Freedom: Responsibilities & Costs

As 2011 ends and the War in Iraq draws to a close, I am reminded of the cost of freedom.


Many of us, fortunate enough to be US citizens,  have had relatives (grandfathers, fathers, uncles, siblings, children, or grandchildren)  who have paid the ultimate price to preserve the freedoms we inherited from our Founding Fathers. We stand in Arlington Cemetery, the United States Cemetery in Normandy, Gettysburg, the Memorial at Pearl Harbor, or facing the Vietnam War Memorial Wall, and we are overwhelmed by the the sacrifices made by our brothers and sisters to protect our freedoms.


Many of us who enjoy the freedoms of being U.S. citizens would like to think that we also would posses the honor and courage to put our lives on the line to protect those freedoms. And perhaps we would - let's hope so. On the other hand, most of us are not called upon to make that ultimate sacrifice; we are called on to make many smaller sacrifices. We are asked to:


1) preserve freedom by voting.
2) inform ourselves to vote intelligently.
3) "promote the general Welfare" (U.S. Constitution)
4) abide by the "rule of law" unless it contravenes our conscience. 
5) and, yes, pay our fair share of taxes!


Granted, it might be appealing to take all the benefits afforded by the United States of America, disappear into the wilderness of Montana, refuse to  pay taxes and hope that the rest of the country continues to make the sacrifices that freedom requires. But, as is apparent to most, freedom is not cheap. Somebody has to pay, and it would be best if we all paid our fair share. Unfortunately, there is a disturbing and predatory  attitude that says: "Screw the general welfare, I'm all about my welfare."


And that problem was exacerbated by the Edwards' Supreme Court ruling that multi-national corporations are persons, and they can use their wealth to influence the democratic process, while abdicating the corresponding responsibilities, and leaving the rest of us "persons" to carry the load to protect the freedoms for which so many of our relatives have sacrificed  their lives.


No matter how the oligarchs and their puppets in Congress try to frame the debate, there is no excuse for the super-wealthy and huge corporations to take advantage of the benefits of this country and not pay their fair share. In fact their behavior is despicable in light of all the blood that has been spilled to provide these very benefits.  


It's time for those who claim to be patriots to step forward and demand, as Warren Buffet has,  that his secretary does not have to pay a proportionally higher tax than he does. 

Christmas Presents for Republicans

With just a few days left until Christmas, I am having trouble finding gifts for my my dear Republican friends. What can you find for those who have it all? A coupon for a McDonald's Big Mac and large fries is not going to cut it for those who wearing Rolex wrist watches and custom-tailored Armani suits. In years past, in the days when the GOP pretended to be "compassionate conservatives," I was able to make donations to Heifer International,  the World Wildlife Fund, or the Cherry Street Mission in their name, but now that economic evolutionism with it's doctrine of survival-of-the-wealthiest has taken over the GOP, I am forced to take a new approach. I certainly do not want to offend their sensitivities, and I definitely do not want to see John Boehner cry one more time. Sorry John, but it does not make for a pleasant picture.


While I am open to your suggestions, this is what I am considering at the present:


Sarah Palin:
I know she likes big guns, but face it - if it kills, she's got it. She loves money, but giving money is so tacky. She would love to have the mounted head of several Democrats and Katie Couric above her fireplace, but that is just not right, no matter how close a friend she is. Therefore, I am giving her an audio book -- Things I Should Have Learned In Junior High.


Rick Perry:
I was thinking I might give him a copy of  Ten Easy Steps to Improve Your Memory, but I am afraid he would forget where he left it.. Since he also likes hunting and things that go bang, I am seriously considering buying him a copy of Dick Cheney's Look Before You Shoot. The fifth chapter is particularly helpful, "If You Shoot Someone in the Face, Blame Them  for Being in front of Your Gun."


Mitt  Romney:
I know what he needs, but how do you give someone a personality? A pair of flip-flops might be appropriate for a man who wears out a pair a week. Although I can't afford it, I know he would like to own another company so he could lay off Americans and outsource their jobs.  But, let's admit it,  he already has the best gift of all -- Newt Gingrich and a group of opponents who make him look presidential. Since he is a Morman, I can't fall back on an old stand-by - a bottle of single-malt Scotch. I think I will have to resort to the one thing that always works for Republicans -- a renewal of their membership in the National Rifle  Association. I'll bet you $10K he will love it.


Michele Bachmann:
Since she has fallen on her backside throughout the Republican presidential nomination process, Michele  desperately needs a life-time subscription to FactCheck.org. It is always better to to get the facts right the first time. I know, Michele, using FactCheck may make you uncomfortable, but you will thank me for it in the long run.


Mitch McConnell:
Whether the Senate Minority Leader knows it or not, Mitch needs a copy of The Oath of Office and What It Means. He will be surprised that the Constitution does not say anything  about promoting personal or partisan welfare; rather, he will learn that he swore to "promote the general Welfare." I know it's not much of a gift, Mitch, but sometimes we all need a reminder.


John Boehner:
My friend John is easy; although as Speaker of the House he appears to have so much, he needs so much more. He obviously needs a large supply of monogrammed handkerchiefs to wipe his copious tears, but I gave him a dozen last Christmas. (I keep a list so as not to embarrass myself and my friends.) However, I am seriously thinking of a new tanning bed. Since he does not have the deep tan he has had in the past, I am thinking his present tanning bed is malfunctioning. If the tanning thing doesn't work out, I could give him a good  $139 bottle of Scotch, but I would prefer to give a gift that lasts more than a few hours.


George W. Bush:
Several years ago I gave him a fancy pair of leather cowboy boots and he loved them. Since I knew I could never do better than that, I haven't tried. Ever since 2006, I phone him a couple of weeks after Christmas and in the course of the conversation, I ask how he likes the cowboy boots I gave him for Christmas. Usually, after a brief pause, he profusely thanks me. In fact, last year he said he loves them because they don't even feel like new, they feel as though they are already broken in.


My other Republican friends  who are so fond of the Tea Party, will receive tea sets  and previously used tea bags to remind themselves  that the Tea Party is simply reusing the rhetoric of the John Birch Society. Remember them? How well did that work for you?

Transaction Tax: The Right Thing to Do

Time for Transaction Tax

When Mary Mainstreet  buys a dress, a wash machine, or a used car, she pays some sort of sales tax. In many states, when Mr. and Mrs. Retired hire someone to mow their lawn, prune their trees, or plow the snow from their driveway, they pay sales tax. Mary and the Retireds have very little control over how the money they pay in sales tax is spent. It may be used to replace the money used to keep the Bob Evans Corporation in Ohio, but that's not their call. What they do know is that a major corporation is receiving a sweatheart deal to move their corporate headquarters from one part of Ohio to another. Mary Mainstreet and the Retireds would be willing to move from one place in Ohio to another if they could get a deal similar to Bob Evans.


Knowing that they will never get a sweatheart deal like the major corporations, Mary Mainstreet and Mr. and Mrs. Retired continue to pay sales tax because they have no choice, but more importantly they know that their taxes are serving a wide-range of activities that only government can serve.. And, even though they realize that a sales tax by its very nature is a greater burden on the poor than the wealthy, they continue to pay it in order to support the government in doing the things that nobody else can or will do.


And then there is Wall Street. Millions of stock are sold daily and no one is paying sales tax or a Value Added Tax to the government which facilitates the very existence of Wall Street. Perhaps it's time for these oligarchs, day-traders, fund managers and  "Mom-and-Pop investors" to pony up and pay a pittance for every transaction made.


Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon), last month, introduced legislation that would impose a miniscule 0.03 percent fee on finanacial transactions. This fee is so small that the only ones who would feel it are the speculators who move vast sums of money in and out of the market. These are the very speculators who have caused so many problems for the economy and the markets in the past. "But because of the enormous volume of transaction, the new tax would still raise $350 billion in the next ten years, according to nonpartisan congressional scorekeepers." (Huffington Post. 12/16/2011)


I gotta tell you. my friend, Hank, and I think $350 billion is not chump change.


Also,  gotta tell you:  if our friend, Mary Mainstreet has to pay a 7% sales tax on her daughter's new, back-to-school dress, Mitt Romney and his buddies can afford to pay a  measly  0.03 percent transaction fee when they buy and sell millions-of-dollars of stocks.


Personally, Hank and I think they should pay as much as Mary has to pay for her daughter's new dress, but we all know that will never happen. We know the game is rigged; the 99% will always have to prop up the 1%.

Fatwas and Anathemas

Fatwa

A report making the rounds of the internet is that a Muslim cleric "somewhere in Europe" has issued a Fatwa prohibiting Muslim women from touching bananas and cucumbers because their resemblance to a male penis might cause these women to think of sex. If Muslim women wish to eat either, a male family member is to cut up the offending items into small pieces, and the women then can partake of the forbidden foods.


There is a question as to the authenticity of this Fatwa. but it has caused Muslim bloggers to search out other verified Fatwas that leave one scratching one's head. For example, "A man can work with a woman to whom he's not a brother, father, uncle, or son, if he drinks her breast milk first." (The Daily Beast, Asra Q. Nomani, 12/12/2011)


No offense to you fundamentalists, but whether you are Muslim, Christian, or Jewish, you all seem to be quite similar. Given that phenomenon, I am wondering whether fundamentalist Jews and Christians can issue Fatwas. 


In the 2011 GOP presidential primary elections, we have several Republican candidates who are openly groveling to secure the fundamentalist Christian vote. Now that Herman Cain's shenanigans have forced him to remove himself, we still have Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum  trying to out-christian each other. Can they issue fatwas? Perhaps not; maybe the term, fatwa, should be reserved for Muslims. After all, it was their idea. So we need to find another word for these christian pontificators. I would suggest the word, "anathema" - a denunciation often involving a threat and frequently used in religious situations. Let the Christian fundamentalists issue "anathemas."


This Republican Troika (Bachmann, Perry, and Santorum) would issue general anathemas against gays and lesbians, Occupy-Wall-Street protesters, doctors who perform abortions, Mexican immigrants, and Socialists. In addition they would issue more precise ones against:


1. Wealthy Mormons offering $10K bets.
2. Black men who become U.S. Presidents.
3. Ron Paul who supported the right of gay couples to marry.
4. The Department of Education, the EPA, and........what's the third one?
5. The "country of Solynda," whenever Rick Perry discovers it.
6. Any one who supports the Afffodable Health Care Act.
7. Newt Gingrich because he sat in a love seat with Nancy Pelosi urging Congress to take action on climate change.
8. TLC network for airing a reality show about ordinary, patriotic American Muslims.
9. Those who have the audacity to suggest that Congress stop paying huge farm subsidies to millionaire farmers like the Bachmanns.
10.Those "wanton little waifs" (Limbaugh) receiving free school lunches.


I guess the bottom line is: Christians issuing anathemas is anothe way of describing fundamentalist "trash talk."

New Republican Mascot: Fox

One has to wonder about the irony of the name, Fox News Channel, the cable and satellite news channel owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. Why name a news channel after a small, omnivorous mammal which has a reputation, at least in folklore, of being sly, cunning, crafty, and treacherous? In the Gospel of St. Luke, Jesus calls Herod Antipas "that old fox." And, as I recall, that was not a compliment. The fox is a nocturnal animal that continues to hunt and kill even  after it is no longer hungry. Again, not an image enhancer for a news channel.

But on the other hand, "foxy" is synonymous with "sexy" and "attractive," and one has to admit that FOX has an impressive stable of vixens. If you doubt it, google "fox hotties." And if you ask me, those attractive ladies are the inspiration for the slogan, "fair and balanced." Obviously the slogan has nothing to do with the organization's  news coverage.

Since Fox News Channel is a front for the Republican Party, perhaps the GOP should just drop Dumbo the Elephant as its mascot and replace it with a fox. Then their agenda would be transparent. But, the GOP might have a problem with that - after all, although a fox is reputed to be sly and conniving, that presumes a certain level of intelligence. Given that, how is the GOP going to assuage the Tea Party and their stable of candidates?  On second thought, I would recommend they stick with Dumbo.

(And for all of you who are going to explain to me that the Fox network derives its name from the original 20th Century Fox corporation, don't bother.  I don't care. Just like the Fox News Channel, I do not let the facts get in the way of a good story.)

Catholics Call for Lay-led Mass

Lay-led Mass at St. James the Great (Wellesley, MA)

To the surprise of no one, the Catholic Church throughout the world is in dire need of priests. The causes for this situation are many and their significance could be debated ad infinitum, but the more important issue is what can be done about the situation. 

The traditional answer, of course, is to "foster vocations" among young men, but that is obviously not working. Since the Church in recent years has taken a turn to the right and appears to be attempting to rewrite Vatican II, many young Catholic men do not see a future in such a Church. And the flip side of that is that, according to anecdotal reports, the young men who are entering seminaries are basically fundamentalists. 

There are, of course, other solutions. The most obvious is to reignite within the Catholic Church the the enthusiasm generated by Pope John XXIII and Vatican II. If you recall back then, Catholics felt  that they were "the people of God," and they were the Church. Today, unfortunately, Catholics feel they are the peasants serving THE Hierarchy, who dictates minute details as to the proper "Latin Way" to worship. Most typical young Catholic men will not choose to be part of this feudal system. 

Above and beyond the above, there are two obvious solutions to our lack of ordained priests. The first is to eliminate celibacy as a condition for the priesthood. Why not encourage men who experience the sexual intimacy  of marriage into the ranks of the priesthood, i.e. going back to our origins in the early Church.

The second is to ordain women, either married or single, to  the priesthood. Although Catholic Nuns have been the backbone of the Catholic Church's social mission, whether it be education or healthcare, they have been excluded from positions of prominence in the liturgy and the clerical power structure. Although the rest of the world, even multi-national corporations,  have come to recognize the value of women, the Catholic Church remains a blatantly sexist church.

Given the Church's intransigence to consider the above solutions. another possibility exists. Since, in the near future,  there will not be enough traditional priests to serve the liturgical needs of Catholics,  the faithful need a lay-led liturgy alternative.

At St. James the Great in Wellesley, MA, in 2008, Catholics were meeting in their church, even though the Boston Archdiocese had turned off the heating and the water, to celebrate Mass without a priest. To assist the lay-led liturgy, anonymous, but supportive priests had consecrated communion hosts to be used at  the lay-led Mass.

Recently, according to Reuters' News, 6,000 Catholics in Belgium have signed a manifesto urging their bishops to allow lay people to celebrate Sunday Mass in parishes left without priests. More than 200 of the signatories were ordained priests.

In June, 2,000 Catholics (including 361 priests) in Austria called for lay-led Masses and the ordination of married men and women to maintain parishes that no longer have priests.

Since none of these solutions - the ordination of married men and women or lay-led liturgies - is contrary to core Catholic dogma, one would think the Church, bishops and laity, would be having a serious discussion of these options. Unfortunately, Benedict XVI is not into discussion; his thing is Papal edicts.
   

 The Catholic Church's near-future looks gloomy as long as the Vatican with its medieval mentality is not willing to follow John XXIII's example of open discussion. 

We are the 1% - "Read and Weep"

"We deserve it."

A letter, presumably satire, written  (12/2/2011) to TCPalm, a newspaper for the Treasure Coast and Palm Beaches of Florida by Bob Boyd of Stuart, Florida:


"A message from the 1 percent - read and weep, unless you're one of us.


Stop whining, you 99 percent. We 1 percent have realized the American Dream: to own a home(s), a car(s), a boat(s) and a plane. (We don't like to fly commercial airlines.)...


Paying off members of Congress is not cheap. We have sacrificed millions of dollars to dominate their agenda. We like to give the impression that we have a moral value system and everybody loves and envies us.


It is true,a few times our control over the legislative process has caused a few problems: the savings and loan debacle, the tech bubble burst, Enron, Tyco, and the stock market crash of 2008, to name a few....


We can finally cement our capitalist oligarchy by eliminatingsuch wasteful programs as Social Security, welfare and Medicare.


We would especially like to thank the U.S. Supreme Court for the Citizens United ruling that guarantees our continued domination of society."


I suspect that there are some of the One Percent who fail to recognize Mr. Boyd's satire because everything in the letter makes perfect sense to them.

Reminder: Reagan Initiated "Class Warfare"

Every time a Democrat or Independent speaks of the need to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the ultra wealthy, some Republican,  or one of their puppets at Fox News, or a talking head like George Will  begins screaming, "CLASS WARFARE."  This is supposed to suggest to us voters that the Democrats are trying to divide the Super Rich and the rest of the country. Face it, we are divided. Look around and you will see the multiple ways we are divided. To quote Shakespeare, "Let me count the ways." And we are divided not because some want to repeal Bush's "temporary" tax cut for ultra rich, but because Bush and his party passed the damned thing in the first place. And this "welfare for the wealthy"  followed years of tax breaks for the rich which started with Ronald Reagan. That was the beginning of class warfare, and guess who won the war. It was not the middle class which has been sliding down the slippery slope to a lower class.*


Those fortunate ones who are among the nation's wealthiest citizens are in that category either because 1) they were intelligent,  received a good education, worked extremely hard, had a little luck, and were extremely successful or 2) they are descendants of parents, grandparents or ancestors who accumulated great wealth. Most of us admire those in the first group and do not begrudge them their wealth, but we do recognize that this great country provided opportunities, paid for by tax dollars, that made it possible for them to succeed.. All taxpayers helped them along the way, and now it seems ironic that they don't want to pay their fair share. We wonder, along with Warren Buffet, why his secretary pays a greater percentage of her salary in taxes than he does?


As for those fortunate individuals who did not earn their wealth, but inherited it, we in the middle class can appreciate your good fortune. In fact many of us are in the middle class because our immigrant parents and grandparents worked their butts off to make that possible. Our problem with you is that we are expected to bear a disproportional tax burden. Excuse us, but we think you should be paying your fair share. Quite frankly, those of you who are paying less than a fair share are a drag on our country.


This country is facing a deficit crisis and many of our wealthiest citizens and their minions in Congress are looking for ways to shirk their duty as citizens.


*There is no doubt that our nation's wealth has been steadily moving away from the middle class to the pockets of the most wealthy, but if you need statistics (warning, don't let your children see them; they are too depressing.), here are just a few:


1. 83% of U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1% of the people.
2. 66 % of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans
3. In 1950 , the ratio of the average executives paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1, Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
4. As of 2007 , the bottom 80% of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets
5. The bottom 50% of income earners in the U.S. now collectively own less than 1% of the nation's wealth..
6. The top 1% of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did 15 years ago. 
7. Approximately 21% of all U.S. children were living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
8.Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the U.S. rose a whopping 16%t to 7.8 million in 2009.
(These statistics were taken from The Business Insider, July, 2010)

Bendib Cartoon

Wicked cartoons by America's Most Wanted Political Cartoonist. Enjoy!

 

     That damn Statue of Liberty irks the 1 %

Catholicism Getting Scary

What would John XXIII have said  about
what's happening to the Church today?

As an American Catholic. I am concerned and dismayed by several events of the past few weeks.


The most disturbing is the following quotation from Pope Benedict XVI:
“It is my hope that the Church’s conscientious efforts to confront this reality will help the broader community to recognize the causes, true extent and devastating consequences of sexual abuse, and to respond effectively to this scourge which affects every level of society. ”

Wow! He thinks the Catholic Church responded effectively the sexual abuse of children by priests? If he considers that effective, it is no wonder he thinks rhythm  is an effective method of birth control .  He is saying this at the very time the Church is trying to obstruct civil authorities in Ireland who are investigating  clerical pedophilia. If he wants the "broader community" to follow the Church's example in this situation, then sexual abuse of children is going to continue to be covered up.

Another issue of concern for me is the following quotation that was included a a letter from Bishop Roger Joseph Foys of Covington Kentucky:

"Special note should also be made concerning the gesture for the Our Father.  Only 
the priest is given the instruction to “extend” his hands.  Neither the deacon nor the 
lay faithful are instructed to do this.  No gesture is prescribed for the lay faithful in 
the Roman Missal; nor the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, therefore the 
extending or holding of hands by the faithful should not be performed."


And Catholic bishops wonder why they are irrelevant today in the the United States? Where will such silly nit-picking end? What's next? Is he going to tell Catholic women they have to wear a veil over their head when they attend Mass? Does he think that the early Christians were forbidden from extending their arms or holding hands during the recitation of the Our Father? 


The  third issue is the new mandated, translation of the Roman Missal that is used for the  Eucharistic liturgical celebration - for most of us, that is Sunday Mass. I cannot become too concerned about about the difference between "you" and "your spirit." but I do think the new translation at times seems absurdly Latin in both vocabulary and syntax. For example, "consubstantial with the Father"? Give me a break. Archaic language like that is really going to go over great with U.S. teenagers. 


 But what I am even more concerned about is the obvious attempt to take the Church back to the days prior to The Second Vatican Council. Benedict the XVI seems intent on burying Vatican II in the archives of the Vatican, and the American bishops are marching to his tune with this new translation which they tout as returning to the Roman Missal prior to Vatican II. 


It appears that although they cannot negate Vatican II, they will just ignore it, pretend it never happened.

Conservatives Say Sexual Harassment Does Not Exist

While Herman Cain, like Clarence Thomas before, claims he has not engaged in sexual harassment, he does not go as far as his conservative supporters who claim there is no such thing as sexual harassment.


In the National Review, John Derbyshire wrote: "Is there anyone who thinks sexual harassment is a real thing? Is there anyone who doesn't know it's all a lawyers'ramp, like 'racial discrimination'? You pay a girl a  compliment nowadays, she runs off and gets lawyered up." Is groping a woman and offering her a job in exchange for sex a compliment? Apparently so, according to the National Review.


This leads one to wonder: do these conservative Republicans think the victims of pedophilia are just a bunch of whiny money-grubbers who lawyered up? Do they think pedophilia is not a "real thing?" 


And then there is conservative talk show host, Laura Ingraham, who said: "We have seen this movie before and we know how it ends. It always ends up being an employee who can't perform or who under-performs and is looking for a little green." 


Demonizing the victim is a classic strategy. If the victim is poor or has financial difficulties, she is apparently fair game because the harasser then can claim she accused him only to get a pay-off. Are murderers exonerated because the victim was poor and lived in an unsafe neighborhood? When did US conservatives change  "the rule of law" to the point that a victim's financial status becomes a factor? If a Lexus runs a red light and collides with a 1987 pickup truck, are we to presume it must be the fault of the pickup driver?


I guess it is no big surprise that Rush Limbaugh does not recognize sexual harassment as the Neanderthal crime it is, but as a political tool. He said: "You know what sexual harassment is? You know what it really is? It'a political tool. It is a political tool invented by the left. And - for the express pur...(sic) - just like political correctness is a political tool of the left to shut people down, sexual harassment is a political tool of the left to get rid of people or to score money gains, whatever is most desired." I get it. Privacy, respect, decency, honor, and courtesy are all "political tools" of the Big Bad Left. (Please note: I refrained from making any cheap references to "tools" in this context.)


Apparently, sexual harassment is just another "inconvenient truth" the neoconservatives deny. To them, it ranks right up there with other things that do not exist, things like evolution, pollution, racism, and global warming.

(The above quotations are taken from an article by Paul Rosenberg.)