Tweet at your own risk

A joke tweet out of context can be hazardous to your...ok, it's not really hazardous to anything, except maybe your Twitter feed.

During day one of the Democratic National Convention, Markos Moulitsas of The Daily Kos tweeted a few tweets about the volume of the speakers that all went something like "Why is [insert speaker name here] yelling at me?"

My response to Markos after the third one was "Why not focus on the message instead of the volume?"

Well...tonight, when Jennifer Granholm made her impassioned speech about how Barack Obama saved the automotive industry and all of the jobs that rescue entailed in several states, my first thought was of Markos' tweets from day one, so I thought he'd find it funny--I did--that someone who sort of chastised him (not sure he remembered it) had the same thought he did during day one (he was right, some of them were pretty loud--but the messages were great).  So I tweeted:

GregTReich ‏@GregTReich

Damn you, @markos ! My first thought during Jennifer Granholm's speech was "Why is Jennifer Granholm yelling at me?" You're contagious.

Markos retweeted my tweet, then Keith Olbermann picked it up and also retweeted it.  Antics ensued, but one tweet concerned me:

@GregTReich would you question a man about "yelling at you" in a powerful passionate speech? I don't think so.

This tweet came from Rep. Angela R. Bryant from North Carolina.  

I can understand where Representative Bryant would get this impression, having seen my tweet out of context.  I can't stress enough, however, that if I'd heard a man speaking at high volume during today's speeches, I would have had the same thought.  It wasn't malicious or misogynistic; I respect Jennifer Granholm.  I watch her show.  We have some disagreements about the role of religion in public life, I think, but we agree on policy, and I think her show on Current TV, The War Room, is well done, has great guests, and has a great host.  I have a lot of respect for my former governor.

And the speech--I thought the speech was great!   When she said the line I think more people tweeted than any other, "In Mitt Romney's world, the cars get the elevator, and the workers get the shaft!", I was among the first in my feed to tweet it.  I admired her passion in that speech--I had never seen her so fired up...but I had that little tingle, that one funny little though, about Markos' tweets on day one, and I had to share.

I don't blame Markos for my tweet.  How could I?  I don't blame him for retweeting it, either.  I just wanted to explain that I didn't mean it maliciously; I meant it humorously.  It wasn't a condemnation of Jennifer Granholm.  I'm not like Republicans--I want to hear women roar.  Bring your message loud, and with passion, and I will support you in every way possible.   You deserve a loud, passionate voice--the Republicans certainly have enough of them.  Anyone who reads through this blog's articles will know that I support women's rights and have no malice against women--except maybe Sarah Palin, but that's not because of her gender.  

I encourage Jennifer Granholm to speak with the same level of passion in future speeches.  

An Open Letter to Gina Rinehart, World's Wealthiest Woman

Dear Gina Rinehart,

    I am not exactly poor, but I'm definitely not wealthy.  I am in the dying middle class in the United States.  I don't know how the middle class is faring in your country, but here, we're an endangered group.

    I'm not jealous of your wealth.  I'm not jealous of anyone's wealth.  I'm angry that anyone who is lucky enough to have made a fortune doing what they do would seize power and work their hardest to ensure that people who don't have the ability or ambition to become mining moguls (although from what I understand, yours is inherited wealth, not something you built yourself) have no influence in things that affect their daily lives.

    You see, we have people who talk just like you do here in the United States.  They consider the wealthy "the hardest-working Americans", while the poor are just lazy, good-for-nothing loafers who just want to live off of welfare.  They want to take away the social safety nets that keep people from starving in the streets when they fall upon hard times, as people sometimes do.  But it's worse than that.

    Far worse.

    A handful of billionaires, most notably the brothers Koch, with their $42 billion fortune, have set out to lobby legislatures across the country to take away collective bargaining rights from teachers, firefighters, police, and any and all others who work for the government that they also seek to control.  They pay people to sit at the ears of politicians, giving voice to their goals and desires that no other citizen could hope to have. They pass laws that benefit their industries, while killing competition in the private sector with their immense buying power.  They seek to make us subjects, not citizens, and the American people gave up being subjects in 1776--as did Australians in 1901.

     You say people who are "jealous" of the wealthy (rather than angry, as I am) should just work harder, socialize less, drink less, and smoke less, but the truth is, society can't be comprised of only wealthy people. It's not possible.  We need laborers.  We need teachers, police, and firefighters.  We need people picking up trash and cleaning sewers.  We need people doing construction.  Do you suggest that none of these people work as hard as you do?  Do you suggest that they all give it up for a dream of being a billionaire mining mogul, or something equivalent?

    The fact is, I know many hard-working people who don't drink or smoke, and keep their socialization to a minimum, but people of your ilk took their jobs overseas to places where the government doesn't offer as strict regulation on working conditions and work hours.  Their ambition consisted of living comfortably and providing for their families, and now that their jobs that paid a living wage are gone, they have to work one job for half the pay and struggle, or two jobs that might not even add up to the same wages as the one--if they are lucky enough to find a second job.

    Then, there are the people I mentioned before, lobbying legislatures across the country.  They are doing something else aside from taking away collective bargaining rights.  They are lobbying to make public services private.   What they do is take a public service, give it over to a private company, hire back the workers who used to make a living wage and belong to a union at much lower wages with less benefits or none at all.  They make this privatization look attractive to communities, because it does appear to save them money, when compared to the cost of service when run by the government.  However, the workers may no longer to afford to live in the community, option for cheaper housing elsewhere.  They will no longer frequent bars, grocery stores, convenience stores, gas stations, hair salons, or any number of other local businesses that received the benefit of their patronage.  Even if these businesses do continue to receive some patronage, it must be reduced, because the workers have less disposable income.  In the meantime, the private companies that take over the services have executives and shareholders who live outside the communities--sometimes even overseas--who benefit from the difference in wages between the old workers and the new, and at a lower tax rate than the workers themselves paid.

     So I look at all of these things, and I say, yes, I'm definitely angry with you.  Not jealous.  Angry.  When I hear statements like yours, it stirs my passion to do something about your kind, so please, keep talking.  We don't live in a world where we believe you wealthy people rule by divine right.  We have the power to tax and regulate you out of business, if only we rise up to use it--and I think we should use that power on anyone who would try to buy government to try to rule over us.

Sincerely,
One who would not be a serf, but a citizen.

American Totaliarianism

I'm sure I'm not the first to make this observation, but the Republicans resemble a totalitarian regime attempting to take power, not a party trying to legitimately put its ideas up against those of it's largest rival, the Democrats, or the smaller parties nobody ever hears from on the national stage, such as the Greens or the Libertarians.

There are a handful of billionaires funding efforts to bust unions, suppress votes, and privatize public services.  The voter suppression is the most telling of their efforts.  Consider, for example, this statement from a legislator in Pennsylvania, where a voter ID law they passed could keep nearly a million voters from casting a ballot:

Now, people who listen to the right wing noise machine will tell you that these laws exist to prevent voter fraud, but as Cenk Uygar shows in the video, actual voter fraud is minuscule--but the suppression is huge, and affects mostly voters who would typically vote for Democrats.

Fortunately, many states have killed laws designed to suppress votes in their courts, but the fact that they even had to take a single case to court regarding something that would disenfranchise voters is telling: Republicans don't want Democrats to vote, because they know their ideas aren't popular.

Republicans have also engaged in redistricting in ways that will benefit them.  A simple search of YouTube will bring up video of Republicans in several states redistricting to benefit themselves and take seats away from Democrats.  Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Kentucky, North Carolina, Illinois...the effort goes on in state after state.  Republicans clearly want to rule, not offer the people a choice.

And it's not just the United States they want to rule, either.  They want to rule the world, and they want to do it through securing Middle East oil resources, not because we get the majority of our oil from there (we don't), but because the region is a major source of fossil fuel in Russia and China.  Europe also gets oil from the Middle East.  The Project for the New American Century had several people in its organization who worked in the Bush administration, and Romney has 17 advisors who also worked in the Bush administration.  Romney's saber-rattling at Iran during his acceptance speech at the RNC clearly shows that he wants to continue the work the Bush administration began, but of course, it's in the name of Iran's nuclear program, not because they want to take over the Middle East.  It echoes the Bush administration's claim that Iraq was an imminent threat with weapons of mass destruction, including a fabled nuclear program.

Another example of Republican aspiration to totalitarianism manifests itself in their record use of the filibuster.      Several Republicans, including Mitch McConnell, who was vocal about it, resolved to make President Obama a one-term President by making all of his attempts at changing policy fail in Congress.  Instead of doing everything they could to help the economy, they thwarted jobs bills, watered down the stimulus, blocked infrastructure improvement legislation, and simply did everything in their power to keep President Obama from doing what he wanted to move American forward.  The President was able to help the economy in spite of their efforts, but they could have been part of the solution, and had they compromised and cooperated, the whole country would have gained the benefit.  They did not have to bow down the President as an overlord and rubber-stamp everything he wanted to pass, but even as Obama reached out to them on issues of policy, they would not even attempt to compromise.  They just said no.

We don't even have to speculate regarding what would happen if the tables were turned, because we saw it during the Bush administration.  When the Republicans had control from 2002-2006 of all three branches of government, they deregulated industry and the financial sector to the point where the American people were no longer protected, and they did it behind closed doors, with the Democratic minority relegated to meeting in the basement of Congress.  They didn't even want to hear arguments from Democrats on the floor.  They will do the same again if they gain equivalent control.

There's more...so much more.  I could talk about how voting machines aren't made as available to districts that typically vote Democratic, where Republicans are in charge of their distribution.  I could talk about how they actually influence the textbooks that go to our children's schools, changing history and science to fit their agenda (2/3 of all textbooks are published in Texas, and the state has enormous influence over the textbooks.  The GOP controls that state).  I could talk about how the right wing noise machine influences voters to believe fairy tales instead of facts, ignoring real criticisms of the President to appeal to emotion and patriotism, rather than to reason.  I think, however, that the things I've listed should give any reasonable person food for thought.

Republicans absurdly debate the rape exception for abortion

     Representative Todd Akin put his foot in his mouth by saying exactly what was on his mind: that "legitimate rape" causes trauma that makes pregnancy from rape rare--or, at least, that was the strong implication of his words.  Of course, there is no science to back up this claim regarding humans (one would think a Representative sitting on the Science and Technology committee would believe in this little thing we call "evidence"), and not all rapes have trauma involved at the time of the rape (there is, of course, trauma after).  I know women personally who were raped when they were drunk, and a few of them were pregnant from it.  One I knew to be a lesbian.  She was penetrated while unconscious.  I know women who have been drugged and raped.  Even if there were truth to the claim that the trauma of rape caused a woman's body to shut down pregnancy, Akin's claim would imply that only brutal, conscious rapes constitute rape.  A woman who was drugged during her rape is no less violated, just not beaten.

     There are many forms of rape, but that's not what I want to get into here.  I think rape is an important subject, and we need to do everything we can to prevent rape, prosecute rapists, and care for the victims of the crime, but the concern for the moment is the stance Akin and people like him have on abortion.   Akin is not alone in his views.  The implication that pregnancy from rape is rare gives people like him the courage to say it should not be an exception for abortion.  I don't know that Akin believes that himself, but there are several prominent names in the Republican Party who do, in fact, believe that there should be no exception for rape or incest.  There are even a few who believe there should be no exception for saving the mother's life.

     Far be it from me to make a moral judgment here, but does the vision Republicans have for the United States really include rape victims coming into emergency rooms because they tried to end their pregnancies with twisted coat hangers, umbrella spokes, bicycle spokes, poison, sharp instruments, and other unsafe means, just because, in their view, there aren't that many of them (at least not from "legitimate rape")?   That was the reality of abortion when it was illegal.  Women sought to end their pregnancies for all sorts of reasons, and only the wealthy and connected had the means to get abortions safely.  I think all women should have access to safe abortion procedures, but when it comes to rape victims, I have a special compassion.  It's hard enough making decisions regarding pregnancy; it has to be more difficult still when the offspring is a rapist's.  I can't imagine the emotional agony over the idea of carrying a rapist's child to term.  It seems to me that it takes a special kind of cruelty to force a rape victim to bear the child of a person who forced her into pregnancy in the first place.  It's another kind of rape, in my view.

      Abortion should be safe for all women, and made rare through comprehensive sex education, ready access to contraception, and empowerment of women in general.  I know there are many who would disagree, but please, if you believe abortion is murder, consider what I have said about the ways in which women tried to end their pregnancies before safe abortion procedures were legally available.  Many women died as a result of their failed--or even successful--abortion attempts.  Poison, infection, too much blood loss...all of these things brought women into the emergency room, and many of them died.  Before you say that you believe they got what they deserved for "murdering a child", consider that your beliefs, if Christian, also include the idea of forgiveness and redemption.  How does a dead woman receive the opportunity to redeem herself?

     Of course, as an atheist, I do not share the view that women who seek abortions require redemption.  I do not see abortion as murder at all; taking a life that has not even really begun is not murder.  Yes, a fetus is alive, but does it have a personality?  It may feel pain, but does it remember it (in cases where pain is felt that is not abortion-related)?  Does it have memories?  In cases where a "morning after" pill is used, it's just a mass of cells with no possibility of any of these things being true, but the same people who will make the case for a fetus feeling pain and such will be against this method, as well, all because of the faith-based concept of the soul coming in at conception.

     Considering that children resulting from unwanted pregnancy often end up abused, poor, and generally disadvantaged, I see abortion as a difficult, but merciful, choice.  All choices regarding pregnancy are difficult.  Pregnancy changes the body and comes with its own risks.  Miscarriages can kill.  Child birth can kill.  Complications from child birth can kill.  In most cases, death is not the result, but pregnancy absolutely changes a woman's body permanently.  Giving the resulting baby up for adoption can come with its own problems, including grieving for the loss of the child, even though the child is still alive. There are no easy choices here, but in all of these cases, women should expect every effort to be made to keep them safe.

 

Real criticism versus fairy tales

One of the problems I have with debating with right-wingers these days is that they don't want to talk about policy.  They don't have real criticisms of President Obama; they only advance the conspiracy theories or distorted talking points.  An informed person might bring up the following:

Warrantless wiretapping:
The current administration has continued the policy of warrantless wiretapping, with the approval of Congress most recently in June, that the Bush administration began.

Drone strikes that sometimes kill civilians:
Some of the drone strikes the Obama administration uses to target Al Qaeda have been killing civilians, and some people strongly feel that it's an effective recruiting tool for the very organization the strikes intend to stop.

President Obama has proposed changes to Social Security and Medicare:
This administration has proposed some cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, and a smaller cost of living adjustment for Social Security--thought his proposals do not even touch the degree to which the Republicans want to change these plans, which included complete privatization.  

This list could also include how Wall Street players ended up being part of Obama's administration, how the banks were bailed out but most homeowners were not, and other criticisms that actually have to do with policy.  One might notice that the links I included go to what would be considered left-wing sources, by the way.  I did that purposely, to show that our side will give criticism where it is due.

When arguing with Republicans, however, these criticisms do not come up in the conversation.  Instead I hear:

• Obama is stealing $716 billion from Medicare.  This number actually comes from what it would cost if the Republicans repealed the Affordable Care Act.
• Obama is not really a citizen of the United States.  This argument's latest manifestation involves his school records, which allegedly have him down as a foreign exchange student.  It's all part of the stupid and irrelevant birther conspiracy.  Get over it!  He's been President for almost a full term already; let's talk about policy and not about irrelevant conspiracy theories.
• Obama is secretly a Muslim.  Who cares what his religion is?  Can you demonstrate how his religious leanings have affected his policy?  

There are many more pieces of myth and misinformation out there, and it makes most Republicans and other people who consider themselves conservatives not worthwhile when it comes to political discussions.  It would be great if people would have informed opinions, even if I disagree with them or support a candidate in spite of certain flaws.  Obama has done some great things, but he's not perfect.  I just wish the criticisms I'd hear about him were real and relevant.  

Reflections on health care tragedy

I hadn't thought about Bob Brooks for awhile.  Bob was intelligent, humorous, logical, and interesting.  He was a brilliant speaker and activist.  He was a world traveler, and a true citizen of the world--not an egotistical American bent on the idea of exceptionalism.  When he spoke, the room hushed to listen to what he had to say--not that they had to quiet down much; Bob's voice carried well.  They listened because what he had to say was relevant, often funny, reliable if it was fact, and respected if it was his opinion.  People liked him.  I liked him.

Some years ago, Bob was diagnosed with cancer of the colon.   His treatment would have been lengthy, costly, and rough.  Rather than spend the nest egg he had accumulated through a lifetime of hard work, Bob decided to take his own life.  He spent his final week saying his last goodbyes to his friends.  In an email to me, he wrote:

My death is neither based on courage, nor cowardice. It is the logical conclusion of a rational mind based upon my values and circumstances. This is right for me, but that is my intellect, not my emotions. No, I am not brave, as I have been an emotional wreck all week since everything I do, and see, is for the last time. Cutting my ties to this world is not easy. However, my life belongs to me, not the doctors, preachers, or government, all of whom forbid my action.

I thought of Bob during a conversation I was having in The Young Turks' live chat, where we were discussing health care issues and a man who lost his job at Wells Fargo, and therefore his insurance, right before his child's scheduled surgery.  It was a heartbreaking story.  I thought about my own experiences with the health care system, then reflected on my dad, who had insurance but had doctors blow off his pain as the result of a fall down the stairs.  I thought about my Aunt Pam, who could not afford to go to the doctor because her employer did not provide insurance, who waited until the pain was so great that she had to go to the emergency room, only to find that her cancer had spread to her whole body.  She died not long after.

Then I thought of Bob.  It's the first time I'd ever made the connection, but Bob's death could have been prevented if we had universal health care--health care that would not have eaten up his nest egg.  I can't speak for Bob; he may have still gone through with the suicide to avoid having his family watch him suffer--or he may have gone through with treatment and put his cancer into remission.  Or, if his cancer was terminal, he may have decided to use hospice care.  In whatever circumstance, I think he should have had the choice.

 

A Well-Regulated Militia

     The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

     The Founding Fathers did not want a standing army.  They believed it was too expensive.  They had fought the American Revolution with militias made up of men with their own weapons, defending their own lands (that they stole from the natives who were on the land before them, but that's another issue for another day). They wanted people to keep their own weapons in case they had to call men to arms quickly to repel invasions.  Communications weren't instant then.  There were no radios, no aircraft, no motorized vehicles--no way to move troops quickly from a base to an invasion point.  Having citizens (white male property owners over the age of twenty-one, at that time) own guns made sense, in terms of national security.

     The times we live vastly different.  We have a standing military.  If we did have a military invasion, the average citizen would not be able to repel it; we would need the United States military arsenal.  Perhaps there are people out there who think their personal arsenal of automatic weapons, if joined with other such arsenals, would be enough to repel an invasion, but this idea is pure folly.  The most one could hope for out of several citizen-owned arsenals would be guerrilla warfare.  The "well-regulated Militia" part is certainly outdated.

     So...since the citizens no longer constitute a well-regulated militia, should we prohibit guns?  Plenty of people do sport shooting on ranges, which does no harm to anyone.  Some people hunt and eat the game animals they kill, which doesn't harm humans, and, in the case of deer, helps control a population of animals that do not have natural predators anymore (due to humans killing timber wolves, for example--yes, we're solving a problem we caused).  Some people, such as real estate agents, who work on their own and don't  know who they're meeting a good amount of the time, keep them for personal protection.  Besides, the Constitution says the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, right?

     What the Constitution doesn't say is what type of arms the citizens may have.  What's the limit?  Is it wealth?  The Koch brothers could certainly own their own private military, complete with aircraft--they have the money.  Should they be able to hire mercenaries from Academi (formerly Blackwater, who killed citizens seemingly for sport in Iraq and confiscated weapons from citizens after Hurricane Katrina) and have a few fighter jets for air support?  Should the average citizen be able to own a nuclear weapon?  Chemical weapons?  Biological?  Should a wealthy person be able to hire a private navy, with ships that can hit targets several miles away?  Should missiles be available to the average American?

     Most reasonable people would put some limit on what arms should be available to the average citizen.  Why then, should we not talk about regulations for gun ownership?  Why not restrict the size of the magazines available for guns?  Why not put mental health screenings in place as a requirement for gun ownership?  Prohibition of guns could have the same result as the drug trade--in fact, those who have made billions from the drug trade could certainly diversify into illegal arms sales.  However, nobody is talking about prohibition.  Indeed, not many elected representatives are talking about imposing any limits--but perhaps it's time to talk about mental health screenings, in light of recent shootings in Aurora, Colorado and the Sikh Temple outside of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

     My personal opinion is that people with certain mental health issues should not have firearms, especially automatic weapons and other military-grade equipment.  However, the Second Amendment, as many gun advocates will say, does not allow for an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.  Here's a compromise: let's do mental health screenings, but let people with mental health issues get guns.  Then, put them on a watch list.  Watch how many guns they buy, what kind of military-grade equipment they secure, and how much ammo they purchase.  If they start accumulating the aforementioned items, put them under surveillance.  When they leave the house with it, have a SWAT team or other law enforcement officials follow the person with guns pointed directly at his (because so far, all of these mass murderers have been male) head at point-blank range.  If he continues to his destination, make sure the law enforcement officials take him down as soon as he pulls a weapon and points it at someone.  He still owned his guns right up until he did something illegal, and now law enforcement call pull them from his cold, dead hands before he was able to do damage to a large number of innocent civilians.