What is happening in Egypt?

And whose fault is it?

I have been, as many people around the world, reading a lot about what is going on with Egypt. If you are old enough, you definitely do remember the upheaval in Iran that led to the dictatorship of Khomeni and eventually got us to where we are today with Iran being a nuclear threat to the region. Is that what is going on with Egypt?

Some immediately have been blaming Obama. If you are part of a group of kids who were playing baseball and suddenly a ball goes through a window, it's the kid holding the bat who will get the blame-- rightly so or not.

Some did the same thing with Iran when Carter happened to be president after years of our propping up a brutal dictator with one American president after another doing the same thing. We stopped propping and we got Khomeni.

Is that where we are with Egypt? Bush pulled his punches on Egypt's Mubarak also The thing is you have a dictator who you know brutalizes his people but he's your guy in a region where there aren't many who are. What do you do about that?

I thought this was a good article with some of the basics of what has been happening and possibly why although I am sure there is a lot more to this:

Egypt Protests-- Questions and Answers

Here's the thing you wonder when something happens like this-- does someone profit from it and if so, who? It's usually follow the money but sometimes is follow the fanaticism.

It is natural in such times to wonder how much is being inspired by those behind 9/11, especially when one of them was Egyptian and probably became enraged at least partly due to what he saw happening in Egypt under Mubarak.

It looks like this is the kind of thing some would relish having happen in our country. Do they ever stop to think? On the other hand if you end up with 40% unemployment with the cost of living skyrocketing, what exactly do you do about it? What should our country do?

If the Egyptian people do get free elections, might they welcome a Khomeni style leader as the Iranians did? You think they didn't. Read Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi, to see how the middle class can support such a thing without realizing fully where it will take them. Another good look at it is a documentary, The Queen and I, about journalist and previous revolutionary, Nahid Persson Sarvestani and Queen Farah Pahlavi, the widow of the Shah. Revolution doesn't always take you where you want to go, but neither does tolerating intolerable conditions.

So where does that leave a country when the existing situation is intolerable and for any rightie who thinks that is us, they are so clueless it's not worth trying to debate it with them. Where does it leave our country? Continuing to prop up a dictator? Finding a way to a real transition of power but to whom next?

I sure don't have the answer but what it ends up being may impact the world and that whole region. Can you imagine the impact if there was a peaceful transfer to a regime really wanting the best for the Egyptian people where there were jobs and chances for good lives? It could be huge. The other possibility could also and in the opposite direction.

Rahm Emanuel

The Illinois Supreme Court just made a good decision, I think, by allowing Rahm Emanuel to run for mayor of Chicago and not blocking him on a residency question. The whole thing boggles my mind that it ever came up.

Emanuel kept his home in Chicago. While he did lease it out (likely for economic reasons), it was with some of his furniture still in it. He rented a home in DC while he worked there. He voted in Illinois and kept his driver's registration there. He said he would return.

To deny he was still a resident of Chicago and Illinois would do the same thing to any military person serving our country. Whether he will be elected as mayor I don't know and wouldn't hazard an opinion as I don't know the other candidates; but to me he had every right to run and I am glad to see a court decision that made sense.

SOTU

I think I have mentioned before that I don't listen to political speeches hardly ever. I made an exception with the Memorial in Tucson because of my belief that energy matters when people need healing and when we need to change an attitude of a large number of people. Other times I'd rather read the words later and not get caught up in the rhetoric of the moment. I also have little interest in reading a lot of commentary regarding whether it was a good speech as that will depend on which side the pundit was on before it began.

I liked the words in Obama's speech. The trouble comes with implementation... or not. This certainly isn't a time where everybody gets what they want. It also isn't a time where we can ignore the world in our struggle to make our own people's lives better. We are in a global world and whether it's terrorism, overthrow of one country by another, or economics, we can't hide over here and ignore it. We also can't make it our priority as without a strong home base, we can't do anything for anybody.

For anyone who didn't watch the speech and who would like to read his ideas, here's the link: Text of Obama's State of the Union.

I didn't bother to read the text of the loyal opposition because I pretty well knew what it'd be and think it's unrealistic but better than the disloyal opposition :). Listening to someone like the far far right's spokesman (self-appointed by herself), to hear her ignorance while she spouts what people want to hear, while ignoring facts, well that's beyond my emotional state right now.

These times are difficult but there is always hope we can pull it together. Our ancestors did time after time or we'd not be here.

For another look at the speech, check out this link: From Adgitadiaries-- stake in the Union

For another look at John Boehner, who it is always hard to take even one look at let alone watch through a SOTU, this is one from Matt Taibbi for Rolling Stone. When I began to wonder who will do any research on any of what these guys do, it is beginning to look like we can kiss off MSM and have to look to magazines or other outlets-- The Crying Shame of John Boehner

Eisenhower on what should matter to us as a people

For a long time, I have been very disillusioned with how our media operates. They take a disaster such as happened in Tucson and exploit every possible element of it. They create 15 minute heroes or villains and we are bombarded by more information than we ever wanted to know.

I really hope this time they will let Gabrielle Giffords heal in private. That means no Oprah interview with everybody attached to the event or who possibly knew Giffords at one time. Let the families heal also but in private. Could the media, just for once, not ask for every detail of the recuperation period and lament over how it's going or not.

To add to this I really hope we will see no more articles on the shooter's possible motivations. I want to see the courts handle it now and personally refuse to read anything more about him. I really hope they don't release the tapes of the actual shooting. Oh please not that to encourage some future nut to get his 15 minutes of fame!

To me it's time to go on as a people toward the things we can actually impact, which means positive steps to dealing with gun regulations, better ways of handling the mentally ill, learning to debate issues and not tear apart people. Could we quit reveling in juicy details of all sorts. I might be hoping for too much.

At any rate, I won't write about it again but rather try to look to the future (whenever I do write about politics) and what can and should we be doing as a people to improve the lives of all people in our country. We most of us know something went wrong. Let's look at what it might be and start making positive steps toward changing it.

Along with that, this was a very good article on some wisdom from Dwight Eisenhower as he left office. It's too bad we didn't follow it. If we had, Vietnam would be a country overseas and not a blight on our history that seems to still impact what we do. More of our citizens would still be alive with grandchildren on their knees. I am afraid we got more caught up in emotionalism, fear talk, and paid less attention to practicality. We still do.

Eisenhower's Farewell Address and Why It Matters More than JFK's Inaugural Address

I have read a lot of quotes from Eisenhower but this kind of puts his philosophy in one place. It's not too late for us to take it to heart...

Resolve not Fury

When we find things we can do about a particular problem, we feel empowered. I've been thinking what can I do about the negative atmosphere in our country which is impacting us on various levels from physical to emotional.

One solution is political and how to help get people elected with our moral values. During the last election, we donated money to two political candidates. One wasn't in our district, but we knew he was really good at supporting the issues we care about, good for our country. It was the first time we had donated outside our voting district. I can see it won't be the last. We need to provide conomic and physical support for people who are offering reasonable ideas, not pushing paranoia or anger. It's one tool we have.

Another of my ideas has been for in place for quite awhile-- not watch any programing that pushes hate or fear. And by that, I mean right and left. The hate can be inspired many ways, but I am beginning to listen for key words. When a pundit uses one, I turn them off right then. I probably need to write to the particular network or outlet and tell them what I did and why.

That left a problem with programs that I never watch or listen to. What could I do to possibly change a Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh and encourage them to write more of their conservative ideas and less of their demonization of the 'other'? It's not like they care what I, a leftie, think. They already know I have no use for their way of thinking because I, and many like me who once did listen to them, quit years ago.

This might surprise some lefties, but before the GW Bush years, Limbaugh was less a shill for a certain segment of the Republican party (think Dick Cheney) and more into discussing real issues from a coservative slant. Whatever has happened to him since, when I do hear him, which is only on trips where talk radio is all that is available, he becomes intolerable quickly. It's all attack and no real discussion of alternative ideas that might work in a nation as complex as ours. Was he competing with Glenn Beck and had to go further right? I don't know but just cutting taxes will not solve our very real problems.

So what can a person do? The idea of boycotting their corporate sponsors, their economic enablers is growing on me. The more I have thought of it, the more I feel reduced anger and a sense of resolve. Resolved means a determination to calmly and with no anger, do what I can.

That means no enemy lists because those sponsors are not evil. They are enablers. We can work to stop that from proving profitable.

I didn't come to this idea easily. It was kind of a last resort for me when I read the reaction from Limbaugh and the others to the recent shooting. It came thinking of a little girl being brutally murdered and one group of people not wanting to even consider they might have some responsibility for how they talk. It came out of a sense that any of us could have been there that day.

There is no hope for the far righties changing if this horrible event didn't convince them that the atmosphere is poisoned. If they are still justifying themselves, it will take something that hits at what matters to them. Maybe that's money.

When I went looking online for a list of sponsors of Limbaugh, I saw this has been in other people's minds already. I won't be posting any lists here and will try to keep track of whether these sponsors drop him. It isn't enough to just stop buying, we have to tell them why. It is important to notify the company of why.

The last thing I want to do is demonize any human being. I do not want to be part of a future violent attack against anyone. I also don't want to have violent dreams which I have had since the Tucson shootings. Last night, after I realized what could be done, the anger was gone and there was no midnight dream of being witness to something violent happening to someone else.

We don't have to put our heads in the sand or watch every single thing that happens to the point we become incapacitated by events. What we need now is not anger but resolve. Resolve is a very good word. It's a calm word but one determined to make a difference.

Reacting without Demonizing

For a few days, I will not be very regularly online and unfortunately still have to leave this blog on moderation for obvious reasons. I'll do the best I can with getting on to okay comments that present serious responses, whether in agreement or not, to the political atmosphere of today.]

Reading about the aftermath of the shootings in Tucson and thinking a lot about what we can do to tone down the rhetoric, I've seen various ideas and writers expounding on the problem. It's not going to be easy.

How do you keep the atmosphere civil and still respond to someone like Rush Limbaugh-- The worst thing said this week-- Limbaugh takes the cake.

Can you imagine saying that Democrats relished this happening for political gain? Can you imagine what that means he thinks about people like me? I remember during Bush's time in office with the Iraq war, Limbaugh would say that liberals wanted us to fail there.

It's beyond understanding how he could think that way. I mean I know a lot of liberals and everyone of them hoped that Iraq would succeed for the benefit of the Iraqi people, our troops, and us here in the country. Nobody ever said they hoped it wouldn't work.

What Limbaugh thought is clearly how he thinks. He said, as soon as Obama got in office, that he hoped he'd fail. So no caring for the good of the country or the world, just hoped for failure to benefit his own political or power motivations.

It meant that what he thought about liberals like me was how he thought and through transference put it onto the 'other.' So how do you deal with a person like that?

First we have to realize that everybody, who is not mentally deranged, operates as they do because it benefits them. He is getting something from what he does. If he didn't, he'd do something different. It could be attaboys. It could be a sense of self-righteousness or it could be something else.

I don't clearly know what all he receives from these kinds of words, but one thing sure is money. He is an extremely wealthy man for saying what the far right wants to hear. From where does his money come? A radio station that sells advertising on it to get that money.

So that's one idea-- find out who sponsors those like Limbaugh and write them that as long as we are hearing that kind of fear mongering or vitriol (and there are worse out there than Rush), we're not going to buy what those companies sell and will find what we need elsewhere. That hits at the pocketbook. It goes directly to the seat of the problem because without that money to support their work, they'd have to find a different message.

And I don't recommend we make this a mandate or put up lists but rather we just do it as individuals as part of our desire to not support what is letting people like that profit from that kind of talk. These companies aren't our enemies. They simply make money from being on what is a popular radio program. What if they didn't make the money anymore from it? Limbaugh is a wealthy man, he can sponsor himself if he wants. I have a feeling he won't.

If we demonize someone personally for what they say, we are not helping the atmosphere in our country. If we refuse to support them, call out their words that are inappropriate, but don't put the person out there as being evil, I think we are still being effective in encouraging what we value and discouraging what we do not, And yes, those on the far right can do the exact opposite, but at least we are not ourselves contributing to the violent rhetoric that, in my mind, isn't healthy.

To condemn the person is to encourage possibly someone else to come forth with a violent act and that worries me whether it strikes the left or the right. We are diminished as a people when anyone is assassinated as a method to stop a certain type of political idea from being a choice. We don't have to be part of what is paying for it though.

My ideas on this come out of two things-- one how you raise a child. You don't get anywhere by demonizing them, but you do though your own example, a system of rewards and when need be punishments. You have to get to what matters to them if you want to motivate change in their behavior. Too simple?

Well my other thinking on this was most recently reinforced by watching the children's film (there's always a lot of wisdom in children's films), How to Train Your Dragon, which is based on a children's book. I enjoy many films aimed at kids which I am not sure what that says about me; but this one, artistically, and for the moral to the story has been one I bought and have watched several times for mental therapy.

I like how the hero uses a journal to write down what he is learning, to draw his ideas. I liked how he had to accept he was different from others and that was okay; but I especially liked the ways he learned to reach dragons. It reminded me of something I have always believed but sometimes forget-- everybody has reasons for what they do. They are acting in ways that they feel reward them.

In this case, if we become enraged ourselves by what they say, they win. The more angry we are, Farm Boss reminded me, the more their own audience grows in reaction. Change the energy level and quit rewarding negative behavior (from either side). Reward instead positive acts.

Collective energy

If you believe in a collective human energy, then what I am going to write about will make total sense to you. If not, well, it won't.

I don't generally listen to political speeches. Not any of them. I prefer to read the words afterward as a way to get the ideas without the emotion. In this case though, I felt the Wednesday memorial service in Tucson was different because I do believe in collective energy and wanted to be part of what I believed would be a positive surge of it.

Everything everyone said who spoke seemed part of a memorial service that truly was meant to heal. Very much I liked how Obama spoke to what had happened, where he put his emphasis, the way he personalized the victims and made us aware of the qualities of the heroes (and there were many that day). He was speaking of the best of who America is, and we needed to hear that at this time. He was working on building that positive energy that I believe in so much.

Although most everyone probably either listened to the speech or read the words, I wanted to pull a few out, ones that I felt most concisely spoke to what is needed now. What he was doing was speaking to our good angels, not our bad ones-- and we all have the bad ones, the times we yield to the inner anger and out it spouts.

So the following were the phrases that I think threaded through his words and that we most can take to heart-- if we want a kind of culture that things like happened Saturday don't happen. Some would say that's a dream. I would say it's about a collective human energy that we can build in positive ways or let deteriorate into chaos. Really it is a choice and it's not just what someone else does. It's what we do in our families, our communities, with our words. Do we build or tear down?

"But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds."

"Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together."

"If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate, as it should, let’s make sure it’s worthy of those we have lost. Let’s make sure it’s not on the usual plane of politics and point scoring and pettiness that drifts away with the next news cycle."

"And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse, let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy, but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud. It should be because we want to live up to the example of public servants like John Roll and Gabby Giffords, who knew first and foremost that we are all Americans, and that we can question each other’s ideas without questioning each other’s love of country, and that our task, working together, is to constantly widen the circle of our concern so that we bequeath the American dream to future generations."

These are good words, words right, left and the un-politicized should all take to heart. They are part of building a positive energy that can find solutions to problems that have bedeviled us too long. It is not hopeless and it starts with us wherever we are.

Dealing with mental illness

This is something interesting that I came across which puts a bit of a different perspective on why something wasn't done about the shooter's mental state before it got to this point. From The Washington Post:

Mental health experts say that, unlike many other states - where little can be done to force an unstable person into treatment until he or she becomes violent and poses a danger to themself or others - Arizona is different.

Any person in Arizona can petition the court for a psychiatric evaluation solely because a person appears to be mentally ill and doesn't know it.

"When people appear mentally ill or show some instability, how do you get them to [mental health] resources if the system doesn't know those people are out there?" Cash said. "Our crisis line is manned 24/7. Anyone concerned about his behavior could have called at any time."

Cash added that he had no information on whether Loughner sought out private treatment covered by private insurance. "If he was interfacing with other mental health officials, I don't know about that," Cash said.

To me this puts the onus back on us. The college, the military, people who had been around him and felt concern, any of them could have reported him if what is said above is true. People are understandably reluctant to do this fearing the person or possibly that they will hurt that person's life if they are wrong. Still if someone had, possibly he would have gotten the treatment he didn't think he needed.

That, of course, runs smack up against this:

WASHINGTON -- In the past year alone, Pima County, Arizona, the site of the tragic shooting of 20 individuals including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) has forced more than 45 percent of mental health service recipients off the government rolls, a service advocate tells the Huffington Post.

The drop enrollment was protested strongly at the time, with opponents warning that the reductions would result in a spike in suicide attempts, public disturbances, hospitalizations and law enforcement encounters. But according Clarke Romans, Executive Direct of The National Alliance on Mental Illness’s (NAMI) Southern Arizona Division, the state ignored requests for relief, citing the need to implement strict budget cuts.

Now, in the wake of this past weekend’s horrific shootings, along with subsequent reporting about the seemingly crazed mental state of the shooter, politicians, reporters and activists alike are taking a fresh look at the funding of mental health care

This is another of those things that people want but never want to pay for. It is highly unlikely that these cuts made any difference to a young man who was in denial of having a problem. If his parents were either afraid of him or unwilling to face the truth, he was unlikely to have been seeking help. Still if we want to incarcerate people to determine if they are safe to be out in public, it costs money.

Nuanced living

Nuance Definition from The Free Dictionary:

1. A subtle or slight degree of difference, as in meaning, feeling, or tone; a gradation.

2. Expression or appreciation of subtle shades of meaning, feeling, or tone

One of the problems I have with extremists from the right or the left is they don't get nuances. In fact, nuances are what they call wishy-washy. To me nuances are what define reality and rarely are things all one or the other.

Reactions to the shooting in Tucson are a perfect example of how nuances help and the lack of them lead to unhelpful responses. A lot of people simply seem unable to even understand what a nuance is if they don't see it as plain out evil.

Here's an example-- gun control. It is one of those things that needs a nuanced approach more than anything else. It needs effective thinking followed by action and the fact that none of the nuanced approaches have been enacted shows how little most Americans must like the concept of a nuance.

IF we had an effective gun policy in this country, the Arizona shooter would not have been able to buy the gun he used. The United States does not allow someone who is deemed mentally ill to purchase a gun. The problem is how does the gun seller know the person is mentally ill? My bet is a little talking to this guy would have told any clerk that he wasn't right. Forcing gun buyers to answer certain questions would help a trained gun seller to recognize those we, as a culture, don't want to have guns.

Having a computer system that was functional would do the same thing. Sometimes that is not the case but in his case, there was a trail [community college demanding he be mentally evaluated before returning to class and rejection by the military based obviously on something they saw when he applied] that, if it had gone into as effective a computerized system as say Amazon has, would have prevented his purchase.

States that allow users to purchase what amount to gang warfare armaments aren't helping the ordinary citizen. They are helping arms dealers and not being able to see that from the right is a blind spot. Mostly a blind spot of not being able to see nuances. They have this fear of the slippery slope that if they ban one single type of weapon, they will lose the right to any of them.

This killer didn't have an ability to use logic. I read where his philosophy professor said he couldn't line up two facts to come to a conclusion. That was part of his mental deterioration. Should it be part of our national mental confusion?

Guns kill. Take away all guns. No more killings.

That's logic for some.

While guns do kill, you can't take away all guns. That's just a fact. You can take away them all from people who obey laws. This person wasn't one of those. In this particular setting, someone like him could have come armed with a machete and knife and for sure killed the Congresswoman as well as those standing nearest to her. There'd have been less mayhem but not necessarily less death. He could have come with a bomb strapped to his body and the same result.

That doesn't mean that gun regulation is bad which is the kind of mixed logic you get from the right. They defend the right to buy a sub-machine gun out of a fear that if they can't buy every type of weapon out there, including tanks, they won't be able to buy any. I guess they also see us as a society unable to see and guide our choices by nuanced living.

To many people in this culture, you have to be one thing or the other. Wisdom can never come from the right... or vice versa from the left. Well I read the following that Joe Scarborough had said and I think it's quite wise.

"Timothy McVeigh didn’t come to his conclusions about government in a vacuum.” While the case of Arizona gunman Jared Loughner is very different, he says, “we warned for three years that those who are most affected by the harsh language are people who are detached from reality and can hear the ranting on cable or in parts of the blogosphere.”

We, as as culture, set an atmosphere for thoughtful living or one that demands extremes and can only live by them. No, someone like Sarah Palin didn't lead directly to this shooting, but she is part of a poisoned atmosphere that might well have. She sure wasn't part of the solution.

From all I have read, this young man and his family began to isolate themselves from others probably about the time his mental illness was becoming apparent. Their main sources of information may well have been coming from Internet, television and radio.

When you hear day after day that the government is evil, it doesn't take much to get some minds to take it a step beyond words. I think this particular shooter was not only mentally ill but had obsessed himself on one woman. But in a different atmosphere would he have turned violent? The threats that came before the shooting.

You know it isn't all about what this killer did but what a lot were threatening to do. That's healthy? How many of those who are so enraged have gotten their fuel from the talk radio hate that is spewed day after day? Or the politicians who cater to them?

Back to the issue of guns, I liked the honesty of one of the ones at the shooting, the one who had a gun, and was willing to admit-- I nearly shot the wrong man.

He didn't have to admit that. He showed good judgment and nobody would have known his thought processes in the midst of all of the chaos. What he said was what anybody knows is possible and that means even with trained police officers. When guns are involved, it's chaos and split seconds are involved. Arming everybody will NOT solve the problem of killers with weapons. Nuanced living won't either, but it's a start.

Two Things

After any horrific event, it's logical for thinking people to look at what might have led to it. That is what a culture should be doing after Representative Giffords assassination attempt. This didn't just impact the Congresswoman but also those who were at the event, wounded, murdered, and those traumatized by what they saw.

It also impacted our whole country as everybody of a certain age has gone through this vicariously many times. It might be a leader we followed or for whom we had voted. It might be somewhere we could have been.

The question is what could make a difference and stop it from happening again? Are we truly without options and just have to wait for the next tragedy which might be in a kindergarten or in our own neighborhood?

We are in a culture of death threats and anybody who runs for office politically has probably experienced some of it. It's not unique to Arizona. It's an element of our society that sees a violent response as acceptable and threats go along with that. It's just politics some say. Most of those threats are intended to intimidate and ideally shut the person up. Some though have real violence behind them.

The more that comes out about the shooter in Tucson, the more his mental illness seems obviously to be a factor in what he did. Reading more about it, we can see evidence of his obsession with Giffords that went back years. It might have been her beauty as well as her politics, her Jewishness, her success, or her position as a government leader. He may not even be able to tell anyone what was behind his obsession.

He was certainly picking up right wing talk but from the extremes of the right, not so much the Sarah Palins probably as more the farther out fringe, that shadowy region where most of us don't even know the people's names. Who knew some of their bizarre ideas until we read about it after this blew up? People who want to go looking for weird concepts can easily find them today with the Internet.

The violent rhetoric, the death threats, the singling out one person as evil personified, the personalizing policies to become individuals which leads to wishing them dead and verbalizing it, that isn't healthy whether it had anything to do with Saturday's tragedy or not. Those threats are about trying to shut down a political viewpoint and fear is one of their tactics.

There is a way to tone down the rhetoric from the responsible people on the right and the left. Stop making it about a person. Stop demonizing people and stick to the issues that are being debated. Get all upset about immigration but don't demonize Jan Brewer. Be fervent on anti-abortion but don't single out George Tiller. Sometimes words lead a deranged mind to go a step further.

So that's the first thing.

The second is what are we going to do about mental illness in this country? This young man was clearly seen as a risk and yet nobody was able to do anything about it. Go to The Daily Beast for an assortment of stories on him. After you read that, check out some of the other articles that go into where we are in our country in terms of violence as an 'answer.' Some still see it as a tool that is preferable to the ballot box when the vote doesn't go their way.

Daily Beast had a good article on the developing mental illness of this shooter. It is unclear exactly what was wrong with him mentally, but he was in his own world clearly and it was inhabited by a lot of very violent ideas. He was removed from Pima Community College after an assortment of threatening events and an Internet post. The officials said in order for him to return to class he had to have a mental health evaluation. He just dropped out. Isn't there some way to force people like that to have that mental evaluation? Is that really damaging their civil rights for the country to make sure people who might be mentally unstable are not also inclined toward violence? They don't have to go together, you know.

I realize how those who advocate for the mentally ill won't like what I said but time after time we have these kind of tragic events and almost always people knew ahead of time that it was a time bomb; but they couldn't do anything about it.

Not everyone who has schizophrenia is dangerous. Some hear voices and that typically develops in their late teen years; but those voices don't have to be a threat to the world around them. I am not saying this young man was schizophrenic. I certainly have no idea; but when people are, they typically don't want to get help for it. They often have to be forced into taking the medications that can control the chemistry in their brain enough to allow them to lead normal, or almost normal lives. Let's say-- in control of their own lives.

Because our culture has no way to force mental health evaluations for those who are suspected of being deranged mentally, we have these outbursts every so often (and would maybe get some even if we had a more effective policy toward mental illness) where not only the lives of other people are ruined but also that of the mentally ill person. Isn't there a way to deal with this before it goes so tragically wrong?

Losing patience

From the Arizona newspaper on latest known about Gifford shooting

Losing patience is too mild a way to say what I am feeling right now. I am enraged actually. This tragedy in Arizona is what many have said would happen when the rhetoric had gotten so far out of line and lately mostly coming from the tea party and far right types but I've heard it from the left also.

When you say the government is evil, that it's out to get people, that it should be destroyed, is it really shocking when someone who is mentally unhinged takes it literally and does something about it with a weapon?

When Sarah Palin put the map up with various Congressmen that should be in the cross hairs of the right wing (and she used scope gun-sights to make her point), what exactly was she saying should happen to Gifford, who was one of those targeted? When Sharron Angle used the same kind of violent rhetoric in her campaign for a senate seat, what was she expecting? Oh they will claim not me-- but reality is many people were saying this was coming due to that kind of rash talk and use of imagery that appealed to the violent mind. The loose talk pointed the gun but didn't pull the trigger. That makes it okay? Certainly Palin never wanted this to happen but when you stir up a whirlwind, and she's been part of that, anybody can be the victim.

When I read one right wing blogger saying this was just another tragic killing, I felt the anger surge through me. It's not just another killing. It is an attack on our system, and that person has not only put out some of the same anti-government talk but has commenters who go further. Sure right wingers today don't want to see it as being about them. They will reassure their supporters that it's not. It's got to be seen as unconnected because anything else would give them some responsibility for what they write or say.

Yes, we have to have freedom to speak our minds to express our views when we are furious at a government policy; but can't that be done directed against the 'policy' and not an individual? Can't it be done without enemy lists? Can't it be done as a desire to fix government, not destroy it?

The thing is this kind of violence doesn't just go one way. In my lifetime right wingers have been targets also because when you encourage a time of violent threats, it can go either direction with somebody who is, at the least, mentally unstable.

Most of the assassinations in this country have been done by someone who is borderline schizophrenic if not clearly over the edge. The more we learn about the Tucson shooter, the more this seems to be the case. They are angry at the world. They see threats everywhere and they can just as easily turn their violence on a rightie as a leftie. Read a little of his thinking (if we can call it that) and you see someone who has become enraged against a political system and the people who support it.

Representative Giffords had just been through what has been described as a brutal reelection campaign against a tea partier but she was not a leftie in her views. She was what is called a blue-dog democrat which means pretty conservative generally. She did though vote for the health care bill and that led to threats against her life earlier as well as vandalism to her office in Tucson.

What Giffords represented though was government and to some government has been the evil. They want to strike out against it and they will choose what target they can reach.

The killer in this case not only wanted to kill her but also those who supported her. It is looking more and more like his targets were all in the audience of those coming to meet her. A nine-year old girl who wanted to be in politics, a right wing judge who just wanted to say thanks for help Giffords had given, retired people, just those who care about politics and wanted to see someone who was their representative in Congress. When I think about one of my grandchildren being at such an event, they are also interested in politics because of their parents' teaching, I am furious at the ones who have talked in ways that led to this.

The guy who did the shooting is clearly mentally unstable if not actually insane. So who was mentally stable who talked in a way that gave his mind a direction that led him to go with a gun to that Safeway store I know so well? Who gained power from that kind of rhetoric?

This guy didn't shoot randomly. He shot a United States Representative and those who support her. To shoot that little girl in the chest, he had to have aimed for her. She was nine. He was trying to shoot our whole system and anyone who supports it. If you read anything about what he had said on his Internet pages, you see a disturbed mind who has picked up bits of this and that ending up becoming a killing machine.

He got directed by angry rhetoric and whether someone is saying a rightie should be killed or a leftie, they should be ashamed of themselves today. We have seen these tragedies too many times in our history and we should not be part of them happening. Oh the people who said the violent things, they didn't do it. They just directed someone else to feel they must!

And our whole system is their victim for it unless something is learned from this. I won't count on it.

[This is another link that I saw after I had posted the above. I think it's worth reading for more possible insights into what led to this tragedy: Hate group a factor?]

Political assassinations

The assassination attempt on an Arizona Congresswoman was upsetting to me on several levels. There is naturally the compassion for her family and her friends, for all the innocent bystanders, like the 9 year old child, who simply got in the way of a madman's bullet.

When I have been somewhere, spent time there, when it's near my home, it hits home on a different level. I could be there. These things have happened in malls all across our country and most actually do have a political motive of some sort behind them in that the person wants to strike out at others for wrongs they feel are done against themselves.

Andrew Sullivan has had some interesting thoughts about this one as much as anybody can have them as it is unfolding and we don't know it all yet-- Live Blogging on the attempted murder of Representative Giffords.

In my lifetime political assassinations have happened too many times. It doesn't matter if the target it someone I admire or not. It's about an attempt by one person to limit political dialogue and to kill a leader thereby intimidating others from leading or at least from being out in the public where they are vulnerable to such dangers.

Representative Giffords was doing what we want our Congresspeople to do-- listening to the people. Those who were shot may or may not have even been attending her event. Anybody could have been walking into Safeway at that time. Don't things like this scare others from being near such events, scare the leaders from speaking and listening to their constituents because who can be protected from such a happening?

Some will use this to say we need to have better gun control. Unless it turns out this guy was obviously nuts ahead of time and still bought a gun legally, I don't see how it would help. He didn't care about the law when he shot so many people. He could have had that gun concealed, and nobody would have known it was even there.

I don't know that there's a way to stop it either. I worry though about leaders, prominent ones on both sides of the political spectrum because for a sick mind, it doesn't take far to go from being angry to being violent. It's why we need to watch our own rhetoric and NEVER say a leader, even when we don't agree with them, deserves to be shot or we wish them dead.

We settle things in this country at the polling place. We want our leaders to be able to talk to us, to not have to fear town halls or corner events like this one. With all the anger and venom being sent out these days (and from both sides), I worry that we will see more of this and less openness. You can't blame the leaders for seeing this and thinking long and hard before they go to such an event again.

Years ago I had a doctor appointment downtown in Portland. When I walked back out on the street, I happened to see quite a crowd on a street corner. They were listening to Bobby Kennedy speak when he was running for president. I didn't stick around for long, didn't vote for him in our Oregon primary, and not long after, leaving another political event, he was shot in the head.

When he was killed, that was the end of any chance for those who supported him to choose him for their leader. One person made that choice for everybody and that's what political assassination is about. It both ends a career of a leader for whom others might vote, and it makes such open events less frequent. Who does that help?

Glenn Beck Lies

In the interest of full disclosure, I have listened to Glenn Beck's radio program but not watched his television show-- other than an occasional clip elsewhere. I used to hear him years back, before he got so powerful, and he was entertaining at times. Frankly, I like to hear a conservative slant to an issue; but he got farther and farther out as he probably became more and more famous. I quit listening and now only catch him once in awhile, for as long as I can stand it, when I am in the truck, as I click through the buttons looking for political talk.

Last summer I wrote about hearing him on our way to Arizona and finding he was making real sense on an issue (worried me no end about myself)-- until he went hysterical and began to milk the emotion cow. I turned him off then. I don't know if that emotional response of his is real or acting. I saw a video tape of him preparing to do a taped piece and he asked when he should start crying. It looks to me like he can do what he wants in that area, and he's not like John Boehner who really appears unable to not cry as he gets all emotional about himself.

So anyway because it's come up other places and because I went to some level of trouble (actually minimal) to find the lies of Glenn Beck, I am posting some of the biggest here if for no other reason than they'll be handy to me if this topic arises again and I want them in one place.

To be honest, I am hoping he, like Sarah Palin, will soon become only dusty remembrances from the political past as more meaningful and logical conservatives take over the power positions in the right wing movement. I don't know if that is unrealistic as certainly Beck appeals to a lot of viewers (although cable television is a small group). The thing is how much more does he impact through being repeated as if what he said was fact when bloggers and radio talk personalities as well at sites like WorldNetDaily and Fox News parrot it?

Before I haul off on the list, a logical place to start is with a definition of the word lie. I liked this one from Word IQ:

A lie is a statement that is untrue, when the falsity of the statement is known or suspected by the speaker. Depending on definitions, a lie can be a genuine falsehood or a selective truth, a lie by omission, or even [part of] the truth if the intention is to deceive or to cause an action not in the listener's interests. To lie is to tell a lie. A person who tells a lie, and especially a person who habitually tells lies, is a liar.

------------------------------------------------------------

What follows are just a smattering of Beck lies. No way could I post them all, not to mention all the times he mangles the truth to suit an agenda. You know he's not a dumb man. He has had an intellectual's education, but where it comes to spreading lies, he is so blatant that he obviously doesn't worry his minions will care about his truthiness (word from another famous something or other). Frankly, I think if Beck changed what he does, he'd lose his followers in a heartbeat; so he's as much a captive of their expectations as they are of his.

Anytime you see black print, it's from someone else. I am sticking to varying shades of blue for anything I write. I thought about using red... but nah, definitely sticking to the blue side!.

******************************************************

Top 15 Glenn Beck Lies from 2010

By: Steve - December 31, 2010 - 9:30am

Think about this, Glenn Beck said he never lies, because if he did it would get him fired. And yet, he lies virtually every day, and Fox does not fire him. In fact, you can see his top 15 lies right here.

15) On his January 13th show, Beck claimed the Fed keeps it's profits, and that you can not even look at their books. Beck claimed the Fed made $50 billion in profits, and they just keep it, without paying any taxes on it.

Too bad it's all a lie, because the Fed Returns All Their Profit To The Treasury. The Federal Reserve will return about $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury for 2009, the highest earnings in the 96-year history of the central bank. The Fed, unlike most government agencies, funds itself from its own operations and returns its profits to the Treasury.

14) Beck claimed that Tax Dollars Funded A Jesus Art Exhibit At The Smithsonian.

Too bad its all lies while the Smithsonian does receives some Public Funding they do not Use That Money For Exhibitions.

The exhibition was funded by the largest number of individual donors for a Portrait Gallery show. The show, which cost $750,000, was also underwritten by foundations that support gay and lesbian issues.

As part of the Smithsonian, the gallery receives public funds. Overall, the Smithsonian gets about 70 percent of its annual budget from the federal government, but it does not use that money for exhibitions.

13) On his June 17th show, Beck said President Obama did not make the BP oil spill a priority.

Too bad it's all lies, During an address from the Oval Office, Obama said this: "But make no mistake: We will fight this spill with everything we've got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever's necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy."

Obama also said this: "Those who think that we were either slow on our response or lacked urgency don't know the facts. This has been our highest priority since this crisis occurred."

12) On his December 2nd show Beck said the U.S. is Sending "Another Trillion Dollars, Over To Europe."

Too bad it's all lies, because The U.S. is not even discussing a larger International Monetary Fund contribution to the European rescue package. And to this day it has never happened.

11) On his November 9th show, Beck accused George Soros of setting up a "shadow party" to interfere in the 2004 elections. Beck based his claim on this statement from Soros: "I Do Not Accept The Rules Imposed By Others" And "In Periods Of Regime Change, Normal Rules Do Not Apply."

But there is one problem with that, Beck claims Soros said it in 2004, but that's a lie, because Soros made that statement in a book that Soros wrote in 1995, a full 9 years before the 2004 election even happened.

10) On his April 7th show Beck said Obama wants to raise the Capital gains tax on every single American who invests their money.

Too bad that's a lie, because the White House budget for fiscal year 2011 called for reinstating the 20 percent capital gains tax rate only on families with income greater than $250,000 and on individuals with income greater than $200,000.

9) On his August 10th show, Beck said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is not a peaceful muslim, based on something someone else said 9 years ago.

Beck blamed Rauf for something he never said, and as far as I can tell, Beck either made a mistake, or he lied on purpose, either way, he was wrong. Even after saying his crack research staff is never wrong. The statement Beck said Rauf made, was actually made by Muhammad Gemeaha.

8) On his November 9th show, Beck said George Soros Manipulated Congress To Introduce Energy Legislation.

Too bad it's all lies, because contrary to Beck's claim that Soros manipulated Obama to introduce cap and trade legislation days after he was elected, Congress has been debating similar proposals for more than a decade. In fact, Sen. Barack Obama supported legislation that would have created a cap-and-trade system while campaigning in 2008. Years before Soros even called for a cap and trade bill.

7) On his April 23rd show, Beck said "There Has Been "Zero Warming For Over A Decade."

Too bad it's all lies, because NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), The U.K. Met Office, And The World Meteorological Organisation Have All Stated That 2000-2009 Was The Warmest Decade On Record For The Globe.

6) On his November 4th show, Beck claimed the Obama Trip To India Would Cost "Up To $2 Billion to keep him safe."

Too bad it's a massive lie, and even Bill O'Reilly himself said that number is ridiculous. In a statement made public the day before Beck's broadcast, White House spokesman Matt Lehrich said that the figure had "no basis in reality." Lehrich also said, "Due to security concerns, we are unable to outline details associated with security costs, but it's safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated."

5) On his March 10th show, Beck claimed Obama Wants To Ban Fishing. Beck said that the administration's decision to end the public comment phase of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force means that Obama is likely preparing to issue an executive order outlawing recreational fishing in America.

And that is a giant lie, the fishing reporter Jeffrey Weeks wrote this about it: "To suggest that President Obama is about to ban fishing in America is the most absurd and irresponsible thing I have ever seen a major news outlet publish. There is not even a remote possibility that a standing president of the United States will outlaw fishing in America."

4) On his June 21st show, Beck claimed that the Obama administration was loaning $2 billion to Brazil to benefit foreign oil interests at the expense of the U.S. economy in order to make George Soros richer.

Too bad it's a massive lie, because Bush Appointees at the Export-Import Bank -- Not Obama -- Unanimously Approved the Loan To Brazil. FactCheck.org even called the claim bogus, noting that the Export-Import Bank of the United States approved a preliminary commitment to Brazil." At the time, the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, who were all appointed by George W. Bush.

3) On his November 22nd show, Beck said Ohio City Has Not Taken Any Stimulus Money From The Government.

Too bad it's a lie!

As of November 22, reports posted at Recovery.gov showed that the city of Wilmington received at least $2.6 million in stimulus funds.

As of November 22, 2010, reports posted at Recovery.gov showed that Clinton County Ohio had received at least $4 million from the stimulus.

And Wilmington city officials confirmed that the city requested more than $63 million under the stimulus. State officials said that use of Medicaid, food stamps, cash assistance, and unemployment insurance have increased in recent years.

2) On his November 9th show, Beck claimed that Soros Was Responsible For "Taking The Property From The Jews As A Teenager."

Too bad it's all lies, because in an interview with Steve Kroft from 60 minutes, Soros Said He "Had No Role In Taking Away That Property."

In Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire -- a book cited by Beck during the program -- the books author Michael T. Kaufman said Soros did not collaborate with anyone.

1) On his November 29th show, Beck said "Do You Really Believe That I Could Just Make Things Up And Remain On The Air?"

After all the non-stop lies from Glenn Beck, he is still on the air. Despite All the False Claims, Fox News Has Not Fired Beck.

----------------------------------------------------------------

From another source-- Yahoo Answers regarding Glenn Beck Lies:

He said that no other President had never been sworn into office without a Bible. He said he 'checked'.

He either did not check or ... he's lying. John Qunicy Adams used a law book. Franklin Pierce didn't even swear. He affirmed. Teddy Roosevelt used no Bible. Several Presidents kissed a Bible but did not swear on one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pinot…

Beck lie.

Glenn Beck lied when he said recently that $1.4 million of stimulus money was used to repair a door at Dyess AFB. The doors repaired were aircraft hangar doors and the cost was not $1.4 million.
The cost was $246000 out of $1.4 million in repairs funding.

Beck lie.

In June Beck lied when he said that the US was the ONLY country that had a natural birthright provision. Here is the list of other countries that do:
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/…

Beck lie.

Glenn Beck lied when he said that the director of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."
This one is so good I'll just give you the link:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/…

----------------------------------------------------

Getting specific about one of Beck's targets-- Van Jones, the following is Beck's accusations and the facts-- Groups-- on Van Jones:

You may have heard about Glenn Beck's latest kook.rant, attacking Van Jones,
Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental
Quality, as an evil convict. We'll take Beck's absurd happy horse shit one
stupid lie at a time.

Beck has repeatedly claimed that Jones is a felon, convict and all around
bad guy who went to prison for taking part in the Rodney King riot.
The FACT is the Jones has no criminal record of ANY kind. The bat shit crazy
Beck boob is just making shit up.
------
http://www.alternet.org/environment/142310/glenn_beck%27s_crazy_lies_...
Van has never served time in any prison. He has never been convicted of any
crime. And just to be clear: Van was not even in Los Angeles during those
tumultuous days.
I know because he was working for me -- in San Francisco -- when the four
Los Angeles police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. I
was the Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the
San Francisco Bay Area when Van was an intern.
------
OOPS! That's one Beck.boob lie shot all to hell. Let's move on...
Beck has repeatedly claimed that Jones is some sort of mysterious "czar"
with "billions" of off the record funds to spend that answers to no one but
Obama.
Again, it's total bullshit. Back just made it up. It proves only that Beck
hasn't the slightest fucking CLUE as to how our government works.
Jones answers to the Department of Labor, who has complete authority over
the program. All of the nominal laws, rules and regulations governing the
disbursement of funds apply.
------
http://www.alternet.org/environment/142310/glenn_beck%27s_crazy_lies_...
The law is clear that the Department of Labor has authority over the
program, with normal rules governing the funds. Anybody who thinks that a
lone government official can pass out money, arbitrarily and without
oversight, knows nothing about our legal system. A blizzard of lawsuits
would stop any such scheme in its tracks, if one were ever put in place.
------
OOPS! Another absurd Beck lie bites the dust. Moving on...
Beck has repeatedly asserted that Jones is a communist. Yeah, I know, silly,
but that's Beck.
The fact of the matter is Jones is promoting BUSINESS BASED solutions. And
his book, 'The Green Collar Economy,' presents only aggressively CAPITALIST
solutions. In fact, he is known in some circles as the green Jack Kemp.
------
http://www.alternet.org/environment/142310/glenn_beck%27s_crazy_lies_...
In a YouTube clip, he (Jones) said recently that progressives and
conservatives should work together to find common ground and create a clean
energy economy.
Van said: "We are not promoting welfare. We are promoting work. ... We are
not expanding entitlements. We are expanding enterprise and investment. ...
We are not trying to redistribute existing wealth. We are trying to reinvent
an existing sector, so that we can create NEW wealth - by unleashing
innovation and entrepreneurship. This should be common ground."
He has been preaching that gospel, in various forms, for years and years.
Van Jones is the nation's "Green" Jack Kemp -- using business-based
solutions to attack poverty.
------
OOPS! More Beck horse shit mucked into the wheelbarrow of oblivion. Moving
on...
Beck has tried to claim that Jones is still a believer of '60's radicalism,
a huge crock of shit even Bill O'Lieley ain't buyin'. Beck uses quotes from
an article where Jones specifically *rejects* his teenage 60's rhetoric as
proof Jones still believes 60's rhetoric.
Gee, isn't there a word for that? Oh, yeah, it's BULLSHIT.
------
http://www.alternet.org/environment/142310/glenn_beck%27s_crazy_lies_...
I found it interesting that Bill O'Reilly in his interview repeatedly asked
Glenn Beck whether Van Jones' youthful views had changed over time. Beck
never answers those inquiries and instead keeps insisting that Van has
championed these ideas recently. Again, that is simply not true.
Quotes Taken Out of Context
Upon investigation, it turns out that Beck is quoting (out of context) an
article that in fact makes the OPPOSITE point.
The 2005 profile that Beck is flogging actually makes it crystal clear --
even in the headline -- that Jones has "renounced" his earlier views,
matured and moved on. Van's transformation is the entire point of the piece,
and it is impossible that Beck does not know this.
------
So, there you have it, folks. Beck isn't just a ---- crazy loon spouting
off about patently absurd conspiracy theory paranoid nut job idiocy. He's a
filthy ---- liar intentionally spreading lies he KNOWS are total
bullshit. No wonder he's on FIXED News...

------------------------------------

For anyone who has not been following Beck's attack on George Soros, I found a good article on that to bring you up to speed. I won't paste it all here, but it's worth reading to look at how Beck operates in his attack dog mode. Point by point this story shows how he deliberately distorted or out and out lied to create a boogieman. This wasn't too hard for his viewers/listeners since Soros was already on the right wing, bad guy list due to funding left wing causes and working to defeat Bush II in 2004 (for a guy who was such a genuine, dangerous threat, that worked out so well for him didn't it)--

[Media Matters covering the issues Beck used to attempt to discredit George Soros].

If you have a rightie friend or family member, who swears by Beck's importance to the conservative cause, likely that person won't care much about any of this. It's really the chicken and the egg. Which came first and would Beck be who he is without them? Looking at Beck for whether he tells the truth isn't something they care about because they apparently feel if he does lie, it's justified, just as it was justified to lie us into attacking Iraq.

However, I think it's important for us, on the left, to be ready to answer when they bring up points like about Soros, Van Jones, and whoever the next boogieman will be.

Lies not confronted end up being believed. I really think we have to be confrontative (h0pefully in a nice but firm way) on these things, the following is why.

Yesterday I read something about Nancy Pelosi taking a vacation in Hawaii at the same time Obama did and probably staying in a $10,000 a day suite. The question was implied that the taxpayers funded that as her last days of Speaker of the House and it asked at what cost to taxpayers. No evidence, no facts but plenty of innuendo of corruption.

Everybody knows Pelosi is a wealthy woman, who could have well afforded such a suite, BUT this was all about a possible instance she might've abused her privilege... or not.

I went looking for more information regarding what happened and who the original source was. Source was easy and not surprising-- right wing blogger calling themselves Hawaii Reporter which makes them sound connected to a newspaper but not that I found.

Then I looked for any other facts relating to what she had done and who paid for it. The original blog had been picked up by all the other right wing bloggers as though it was fact. Now this means if you went fact checking it, you'd see plenty of sources for it being true-- only they all came from the same source-- but who cares about details.

This is how the 'facts' about Obama's trip to India were rapidly distorted and spread. This also put out a lot of false information about John Kerry's military service from those who didn't serve with him, didn't really know exact details of his service. It inspired those who had served to vilify him even if they knew nothing about him personally-- and they still do.

Kerry, because he had protested the war after his service, made a good target and most of the righties who came to hate him from blog level information still believe it and will swear by it. Facts, we don't need no damned facts. It just sounded right to them! Kerry didn't look the hero part and oh yeah, GW Bush did. Hallelujah and throw facts to the wind.

In this environment, lies breed and multiply. The Internet is a hotbed of reproduction. The righties perfected their skills under Bush, and I have no doubt we will see a lot more of this with them itching to try and impeach Obama.

The third and fourth level of these type of stories don't even have to worry about lying. They are simply reporting what somebody else said. How discerning are most of their readers?

filibuster reform

If you are my age, you probably remember when filibuster meant a senator getting up on the floor of the senate and speaking, sometimes for days about what he was hoping to block. We had one of the kind who could really do it-- Wayne Morse.

Then the senate changed its rules and enabled a senator to say he would filibuster, but didn't have to do it. To break this kind of one man rule required 60 votes. The days when the senate could be tied, with the vice president breaking the tie, were over and instead of a majority deciding the bills, it was one man or 60 senators voting for it.

Senators Merkely from Oregon and Udall from Colorado came up with way to make the senators have to be more responsible regarding their blockages and the plan seems like a good way to still allow a filibuster but make the senator accountable.

Delay could be good for reform

I don't know if the possible delay will be good; but I hope any Democrat reading here will let their senators know what we expect-- vote for reform. The reform will still take 60 votes to break a filibuster but it won't let some lazy senator wave his fingers and say he did one. They will have to get out there and say why. They will have to be accountable and no longer simply obstructionists. Their words will be out there for their constituents to read and decide whether they agree or not with what was said.

According to a Republican senator (Alexander) this reform would block freedom of speech. Do these guys even remember what that was?

Scalia on women and discrimination

Right wingers never cease to amaze me especially the ones who get in powerful positions like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who has just stated in an interview that women have no Constitutional right to not be discriminated against.

Constitutional law according to Scalia

Just for the record, here's what the 14th Amendment says-- "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Which tells me that Scalia does not see women as being persons. If not, then what are we? I think I probably don't want to know his opinion on that! Perhaps the problem comes out of women being created out of Adam's rib and hence always the lesser sex-- if you believe that about the rib anyway.

And this is the most intelligent man on the court according to some? Interesting...