Stop Blaming Obama – Look in the mirror.

The right-wing agenda as expressed by the Tea Party irregulars and formally “mainstream” Republicans is destroying democracy.  Republican members of congress who now gleefully pander to the fringe and take cash from those venal corporate interests who callously underwrite dissension and distrust – and really want to dismantle all government activities that might impinge  profit margin – have shown their true motivation. 

 Starve Americans and spread fear and anger. 

They will take what they can to secure their own government backed comfort while blaming the “system” as unfixable and unworthy of any effort to restore fairness and responsibility.   Now, they say, we should just give up all pretenses of negotiating and cooperation and allow the elite to rule unfettered.  Their ruling corporatocracy will eventually decide the future for all of the rest of us, all the little people.  Unions and public workers beware! Your rights and patriotism no longer matter.  The education and health of your children is no longer a priority.  Cheaper labor is available off shore with no union interference.   

These “leaders” will continue to jinn up a distorted patriotism to throw your children and grandchildren into endless wars just to maximize oil profits and maintain war machinery.   They have already spent the money donated to their campaigns.  There is no turning back.  They are already bought and paid for. 

First it was the evils of “Obama Care” and next it will be the “Obama Failed Economy” that dominates the TV talking points.  Unfortunately, the so-called balanced TV hosts will not stand up to the repeated lies told by the republican hacks who shamelessly distort in short pithy phrases that deny the true complexity of issues that can’t be fixed by slogans.   

They know that most Americans just want to get back to their comfort zone and can’t be bothered to look deeply into the issues that matter.   Who has the time?  It takes information and analysis they aren’t willing to learn and the media isn’t willing to expose.  It’s not a rating grabber anyway and the networks have more products to sell.  And while we’re at it, let’s destroy PBS and NPR, lest they actually report the truth.

The right-wing is counting on apathy and greed to finish the job.  If they win, America will soon slide into a fractured untenable economy that will never recover. All is lost if we don’t start now. 

We must re-tax the industries that have avoided their responsibilities and invest in our future.  We can fix our schools, infrastructure, health care and housing problems – if we have the will.   It is time for a new “America First” movement that calls for shared sacrifice to secure the future for the next generations. 

We could begin by planning a major march on Washington to address congressional obstinacy and recalcitrant behavior.  They are not serving the people and should be recalled.  It’s time to put Boehner, McConnell and Cantor on notice.   

Perhaps a series of marches populated by minorities, unions, public workers, progressives, seniors on social security, the unemployed, anti-war groups, green party and gay rights advocates, all aligning to stop the lies from the right that are stealing our dreams.    

Together we can turn the tide. Let’s roll.

Cintra Wilson’s Brilliance

More Wonderful Truth

www.newhavenadvocate.com/news/opinion/ht-cintra-wilsons-the-cword-wartime-contractors-run-on-america-20110426,0,1678746.story

By Cintra Wilson4:57 p.m. EDT, April 26, 2011

“Citizens United is to the expansion of corporate power what the Big Bang was to the creation of the universe — it is the whole universe.”

— Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston, in an interview with Terrence McNally

Behold: the corporate universe, made in the image and likeness of the Citizens United decision, the Chicago School of Economics, and the Neocons — who, apparently, didn’t need to win the presidency in 2008 to keep screwing the world at will.

There has been much fiscal yammering in the halls of power; many insulting dog and pony shows designed to resemble actual intelligent human deliberation over Serious Budget Proposals (and not just a bunch of unregenerate whores presenting their asses and oinking for corporate dollars during their election cycles). But somehow, in the midst of this fearsome display of piggery — during this content-free, postmodern farce of a discourse which has spiraled so far down into the murk of all-out, obscurantist dung that grade school teachers and emergency first responders have found themselves under attack for their lavish middle-class lifestyles — somehow, although there has been much zeal to recommend mind-blowingly stupid and self-destructive ways to decrease the deficit (e.g. gutting our already worthless public schools, and/or cutting or eliminating self-funding programs like Medicare and Social Security) … we still don’t seem to be able to put the hammer down when it comes to taxing billionaires. And, worst of all, we still don’t seem to be even discussing the expense involved in our having been engaged for the last decade in two seemingly endless wars abroad, even though over half of our income tax goes to financing them.

Welcome to Eternal War, America’s sexiest, dirtiest, most raunched-out criminal profit motive. By using a calculation model based on Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz’s The Three Trillion Dollar War, out now, calculated an approximate tab for our current wars, after a decade of fighting on multiple fronts: $12 trillion. Broken down: $3.5 billion a day, $105 billion a month and $1.26 trillion a year. It is safe to say that this sum has contributed quite a chunk to our current budget deficit.

But, in the mainstream cultural conversation — in which Donald Trump’s braying, puerile attempts to Trumpet himself into the arena of the relevant are always considered newsworthy — nobody seems to remember that wars are really expensive, or, historically, how they usually get paid for.

David Swanson on the blog Open Salon remembers. Swanson reminds us that tax increases have always been the way that America has paid for its wars — until the George W. Bush administration.

“Something new arose on the horizon of U.S. history: major and repeated regressive tax cuts during an immensely expensive pair of simultaneous wars,” writes Swanson. “This pattern has essentially continued during President Obama’s tenure. … The result has been a huge budget deficit. And the impact of these and related policies on the economy has been disastrous, leading to an even huger budget deficit. “

And lo: lately, military spending has increased, but taxes are still decreasing.

Shocking, I know.

Wars are mind-blowingly lucrative if you happen to be a war-profiteering corporation set up to suck on the private military-industrial-security-intelligence gravy-hose. Today, mercenaries and private contractors now outnumber actual troops; the use of private contractors has increased considerably under President Obama.

According to Scott Amey from the nonprofit watchdog group Project On Government Oversight (POGO), “[Private] contract award dollars have increased from approximately $200 billion in fiscal year 2000 to over $535 billion in fiscal year 2010.”

(Misspent contractor dollars from fraud, lack of oversight, corruption, etc., are estimated annually in the tens of billions — but we won’t go there today.)

My point is this: the war profiteers — oil companies in particular — have enjoyed smashing record, unheard-of profits since the wars began.

According to author Greg Palast, Exxon’s profit in 2007 was $40.6 billion — the highest annual profit “of any enterprise since the building of the pyramids.” And then, Palast explains, they really started making money.

“Since the invasion of Iraq, the value of Exxon’s reserves has risen by $2 trillion. Last year, Exxon spent $36 billion of its $40 billion income on dividends and special payouts to stockholders in tax-free buy-backs.”

There are truckloads of private corporations hired to do what were traditionally military duties: training foreign armies, for example, mail delivery, spooky things: Dyncorp, Halliburton, KBR, Xe Services (formerly Blackwater), CACI, Triple Canopy, Boeing, General Dynamics, Bechtel. Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense contractor.

These corporations are doing awfully well because the oil companies keep demanding that we throw warm human bodies at the Middle East. Maybe they should pay something like a sin tax for this bloody windfall. You know, like they are cigarettes or something. Just a suggestion. I mean, they are killing people, for money.

Copyright © 2011, Hartford Advocate

Really Important Information About the Economy and Taxes

Nobel Prize winning Economist

VANITY FAIR article by – Joseph Stiglitz – Nobel Prize winning Economist

INEQUALITY

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

AMERICANS HAVE BEEN WATCHING PROTESTS AGAINST OPPRESSIVE REGIMES THAT CONCENTRATE MASSIVE WEALTH IN THE HANDS OF AN ELITE FEW. YET IN OUR OWN DEMOCRACY, 1 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE TAKE NEARLY A QUARTER OF THE NATION’S INCOME—AN INEQUALITY EVEN THE WEALTHY WILL COME TO REGRET.

By Joseph E. Stiglitz 

THE FAT AND THE FURIOUS The top 1 percent may have the best houses, educations, and lifestyles, says the author, but “their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.”

It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.

Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19^th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin. The corporate executives who helped bring on the recession of the past three years—whose contribution to our society, and to their own companies, has been massively negative—went on to receive large bonuses. In some cases, companies were so embarrassed about calling such rewards “performance bonuses” that they felt compelled to change the name to “retention bonuses” (even if the only thing being retained was bad performance). Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.

Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.

None of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.

Economists are not sure how to fully explain the growing inequality in America. The ordinary dynamics of supply and demand have certainly played a role: laborsaving technologies have reduced the demand for many “good” middle-class, blue-collar jobs. Globalization has created a worldwide marketplace, pitting expensive unskilled workers in America against cheap unskilled workers overseas. Social changes have also played a role—for instance, the decline of unions, which once represented a third of American workers and now represent about 12 percent.

But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent. Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest.

When you look at the sheer volume of wealth controlled by the top 1 percent in this country, it’s tempting to see our growing inequality as a quintessentially American achievement—we started way behind the pack, but now we’re doing inequality on a world-class level. And it looks as if we’ll be building on this achievement for years to come, because what made it possible is self-reinforcing. Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth. During the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s—a scandal whose dimensions, by today’s standards, seem almost quaint—the banker Charles Keating was asked by a congressional committee whether the $1.5 million he had spread among a few key elected officials could actually buy influence. “I certainly hope so,” he replied. The Supreme Court, in its recent Citizens United case, has enshrined the right of corporations to buy government, by removing limitations on campaign spending. The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.

America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way. There is, for one thing, a well-documented lifestyle effect—people outside the top 1 percent increasingly live beyond their means. Trickle-down economics may be a chimera, but trickle-down behaviorism is very real. Inequality massively distorts our foreign policy. The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military—the reality is that the “all-volunteer” army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes only so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that. Foreign policy, by definition, is about the balancing of national interests and national resources. With the top 1 percent in charge, and paying no price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window. There is no limit to the adventures we can undertake; corporations and contractors stand only to gain. The rules of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the rich: they encourage competition among countries for business, which drives down taxes on corporations, weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines what used to be viewed as the “core” labor rights, which include the right to collective bargaining. Imagine what the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to encourage competition among countries forworkers. Governments would compete in providing economic security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education, and a clean environment—things workers care about. But the top 1 percent don’t need to care.

Or, more accurately, they think they don’t. Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them. It is this sense of an unjust system without opportunity that has given rise to the conflagrations in the Middle East: rising food prices and growing and persistent youth unemployment simply served as kindling. With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation—voter turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21 percent, comparable to the unemployment rate.

In recent weeks we have watched people taking to the streets by the millions to protest political, economic, and social conditions in the oppressive societies they inhabit. Governments have been toppled in Egypt and Tunisia. Protests have erupted in Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain. The ruling families elsewhere in the region look on nervously from their air-conditioned penthouses—will they be next? They are right to worry. These are societies where a minuscule fraction of the population—less than 1 percent—controls the lion’s share of the wealth; where wealth is a main determinant of power; where entrenched corruption of one sort or another is a way of life; and where the wealthiest often stand actively in the way of policies that would improve life for people in general.

As we gaze out at the popular fervor in the streets, one question to ask ourselves is this: When will it come to America? In important ways, our own country has become like one of these distant, troubled places.

Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.

Rush Attacks The First Lady – Why? He’s hungry!

Strange: Rush Attacks M.Obama’s healthy food plan and I ask him about it.

http://www.dalereeves.com/private/episode3rushvsmicheleobama.mp3

Reeves BongoRadio Podcast Links – Lefty Laughter from a Pragmatist

Dale Reeves – Bongo Radio –  Alternate Universe….

As angry people on the right attack from the fringes I still believe the answers are found by compromise and finding common ground in the center.

To balance the distortion on the right I recommend more humor from the left.   These links are to my lefty, liberal, progressive and sometimes funny stuff.

BongoRadio is Tongue in Cheek and sometimes true. Enjoy.

Alternate #2 Follow the money. The possible true source of T-Party wealth and influence (maybe) 5:30.

http://www.dalereeves.com/podcast/reevespod2-tpartytruth.mp3

Alternate Universe: REAGAN (all-knowing has afterlife epiphany)  learns truth and joins WISC protests slams Dittos and Fox 4:17 .

http://www.dalereeves.com/podcast/reaganwisc.mp3

Madison Middle Class May bring the Hope and Change we Voted for in 2008

Shades of the ‘60’s, real American’s demanding their rights.

The streets of Madison may turn the tide on the lack of leadership on the right.  These workers have had enough of the double talk.  The know the problem could be fixed if we had responsive politicians interested in creating a stable economy.

They have seen the obstruction and how some republicans would rather work the game of distraction than deal with the duties of the office.  They would rather talk than act.  They are only interested in creating chaos and fear so that they can point fingers at Obama and blame government programs. They are busy trying to measure what their corporate donors and media controllers will think about any action before they can do or say anything.

They are frozen in fear of ditto heads on the radio that only understand what Rush and Glenn want them to know.  KISKTS – Keep it simple – Keep them stupid

They said nothing as corporations closed American facilities and shipped jobs elsewhere because that is good for business and free enterprise.  Let the profits rise.

They said nothing as thousands of jobs were outsourced to other countries because that helped defeat unions and created a demand for cheap labor.

Now thousands of down sized unemployed Americans pay no taxes to support government services because they aren’t earning enough.

Then, to get re-elected, they lie about the money shortfall and lower the taxes on the rich and the corporations.

They deregulated Wall Street so that criminals could sell boxes of empty paper that created a financial collapse that taxpayers had to bail out while bankers got bonuses.

Then they say we don’t have the money for government services and blame the high cost of labor while ignoring the rising costs of health care created by a profiteering insurance companies that they now want to continue deregulating.  Corporate welfare rules while cutting social services.

The loss of income and income taxes means no new money to invest for future stability.  No jobs to create new income and to collect taxes from workers.

They got what they wanted.  A financial disaster and unemployment that helped create a housing collapse.

They created an economic spiral that continues and now they want to double down.

What we are seeing in Wisconsin is an angry middle class displaying buyer’s remorse.  They are tired of the angry T-party simpletons in service to people like the Koch brothers and Rupert’s boys at Fox.

They are tired.  Tired of well paid politicians enjoying the advantages of office, setting themselves up for great health care and fantastic pensions, while running a game on the system.

They are finally waking up to the Republican failure to protect the middle class.  About time.

Wisconsin Proves T-party Fails and Free Party Rules

The protest of union workers In Wisconsin is displaying some hard facts about our politics.  I saw more than one sign that said, “NO LONGER A REPUBLICAN.”  How fast things can change when a T-Party Governor takes away benefits and rights.  Collective bargaining is not something easily taken from those who have earned that right.  The  debate will continue there and the eventual solutions may serve as a lesson to the rest of the country. The coverage on FOX and MSNBC was interesting.  The folks on FOX decried the protesters as radical thugs who were on the verge of rioting and violence.   The coverage on MSNBC and CNN proved the opposite.  President Obama said a few words in support of union rights and was of course accused of incitement.

We can continue to argue about things that can’t be solved by argument or we can discuss areas of cooperation that can lead to real solutions to real problems. When those in media who profit by argument, and who continually question the opposition’s motives, are given more influence than those elected to frame solutions, we allow those least responsible to demean the process and dismantle fair dialogue.  Politics then becomes crowd control and a media driven event that only serves those on the sidelines who seek drama and outrage over reasonable communication.

This is the problem with those who don’t engage for the purpose of seeking common ground.  Common ground means we don’t have to agree on everything and we respect our differences.  Not every voter’s belief system has to be considered when we are all subject to the same floods and winds.  We just have to agree on the best shelter and protection.  How we do that can’t even be discussed if there isn’t a recognition that religion and government can’t be commingled.  Secular humanists and atheists are citizens as valuable as the members of any majority faith.  We are all real Americans, a fact often forgotten by those in the majority.  The same applies to any self-determined identity, union members and business owners.  We all have a share in the responsibility to construct a better way forward.

If the faith-based charities were enough to up lift the needy those efforts would have worked long ago and poverty would have been eliminated.  Now we need pragmatic policies that correct the inequities of the past along with the recognition that our future generations deserve the least amount of government intrusion.  What we believe in our home and churches doesn’t matter.  One’s  lifestyle or idea of a creator is irrelevant.  Equality demands perfection for everyone.  There is no such thing as being free while ignoring those who suffer.  I believe we do have the tools to fix our problems but do we have the will?

How can we determine the long-term plan that serves our future social needs without discussing a rewrite of the social contract? A contract that has for too long benefited the few over the many?  We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the social needs around us and we will have to share equally in the cost of fixing what can be fixed.  It will be painful and it will take time.  Too many are left behind in poverty, without access to health care and education.  Future opportunities can’t happen if we continue to ignore the stewardship necessary to create a just environment that controls the excesses of both business and government.

A smaller more efficient bureaucracy, a just tax structure and regulations that assure equal protection from financial predators, as well as violent criminals, is a pragmatic social contract we must make with our neighbors if we are going to see any major changes in the future.  It means learning the facts, listening to the opinions about the long-term consequences of any change and then making a decision.  This is the voter’s dilemma.  If you are old enough to vote and don’t care enough to learn the facts required to make a decision you have abdicated your responsibility.

Without deliberation and information you may decide out of fear or anger.  Fear that your comfort and belief system is undermined and anger that you are paying for government actions that take away your wealth.  Wealth that is wasted on the undeserving or benefits corporate interests that pay for legislative favors.

This is what’s happening to the “t-parties.” They were quickly co-opted by old forces that don’t really want to promote any thing more than the standard corporate interests.  What we really need is a “better” party, perhaps a “free Party.”  A new party free of old school politicians who want to control rather than listen to the voters.  A party that promotes disseminating real facts about our social failures and demands new solutions that promote justice for all.  That can’t begin to happen as long as there are those on the sidelines who profit by dividing us.

From A Left-Wing Dad To A Right-Wing Son

This is from a letter I wrote to my right-wing son about why I’m a left-wing dad.

The problem is a result of the growth of media into many fragmented sources. News sources that must create reaction to hold viewers for the next commercials. The audience responds with emotion and refuses to accept new evidence if it disputes their worldview. Cheap politicians and polemicists know how to construct ideas and even books that will hold attention but really offer much more heat than light.

The real problems are so complicated they know they can get away with bending truth and telling out right lies. When I was a kid both sides had to treat each other with much more respect to get on the main stage to reach the middle and change things. If they heard something ridiculous, independent reporters would reveal the lies and misinformation. Vietnam reporting that refuted government and revealed Watergate crimes happened before cable and the internet.

Today we practice a different kind of marginalized politics that works on the small percentage that actually bothers to vote. That is why more people have to get involved and demand more from our leaders, citizens and media. We can’t just complain, we have to contribute, educate, cooperate, convert and reach common ground. We have to VOTE! Democracy demands action and involvement. We vote again in 2012…and there are still too many unemployed, uninsured, homeless, hungry and wounded in this amazing country.

How did that happen?

I blame both sides and those in the media who profit by spreading fear and lies.

This is one of my recent tweets from my Twitter site:

http://twitter.com/dalereeves1

“Want to fix America? Demand debate. Neither right nor left has all the answers. The solutions come from persuading those in the middle”

That is still my pragmatic belief. But since I see better ideas on the left and center that is where I throw my support. For now.

The late Studs Terkel (liberal activist who wrote a lot about the working poor) said: “I want people to talk to one another no matter what their difference of opinion might be…That’s what we’re missing. We’re missing argument. We’re missing debate. We’re missing colloquy. We’re missing all sorts of things. Instead, we’re accepting.”

As we give up debate we give up our freedom! When the media debate is continuously rude or impolite it becomes sniping from the edges and nobody learns anything and nothing changes. Some issues demand more time to unravel than 30 second sound bites. The Lincoln- Douglas debates were 3 hours long! They were transcribed and published and people actually read them. That changed American hearts about slavery. Aren’t today’s problems just as significant?

All tyrants dominate information to control the population; which is why the separation of church and state, protected free speech and tolerance is so important. Tyrants always fail in the long run (Egypt) which is why free countries need to continue to promote diversity and dialogue. It is safer than riots in the streets.

love,

dad

BILL AND BECK FOX BRAIN LOCK

First, Bill-O interviews the president before the Superbowl.  Fine.  It’s time he had a chance to huff and puff and act tough.  Trouble is he came off as a lightweight.  He was serving two masters and couldn’t do anything worth watching as a reporter.  None of the content mattered and it just gave the president a chance to be friendly and cool.  Bill’s constant interruptions and blustering while talking over Obama just showed how much direction he got from Roger Ailes and the boys at fox who  wanted him to appear as the great inquisitor who will give no courtesy to a man who doesn’t deserve respect.   It wasn’t natural and Bill tried too hard and came off juvenile.  ”I’ll show him and all who are watching what a tough boy am I.”  Suggestion, next time come up with better questions.  Work on the content, Bill, instead of the attitude.  Repeating phrases like “They hate You!” to show how you got in Obama’s face is just pathetic.

Now, Friday night you decide to question your boy Beck about his views on Egypt.  The insanity and delusion was too much even for you.  I could see his flop sweat and you could smell people tuning out while trying to make sense of his nonsense.  You were so polite to  G-boy even though he couldn’t  answer simple questions or dispute simple facts.  Very embarrassing and a waste of time.  It was obvious you couldn’t wait to flush him off your set.  I suppose you will be on his hit list next.  Good luck around the coffee machine the next time the ratings dip.

The Tucson Truth & The Great Shell Game

The heroes of the Tucson are well known and it is no surprise that so many got involved to stop the carnage and help save lives. That’s what we do, that’s who we are. We will always need to rely on our neighbors to get through the pain. Even when our neighbors disagree with us on how to vote or how to govern, they still deserve our respect and civility.

A lot has been written about the meanness of our politics and many place the blame on the verbal cruelty so popular with the some on the right today. The truth is their language is not going to change as long as two parties exist and liberals get elected.

Would Limbaugh, Beck or the Fox talkers have any power without the drama they must create to keep their base focused on fear and anger? Using strong language has always worked when it comes to getting people ginned up and angry about issues that may not be worth any actual outrage. Winning an election is also no guarantee that the results will ever be respected. Losing becomes an excuse to up the ante of disrespect toward the winner. It is an old shtick, perfected by today’s highly paid professionals.

During the 60’s, we on the angry left used the emotional outrage about the war in Vietnam to say horrible things about Johnson and Nixon. Today, some conservatives use the same tone outside abortion clinics. Even more radical believers choose to picket servicemen’s funerals to make ugly statements about the Gay community.

When Sara Palin put targets on a map she was engaging in swagger and tough talk. Perhaps she was trying to prove she could be as hard-hitting as Hillary Clinton was during her campaign. It’s like Barry Goldwater repeating, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” It didn’t work then and it is even more meaningless now. It’s bluster—and it’s why people call politicians windbags.

If Palin felt her crosshair symbols weren’t connected to potential violence, why did she take them down? Her comment, “When we say we need to take up arms” it means “to get out the vote,” was so laughably self serving that you have to admire her chutzpah The aggression expressed in Palin’s words is clear and undeniable. She never imagined anyone would be impolite enough to suggest her intent was less than honorable. She doesn’t seem to realize that Americans respect toughness, but we are suspicious of politicians that use the language of anger. Remember Joe McCarthy?

The real issue is Palin’s lack of consideration after Congresswoman Giffords commented that those targets might have consequences. Palin chose to neither respond nor change the target images, and only removed them after Gabrielle Giffords was actually shot. Why? Is Palin going to use targets again during the next election cycle? Is she going to keep exhorting people to “reload?”

The reality is that gun talk and gun imaging in politics is crude and careless. It is as silly as calling your opponent a socialist, fascist, or a secret foreign-born anti-American Muslim who may be the anti-Christ.

It’s true, we have a population of crazies and criminals among us, and we must be vigilant to protect the innocent from these monsters who sometimes hear voices inside their heads telling them to do monstrous things. Things like buying weapons with large ammo clips that allow them to kill 6 people in less time than it takes to unwrap a candy bar.

It’s also true that some people use the rude and careless talk of media mavens to rationalize their own violence or threats of violence. After all, if a rich and articulate politician or a clever talk show host says things like we need to “take out” an opponent, it is not too hard to imagine a cruder, less articulate and truly violent version from the minions who idolize them.

This abuse of emotion in public dialogue becomes an excuse to ignore the real issues that affect us all. It is much easier to get re-elected when you portray yourself as the heroic last defense against the relentless enemy of the culture you claim as the only moral lifestyle.

Sadly, we continue to elect politicians who know how to confuse us with a shell game. A shell game that allows them to abdicate their responsibility to actually govern, create policy or legislate for the greater good. Their shell game hides the fact that they are primarily interested in ensuring re-election by protecting their power base. Why? Because politicos know that actually dealing with the challenges is dangerous. It might mean telling the truth. It might mean raising some taxes, or controlling some guns, or finding a solution to America’s healthcare crisis. It might mean actually negotiating and compromising.

The majority of Americans want compromise and co-operation, and we are all sick of the game that has dominated the debate. It led us to two wasteful wars and a financial disaster. Thousands are now unemployed and thousands are losing their homes. Exploiting these very real, very pressing problems in order to capitalize on anger at the ballot box or the Neilsen box is blatant manipulation. We deserve better.

Since the Tucson shooting many politicians have hidden from media, because they don’t want to answer any questions about the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. Even Dick Cheney says that might now need attention. Really? Would the right wing now honor a new referendum on such an issue? If the majority of Americans do want more restrictions on some weapons and more taxes to support our schools, will the current crop of legislators ever respond to them? We know the politicians listen to the lobbyists and power brokers who line pockets and fill their re-election coffers. It is time they started to listen, to really listen, to the American People.