The truth is...

How can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving. Yeah, it’s an old joke… but it’s accurate.

Here we are, seventeen months away from the next presidential election and I’m sick of it all. Maybe disgusted is a better word. Or frustrated.

I’m old enough to remember when these campaigns generally lasted about a year and a half. That was before the internet and 24-hour cable “news” and satellite radio. Now, with all these different sources offering political chatter, the campaigns never really end. You could see it in 2012 when, as soon as the Republicans nominated Mitt Romney, the rest of the crowd was jockeying for the best spots on the TV talk shows so they could keep their names circulating for 2016. You could see it in early 2011, when Secretary of State Clinton let it be known that she wasn’t interested in continuing in that post during a second Obama term, with the unspoken but very clear message that she would be making another run for the White House.

So, yes, I get weary sometimes with politics. And yet, here I am writing on that subject. One of these days, I’ll submit a column on a completely different topic… just to see if you’re paying attention.

But back to the campaign trail.

Since we’ve got no choice but to be flooded with political blather on a daily basis -- except for the occasional breaking news from the Kardashians -- I thought I’d offer a few thoughts on some of the most common themes and buzzwords we should expect to hear from the candidates and the commentators.

Let’s start with “small government”. Dedicated readers will recall that I touched on this phrase in a column last July. (You can find it and a host of others archived on my blog; follow this link to read it.) Feel free to ho-hum any candidate who trumpets that he wants to make the federal government smaller or slash regulatory agencies. They only say that until they get elected, then turn around and realize that they kinda like all the power.

How about “tax and spend”? That line is nearly always used to attack Democrats, but there hasn’t been a politician invented yet who didn’t enjoy taking some of the revenue stream from Americans’ pockets and throwing it at his own pet project. Of course, they try not to make it too obvious lest they be accused of being too much in love with pork… so they’ll call for massive increases in things like defense spending.  

There’s “government overreach”. That’s one from the “small government” category, where the politicians decry some particular regulation or agency and how it needs to be eliminated. Those same officials waste little time inventing other ways the government can be a thorn in your side, like making it harder to vote. Believe me, once a politician is sworn in, the last thing he wants is to make it easier for the public to vote him out.

A similar line is “legislating from the bench,” referring to court rulings in high profile cases. We’re hearing that a lot now, especially with the Supreme Court’s highly anticipated ruling on same-sex marriage. Of course, it depends on the subject. Those who attack a court decision on one matter will expend the same amount of energy applauding another. If you like the ruling, the judges are heroes. If you don’t, you want them impeached.

Here’s one I’d love not to hear: “So-and-so is coming to take your guns!” Let’s be honest: more Americans own more guns now than ever before. If any politician was really trying to disarm you, clearly they’ve been going about it all wrong.

That one dovetails nicely with the one you hear about how someone has a “secret plan”. While that one is often used by Second Amendment profiteers, we also hear about hidden schemes to build internment camps, force us to switch religions, and take away our retirement. One thing that bugs me: if the people spreading these claims know all about these “secret plans”, they’re not all that secret, are they?

(By the way… that one about the plan to take our retirement? That one is real… at least, for anyone who is counting on a pension for their golden years. But that’s a topic for a later column.)

I could go on… but you get the point. Honesty takes a back seat when it’s time to run for office.  

There I go again… acting all cynical. That’s a common theme in my writings on these pages and on my blog. Trust me, I’m not always a Downer. But when you’re a realist, it’s hard to see many silver linings in the political cloud cover.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on June 4, 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.)

The NRA loves guns, but... (CORRECTED)

The irony is so thick you could choke on it.

At its convention this week in Nashville, the National Rifle Association is promising "9 acres of guns" on display by over 400 vendors, yet...

...all guns at the convention site all guns offered for sale at the convention site must be non-operational... and...

...if you purchase a gun at the convention, you can't actually take possession of it. Instead, you will have to pick it up at a licensed Federal Firearms dealer near your home which I imagine means you would have to submit to a standard background check...even though...

...the NRA has made it clear that it wants broad freedom for gun owners with minimal government restrictions, including calling for guns in schools...

...and the NRA is firmly opposed to universal background checks...

...yet clearly the NRA doesn't trust the thousands of eager attendees at its own convention to be responsible, safety-conscious weapons enthusiasts.

...yet the NRA insists that the only 'working' guns at the convention be those that attendees might bring with them, provided that they are licensed to carry... of course.

(This post has been corrected as shown. That's what happens when your source -- the NY Daily News in this case -- gets confused.)

(h/t The New York Daily News)

He's not the most evil man in history, but he's working on it.

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney has a new book in the works and the Far Right will love it.

According to The Associated Press, "Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America" will go on sale September 1st.

The book, co-authored by Cheney and his equally congenial daughter Liz, is expected to be crammed full of attacks on President Obama... especially critical of the current administration's foreign policy and responses to terrorism threats.

Ironic, isn't it? The worst terrorist attack on US soil occurred during the Bush/Cheney administration... an attack that was foretold in the infamous August 6, 2001 President's Daily Brief entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US"... and yet, Cheney and his offspring have the nerve to act as self-appointed experts on national security.

It's right there in black and white...

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.