strikes against ISIS. Of course, that fact doesn’t fit Bachmann’s agenda, so her audience was led to believe that this is a religious conflict.

Senator Ted Cruz told the crowd that he’d like to “abolish the IRS”... which is an interesting concept. I wonder how the good senator expects this nation to operate without revenue?

And what would a gathering of this type be without Sarah Palin? The former Alaska governor got in plenty of jabs against President Obama and former Secretary of State -- and probable presidential candidate -- Hillary Clinton. Sadly, Palin seemed to have some difficulty reading from her teleprompters, especially when she flubbed her punch line about truth being “an endangered species at 1400 Pennsylvania Avenue.” (I don’t remember everything I learned in grade school, but I do recall the White House is at 1600 Pennsylvania.) Perhaps someone should send Ms. Palin a map of Washington DC.

But those in attendance… and those who are fans of these and other Summit speakers like Gov. Mike Huckabee and Sen. Rick Santorum… are willing to overlook these discrepancies. All they want to hear is someone saying what they already believe. They want famous people to validate their own beliefs regardless of those pesky facts that keep getting in the way.

One would be tempted to think that the Values Voter Summit is merely a one-sided event designed to attack one party and favor another. On the face of it that would seem valid, since all of the politicians invited to speak are Republicans. The organizers would want us to think otherwise, that they transcend partisan politics, that they are willing to stand up in opposition regardless of affiliation. They would point out that two very prominent members of the party, Gov. Chris Christie and former Gov. Jeb Bush, were purposely not invited.

In response I would suggest that both Christie and Bush have established records of pragmatic bargaining, demonstrating a willingness to reach across the aisle in order to govern in a way that offers a piece of the pie to both sides. But the Values Voter Summit appears more interested in achieving purity within the ranks, and those who show even the slightest inkling of compromise are not worthy.

Imagine if a similar meeting were held but the only invited guests were from the far left of the political spectrum, packing the airwaves with truth-deprived attacks upon an administration that came from the other side. Same concept, but from the opposite perspective. Would the attendees and their leaders be hailed as true patriots or radical extremists?

Twisting the truth isn’t new in politics, of course, and it isn’t limited to one side. Ever since someone got the bright idea to hold elections, candidates and their supporters have done everything they can to toss aside logic and common sense. The ultimate prize is all that matters. Win at all costs, even if you have to lie to do it.

Sadly, while the concept isn’t new, it’s more obvious today. We have more opportunities to be persuaded and informed - 24-hour cable channels, talk radio, websites, etc - than ever before. It’s unfortunate that so many people take advantage of those resources to spread absolute falsehoods.

I’d love to be able to tell you that there’s a solution, that things will get better, that truth and honesty will prevail. Sorry, but I’m a realist. As long as even one politician wins a race by lying about his opponent or himself, that tactic will continue indefinitely.

What we’re left with, if we’re lucky, is the lesser of the evils. Sometimes we’re less lucky.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on October 2, 2014.)