Things from 2012 I'll Miss

For cartoonists and bloggers, both of whom enjoy making fun of the rich, the famous, the pompous, and of course, the politicians (both those actually elected and the wannabes), the end of the calendar year brings the realization that some of these juicy characters will disappear into the woodwork, and we will have to find new buffoons in the coming year.

Although I realize stupidity has a way of rising from its grave, I will miss the following:

1. Mitt Romney pretending to be normal.
2. The GOP presidential debates, aka, "Send In The Clowns"
3. John Boehner's leadership (?) of a well-paid, do-nothing Congress.
4. Clint Eastwood debating an inanimate object and losing.
5. Senator Mitch McConnell voting against his own legislation.
6. The NRA's solution to sky-rocketing gun violence: the manufacture and sales of more guns.
7. Catholic bishops trying to make contraception a "religious liberty" issue.
8. Tim Tebow sitting by himself on the end of the New York Jets' bench.
9. Donald Trump failing to provide documentation that he is a human being.
10. News reporters' embarrassment in reporting on the Russian female band, Pussy Riot.

11. The euthanasia of Hostess Twinkies.
12. Nude photos of Kate Middleton.
13. Republicans explaning the concept of "legitimate rape."
14. Karl Rove's "premature" ejaculation on election night on Fox.
15. Benedict XVI and Ayatollah Khomeni  joining Twitter -- who said those dudes were out of touch?
16. John McCain thinking Sarah Palin was qualified to be Vice-president, but finding fault with  U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.
17. Romney's immigration policy: "Self Deportation."
18. Augusta National Golf Club, after decades of searching, finally finding 2 women worthy of being members.
19. The NFL revealing that players try to hurt their opponents.
20. The Vatican prosecuting "the butler" for revealing their financial shenanigans.

21. Vladimir Putin claiming to believe in democratic principles.
22. Boehner holding middle class tax cuts hostage to cuts for the wealthy.
23. Koch Brothers spending millions to convince us there is no global warming.
24. White supremacists  and other hate-based racists claiming to be patriots.
25. Tea Party puppets claiming creationism is as reasonable as evolution.
26. Putin holding orphans as political hostages.
27. Walmart's reassurances it will not buy from from unsafe factories.
28. Tax breaks for the obscenely wealthy creating jobs for the rest of us slobs.
29. Hobby Lobby paying $1.3 million a day in fines rather than providing health care to their employees.
30. Fifty Shades of Grey  -- enough said.

In the interest of honesty, I must admit these individuals and groups are easy targets and I would therefore miss them if they disappeared. However, the rich, the famous, the pompous, the greedy, and the self-declared-important have a way of re-inventing themselves. And I say: thank God! They are a constant source of amusement for the rest of us.

I have listed only 30, but I am sure there are more 2012 buffoons. Feel free to list the many I have overlooked in the "comments" section below (or on FB).

T's the Season

T's the season of
      birth and renewal
      children and laughter
      giving and sharing
T's the season of
      soft lights and soft touches
      eggnog and wine
      mistletoe and song
T's the season for
      acts of kindness
      smiles of joy
      gifts of love
T's the season for
      family dinners
      Christmas carols
      midnight masses
T's the season for
      tolerance
      understanding
      acceptance
T's the season for
      friendship
      harmony
      and peace.
   

Catholic Bishops and Gun Control

Since the school massacre in Newtown a week ago, there has been a deafening silence from two groups who were extraordinarily vocal during the presidential election. The National Rifle Association and the U.S. Catholic Bishops have been noticeably silent. That the NRA was silent was not surprising since their solution to any problem is more weapons. The Catholic Bishops, on the other hand, wage an anti-abortion war on a "right-to-life" argument.  One would think they would be using a every media outlet to decry the wanton destruction of life that occurred in Newtown.  They expressed sympathy for the victims, but did not lash out at the use of semi-automatic assault weapons and handguns.

Today, a week later, both groups broke their silence.

The NRA held a news conference at which one of their high-priced lobbyists tried to explain to the rest of us idiots that assault weapons and handguns are not the problem. Our problem, he tells us, is that we need more guns in our schools.  And while guns are good, our problem lies with the media, television, and video games. 

Also today, at about the same time, the US Catholic Bishops seemed to get on board with the calls of other religious organizations with a statement recognizing a need to regulate firearms. They called on all Americans, especially legislators, to address national policies that will strengthen regulations of firearms and improve access to health care for those with mental health needs. "The U.S. bishops called for laws limiting the sale and use of firearms, particularly assault weapons and handguns -- as well as making 'a serious commitment to confront the pervasive role of addiction and mental illness in crime.'"  (Catholic News Herald 12/21/12)

Some, however, have noticed that today's statement was not quite as strong as their 1975 statement: "Handgun Violence: A Threat to Life, Statement on Gun Control." In that statement the bishops said: 'with few exceptions, -- i.e. police officers, military use -- handguns should be eliminated from our society." 

The question is: have the bishops backed off of that position?

The position of U.S. Catholics seems clear. A CBS poll on 12/14/2012  found that 69% of Catholics are in favor of strict gun control. (That same poll found that only 37%b of white evangelical Christians favored strict gun control.)

Perhaps, an even more important question is: will the U.S. Catholic Bishops pursue gun control with the same enthusiasm and finances that they have invested in the anti-abortion issue?

Bishops' $2 Million Negative Ad Campaign

Money for Political
Campaigns?

Recently  I came upon the following open letter from Barbara Serving to Cardinal Timothy Dolan.

The letter reminded me that our church is called the "Catholic" Church for a reason. In so far as it remains true to its origins, ou church is "catholic" in that it is "all-inclusive, universal, and comprehensive." Jesus of Nazareth did not exclude people, he welcomed them.

Perhaps the Vatican and the hierarchy have lost sight of our origins, and maybe Barbara's letter will remind them.

To: His Eminence Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York

Your Eminence, 

I've been going to Catholic mass almost every week since I was a little girl. My aunts and uncles are nuns and priests. My husband was a member of the Knights of Columbus. We raised our kids in our parish community and sent them to Catholic schools. Catholicism is more than just a belief for me -- it's a deep seed of my identity.

And it has always taught me that God made us all, and loves us all the same. The same way I try to love all my kids. That's why, when my incredible son told me he was gay, it didn't change my love for him one bit.

He's always my child.

That's why I was outraged to learn that the leadership of our Church just spent $2 million on anti-gay marriage ballot campaigns. Think of all the positive things that $2 million could have accomplished. Think of the hungry fed, the sick comforted, the homeless sheltered. Instead you chose to use parishioners' donations like mine to divide and discriminate.

Catholicism teaches us to love one another -- not to attack our sons and daughters for simply wanting to make lifelong commitments and start families. You won't have to ever marry a same-sex couple, but it makes no sense to deny them the right to be married under the law. And your parishioners aren't going to stand for it much longer.

I think it's time we all got on the right side of history. I hope you do, too.

Sincerely,
Barbara Servino

Weapons of Limited Mass Destruction.

Glock 19: 9mm with 33 round magazine

Friday afternoon, I took a minute to check my email, and on my home page learned the following*:

"27 Killed in Connecticut Shooting, Including 18 Children" (NYT)

"Two Officers Shot,One Killed in Memphis Drug Bust" (ABC)

"One of Two Men Shot this AM in East Toledo Has Died" (TN)

"Fla. Man Indicted in Shooting Of Teen Over Loud Music" (USA)

"Details But No Answers in Oregon Mall Shooting" (CNN)

And last, but not least, from Michigan:

"State House Passes Bill Allowing Concealed Weapons in Schools, Day Care Centers, Stadiums, Churches" (Detroit Free Press) Interestingly, some of the GOP legislators who passed this bill argued that it was a safety measure! The same perverted logic they use in calling an anti-worker law a "Right to Work" law

I learned  of all of this gun violence in less than five minutes. If I had attempted to seek out cases, chances are I would still be reading of the many others which were not on my home page.

And all of this, a few weeks after the sports world was shocked to learn that Kansas City Chief's Jouvan Belcher shot and killed his pregnant girlfriend before shooting and killing himself. When Bob Costas and other sport writers questioned the role of guns in our society, the NRA and their puppets raised the usual uproar and responded with their favorite piece of bumper-sticker logic -- "Guns don't kill, people do."  If the issue were actually that simple, we could have Clint Eastwood explain it to an empty chair.

The problem is: there are guns and then there are guns. Some guns have no purpose other than to kill living beings. If you think you need a handgun to protect yourself, you are carrying it because it gives you a sense of confidence knowing that you have the ability to kill someone by squeezing the trigger. Thus it's purpose is still to kill someone or in a more fortunate scenario to maim someone.

And then there are automatic weapons, whose purpose is not only to kill living beings, but to kill as many as possible in the shortest period of time. In Newtown, Connecticut, 28 human beings (including 17 very young children) were killed in a very short period of time because Adam Lanza had automatic weapons that made it possible.

In the Jouvan Belcher case, there were some who maintained that if he did not have a gun, he would have killed his girlfriend with a knife, candlestick or a bow and arrow. In Connecticut, if Adam Lanza did not have access to automatic weapons, he may have still killed his schoolteacher mother, but he would NOT have been able to kill 24 or 25 other people. If he had a knife, a candlestick or even a six shot revolver, many of those murdered children might be alive today.

We must face facts.  In the name of the 2nd Amendment and the Norman Rockwell version of sport hunting, we are making it legal for Americans to stock pile automatic weapons --weapons of limited mass destruction. These weapons have no other function than to extinguish human life and that is why Jared Loughner (Gifford massacre) and Adam Lanza seek them out and are able to get their hands on them.

It's time for the reasonable people within the NRA  to admit that not all weapons are equal, some are weapons of limited mass destruction and should be banned.

As for the argument that the more guns there are out there, the safer we are, consider the last five years. Gun sales have been at record levels, and so has gun violence. (Last year, 10,728 people were killed by handguns in this country.) Also, if this argument were true, Mexico should be well on its way to being violence free.

As a country we should be able to reach a more reasonable and balanced gun policy. The NRA's all-or-nothing approach is neither.

* Some of the details of these headlines may have changed as more information became available, but basic story remained the same.

Bishop Blair Uses Linguistic Ploy

Bishop Leonard Blair

The Catholic bishop of Toledo and Northwestern Ohio, Leonard Blair, recently (12/08/12) wrote a letter to the editor of the The Toledo Blade in which he claimed that the Obama administration was undermining "the conscience protection of religious belief" as though a woman's or a family's access to contraception was somehow unconstitutional because a group of unmarried Catholic men had so decreed.

Let's recall recent history. Many of the Catholic bishops of the United States tried to use their tax-free pulpits to campaign against President Obama in the 2012 election. That was a fail. A majority of American Catholics voted for President Obama. This reminds one of the bishops' telling Catholics not to use contraception (no clear reason why), and nearly 90% of Catholics disagree.

Bishop Blair used his bully pulpit to prevent diocesan Catholic parishes from supporting the Susan G Komen Breast Cancer Fund based on the logic that at some point in the future Komen Funds "might" be used for abortions. Or, some day in the future they might be used for frontal lobotomies?

And again, it was Bishop Blair whom the Vatican chose to investigate the wrong thinking of American Catholic nuns. Predictably  Bishop Blair found our nuns to be dogmatically challenged. They were too interested in carrying out the social justice message of the Gospels. (It is interesting that the Vatican felt the need to investigate American nuns, but never bothered to have a nation-wide investigation of clerical pedophilia or the attempts to cover up such perfidy.)

And now  in his letter to the editor  Bishop Blair writes, "the paramount concern of the Church has been her freedom to carry out her mission without undue interference of the secular state." In my seventy plus years of being a Catholic, I never knew that "the paramount interest of the Church has been her "freedom." Is that what the Catholic Church is all about? I was misinformed. I thought "the paramount interest of the Church" was to promote the christian principles of Jesus of Nazareth. And he was the Man who encouraged the separation of church and state. Although he lived in a politically-charged atmosphere, Jesus was preaching a gospel much more universal than the petty political concerns of the time.  Bishop Blair doesn't get it. When he talks about "freedom" he is more concerned with maintaining the Vatican's hierarchal, male power structure than he is about the gospels.

The real irony of Bishop Blair's letter is that he is appealing to the concept of freedom when in fact he and his colleagues are depriving their employees of the freedom to make up their own minds as to whether they use contraception. Obamacare is not forcing the bishops or their employees to practice contraception; it is simply saying that those employees who want to use contraception should have the freedom to make that decision for themselves.

Today Catholic hospitals are big money-making businesses. Gone are the days when Catholic nuns set up and operated hospitals to take care of the poor immigrants who needed health care. Today Catholic hospitals like the rest of the healthcare industry are about the bottom line. They compete in the industry for top physicians, nurses and staff, but now they want an "exemption" so that they do not have to provide contraceptive services to their employees -- only if the employee so chooses.

Bishop Blair's appeal for church "freedom" makes use of the same linguistic ploy the anti-unionists use when they use the term "Right to Work Laws."  The laws have nothing to do with the right to work; such laws in reality give employers to the right pay less and eliminate benefits and safety protections. Perhaps they should be called "Right to Slave Labor" laws. Bishop Blair's appeal to "freedom" makes use of the same reverse logic. He wants to deprive employees, Catholic, Protestant Jewish, Muslim, or atheist of their freedom and  right to choose.

Follow-up on Mayan Girls' School

The 12/08/12 blog, "Training Mayan Girls to be Leaders" included a not-so-subtle request on my part for readers to contribute to Sister Marife' Hellman's Guatemalan school for Mayan girls.

If you contributed to the Holy Mary of the Most Precious Blood School, you may be interested in reading the following "thank-you" email I received from Sister Marife'. The letter contains information about several of the young Mayan ladies in the photographs.

If you did not contribute but would like to do so, please scroll down to the 12/08/12 blog for details.

Dear Ron,
Thanks you so much. Your information is all true and very well said. The pictures are from the first year when the community council CPPS had recommended that I just start with 9 young women. I'm sure glad I listened to them. Now, six years later, there are 30 young women. 
When your sister, Joyce, comes in Feb. we are going back to that Mayan ruin where the fotos you show, were taken. Maybe Joyce can take a foto for you showing the girls that will be studying there at that time.
Of the young women shown in the foto, one is now a bilingual teacher in an Q'eq'chi village, one is working in a pharmacy, one is studying Psychology and working two afternoons weekly in a clinic in her village. Three of the girls returned home and married very young, however, one of the three did finish her studies.
Thanks for what you are doing for the girls. Later on I can write you more specifically  how the funds are used, if you wish.
Your sister's sister, Marife

Thanks to all who have contributed to this worthy endeavor.

Training Mayan Girls to be Leaders

        
        Photos of Sr. Marife' Hellman and  her Mayan students.

It has been a our Christmas custom to provide gifts or a small  amount of money to a particular family who are experiencing difficult times and are in need. We try to do this at Christmas time and in as direct a manner as possible, i.e. without going through a large fund-raising organization like Heifer International or Doctors Without Borders. We try to do this anonymously when possible, and sometimes it is difficult to decide on a recipient(s).

This year our decision was easy. We heard of the ambitious project of Sister Marife' Hellman, a Precious Blood Catholic nun, in the mountains of Guatemala.  She has established and operates a boarding school for indigenous Mayan girls. Her primary goal is to provide them with a well-rounded education, but in addition she is hoping to instill leadership skills in these young women so that they are not just self-reliant but also become leaders and agents of change.

I mention this because at this time of the year, others may also be searching for a worthy cause which will benefit directly from every dollar donated.

In the benefit of full disclosure, my sister, Joyce Langhals, is a Sister of the Precious Blood and is the one who informed us of the work of Sr. Marife' Hellman. Also, we have a six-year old grandson who is Mayan and was born in Guatemala.

If you are interested in supporting Sr. Marife' Hellman's work, you can do so by sending a check to:

Sisters of the Precious Blood
4000 Denlinger Rd.
Dayton, OH 45426-2399

Please indicate on the check that the donation is for Sr. Marife' Hellman's school --Holy Mary of the Most Precious Blood School. The donation is a tax deduction.

Stop the Judicial Charade

The Ohio Supreme Court on November 26 ruled along party lines (4-3) to uphold the gerrymandered redistricting plan written by the Republican legislature.

This reminds one of the Republican justices on the  U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision choosing
George W. Bush as the winner of the 2000 presidential election. In that case the five Republican justices ignored the States Rights issue which they had claimed to support in their testimony before Congress. That decision will go down in history as the most politically-motivated decision of the US Supreme Court. As a result, we will never again believe in the myth of an apolitical Supreme Court.

Now the Ohio Supreme Court has re-demonstrated the political bias of  justices.

Perhaps it's time we stop the charade and require justices to declare their political affiliation when they run for office. Their political philosophy is the best predictor of their behavior on the bench. Presumably, most voters already know a judicial candidates political preference, but for those who don't and in the interest of openness, require them to reveal their politic

(Unfortunately, according to a recent study, Ohio voters know so little about Supreme Court candidates that they vote based on name recognition even if the candidate they vote for is not the person whose name they recognize.)

Pope De-mythologizes Nativity?

Presumably before Christmas, Pope Benedict XVI is coming out with a new book about the infancy of Jesus.  In the Vatican's pre-publication attempt to promote Jesus of Nazareth - The Infancy Narratives, it is leaking details suggesting that the Pope is de-mythologizing the Nativity story

It seems the Pope has discovered that a sixth century monk made a mistake and placed the birth of Jesus either two year too soon or two years too late. In addition, the Pope is going to tell us there were no cattle ( cows, donkeys, sheep, whatever) at the nativity. And finally, he is going to tell us that there were no angels singing the Lord's praise  when Jesus was born.

Well, well, well! Does anyone care whether Jesus was born two year earlier or later?  We are happy to know that he was born in the Middle East at about the time Herod was King of Judea. Most Catholics never thought there were cattle looking on as Mary gave birth. We knew these were accouterments that St. Francis of Assisi added to the Nativity scene, but they were a nice touch and we like to envision them as being there. And as for Angels descending from heaven to sing as Jesus was born, most Catholics stopped believing that at about the same time as they learned the truth about Santa Claus.

Give us a little credit, Pope Benedict XVI. We don't need the Pope in Rome to clear that up for us.

In fact, Pope Benedict, that is your problem. You continue to treat Catholics as uninformed children who need you to tell us what to think.

And even more disconcerting than that is that you, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, apparently think these details are important. You obviously are reading the Gospels as exact literal, historical accounts of what happened when Jesus was born. And quite frankly, Your Holiness, your preoccupation with these details is a little scary.

The religious writing of the Middle East was a marvelous method of sharing knowledge in an entertaining and symbolic narrative. The message was the thing; the details were never intended to be literal. So, why are you fixating on the details?

We, Catholics and  other Christians, got the message. But we might also like the touch of St. Francis in placing animals at the Nativity. We don't actually believe they were there, but we like the symbolism of it.

Hoarding the Wealth

As our country approaches an artificially contrived "fiscal cliff," our leaders are telling us we need to reduce the deficit and yet generate growth. That's great; we can all agree on that. So what's the problem? Let's do it.

The problem is we want to do that without sacrifice. We want the "other" people to  make the sacrifice. We are not interested in doing our fair share.

George W. Bush tried to tell us that if we gave a "temporary" tax break to the obscenely wealthy, they would invest in America and create growth and jobs. The result was the "Great Recession". As a result the government had to infuse large amounts of money (probably not enough) to keep the Bush Recession from becoming the second Great Depression.

Now, the Republicans are trying to extend those very same tax breaks for the extremely wealthy. It should be obvious to everyone that this did not work and it's time to end this gift to the wealthy. It's time they pay their fair share. This is a no-brainer first step.

Then what?

I would suggest that Congress:

1) eliminate oil and gas subsidies. These companies are wallowing in profits; they do not need tax-payer support - welfare.
2) eliminate agricultural subsidies. As with oil and gas subsidies, they may have been a good idea when initiated, but now it is simply welfare for the wealthy. In fact, agricultural corporations receive a subsidy for the gas they use in their farming operations.
3) penalize corporations that move American jobs out of the country.
4) reward corporations that move over-seas' jobs back to the US.
4) institute a "Stock Transaction Tax" of .005% ( 1/2 penny per transaction). Tax based on the number of transactions -- only fair. Much like the fee on a toll road. Whether I drive a large Cadillac SUV or a Smart Car, I pay the same.
5) adopt Warren Buffett's proposal for a minimum tax on high incomes:
          30%     for $ 1 million to $ 10 million
          35 %   for anything above $10 million
6) refuse to fund military projects that the Pentagon does not want.
7) eliminate the mortgage-interest deduction for vacation homes. You can deduct mortgage-interest on only one mansion, the one you designate as your residence.

If these measures were taken, we would not need to talk about defunding school lunch programs, Social Security, Medicare etc. The wealthy would still be obscenely wealthy, and the middle class might have a chance, and the old, the disabled, the impoverished, the veterans and the children might a chance of sharing in the American Dream.

Our great country is not broke. The money is available, but it's being hoarded.  We have to require that the wealthy (and therefore powerful) stop hoarding and pay their fair share.

It has been said: "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." (Luke 12:48)


       
         

Chambliss Rejects Un-American Pledge

At no point did it ever occur to me that I would be writing in praise of Georgia's Republican Senator,  Saxby Chambliss. In addition to not being a fan of his chicken franchises, the number of issues we disagree on is prodigious. And yet today I find myself ready to applaud him on his recent act of breaking ranks with the conservatives when he said he is ready to throw overboard Grover Norquist's antiquated anti-tax pledge.

"I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge," he told WMAZ-TV. "If we do it his way then we’ll continue in debt, and I just have a disagreement with him about that."

The 20 year-old pledge sponsored by Grover Norquist required that those who signed it "solemnly bind themselves to oppose any and all tax increases."  Many congressional  Republicans signed the pledge and Norquist has been holding the pledge over their heads ever since. (According to Norquist's website, 39 senators and 219 members of the House have signed it.)

As Saxby Chambliss' recent rejection of the pledge exemplifies, those who signed the pledge and were willing to abide by its requirement were acting in direct conflict with their oath of office. When those congressmen and senators were sworn in, they took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and that Constitution requires  among other  objectives, establishing Justice, and providing for common defense , "We the People...promote the general Welfare."

Congressmen and women who take a private "Pledge"  which could potentially conflict with their Constitutional oath  have crossed a dangerous line. Which is more important: their Tax Pledge or their Constitutional oath? Obviously a conflict of interests. Voters should have demanded that candidates value their constitutional oath of office as their primary obligation rather than some "Pledge" proposed by a guy who never stood before the voters.

Apparently, Senator Chambliss is one Republican who has chosen the welfare of the country above Norquist's  simple-minded, self-interested solution to governing this great nation. 

We can only hope that the senator from Georgia is really serious about serving the "general welfare" of the country and that other Republicans will honor their Constitutional oath more than Grover's irresponsible pledge.

Bishop Seeks Friday Abstinence

Last week in his opening speech at a meeting of US Catholic bishops in Baltimore, Timothy Cardinal Dolan of New York, suggested that it might be time for the Church to return to pre-Vatican II practices. In addition to re-establishing "Confession" as an integral part of being a Catholic, he suggested the bishops should consider ruling that US Catholics abstain from eating meat on Fridays.

In case you have forgotten, prior to 1966 Catholics were forbidden to eat meat or meat products on Fridays. To do so was a sin that could result in eternal damnation Then in 1966, Pope Paul VI eliminated the requirement and suggested that Catholics fast and abstain voluntarily and suggested non-dietary practices such as prayer and works of charity. Since then most US Catholics abstained from meat only on the Fridays of Lent.

In a radio interview  after his speech, Cardinal Dolan suggested that the 1966 ruling was a mistake and that US Catholics should return to Friday Abstinence. When pressed for a rationale for Abstinence, the Cardinal said that  US Catholics need "identifiable markers," external signs that will identify Catholics as Catholics. In fact, he lamented the absence of other "identifiable markers" such as nuns wearing habits and the traditional genuflection, both of which have their origin in Medieval Europe. He thinks we need more external signs such as ashes on the forehead on Ash Wednesday.

This fascination with the need for external sign strikes me  as being contrary to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Did he not tell us that if we are going to fast, we should do it and not let others know that we are fasting? He also reminded us: "I repeat , you will be able to tell them by their fruits." (Matt. 7:20) True Christians and Catholics do not need "external markers" to identify themselves. If our lives and works do not identify us, then external markers markers are not going to do the job. A nun does not need a habit to proclaim her Christianity  her dedication to helping the poor and disadvantaged tells us more about her than a silly black dress. In fact, Jesus had an issue with the Pharisees because they flaunted external markers.

The Cardinal's concern about external markers is superficial  and insulting.

 In 1966 when Pope Paul VI presented the concept of penance, fasting and abstinence , he gave Catholics credit for being adults who were capable making decisions for themselves. Cardinal Dolan wants to go back to the days when the Church treated its members as children who need to be told how they are going to fast, abstain or practice acts of penance. US Catholics do not need their Cardinal to tell them when to abstain from meat; they are quite capable of deciding how and when they will abstain. Is the Cardinal going to suggest that a Catholic who observes a "meatless Monday" instead of abstaining on Friday is going to face eternal damnation?

It appears Cardinal Dolan and many other bishops of his ilk  are choosing to take the Catholic Church back to the Middle Ages when bishops were royalty and the people in the pews were their serfs.

Perhaps it is because of this autocratic and condescending attitude that a majority of American Catholics, 25% of the electorate, chose President Obama over the bishop's choice in the 2012 presidential election  (Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, CNN)

P.S. And I am a  big fan of a  Friday Fish Fry.

Secession: The New Racism

Residents in thirty states across the country have filed "secession petitions" to the Obama administration's "We the People" program, which is featured on the White House website. * 

The Civil War, no matter what one calls it ("War Between The States," "The War of Northern Aggression" or whatever), was about slavery.  South Carolina and the other southern states chose to secede from the Union in order to preserve slavery and President Lincoln fought to preserve the Union.

Today, these people saying that they want their state to secede from the Union are so transparent that it is ridiculous. Face it, they are racists who are offended that a black man has been elected, (not once, but twice), to live in the White House and lead our great country.

At one point, even the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, a Tea Party kind-of-guy, was floating the possibility of Texas seceding, but in an attempt to become more mainstream and rational,  has since  changed  his mind.

One would have thought that Americans had put racism behind us, but apparently there are still some among us  who consider the color of one's skin, whether it be white, brown or black, an indication of one's worth and character.

On the other hand,  that racism should rear its ugly head at this point in our history is to be expected. Racism is based on fear, and the demographics of the last election give the old power structure of wealthy, white males something to fear. They are no longer the majority. Their overwhelming support of Mitt Romney was of insufficient  importance.  The people of color (Asiatics, Latinos, and Blacks), the women, and the young carried the day for President Obama. On top of that, Pew Research predicts that the number of Latino voters will double to 40 million in the next twenty years. That is the new reality, and the wealthy, white males are reluctant to admit it. 

As a consequence, the more extreme among them are calling for secession.

It is interesting to imagine what a state like Arizona would be like after it seceded. For one thing, many of these people who want to secede live in states that receive more federal money than they pay in federal taxes. In fact, most of the "Red States" like Arizona get more than they pay.

But what would  Arizona be like after secession? Will they simply defund health care, education, transportation, and infrastructure projects? Will they have a border patrol to keep out undesirables from the other fifty states? Will they require a passport to enter ?  Would people from Colorado have to go through customs to enter Arizona? Will they levy import fees on gas tankers delivering gasoline from out of state? 

The list of questions could go on and on, but the bottom line is that a particular state needs the rest of us more than we need that state. Seceding is the equivalent of committing suicide because the sky is blue.

*(In response to the calls for secession, there is another petition: "Strip the Citizenship from Everyone who Signed a Petition to Secede and Exile them." I guess one extreme always generates another.)

Jon Husted, You're Living in the Wrong Country

Jon Husted, you have made a mockery of the office of Secretary State in the great state of Ohio.

In fact, Mr Husted, you're living in the wrong country. It's obvious you do not  believe in participatory democracy. You disavow the Gettysburg Address, in which President Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) called for "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." There are at least three amendments to the Constitution that reinforce the idea that governments, state or federal, cannot  restrict or abridge a citizen's right to vote. What is your problem, Jon Husted. Why do you not understand democracy?

Jon Husted, you are living in the wrong country. You should be living in Russia or Iran. Those countries practice what you were hoping to do in Ohio. In those countries the party in power rigs the voting system to their own advantage.  Exactly what you and other Koch Brothers officials have tried to do here. Thank God in the USA we have an independent judicial system which put a stop to your continued shenanigans.

And even then you had the audacity to order county election boards to defy a judge's order and not restore early voting hours. You relently only when being faced with the prospect of being hauled into court.

Your last minute directive to election officials on counting provisional ballots was "was a flagrant violation of a state election law" according to  Federal Judge Algenon Marbley.

I find it fortunate that my immigrant grandparents who chose to settle in Ohio did not live to see this day when the Ohio Secretary of State, instead of promoting voter turn-out, is spending the State's resources to squelch the vote.

Apparently we the people cannot remove you from office until your term expires, but we will remember in 2014.  But, although you may lose that election,  I am sure the Koch Brothers will take care of their boy and give you a nice salary as one of their lobbyists. And then, of course, there is Russia or Iran. Since you like their style of elections, Vladimir Putin or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be happy to avail themselves of your services.

In closing,  Jon,  I am sorry you find participatory democracy so cumbersome; most of us appreciate it and many of our ancestors and family member have sacrificed their lives to protect it.

Wealthy Old White Men Play the Blame Game

Wealthy Old White Men Playing
"The Blame Game"

The measure of the man is often how he handles defeat. Romney's delayed concession speech was not near that of John McCain's speech four years earlier, but then we could give him the benefit of the doubt since, for some reason in spite of the polls, he did not consider that he would lose. However, the next day after he had had time to consider his defeat, he was anything but gracious in that he blamed everyone but himself.

And, since then Republicans are offering all sorts of explanations (excuses) to explain the defeat, but never admitting that a majority of the voters chose President Obama rather than Governor Romney. Of course, the media and the fact-checker were out to get them. And they blamed the hurricanes, Isaac in Tampa, and Sandy on the East coast. Even more bizarre was Karl Rove who blamed the Obama campaign for using a standard GOP tactic -- suppressing the vote. (Karl, of course,  could not explain this charge in the face of the statistics). And finally a Wisconsin Republican suggested that Obama won because Americans are basically stupid.

Face it, the GOP seems incapable of handling defeat gracefully.

I might humbly suggest to Mitt that the real reason he  lost were the things he and his supporters said and did:

1) Mitt refused to let the American people view most of his federal tax returns.
2) Mitt said he didn't care about 47% of the voters because they were moochers.
3) The GOP Convention featured Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair. (Has anyone told him there was no one in the chair?)
4) Rush Limbaugh called a co-ed a "slut," and the only thing Mitt disagreed with was the language.
5) Mitt insisted Jeep was going to move American jobs to China although the executives denied it.
6) Mitt supported keeping the Bush tax cuts for himself and the other inordinately wealthy fat cats.
7) In a prime-time speech at the GOP Convention Paul Ryan lied so often he had to spend the rest of the campaign backtracking.
8) Mitt adopted the joke about "self-deportation" as his immigration policy.
9) Mitt and his family stashed money in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.
10) Mitt and Paul suggested that good wives should be home doing laundry.
11) Mitt continued to support an extremist candidate who spoke of "legitimate rape."
12) Mitt wrote an editorial advising us to allow the Detroit Auto Companies to go bankrupt.
13) Mitt's domestic policy was a rewrite of George W. Bush's. (I guess he thought we would forget that that policy led to the Great Recession.)
14) As for foreign policy, Mitt indicated he agreed with everything President Obama was doing.
15) Mitt changed his mind on at least 30 major issues in order to get the GOP nomination.
16) Mitt wanted to eliminate federal disaster relief and leave that job to the states or private contractors.
17) Mitt had "binders of women," but could not remember even one name.
18) In spite of fact-checkers pointing out their mendacity, Mitt and Paul continued to say Obamacare  "robbed" Medicare of $ 716 million (On the other hand Paul Ryan failed to mention what his proposed budget would do to Medicare.)
19) Wanting to cut student loans, Mitt suggested students borrow money from their parents. (You're right, he lives a totally different universe.)
20) And finally in his infamous "47% Talk," Mitt mentioned that he was hoping for an event such as the Iran Hostage Crisis that he would be able to exploit like Reagan had done years earlier to defeat Jimmy Carter.

That's enough. I choose to stop this list. If after all of these lies, miscues and gaffes, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and the "Wealthy Old Men and Their Dependents" who make up the GOP  choose to blame anyone but themselves, it is quite obvious that United States of America dodged a dangerous bullet on November 6, 2012.

Fix This Dysfunctional Voting System

Ballot Boxes

When President Obama in his "The best is yet to come" acceptance speech thanked his many supporters, volunteers  and those who had to stand in line for many hours in order to vote, he threw  in the line,"By the way, we have to fix that."

Our nation which prides itself on participatory democracy definitely needs to fix our dysfunctional system of electing leaders.

It has been twelve years since the fiasco of the  2000 Bush vs. Gore presidential election, and we still lack a system that ensures every citizen the constitutional right to vote. And, in addition to a broken system, we have elected government officials ( Ohio's John Husted and Florida's Rick Scott among others) who try to suppress the vote for their party's political  advantage.

For starters, the notion that a whole nation has to vote on one particular day -- the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November  -- is blatantly undemocratic. According to the U.S. Census Bureau there were 207,643,594 eligible voters in 2006. Ideally a participatory democracy would want all of these people to exercise their right to vote. If all of these people showed up to vote on Election Day, we would need four times more polling stations than there are gas stations. It makes no sense to invest that much in equipment and personnel for one or two election days a year.

Also, in terms of basic fairness, having to vote on a Tuesday during specified hours eliminates many who can't afford to leave their job or their family responsibilities, especially when they face the prospect of standing in line for hours. The man or woman who owns a coal mine is able to vote on a Tuesday afternoon with no financial penalty, but the man or woman in the mine shaft will not have that luxury.

And then there is the problem of the long lines. In Ohio on the Sunday before the election, early voters had to wait in line four or five hours to vote. And this was by design. When the courts forced Ohio Secretary of State, John Husted to allow early voting on the weekend, he limited the hours and the number of voting locations. There was only one voting location in all of Lucas County. In Dayton some early voters were given the wrong ballots.

On day in Florida the polls closed at 7 P.M., but there were so many people in line that some did not get to vote until 1 A.M. In some counties in Tennessee and South Carolina, voters had to wait in line four hours. In Virginia people were still in line after 11 P.M. Nationally 43% of the voters had to wait 15 minutes or more.

It's no surprise either that the delays and long lines are in urban areas where minorities are located in large numbers.

And what's with Florida? Again? It's been 2 days since the election and they still don't know who won.

Florida is indicative of our broken system. We are electing the President of the United States, but we leave the process of running elections in the hands of state, county and city leaders. In the interest of  democracy, fairness, efficiency, and uniformity, it is time for the federal government to set  specific standards for voting across the whole country.

The first standard should deal with early voting. The opportunity to vote early is a necessity, and it should be the same for everyone in all 50 states, providing weekend and evening voting times. Secondly, precincts should be required to have adequate voting machines and poll workers to serve the number of eligible registered voters. The standard should be uniform from city to suburbs, and state to state. Thirdly, poll workers should be trained and tested on their responsibilities and paid as well as comparable skilled workers.

And, very importantly, federal regulations for federal elections should include uniform standards for voter eligibility and identification. It is fundamentally unjust if a voter is rejected in one state, but another voter in the same situation is permitted to vote in the neighboring state. The country as a whole has to determine uniform and just standards for federal elections. The president is the president of the entire country, and the voters of the whole country should have the same opportunity to elect their president.

Let's face it, it's 2012 and it is past time to fix our dysfunctional and inequitable voting system.

We are the United States, Not Fifty States

In a constitutional democracy such as that in the USA,  the role of the federal government is always going to be a topic of debate. Our founders had  difficulty agreeing on the role of the federal government vs. that of state governments.


Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, we have what we have, and we have to continue to work out the  conflict as we go. In the current 2012 election, the issue is: what is the role of the federal government in solving the problems that confront the country?

Rugged individualism and self-reliance are American values and go back to the earliest days of our country's founding; but are they the solutions to  the issues our country has to face? Is allowing every American to own an AK47 and a  drone missile the answer to our national security? Even the so-called "patriots" hiding out in the mountains and not paying their taxes do not believe that.  Our national security depends on all of us pooling our resources to build a federal security force. 

In spite of the current rhetoric, there are some things the federal government can do better than the states or private enterprise. Dwight D. Eisenhower's vision for an Interstate Highway System was only possible on the Federal level. And, although it was mismanaged in the case of Katrina, the best method we have to deal with disaster relief is the federal government (FEMA).

But, in this political campaign  Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan  ( don't forget Paul Ryan, he is even more scary than Mitt) want to eliminate FEMA  Romney says: "We cannot afford to do those things (Federal disaster relief) without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids." His recommendation is that we transfer disaster relief to the states, and preferably to private for-profit contractors. *

Are you kidding me, Mitt? You think your profit-seeking private companies are going to keep people safe, fed, and surviving.?  I suspect they will be as successful as the private contractors George W. Bush and Dick Cheney sent into Iraq.

And at one point, Mitt suggesting eliminating FEMA and giving the money to the states to deal with their own disasters. Please explain how that will work. Can Mitt  predict in which states the disasters are going to occur?  Would he have allocated enough to New Jersey and New York to cover the costs of Sandy?  Would he give the same amount to Utah as Missouri?

Face it; there are some things the Federal government can do better. We are the UNITED STATES, and we provide assistance to our fellow citizens who are in need.  We need unity, not division.

We cannot allow Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to divide us,

*Of course, as he has done on almost every issue, Romney  after trying to avoid the topic during Hurricane Sandy, is now backtracking.

Ohio Coal Miners Not Duped By GOP

As  a fan of Jim Hightower who writes for Nation of Change I  read  his article, "The Corporate Mad Dogs of Citizens United" published on October 31, 2012. Within that article was the following quotation which I want  to share in light of the attempt by Mitt Romney and Josh Mandel, (the candidate who actually had the nerve to mimic a southern accent)  to appeal to coal miners. Mitt and Josh  obviously think coal miners are too ignorant to recognize the facts. The fact is Ohio's  miners are nobody's fools. They recognize GOP duplicity when they see it and in this election cycle they are seeing "ten ton" of it.

"So, sure, this is America, where we're all equal as citizens — you, me and the Fortune 500. And don't forget that you're perfectly free to defy the guy who can fire you for whatever reason he makes up — or for no reason at all. Good luck with that.

For a rich example of unbridled boss power in today's political process, harken back to August, when Mitt Romney appeared on a stage with a group of Ohio coal miners arrayed behind him. "I tell ya," the clueless candidate cheerfully exclaimed, "you've got a great boss."

That would be Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy, who'd previously held a $1.7 million fundraiser for Romney. But if Mitt had just turned around and seen the scowls on the soot-smeared faces of the Murray miners, he would've had a clue that they didn't quite share his enthusiasm for their "great boss."

One reason for their grumpiness is that they hadn't volunteered to be there, but had been directed by Bossman Bob to attend. Also, Bob was docking them a day's pay for "taking the day off" to serve as stage props for Mitt's campaign. In effect, they were compelled to donate to the Republican. That'll make you grouchy.

As uncovered in an investigative report by The New Republic, such involuntary support is routinely demanded from the salaried employees of Murray Energy. They get hit up again and again for donations to Romney and such other designated candidates as Sens. Rand Paul, Scott Brown, Jim DeMint, and David Vitter.

Murray himself sends dunning letters to employees' homes, specifying to each one how much to give and instructing them to send their checks directly to corporate headquarters. Staffers there maintain a list of those who did as told — and those who didn't. "If you don't contribute, your job's at stake," one employee bluntly explained. "There's a lot of coercion," he adds, "They will give you a call if you're not giving."

Indeed, Murray deploys his lieutenants to squeeze the laggards — as the boss put it in one letter to them last year: "Please see that our salaried employees 'step up,' for their own sakes." And, in another letter this March, he pointedly named names: "I do not recall ever seeing the attached list of employees ... at one of our fundraisers."

After Romney's "great boss" statement, he added that Murray "runs a great operation here." Yeah — a political shakedown operation by the 2012, court-sanctioned, corporate version of political bossism. If you needed another reason to support a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United, there it is."

Copyright Creators.com

Our coal miners provide an important, vital service to the country in life-threatening situations, and they should not be treated as Medieval serfs by the wealthy, the plutocrats,  the corporations, and the GOP. They deserve our respect and support.

"Beastly Things" by Donna Leon

Fans of Donna Leon and her Venetian police detective, Commissario Guido Brunetti, will be pleased to get their hands on her latest,  Beastly Things.

In this case, Guido has little to go on other than the unidentifiable body that was found floating in one of the canals, but with the help of the beautiful and mysterious secretary,  Signorina Elletra , who has an uncanny ability to mine the digital world for all  sorts of information, he and Viannello begin to put the puzzle pieces in place.

In many of the previous novels, Guido in spite of all his best efforts in solving the crime, has to watch helplessly as the Venetian judicial system allows one or more of the "bad guys' to escape any  significant consequences. In this case, Guido manages to control the outcome satisfying his own sense of justice.

At one point in the story, Paola Brunetti recalls that during a financially rocky period, her mother refused to serve anything  but Parmigiano Reggiano, saying "Better nothing than something that isn't good." Although Donna Leon and her character, Guido, have been at this for a long time, the "good" parmigiano she produces just gets better.

The Three Faces of Mitt Romney

Mitt's Etch-a-Sketch
"I shake it and start over."

I had lunch today with my friend Stan, who unlike my other Republican friend, Buck, who has been disillusioned by Mitt Romney, has remained a stalwart GOP supporter. Although we have heated debates about politics, Stan is an old friend and we are able to maintain that friendship in spite of our differences.

Today, when I referred to "The Three Romneys," he didn't seem to know what I was talking about. Therefore, I had to explain to him that the "First Romney" who was running for the governorship of Massachusetts, proposed a liberal agenda to appeal to the voters of a liberal state. His campaign was successful and he implemented a liberal agenda including a health care program very similar to what he calls "Obamacare."

When he ran for the Republican nomination in 2008, he was considered too liberal for a Republican Party co-opted by the Fundamentalists and the Ultraconservatives.

Having learned his lesson, in the 2012 campaign, chameleon Mitt changed his positions to conform to win the support of the extremist right-wing of the party. This was Mitt #2! And viola, he received the nomination. Then he chose Paul Ryan, the disciple of Russian atheist,  Ayn Rand, and was now on the side of dismantling existing social safety networks.

But Mitt #2 could not win the general election with the baggage he had picked up in his quest for the GOP nomination. No problem. As one of his staff in a moment of honesty revealed, we have an Etch-a-Sketch. We shake it, wipe the slate clean and then we reinvent Mitt Romney #3 who can compete in the general  election. This is the Mitt Romney we are seeing now: the Mitt Romney who is protecting most of his tax returns from public scrutiny, agrees with President Obama's foreign policy, tries to deny he wanted the US auto industry to go bankrupt, promotes George W. Bush's domestic policies but doesn't want to be associated with him, and fears to speak out against the crazies in his own party who speak of "legitimate rape."

We know there are three different Mitt Romneys based on the expediency of getting elected. How many more Mitts are there waiting in the wings?

P.S. The problem with my friend, Stan, and perhaps many other voters is that they have conveniently forgotten the earlier Mitt Romneys and have to be reminded how often he has changed his position on major policy issues. I began listing the Romney flip-flops on a napkin, but Stan stopped me at 20 plus.
For some of the major Romney Reversals cf: http://ronstidbits.blogspot.com/2012/08/romney-reversals-cast-long-shadows.html

Whether it is "Romnesia," as President Obama kindly refers to it, or political expediency, the question becomes: Can we trust Mitt Romney?

Politicized Pulpits

A 1954 amendment to the tax code prohibits all tax exempt organizations,  including churches, from "directly or indirectly" endorsing candidates

The Law of the Land is simple: if any  religious organization, "directly or indirectly" endorses political candidates, they have forfeited their tax-exempt status.

If religious leaders, bishops, pastors, ministers rabbis, imams, or any others "directly or indirectly" attempt to influence their followers, they are breaking the law and should lose their tax-exempt status. It's time the IRS enforce the law. Some Catholic bishops and priests, and some Protestant bishops and ministers are blatantly violating the law. It is time for the IRS to begin legal proceedings against these  violators.

Granted, the clergy have the right to free speech as does everyone sitting in the congregation (1st Amendment) , but they do not have the right to use the pulpit for political propaganda. If they insist on using the pulpit as a means of promoting or opposing political candidates, they may do so; but they should be deprived of their tax-exempt status.

It is that very same 1st Amendment which our founding Fathers in their wisdom  chose to separate Church and State. Bottom line: do not mix religious beliefs and politics!

The separation of church and state is uniquely an American concept. Article VI of the Constitution states: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican,  was adamant about this provision of the Constitution when he insisted,  in an era of anti-Catholicism, that a candidate's Catholicism was not an impediment to public office.

Ironically, today we have Catholic bishops and priests trying to breach the wall of separation of church and state.by claiming a "Catholic exemption" to health care rules based on their "belief" that contraception is immoral. Meanwhile some of these same Catholic clerics are breaking the law by using their tax-free pulpits to influence votes for or against a particular candidate.

In their role as citizens, clergy have the right, like the rest of us, to endorse or oppose any candidate, but the law prohibits them from using their tax-exempt religious organization to endorse or oppose. Those who continue to break the law should have their tax-exempt status revoked.

There of course is an alternative, The clergy who want to use their pulpit illegally to support candidates have the opportunity to practice civil disobedience in the tradition of Thoreau, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and the Berrigan brothers. They can break the law, and in their case, instead of going to prison,  return the money resulting from their tax-free status to the U.S. government.  Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

Romney Haunted by George W. Bush

After three weeks (I had been on vacation), Buck and I resumed our weekly breakfast at Nick's Diner. I was sporting a sun tan and Buck was wearing a scowl. His greeting: " I hope you scored a shit-load of birdies down there while I had to play golf in in the wind, rain and cold up here in Toledo."

"Give me a break, Buck. You're confusing me with my brother, Jim, who considers pars normal and a birdie here and there as part of a normal round."

At this point, the hostess seated us at our favorite table, and Sara brought us our coffees. "I thought you guys deserted us for that franchise down the road."

"No way!" Buck interjected. "My friend, and I use that term loosely, decided to go to Hilton Head, and I was left to survive on my own."

"Oh you poor baby!" Sara said with mild sarcasm

"May I remind you, Sara, that I am a paying customer and your blatant ridicule could influence your tip.".

"I regret to say this, Buck, but your tips have not set any Guinness records"

Buck ignored that comment and suggested, " Perhaps you would be so kind as to take our orders?

After Buck ordered an "All American Omelette," and I my favorite "Boston Breakfast," I made the mistake of asking whether he had seen the second Obama-Romney debate. "Yes my man, It was the best presidential debate of all time. Two alpha males strutting around the stage and going at it nose to nose. The only thing missing were the boxing gloves."

"Granted the theatrics were mildly amusing, but what about the ideas?"

"What about Romney's refusal to answer a question? A lady asked Mitt to describe how he is similar to and different from George W. Bush, and he turned his back on her and talked about something else. Of course, he's the same guy who told us that he doesn't care about 47% of the country. Obviously this woman is someone he doesn't care about. Although  he is promoting the same failed policies of George W. Bush, his pollsters must have told him that he doesn't want to be associated with George W.In fact I think he must be afraid to look in the mirror in the morning because he might see George W. looking back.  And who can blame him? That has to be really scary, especially the first thing in the morning."

"Well," I said, " he tells us he can create 12 million new jobs and he has 'a binder of women' to appoint to high level jobs. What's wrong with that?"

"You have to be pulling my leg. This is the man who closed American plants and sent jobs over-seas in order to make money for Bain Capital. He even described in detail to his billionaire contributors the terrible working conditions of young Chinese women working in plants that Bain Capital was invested in. As for creating jobs, his party has almost unanimously voted against every job-creating bill in Congress. As they were wont to say, 'It's not about what is good for the country, it's about defeating President Obama.'"

"That's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they asked representatives  to swear to promote  'the General Welfare," I said.

"Probably not;  but they would never have envisioned a Supreme Court decision similar to Citizens United., allowing unlimited,  anonymous spending for a political candidate, even if the money is coming from foreign sources."

"It blows my mind that true conservatives would agree with something like that," I said.

"Expediency, my boy. The Republicans are cashing in  and that's all they care about. Barry Goldwater would be outraged, but this generation of conservative lacks his principles."

When Sara brought our food and asked whether we would like anything else, Buck asked, "Sara, do you believe women and men should be paid the same for doing the same job?"

"Absolutely!"

"Are you familiar with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act?"

After a brief hesitation, Sara said, "Isn't that the law that allows women the right to file sit against employers who practice gender discrimination?"

"Exactly!  You are on top of things. Would you be surprised to know that Mitt Romney was opposed to that bill?"

"Of course not. He and his Mormon friends think women like me should stay in the house doing laundry and baking cookies."

Buck asked, "You have a problem with that?"

Her eyes riveted on Buck as she stepped closer. "The only reason I am not pouring this hot coffee on your crotch is your senility."

The GOP Attack on Voting Rights

In the 2008 presidential election, there was a record voter turn-out across the country.  One would have thought that everyone would have been happy that so many Americans participated in choosing their leader. Wrong. Since Barack Obama won decisively, the Republicans immediately began laying plans to keep large groups of people from voting, and of course the groups they wanted to disenfranchise were the groups that voted Obama.

First there were all those college students. All of a sudden they were no longer apathetic; they were actually voting and voting for Obama. As a result Republican legislators and election officials were tampering with residency requirements. If students can't vote where they go to school, they will not vote.

Then, of course, there are those inconvenient Hispanics who supported Obama in 2008. Therefore the GOP instituted a variety of voter ID requirements to, as they said, avoid voter fraud. As it turned out there were so few cases of voter fraud as to be insignificant. Their intent was to frighten away Hispanic voters. 

The Associated Press reports: "The combined effects of voter roll purges, demands for proof of citizenship and photo identification requirements in several states may hinder at least 10 million Hispanic citizens who seek to vote this fall, civil rights advocates warn in a new report."

In addition, the voter ID requirements would also disenfranchise that other Democratic group, the black voters. Since a portion of this group is poor, they will not have  a driver's license or a passport and will be denied a ballot.

Then, there are the working poor. The wife and husband both work, maybe several jobs, and have little time on a November Tuesday to stand in line to vote. In 2008 they were able to vote early -- on the weekend. Since Obama received a large share of those votes, Republican officials are doing all they can to prevent week-end voting.

And  there are those old people, disabled , hospitalized and active-duty service women and men. They want to sit in the warmth of their home or barracks and vote an absentee ballot. Since the majority of the absentee ballots favored Obama in 2008, Republicans have tried to restrict those votes.

Then, there are states like Florida in which politicians  play God and actively "purge" the voter registration lists of  undesirables. Worried about fraud? This system is an invitation to  USSR style fraud.

Is it any surprise, then, that citizens of fledgling democracies or autocracies around the world look at what is happening in this election and question our commitment to democracy? Obviously,  true democracy is in jeopardy when  politicians are able to disenfranchise US citizens.

As Michelle Obama has pointed out,  the right to vote has become the nation's most important civil rights issue.