The Big Lie

The "Big Lie" Theory originated with the Nazi regime in Germany.  The belief was that in order to get people to believe a lie, it has to be a whopper; make it big enough and tell it often enough, and they will go for it.  After all, who would have the audacity to make up something that's so hard to believe?

According to a conservative website I recently visited, the necessary components to successfully applying the Big Lie Theory are as follows:

• Make the lie a really BIG one.
• Keep the public in a frenzy over it, so they don't have time to consider alternatives.
• Don't allow for the possibility that there are other options.
• Single out one enemy on whom to place blame for everything that goes wrong.
• You must repeat the lie frequently.

And, yes, you read it correctly - I found that on a conservative website!  Actually, I wasn't the least bit surprised.  After all, conservative Republicans have turned application of this theory into an art in recent times ... at least in my opinion.  Right after Paul Ryan delivered his acceptance speech at the RNC, an op-ed piece in the Washington Post outlined at least six instances of blatantly misleading or incorrect statements designed to make the President look bad.  Take, for example, the Ryan statement that President Obama has raided Medicare to the tune of $716 million in order to pay for Obamacare.  Check any number of objective news sources, and you'll find that this lie is outrageously big - the amount represents a reduction in payments to providers (not beneficiaries) in order to improve the quality of services rendered, and at least part of it will be offset by provisions of Obamacare.  And Ryan himself proposed the exact same amount of reduction in his budget!  But this very lie has been repeated ad nauseum in political ads, and no amount of questioning by reporters has caused Ryan or his cohorts to waver from their line.  Big Lie Theory applied perfectly!

But the instance of applying this theory that most upsets me is the Mitt Romney reaction to the September 11, 2012 attack on the US consulate in Libya.  After this tragic event became public, Romney released a statement saying “It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”  A few hours later, it was learned that the 'response' Romney referenced was made not by the administration but by the US embassy in Cairo, and that it was made six hours before the tragic Libya attack.

So, of course, when confronted with the correct timeline, the Republican standard-bearer apologized for his erroneous conclusion ... Oh, wait ... No!  He reaffirmed his position!  That's our boy - continue telling the Big Lie often and loudly, and people will believe it.

By now my Republican friends are aching to tell me that Democrats use the Big Lie as well.  I don't pretend to believe that the Republicans have the market cornered on the technique.  However, you have to admit that in this instance, two truths are evident.  First, the folks who now dominate the Republican landscape have honed the Big Lie Theory to perfection, and second, its use in this case is reprehensible.

I know I can't change who is running for President this year.  What I can change is how I interpret what I hear.  I know how the Big Lie works, and I'm constantly watching out for it.  That just makes sense to me.  How about you?

I welcome your comments on this and other posts - just click on the "__ comments" link below

To follow my blog, use the email gadget at right

The Unsociable Network

I love Facebook.  It has allowed me to do what I was never able to accomplish in the pre-FB era:  stay in touch with folks who are no longer part of my day-to-day life (and even some who still are).  I can stay in touch with some of the thousands of students I've had the pleasure of teaching over the course of my 44-year career.  I'm able to see what former colleagues are up to, even if they live in different parts of the country.  I get to see pictures of family, including cousins who live nearby but don't get to visit often, and a whole bunch who live in Europe and pretty much never get to visit.  I can share information, opinions, and pictures with fellow dog enthusiasts here and abroad; I know who did well in yesterday's dog shows, who had a litter this week, and what people think of my latest puppy.  I can stay in touch with the people with whom I went to High School, even if I haven't seen them since graduation.

Facebook is also a wonderful tool for anyone who wants to get a message out to a whole bunch of people really fast.  Want to maximize entries for a dog show?  Put it out there on Facebook for all your fellow breeders and exhibitors to see.  Want to help your favorite charity with their fundraising efforts?  Just post for all your friends to see how important that organization is to your life.  Want to send birthday wishes to people you don't see often?  Just click on the nice little reminders Facebook provides every week.

Facebook is also very convenient for getting a political message out to a whole bunch of people during our overly-long election cycle.  Just click "Share" on a page you agree with, and all of your friends get to see what they have to say.  And if just a small percentage of your friends share the same page, and a small percentage of their friends do the same, ... and so on, and so on.

This one seems to have already gone over to the Dark Side

But politics can bring out the dark side in some people, and nowhere is that more evident to me than on good ole Facebook.  I've noticed three kinds of political dark-siders on this social medium:

• The Negativist
• The Linkmaster
• The Disrespectre

Let's examine them one at a time.

The Negativist

Please don't think I believe that there's anything wrong with sharing political views on social media.  A good campaign will use this tool to maximum effectiveness; I've already "liked" several pages that keep me informed from the perspective with which I most closely identify.  It's also most likely the conduit by which you found your way to this blog.  But the Negativist is the Facebooker who bombards you, day after day, with a ton of Status updates, not with a positive message about what he/she believes in, but instead with a negative message about how much he/she hates the opposition.  Think I'm exaggerating?  Just cruise around FB for a while, and lurk on a few pages.  I found one person's timeline with over 50 political posts in the month of July alone, and every single one of them was anti-Obama - not once did I see any mention of Mitt Romney.  Personally, I'd rather hear what you believe in, not what or whom you hate.

The Linkmaster

Once in a while, even I will click "Share" on a political page I think might be interesting and informative for my friends to see, providing I'm reasonably certain the information on that page is correct.  But the Linkmaster takes it to the extreme by sharing every page that echoes his/her political opinion, without bothering to check whether or not the information found there is true.  Within the last few days, I've seen links to anti-Obama pages that hit on every urban myth from doubting he ever attended Columbia University, to the "fact" that he was really born in Kenya (Still?  Really?).  Possibly the worst one I've seen this week was on Breitbart.com (Andrew may be gone, but his legacy lives on), digitally shouting that "the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee were suing Ohio’s Attorney General and Secretary of State to prevent military voters from being granted three extra days of early voting."  One has only to read the first paragraph of the actual lawsuit (which I found in thirty seconds of Googling) to find the following:  "Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to restore in-person early voting for all Ohioans during the three days prior to Election Day – a right exercised by an estimated 93,000 Ohioans in the last presidential election."  In case you're still in the dark on this one, the Republican Ohio legislature passed a bill that reduces the number of early voting days that were previously available to voters, but still allows active military personnel to vote on the three days eliminated for everyone else.  The Obama lawsuit seeks to overturn the law and thereby restore the full number of early voting days for all voters.  Not exactly what I read on Breitbart.com.

The Disrespectre
This is the person who offends me the most.  I grew up with the belief that one should always show respect for the office of the Presidency - or for any position of authority - even if one doesn't like the person who holds that office.  I believed (still do, for that matter) that George W. Bush was the worst President of my lifetime, but I don't think I ever called him anything worse than "W."  Yet the Disrespectres of Facebook continue to call the current President names like degenerate, evil, ass-clown, and traitor.  Yes, I found those actual words and others like them on actual pages I've stumbled onto on Facebook. I've never once resented the fact that there are people who disagree with me - I'm good friends with several people whose political orientation is 180º removed from mine - but I just can't understand a lack of respect for the office.  Maybe disrespect is the last refuge of those who don't have the facts on their side.

So go ahead, put your feelings out there on whatever social medium you prefer.  That's what the First Amendment reference to freedom of speech is all about.  But be careful not to go over to the Dark Side.  That just makes sense to me - how about you?

 I welcome your comments on this and other posts - just click on the "__ comments" link below

To follow my blog, use the email gadget at right

Lies, Damned Lies, and Political Polls

I received a phone call today from an unnamed polling organization, asking if I would have ten to twenty minutes to take part in a survey.  I obliged, and verified that, despite my advanced age, I was indeed the youngest male in the household.  (First red flag:  why did they want the youngest male?)

The first question gave me a laundry list of hot topics, and asked me to identify which I thought was most important.  Like most people these days, I chose health care.  That led me into a very long series of questions about - what else - health care.  It all seemed pretty good until we hit a question that began with something like "Many people feel that major provisions of the Affordable Care Act will be repealed."  The pollster then proceeded to give a list of options for replacing those provisions that apparently were (in someone's mind) destined to be repealed.  I responded by objecting to the question and the way it was framed; how could I possibly choose an alternative to a law I believe should not and will not be repealed?  Of course, that response was not an option.  The poor, innocent caller told me that she could only mark down "Don't Know" or "Refused."  Big red flag.

Unfortunately, this was only the first of many loaded questions in the survey, and I began to realize that this poll was being run by folks who have a strong political agenda.  It was an agenda that ran diametrically opposed to my philosophy.  More importantly, the questions seemed designed to elicit predetermined results.

Well that really scared me.  If you haven't already realized it by reading my previous blog posts, I believe strongly in basing opinions on facts.  It's fine with me if other folks have an opinion that's different from mine, but I can't stand it when that opinion is grounded in a lie.

Adam Geller
of National Research, Inc.

So I did what any twenty-first century adult would do - I Googled the phone number that showed up on my caller ID.  Turns out the pollster was calling from National Research, Inc., which is a notoriously conservative Republican organization headed up by Adam Geller, best known as the pollster for Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey.  That didn't surprise me.  What blew me away, however, I found right out there on the home page of National Research's own website.  Here it is, in their own words:

"Opinion measurement helps you understand your audience. Opinion management helps you win campaigns, trials and market share. National Research Inc. is in the opinion management business.

You need to ask the right questions. You need to survey the right audience. And you need to make sure you are using the results to your maximum benefit. We've got you covered."

Call me crazy, but I think this "opinion polling" organization is telling us that it doesn't really deal with trying to find out what opinions people actually hold - their business is to manipulate the surveys to further the interests of their clients.

And now the scary part.  In a few days, the results of this "poll" will be made public somewhere.  Maybe on Fox News, or by the Romney campaign, or perhaps on a commercial produced by some right-wing super-PAC devoted to tearing down the Obama administration.  Wherever it surfaces, I feel very confident that, even with my answers tallied in with the rest, it won't accurately reflect the way I tried to answer the loaded questions.  

People hear poll results, and they assume that they reflect the truth.  This one won't.  I think the American people deserve better than this when faced with the task of casting votes that will set the direction of the country for the next four years.  That just makes sense to me.  How about you?

 I welcome your comments on this and other posts - just click on the "__ comments" link below

To follow my blog, use the email gadget at right

The End of Civility?

Last year, a Republican Congressman showed an unprecedented lack of respect for the office of the Presidency by shouting out "You lie" during the State of the Union address to Congress.  At that time, I was willing to consider the possibility that Joe Wilson was an anomaly - that he was simply a rude person, and not at all typical of his like-minded conservative friends.

Well, with apologies to some of the decent conservative friends I have, I must admit that I'm losing confidence in the common decency of the Right.  Recently, President Obama held a press conference in the White House Rose Garden, to announce a change in enforcement of immigration laws.  During the President's announcement, a "reporter" in the press corps continually interrupted him by repeatedly shouting out questions.  The reporter, Neil Munro of The Daily Caller, was doing nothing more than throwing out loaded questions like "Why do you favor foreigners over Americans?"  I'm surprised he didn't ask the President why he enjoys beating his wife - it's about as valid a question.  The fact is that the press corps traditionally has shown respect for the office of the Presidency, and Munro was way out of line with his behavior.  There are plenty of us who disagreed with much of what George W. Bush did in office, but I can't recall a single instance of a reporter in Bush's press corps demonstrating the lack of civility that Munro did with his rude outbursts.

So what exactly is The Daily Caller anyway?  It's a web-based outlet for news and opinion, founded by long-time conservative pundit Tucker Carlson and former Dick Cheney adviser Neil Patel.  Can they really claim to be objective reporters of the news?  And Carlson actually has the gall to defend his reporter's behavior!  What has happened to the time-honored tradition of showing respect for the office, even when one disagrees with the person who holds the office?

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that this attitude of disrespect is firmly grounded in hypocrisy - the hypocrisy of the Right.  Where were you, conservative Republicans, when George W. Bush led us into war with Iraq without a declaration from Congress?  Or when he unilaterally declared that it was OK to hold detainees forever without due process?  Or when he used the NSA to wiretap phone conversations without a warrant?

And where are you now, conservative Republicans, while candidate Mitt Romney is declaring that, on his first day in office, he would disable Obama Care by granting broad exemptions to states - something which is specifically prohibited by law until 2017 - and even then only under strict controls?

Just browse the social media for a while, and you will find people who are now calling our President a "dictator" and calling for his impeachment.  I ask you folks:  what is it about Barack Obama that makes you apply a standard that you totally ignore when it comes to Republicans?  Do you even see your own hypocrisy?

I know only one thing:  if we ever hope to get anything accomplished in this country, the two sides have to re-learn the art of compromise.  Mutual respect is the first step in the process of compromise.  If the right-wingers continue to show a lack of civility in their daily dealings, there is little hope that any progress will be made - in any direction.  That just makes sense to me.  How about you?

 I welcome your comments on this and other posts - just click on the "__ comments" link below

To follow my blog, use the email gadget at right

Farewell, Merry Mailman!

Just 4 days after my sixth birthday, a TV show called "The Merry Mailman" made its debut on New York's local Channel 9.  The show featured an actor named Ray Heatherton, playing a friendly neighborhood mail carrier who sang songs, told stories, played games with the kids in the studio audience, and talked directly with us, the kids who were huddled around the small black-and-white TV screen at home.  He was a good and trusted friend.  Unfortunately, about 6 years later, he fell victim to the Communist witch hunt that gripped the nation during the 1950's, and his wonderful show was cancelled.  As a kid, I had no idea of the political maneuverings that were taking place behind the scenes - all I knew is that our Merry Mailman was gone.

Flash forward to the present.  I feel like my real merry mailman is about to disappear, and that most of the nation remains blissfully unaware of the political maneuverings that are causing the Postal Service's existence to be in serious jeopardy - to my mind, for no good reason.

In 2006, after the Democratic Party swept the midterm elections and took both the House and the Senate, the lame-duck Republican Congress passed a law requiring the Postal Service to prefund health care premiums for future retirees 75 years out.  This prefunding has to be accomplished within a 10-year period, ending in 2016.  The cost of the prefunding is about $5.5 billion per year - a total of 55 billion dollars over the 10-year period.  Yet, the Postal Service is singled out as the only governmental agency subject to this requirement.  And just imagine the reaction of stockholders if any private corporation were to fund retirement benefits for employees who have not yet even been hired, and start out every fiscal year billions of dollars in debt!

And now a quick quiz!  How much of your tax money goes to support the US Postal Service?  Answer:  none!  Ever since the Nixon administration, the Postal Service has been 99% financed by the sale of stamps and other services.  The remaining 1% comes from the government, but this is considered payment for the franking privileges (the right to send out informative mailings to constituents) extended to members of Congress, the free mail privileges extended to members of the military, and reduced rate privileges extended to non-profits such as churches and charities.

So even though the Postal Service has not been a tax-supported agency for over 40 years, the 2006 Congress has saddled it with this burden that has forced it to formulate plans to begin closing post offices and sorting facilities as soon as next month.  If you depend on the US Mail to get prescription medications or pension checks, they may take longer to get to you.  If you live in a small town, you may not be a zip code any more.  And forget mail on Saturdays.  Farewell, Merry Mailman!

So those are the facts.  But why has Congress done this to the Post Office?  I have my own theories, including:

• The closing of postal facilities will result in at least 200,000 jobs being lost by postal workers.  If your primary goal is to prevent a second Obama term, as Mitch McConnell has stated it is, wouldn't it be convenient to show negative job numbers right before the election?
• Postal workers have some of the strongest unions representing them.  If you are intent on dismantling labor unions, as tea party Republicans in states like Wisconsin have been doing, wouldn't it be great to see this long-standing bastion of unionized workers collapse and fail?
• If you were an official of a private corporation in direct competition with the Post Office (as UPS and FedEx are), wouldn't you strongly support organizations like ALEC (as UPS and FedEx do) who are now pushing for the privatization of the Postal service and/or diversion of Post Office business to private corporations?  And if you don't know anything about ALEC, read my previous blog post.

I for one think that it's downright amazing that for a mere 45 cents, I can have an envelope hand-delivered to a doorstep at the opposite end of the country in a matter of a few days.  I don't want to lose that privilege.  I intend to contact my Congressman and Senators, and urge them to repeal the prefunding provision of 2006.  It makes sense to me.  How about you?

 I welcome your comments on this and other posts - just click on the "__ comments" link below

To follow my blog, use the email gadget at right

I'm AFRAID of ALEC ... I'm Very Afraid!

No, not Alec Baldwin!  He may make the headlines pretty often with his outbursts, but I kind of like him.  In fact, my wife and I usually spend New Year's Eve with him (more on that later).  No, this ALEC doesn't make headlines often enough, but it's a group you should know more about ... and learn to fear.  ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, describes itself as a "nonpartisan individual membership organization of state legislators."  

Individual membership organization?  The individual membership dues of $50 per year paid by state legislators who are ALEC members accounts for less than 2% of ALEC's funding.  The rest comes from corporations, corporate trade groups, corporate foundations, and the like.  Corporate members pay between $7000 and $25,000 per year, plus additional fees for participating in ALEC's task forces.  ALEC also accepts direct grants from corporate sources, such as the $1.4 kicked in by Exxon-Mobil.

Nonpartisan?  Of the 104 legislators in leadership positions, you would need exactly one finger to count the number of Democrats in the mix.  Past ALEC members and honorees include Eric Cantor, Rick Perry, Joe "You Lie" Wilson, Tom DeLay, Scott Walker, and the Koch brothers, also big-time ALEC contributors.

On ALEC's task forces, corporations debate and vote on "model" bills alongside the legislator members.  Model bills?  ALEC is pressing for bills such as Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law that has garnered so much media attention lately.  They are champions of privatizing education, ending public schools as we know them.  They are responsible for many of the new voter ID laws around the country, which have had the effect of disenfranchising minority voters.  In fact, as some of these voter ID laws are in the process of being struck down, Pennsylvania just passed one.  Care to guess how many cases of voter fraud Pennsylvania has had?  Hint:  you won't even need one finger to count them.

Let me get back to Alec Baldwin.  No, we're not personal friends, but we do get to share New Year's Eve every year.  Baldwin serves as the PBS host for the annual New York Philharmonic gala concert every December 31st.  During the performance, he takes a seat in the box next to the one we sit in - and I've never seen him have a temper tantrum or play Words With Friends during a concert.  So I'm not afraid of that Alec.  The other ALEC - I'm very afraid.  How about you?

I welcome your comments on this and other posts - just click on the "__ comments" link below

To follow my blog, use the email gadget at right

A Thought For Your Pennies...

Oh, Canada!  How smart you are!  The Canadian government just announced that they are doing away with the penny.  It seems that one Canadian penny costs more than a penny to produce; they estimate that they will save $11 million per year by no longer producing the coin.  Canada is not the first country to make this all-too-logical decision - other countries who have eliminated their smallest-valued coins in recent years include the United Kingdom, Australia, and Israel.  So if it's good enough for our friends north of the border, why not for us?  A US penny actually costs 2.4 cents to make - imagine what our country could save by eliminating it.

I can't imagine that the repercussions would be very significant.  Cash payments could be rounded to the nearest nickel, and legislation could guarantee that.  All electronic transactions, especially credit card purchases, could still be made to the exact cent.  In fact, my favorite pizza parlor has already eliminated the penny.  If I order a pizza and the final amount shows $16.48 on the register, the cashier tells me the amount is $16.45.  Imagine that - I actually save money this way!  And all those $19.99 prices that sellers think make them sound like they're less than $20 may very well get changed to $19.95.

If it were up to me, I'd go one step further; I would do away with the dollar bill.  We already have dollar coins, and I personally think it's a pain that there is virtually nothing you can buy without reaching into your billfold for paper money.  Wouldn't it be easier to just pluck a few coins from your pocket the next time you pick up a newspaper or a soft drink?  And don't tell me, "people don't use dollar coins!"  They will, if it's the only game in town.  Now a dollar coin costs about 5 times as much to produce as a dollar bill, but it lasts 15 to 25 times longer.  So the initial investment might be a bit higher, but the federal budget would be reduced in the long run.

Well, it all makes sense to me.  How about you?

I welcome your comments on this and other posts - just click on the "__ comments" link below

To follow my blog, use the email gadget at right

Mega-Madness

So the MegaMillions lottery jackpot was up to $363 million this week, and it was of course a major news story.  Now it's rather intuitive that a major news story about something which hasn't actually happened yet is kind of difficult to report on, so the creative juices were really flowing on all the television networks.  A few days ago, I caught an in-depth report on one of the network news shows about the lottery.  The story featured an interview with an "expert" on how to win the lottery.  His advice included such gems as studying the numbers that have come up in past drawings, and choosing the numbers that are "due" to come up.

I spent my life teaching Math, so I count folks like this guy among the failures of the efforts of my colleagues and me.  How many times did I ask the question, "If a fair coin is flipped and comes up heads, what is the probability that the next flip comes up heads?"  (I hope you know the answer is 1/2.)  The only way that previous results could become relevant is if the lottery ping-pong balls are rigged, either intentionally or not.  However, great pains are taken to insure that the drawings are fair, including selecting the set of ping-pong balls randomly from several available sets, weighing them before and after the drawings, and using an independent auditing agency to oversee the drawing process.  So it still all comes down to probability, and you can no more predict which numbers are likely to come up than you can predict whether that proverbial coin is going to come up heads or tails.

So nobody won the drawing last night, and the jackpot is up to $476 million.  I suppose the news coverage between now and Friday will be even more intense, and people may be lining up to buy tickets.  That's a mentality I can't understand - would the folks going crazy now not be content to win a paltry $20 million or so?  I say, just calm down, everyone.  Buy a ticket if you want - the probability of winning is incredibly small, but when you think about it, virtually every event in your life is the result of an incredibly unlikely occurrence happening.  We don't notice, because nobody gives us a few million dollars for things like walking out the door at the exact same time as your next-door neighbor.

So please, news networks, let's not go crazy with this.  And for goodness sake, don't feed into the mentality that people can actually do something to improve their chances of winning.  Let's keep things in perspective - lotteries are entertainment, not an alternative to a 401k.

I welcome your comments on this and other posts - just click on the "__ comments" link below

To follow my blog, use the email gadget at right

NRA's Target:  Perpetuating Lies

My phone rang a few minutes ago, and I was greeted by a robo-call from none other than Wayne LaPierre, President of the National Rifle Association.  Good ol' Wayne was kind enough to warn me that President Obama has found a way to circumvent the US Constitution by signing a treaty that will allow the United Nations to come onto US soil and take away our rights to gun ownership.  I'm not exaggerating - that's what he said.  The call even ended with a "survey" question, asking if I thought it was OK for the UN to be allowed onto our soil to enforce a gun ban.

The "information" in LaPierre's call is apparently based on the same source as a chain email that has been circulating of late. The email starts off by stating that President Obama " intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." It goes on to state that the administration will "bypass the normal legislative process in Congress" by signing treaties, and that "we will wake up [some] morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment."

OK, I've admitted in a previous post that Social Studies was my weakest subject in school, but I didn't exactly major in Stupid.  Even I know that any treaty signed by the President is subject to ratification by at least two-thirds of the Senate, and we all know how hard it's been lately to achieve that level of agreement in the august body.  I also know that no treaty with a foreign nation can supersede the US Constitution and laws.  And I honestly can't even begin to believe that this is on the Obama agenda, since the only piece of gun legislation he's signed since he took office called for an expansion of gun ownership rights, by allowing loaded and concealed weapons in national parks.  Seriously, Wayne, how little do you think of us American citizens to figure that we'd fall for your claptrap?

If you want to debate the merits of gun control, fine - that's what our system of government is all about.  But how does it serve the public good to perpetuate partisan lies?

I welcome your comments on this and other posts - just click on the "__ comments" link below

To follow my blog, use the email gadget at right

If This is Socialism, Just Call Me "Marx"

This morning, I made the short trip down to our public library on Main Street to attend my weekly Yoga class.  When I was a young man, I was quite accomplished at Yoga, was trained extensively, and even taught a few classes myself.  Now that I'm in those "golden" years, I find that I don't have that same flexibility I had when I was half this age.  However, I'll be damned if I'll let myself get stiff - at least, not without putting up a pretty good fight.  So I get myself out to class once a week and do some basic stretches, twists, bends, and balances along with the good number of other folks in the class.  

I imagine that not all of the people in the class could afford to maintain this regimen if it were not for the affordable price of the class, which is part of the public library's program.  I could probably get a class of the same or even better quality in a private studio - of which there are plenty around here - but probably at nearly ten times the cost.  So how does the library manage to offer such a useful program at such a low price?  There's a tax levy specifically for the library district, which amounts to less than I would pay just for weekly Yoga classes in a private studio.  And for this, I also have access to books, audio discs, videos, downloads, and much more.  Just last year, when a hurricane knocked out power to our area for four days, that same library set up extra stations for people to come in to charge their cell phones and use their laptops to check email.  I took advantage of their friendly service, after striking out at our local Starbucks and other private establishments not equipped to handle the demand.

When I hear arguments from the right side of the political spectrum, it seems that all I hear is that services are better offered through the private sector, and that public services provided by taxation smack of Socialism.  Now, I'm not advocating a socialist economy where the means of production are publicly owned - there is certainly a place for capitalist businesses in our country.  But there should also be a place reserved for services like libraries, schools, sanitation collection, transportation, and anything else that serves the common good.  Let's not be bullied into being afraid to support these public agencies because of a label slapped on them by partisan political interests.

So next week, I'm going out to vote "yes" on the proposed library budget.  How about you?

I welcome your comments on this and other posts - just click on the "__ comments" link below

To follow my blog, use the email gadget at right

Redefining "Majority"

ma·jor·i·ty   [muh-jawr-i-tee, -jor-] noun, plural -ties.

1.

the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total ( opposed to 
minority): the majority of the population.

2.

a number of voters or votes, jurors, or others in agreement, constituting more than 
half of the total number.

A local school district recently announced that they are preparing two separate budget proposals, one that stays within the confines of the 2% tax cap imposed by state law, and a second that reflects the true financial needs of the school district but will require a 60% majority vote in order to enact.  That's right - in case you didn't know it, New York State now requires a 60% majority vote for any municipality to adopt a budget that would result in more than a 2% tax increase.

Before you get upset with me, let me firmly state that I am not advocating bloated budgets or high taxes.  I am advocating letting the majority of the voting constituency to make the decision they think is best.  Allowing 40% of the voters to decide what should happen runs counter to everything I was ever taught about the American democratic process, and strikes me as pure nonsense.


This is not the only place where this happens; the US Senate also comes to mind.  In the Senate, a 40% minority can sustain a filibuster and block legislation that is supported by the other 60%.  And don't think filibusters work like you saw in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.  The minority doesn't need to have someone stand on the floor of the Senate until he/she passes out, they just have to vote and then go about their normal business.


I also liken the concept of term limits to this "tyranny of the minority."  If the majority of US voters (or at least electors) had wanted to see Bill Clinton or George W. Bush serve a third term, that should have been their choice.  I figure term limits came about because one political party couldn't find an opponent good enough to be a reasonable alternative to the incumbent.  In my mind, we've always had term limits and always will - all we need do is vote out the person we don't like.


So the New York State tax cap is, to me, just one more way to limit our voices as voters.  I'd be delighted if it were stricken from the law, along with the Senate filibuster rule and term limit laws.

To comment on this or other posts, click on the "__ comments" link below.

To follow my blog by email, use the box at right.

On a Personal Note ...

I may not be able to blog regularly for the next week or so.  We're packing up our beloved Cavaliers and heading for a dog show in Virginia.  I hope you miss me.

I Love a Parade

I grew up on suburban Long Island during the 1950's, when the small-town atmosphere was prevalent.  One of the highlights of my childhood was the not-often-enough opportunity I had to see a local parade with my family.  On Memorial Day, the staging area for the parade was at the elementary school at the top of our block, so all we had to do was to step out of our front door to watch the parade go by.  For the other parades, we would trek the half-mile or so into the village, and cheer as our friend, Fred the barber, marched by with the Fire Department, or as my brother marched by with the Boy Scout troop.  The operative word here is "marched."

Yesterday, I walked into our village with my wife, grandson, and two dogs, to see the St. Patrick's Day parade.  The old thrill of my childhood returned when I heard the leading bagpipe-and-drum corps coming down the street.  I couldn't wait to hear the nostalgic sounds of the marching bands, and to honor the local service groups marching down the street.

Well, my anticipation died quickly, as what seemed like hundreds of groups from Cub Scouts to local dance schools meandered sloppily through town, as if on a leisurely stroll on a beautiful spring day.  A few groups, like the local Fire Department and the US Marines, managed to march in the way I was expected to when I was a Cub Scout all those years ago, but much of the "parade" was little more than a bunch of people walking and waving at another bunch of people watching.  We couldn't even muster the strength to stay until what was apparently the one and only marching band came by.

I also noted something of a mixed message, as I see in pretty much every modern parade.  To my mind, every parade has a purpose.  Yesterday we came out to honor the Irish-American heritage, so I expected to see groups like the Ancient Order of Hibernians.  On Veteran's Day, I show up to honor the local VFW posts, and on Columbus Day I look forward to seeing the Sons of Italy march with pride.  

The next parade up on the queue this year is Memorial Day, and I'm hoping I don't see a repeat of what happened last year.  On that day, we went to honor those who have given so much to defend our country, but we were totally taken aback by the appearance of a group called the Conservative Society for Action, a right-wing tea party political group that desecrated the real purpose of the parade to hand out literature and blast a purely political message on their PA.  Their "literature" sent a clear message that Democrats like me are not true patriots, and that we need to get more Republicans of their ilk into office.  Sure made me feel good about coming out to honor those who gave their lives in military service!

I have a few suggestions, just in case there are any parade organizers among my readers:

• Line up several marching bands for each parade, and intersperse them among the other community groups.
• Try to keep to a theme for each parade that's consistent with the purpose of the day.
• Ask the groups that march to march.  I'm not one to advocate indoctrination of our youth into paramilitary organizations, but there's nothing wrong with expecting a parading group to walk in uniform, in line, and in step.  It's something worth coming out for.
• For Heaven's sake, don't allow groups with a political agenda to ruin the experience!

Are you listening, parade organizers?

To comment on this or other posts, click on the "__ comments" link below.

To subscribe to my blog, use the email gadget at right.

Your Friday Quiz

As a teacher, I always liked giving tests and quizzes on Fridays - it seemed such an appropriate way to wrap up the week!  So here's your quiz for this week.  It's easy - just figure out which of the following "news" stories is fake:

• A bronze bust of Rush Limbaugh is to be enshrined in the Missouri State House, along with one of Dred Scott.
• "Joe the Plumber" is a legitimate Republican candidate for Congress.
• Representative Scott Brown of Massachusetts is criticizing his Democratic challenger for being heavily funded by Hollywood stars.
• The NAACP is actively fighting state election laws that have disenfranchised an estimated five million minority voters this year.
• The number one viral video on YouTube is a documentary about a Ugandan child-killer.
• On the campaign trail, Mitt Romney raved about his breakfast of biscuits and grits.
• A Florida woman ran herself over with her Oldsmobile Toronado.

So which is the fake story?  Don't go on to the next paragraph until you've got your answer...

Do you have your answer yet?  No, the answer is not in this paragraph - I was just testing you to see if you can follow directions.  Don't go on until you have your answer!

Surprise - they're all true stories!  To me, this is especially disturbing, because every one of these seven news stories has some aspect that is disturbing to me.  So here's the real quiz:  Can you truthfully say that there is any story there that doesn't disturb you at least a little?

I welcome your comments about this and other posts.

You can subscribe to my blog using the email gadget at right.

Where Have You Gone, Dwight D. Eisenhower?

With all the media attention focused on the continuing Republican tragi-comedy of the primary races, a story that to me deserves much more attention got buried.  Long-time liberal anti-war Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich lost his primary bid in a newly combined congressional district.  More significantly, his opponent (who now faces an election against none other than Joe the Plumber) is clearly a much more moderate - sometimes conservative - Democrat than the fiery Kucinich.  

Here's the conundrum:  It seems that, as the political heat gets turned up, Republicans move further to the right, but Democrats move further toward the center.  The effect is to move the entire country to the right.  Yesterday's solidly conservative Republicans would be today's centrist Democrats.  A case in point is Dwight Eisenhower, who was the Republican President while I made the journey from an innocent 9-year-old to an opinionated 17-year-old.  Eisenhower came from Kansas, and embodied all the conservative Republican values of the day.  But he also helped dethrone Joseph McCarthy, expand Social Security, develop the Interstate Highway System, and protect civil rights.  He was a former five-star general who eventually warned the country about the "unwarranted influence ... of the military-industrial complex."  He couldn't possibly fit in today with the likes of Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich.

Kucinich's exit from the political scene disturbs me as much as the disappearance of sensible Republicans like Ike.  Eight years ago, my wife and I had the pleasure of meeting Kucinich in a setting where we took part in a small one-on-one discussion.  He took the time to listen to our views and answer all of our questions without rushing us off.  I found him to be as sincere in his beliefs as he was passionate in his causes.  His departure from government will be yet another symptom of the wholesale movement of the country to the right.  I will miss having him in Congress ... but I think I miss the old-guard Republicans even more.

I welcome your comments on this and other posts.

Use the email box at right to subsccribe to my blog.