Why Unions Matter

It's all about power!
From where does power come?

From the time one man figured out how to amass more trading power than another, whether that came from physical might, birthright, intellectual cunning, or marrying wisely, the currency of that trading ability has meant power.

From the beginning there have been those who do get power and use it to build more power. There is never enough power or wealth for such people then or now.

Today in this country where the military is not used to suppress the people, that power is enhanced mostly through advertising or the power of the group. One rich man cannot vote many times, but he can convince others to vote against their own personal interests if he is a clever rich man. He finds causes to fire them up and they end up forgetting they don't have enough food to eat or a roof over their own head that they own anymore.

Put enough money into almost any cause and people can become convinced of its rightness (there are exceptions) and this includes eating foods that are bad for their bodies, starting smoking that kills so many with lung, heart and assorted other diseases, being anorexic because all the models look that way, buying unneeded things they don't have any idea how to use and didn't know they needed a day before, and on the list goes.

Those are, of course, all individual choices, but where it hurts our country the most is when it undermines the principles upon which this country was founded, the hope that everybody has a chance for a good life if they are willing to work for it. When you get enough people not even knowing those original principles, who don't understand the words or take the time to read them, that's when one person with the power of advertising can control his world as much as if he was openly a dictator.

When he loses that power is when the people figure it out. Now that can be a mob that is into tearing down everything. It can be a group who comes together for something noble. Whatever it might be, the power of individual people is through numbers and it can then trump that of even the rich man when the group is directed, informed and determined.

Unions have been the basis of the common worker being able to negotiate for more money but it's not just about that. The very word union means coming together for a purpose. Without that ability to come together, workers don't know if they are being treated equally. When workers stand alone, they can be steamrolled. To claim unions, as we know them, have never abused their power would be to ignore history; but overall without them, by whatever name you call them, the middle class would have never come to exist.

Today, in the case of state, local and federal government, the finances to run the systems are in trouble. Whatever name you call it by, recession or depression, jobs have gone overseas or disappeared.

Adding to that, the promise of the good benefits had come from an expectation regarding the stock market that was more Ponzi scheme than reality. It wasn't counting on a reasonable rate of return on money invested, it was looking for way beyond what real growth could deliver. Benefits and pensions were promised based on something that didn't really exist. A lot of people not in government pensions found out the same thing with what they thought they had invested and found out they had not.

So the unions in Wisconsin faced that reality and agreed to cuts in those salaries, benefits and pensions. When they did, what happened?

The result was like a flock of chickens in a coop smelling blood. Give up anything and weakness is suggested and it's not respected. It's exploited and more is demanded. This is happening on a lot of issues throughout our country and the world. Reasonable negotiating isn't enough and getting what one might've started out wanting, that's not enough either. It's both the power and the problem of our modern world.

Republicans weren’t satisfied with balancing their budget. What they wanted was to end the ability to unionize, end the ability to come together as a group, the ability to be able to look at working conditions and salaries, to judge what is fair for the worker by the workers. The ability to make it hard to collect union dues was just part of the overall goal which was end them period and leave the individual alone to stand against the system. The economic hard times we are currently experiencing don’t have to last forever but ending collective bargaining would.

You'd think Christians with their concept of one body would be the first to approve coming together and standing as a body. You'd think a country founded on the principles of ours would be supportive of unions where people could talk over grievances and work out solutions. You'd think but be wrong. Unions aren't just out to get more money from the corporations or the government. They enable the workers to have some power over the work they do and the conditions under which they work. When unions were busted in the mining industries in our country the end result was less safe working conditions for the miners.

On one side is all the wealth and power. On the other side just the individual until those individuals stand together. People fought for those rights. There have been physical battles to establish unions. Those who believed in them have always been called names and communist is the least of it. The battles in both our country and elsewhere was often bloody and results were hard won.

For everyone who begrudges those union dues, just think what your salary would be without the earlier fights for fair wages and working conditions. It's easier than ever for companies to bring in people from other countries to do the jobs for lower wages than Americans could accept and still support a home here given the cost of everything.

Are you a civil engineer, building highways and buildings? Well they can get a guy who has been educated well from China or India to come over to do just that job. No benefits. No long term connection but the job gets done and they go back with their money, don't buy products here either probably when they were here. That was the idea behind using Chinese labor to build our railroads. What do you think has stopped that from happening everywhere? Union agreements mostly.

Farm Boss argued for these jobs they will always have to have at least one American engineer to stamp the work approved. Why do they have to have that? Government requirements. Insurance has become convinced it means it's better. What about when other universities (he inserted training and certification programs) around the world, are as good or better than ours because we didn't value putting money into learning and instead of the brightest and best, ours educate only the richest? What about when we have said government serves no purpose and should not be involved? Guess where our job goes then.

Unions matter because without them there is no middle class period. Call that fear talk but it's realistic talk. Sure there were companies without unions who have treated their workers well in the past. The stock market has changed a lot of that. There wasn’t the well-educated populace in the world. Some felt a loyalty to this country that meant more to them than stock market gains. Even if they had no union, there were other companies competing for the same workers who did have one.

Who besides unions fights for safe working conditions? Government. This bunch is trying to hamstring both. Get rid of the unions one by one and see more of what has been happening in this country with wealth more and more concentrated at the top. Stand with the unions or wait your turn to have it all collapse around you with nobody left to stand with you when that happens.

If you don't think that will happen, you haven't paid attention to history. I understand both government and unions can abuse their power. I suggest it's better we curb the abuses than that we throw them both out and leave ourselves standing alone with no collective clout.

Is the United States heading for Civil War?

From what we have seen in our country and around the world, the question of whether we, in our own country countries, might face genuine civil uncivil war has to be asked. The question right behind that one is who profits if that happens?

Here in the United States, more states talk of secession. Some don't want to leave the federal government but like in Pima County, Arizona, they seriously want to become Baja Arizona to disassociate them themselves from Phoenix who increasingly dominates their state and politics.

If that worked for them, unlikely given all the hoops to jump through, Arizona would have the Navajo nation requesting the same thing at the least if not wanting their own country as they consider themselves a sovereign nation now except for wanting federal benefits; and since Egypt gets almost $2 billion a year in aid, they might feel they'd be ahead if they weren't part of this country.

Remember in 2008 when that Russian professor predicted the United States would break apart into six different countries in 2010? Russian Professor Predicts End of US. Well 2010 has come and gone but things do seem to be increasingly divisive.

More and more states are going the Arizona route by resisting federal laws. The newest examples are everywhere, but this is a good one to get the idea of what's going on.

Tea Party's Idea of Local Government

I suppose some would say these things will never pass. Some hope they will but supposing they do, where does that take us?

Let's just take one little example of what is really up with these proposed laws by looking at what a certain group might gain if they can, in the case of say Montana, hamstring the FBI making them only able to arrest someone if their local sheriff agrees.

Tea partiers know why they want that. They can control who that local sheriff is by elections; and if they are running a big militia that would be illegal anywhere and certainly under federal laws, with a tea party sheriff, they can create a little fiefdom that cannot be touched.

Montana had a militia group like that at one time. It called itself something like the Minutemen and refused to pay taxes. Eventually the government went after them. Their leaders were arrested and the group went underground disbanded. Do Montanans want those militia groups to stay active when they are so openly lawless? Some do.

City people might think who cares. Well why we should care is we would be unable to travel anywhere without unique laws wherever we went, without risks of being held up legally in those fiefdoms counties. Law would be whatever the meanest group in that district said it was.

These kinds of laws such as Montana wants and likewise other states, they will break up our country even if they don't require a war to do it. Will the federal government really let them do that, declare their own laws wherever they want? I don't see that happening but then what does the federal government do about it? Would the military stand with the president, the people, or form its own power group?

If we had a civil war here, the question would be who would be on each side of it? It's not South versus North and it's not one issue like slavery-- although it could be secession.

The issues for the tea party folks are things like only paying taxes for what they see as benefiting themselves directly. For some the issues are moral ones where they want their morality values imposed on others.

The idea upon which this country was founded, that we are a united people, this concept of one for all and all for one is not on any tea party slogan. Read their words. They have one slogan-- Me First. Followed by a second one-- we don't like that guy who the rest of the people elected as their president. They might not admit the real reason they don't like him but you listen to it for awhile and it's pretty clear to the other half the country what that reason is.

Little by little the rights of the middle class have been undermined and it has led to some of the anger even in the tea party people. The difference is which rights are they concerned about and it's again where we divide.

Right now we have the union people in most of our states finally feeling they have been stomped on long enough, been devalued and told they have no rights. Their last right to collectively bargain is now on the table. If we can't stand together, we know we fall under the rich and that's what is at stake. Another division though as a certain group feels threatened that they can stand together.

If the people don't stand up together against the increasing portion the rich have taken, who will fight for them? The legislators who have been bought and paid for? The taxpayers who don't want to pay for their kids to go to school anymore because the school doesn't teach creationism?

People don't see how these things impact their own lives and are so easily distracted by clever soundbites. A lot of money can convince a certain group of people in anything as they don't even understanding the founding principles of this country. And they won't if the dumbing down of our education system continues. We have accepted a lowering of standards in our government and the end result is it follows us everywhere on the downward path.

So people are fighting everybody and everywhere; and somebody profits from that happening. You know who that is too... but those wanting a civil war, they don't.

I takes my smiles where I can get them these days

There is not a lot to read or watch in the news right now that makes me smile. I do feel the people in the Middle Eastern countries who have had little hope of making a decent life for themselves have been admirable in how they have stood up, at great risk, for a better life and to rid themselves of despots. I do not however automatically feel it will work, and I wonder if they will find they have traded one despot for another.

And the issue in Wisconsin and many other states is another of those six of one and half dozen of another. Where I think it's admirable that the workers and their supporters (which should be all working people) have peaceably demonstrated at considerable cost, even if it didn't involve being shot at; but the problem in this country is so much greater than what happens with the state worker unions.

This is a crucial time that too many people have voted in the wrong leaders which has led to more and more money being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

Oh I know how the right sees it, I am the one who votes for the wrong leaders; but my leaders mostly support the right of the ordinary people to have a good life which means health care when required, which means a job with a decent living, which means honesty from the sources from which they borrow money, which means air and water that is safe to breathe and drink, and which means help for the poverty stricken which should be important to all human beings-- or so one would think.

Can any of those who support the right wing find any such noble causes that their people support? For them, it's all about lower taxes on the rich, destroying the environmental regulations, selling off our national forests, and turning our freeways into toll roads, no minimum wage, wars they don't want to pay for and for which they can't even explain why they are being fought, ignoring climate change, in fact ignoring any program that might actually make the ordinary person's life better.

When I am accused of being someone who would have been a Nazi sympathizer, I think it's almost funny except it also tells me from where they get their information and it's undercutting the things from which they themselves benefit. It's not funny to realize there are those who actually believe the Glenn Becks.

So when I finally got something to smile about, I knew the right wing would never see it the same way. Rush Limbaugh just tried to insult Michelle Obama by saying she ate a high calorie meal and was overweight therefore had no right to discuss the importance of childhood obesity problems. He proved one thing by his attack and should have even to the righties-- he's a total jerk.

He ridiculed her body and the way he did it is where my smiles came in. Horror of horrors. Ultimate insult-- she wouldn't be a woman Alex Rodriguez would date... for his usual six months. She would not find a place in the Sports Illustrated magazine's swimsuit edition. Wow, now those are serious criteria for judging a woman's beauty or quality.

What that says about Limbaugh is a lot more than what it says about youthful, fertile looking bodies like that of Michelle Obama. I know... It's bad that she hasn't had a boob job that he so obviously admires in women. She enjoys delicious food and fully living life illustrated by her ski trip followed by a tasty meal (which incidentally the restaurant said was about 600 calories, not the overestimate by the fatster himself). But he is implying she is telling children to not eat delicious food. No, she wasn't. She is simply saying there are many foods to eat that are delicious and good for us.

It's not just it's funny because Limbaugh is fat himself and has discussed on his program his battle with weight-- previously. Hypocrisy is the usual for righties. It's also that he was trying to put down a woman who would never have given him (and probably not Alex Rodriguez either) the time of day if he had wanted to date her based on values.

The righties have been attacking Michelle for her work on improving childhood food options. Since they don't want to pay for health care for others, maybe they have no reason to pay attention to the high cost of fat related diseases especially horrible ones like diabetes. In a nation wanting to help all Americans have better health just to keep our health care costs down, what she is doing is for the future generation and ours.

There is so much to admire in Michelle Obama and part of it certainly is her physical beauty. She has the goddess figure that is admired by many cultures even if not ours where anorexia and size 0 is more the order of the day. I like her style because it's about playful dressing and taking risks with what she wears. She has fun with patterns and colors and is not a slave to fashion. Sure, I wouldn't wear what she does. It wouldn't suit my body type or age, but I sure can admire it on her.

But there is so much more to her than that. There is the fact that she cares about healthy eating (chose a restaurant in Colorado that cooks locally grown foods which is a big environmental and health plus). She is a woman of obvious intellect, a woman who spends quality time with her daughters to give them as normal a life as possible given their circumstances, a woman, who looks alive and vital and doesn't care to spend her life worrying about her weight, a woman like that isn't on Rush Limbaugh's list of qualities he admires. One has to wonder exactly what is. Never mind. He just told us.

And if I was one of those women Alex Rodriguez dates, I'd be the one concerned right now... and likewise those in the SI magazine. Rush Limbaugh admires me... and exactly for what?

The Right's Hypocrisy on Freedom

Where it comes to the right wing, hypocrisy is pretty much the name of the game. Time after time something comes up and their words never match their actions. It is true domestically and even more so true in regards foreign affairs.

Right wingers:

Believe in democracy and the right of a people to choose their own government? Absolutely.

Those people didn't choose the 'right' sort of government? Bomb them.

Freedom of speech for us here at home? Absolutely.

People who say things they don't like? Attack them.

So here we have the latest opportunity to stand up and be counted for what people here in the United States claim they believe and once again the right is acting like... well like the right. Libyans are a sovereign nation. They have a right to fight for their own brand of democracy which might mean they choose a theocracy using a religion some here in the United States not only do not like but fear.

Where it came to Egypt and now Libya, does the right want us to send in our troops and have us hated more places? Occupy more land overseas? The irony of that is they probably do and then don't want to pay for any of it. They put the Iraq war on credit and now when the bills come due, they blame a different president. They are as guilty of it all as the president who did their bidding.

This would almost be funny if it didn't make me so angry. The United States, as a brand overseas, for anything but material, is not respected nearly as much as it once was. That's all the fault of Obama, screech the righties, while they ignore the real reasons.

Righties ignore that we invaded a sovereign nation supposedly on a pretext which kept changing. They ignore that we authorized and did torture against all civilized rules. They ignore the fact that we kept increasing our debt doing all of this and didn't act like we had much interest in listening to anybody else's ideas. They ignore the fact that we elected a president who considered a swagger to be a sign of strength. All of this came during the Bush years (or any rightie president since Eisenhower) and now when they finally realize we are considered the bully on the block, they are angry at Obama. Figures.

When you say that, you sound like you don't like any of them. Pretty much that's the case because in every situation, where I see evidence to examine, they are on the side of the rich and powerful against the working class and the poor. They would take away and have taken away freedoms of our own people, spout off patriotic rhetoric right before they suggest they might secede. Yeah pretty much I don't like anything they stand for. The right wing is nothing but a mouthpiece for those who want to keep power at any price and they buy the tools they need either through dollars or flattery.

Here's a good piece on Libya and the right, but it plays out this way everywhere I look. If you can see somewhere it doesn't, I'd be happy to hear the example. It's not like I enjoy the feeling of disgust I feel right now when I think of the names of these righties (don't dare call them conservatives. They don't even know the meaning of that word), and the things they say.

The Right's Hypocrisy on Freedom
by Peter Beinart.

Real Figures on the economy

Worth reading especially given the fear talk being used by the Republicans to slash and burn all the government programs benefiting the poor or the middle class. Their latest target is Social Security where they will cut those who administer the program therefore making it harder for the old, the disabled, and orphans to receive help even when it's promised.

Check out the chart and keep the figures in mind next time you hear a rightie say we have to do this to the poor for the economy's sake:

Two Years of Economic Recovery

Wisconsin Questions

Eek. About the time I get to thinking I can write about Wisconsin's demonstrations of the union versus a bought and paid for tea party governor, more information comes out and I am stymied.

States are in trouble with underfunded pension systems which they must now pay from revenues not the investments they had counted upon. That leaves a problem for paying for the current workers.

BUT Wisconsin was not really that much in trouble given their deficit is small and it was more or less enhanced by offering tax breaks to corporations to come there, which sounds good to get jobs.

BUT this business of states or cities offering lower tax rates to draw in corporate jobs doesn't always work out so well. Often the corporations invest little and are ready to move on to somebody else who offers more. Jobs are transient at best. This also puts states at each other's throats to the benefit of the corporations.

BUT how does a state draw jobs if it has winter 9 months of the year. Okay exaggeration but in a time of hard winters, the sunbelt has the bigger advantage and without jobs there won't be taxes.

BUT with unions being pushed out of the picture, the wages for any jobs are going down. I saw some statistics on how many workers were in unions before Reagan began his union busting presidency and it was like 35% and now it's like 7% (don't hold me to these being exact numbers but they are approximate). Unions have been why working conditions have improved, overtime is paid extra, hours are limited as to how many can be worked, children are protected from sweatshops, safety conditions regulated, and yes wages went up and stopped when unions lost clout.

BUT in an era like ours where we are competing with the world for market share, won't wages have to go down?

BUT to a level of $10 a day?

BUT civil servants have no right to negotiate as a group for wages as they are servants of the government in return for job security. Supposedly that meant lower wages compared to the private sector. Today that's not the case mostly thanks to unions.

BUT their higher wages have raised the competitive level for all jobs?

BUT that was good? It sounds good that wages went up until you realize that means the cost of everything did too. So we earn a lot more than we did in say 1970 but those dollars are worth a lot less. We can't compete in a world market but with the kinds of wages a third world can offer their workers, how would we anyway?

BUT without unions all the power is in the hands of the corporations and we all know it. They said when they gave corporations personhood that it was balanced by union power. Now they are trying to decapitate unions. Who do we expect that to benefit?

And on my reasoning goes or doesn't go. I am schizophrenic on this whole thing except I believe in the power of unions but also have seen that power abused. What power hasn't been? Who believes that corporations will pay a good wage if they don't have to?

What is happening in Wisconsin and across the country with the effort to end collective bargaining for state employees is just one more nail in the union coffin and the ones who don't see that, don't like unions and don't want to see it. Without unions, we are individuals asking for fair wages.

There are corporations and businesses that want to pay a fair wage to their employees but most are not caring about that. They will pay anybody the cheapest wage they can and that means often bringing in employees from overseas as temporaries that they send back for a new crop-- thereby denying jobs to someone here. What has prevented that from happening more places? You know it is the power of the worker which is being daily diminished.

We, who are not in Wisconsin and these other states, we need to care about this also because this is another step on agenda and we are on it too. If we don't care now, later nobody will be there to care.

We should care now because the middle class is the target. You know it's the truth and they will go after it eventually. There isn't enough money for the wealthiest and they aren't going to blame what would make sense to blame for their problems.

A war that made no sense and that we borrowed to pay for? How can they blame that? They make money off those industries. How many wealthy bankers went to jail for their Ponzi schemes. The benefits were not realistically promised. People all over the country lost the pensions they believed they had due to the stock market. The state employees don't want that to be their lot and yet is it fair to keep them fully funded while the worker of today is either not hired when needed or is let go?

Wisconsin's, Governor Walker, evidently ran on doing exactly what he's doing. He didn't win by much; which means as usual half the voters approve of his tough line and half do not. They say it has divided the state which is pretty much how our nation is, I think.

If Governor Walker had not first cut corporate taxes, this might not seem so blatant but it's like the Republicans in Congress who insisted on a tax cut for those making over $220,000 a year, called it for small business, and then immediately got in office and began talking of cutting home heating subsidies, cutting programs like Planned Parenthood or public broadcasting. The juxtaposition of help for the rich and cuts for the poor and the middle, they are so blatant that nobody can miss them.

Can't make the rich pay for this readjustment in income, but we can make the old and the poor. To avoid having everybody mad at him, he opted to allow police and firemen to do collective bargaining. The rest-- pfftttt.

Right wingers are a bunch who have been demonizing teachers all along; so none of this is surprising. Limbaugh called the demonstrators (made up of teachers, librarians and other government employees as well as those who believe government serves a purpose) bottom feeders which shows how much he values education. Well frankly if more people valued it, he'd have less listeners.

Beck had an answer also regarding from where the demonstrations came that suited his loyal nutcases-- the socialist left caused it in Egypt, around the world and now here. I wonder if people can remain sane if they regularly listen to that guy? If they can, they are blaming both Bushes right now also, who are part of a plot wanting a huge Middle eastern empire which might now apparently include Wisconsin. Beck is a wacko but what does that say about those who follow his every word? They are out buying AK47s, for the coming revolution, is what it says.

First of all on from where the idea of demonstrations arise, the kind where Beck says in horrified tones, people bring their children, did he ever look at the tea party ones or pro life rallies for whether children are present? If we don't buy into that ordianry workers feel their livelihood and power eroding, how about the idea of demonstrations came from the tea party.

The tea party is mad at a lot of things but most of all it's Obama and it's never been so much about what he does as who he is. It reminds me of a scene from How to Train Your Dragon where the hero, who doesn't fit the Viking mold, had one of the Vikings tell him what was wrong with him and he responded by saying-- you just gestured to all of me. That's Obama for the tea party (51% of Republicans who vote in their primaries don't believe Obama is a native born citizen but you can bet if it wasn't that, it'd be the rest of him).

Beck sees this all as a united conspiracy but not from the right to cripple the middle class, no it's of socialists, communists and people like me. People who grew up in union households and saw what they could accomplish to help a hard working regular family afford a decent life, buy a home, even have a mom staying home.

While the erosion of the middle class doesn't worry Beck, I see a government that is cutting taxes for the richest right before they sock it to everyone else-- most especially the poor. This all might be more tolerable if the events weren't so close together as to not be possible to miss the connection. Rich= good guys. Everybody else= patsies.

The Final Battle in the War Against Unions is Underway

The unions have been the bad guys for the Republican party for a long time. They talk of fat cat salaries... oh not the CEOs, I mean the mechanics. They worry about the idea that those employed by corporations could negotiate for better wages... oh not the CEOs but the mechanics. Yep, there have been those horrendously high salaries... not the CEOs but those rich mechanics again; and pointed to how much it endangered our country to have power so concentrated in a few hands-- union hands, of course, not that of the corporate heads.

Governor Walker's planned limitation on unions would not allow collective bargaining which would keep any raise to whatever the government told people it was through cost of living. That's working so well for Social Security recipients who know everything they need to buy is going up but supposedly the COLA did not; so they get no increase. Government is good at that and without union power to put a check on corporate power, it's not hard to see where this is all going-- a nation of peons with a few wealth overmasters.

The years before people could join together and organize, bargain as a group for wages, they were at the mercy of the business world period. They had to take whatever pittance was offered, work overtime, endure unsafe working conditions. Governor Walker, and his tea party ilk, want to take it back to those days.

Collective bargaining is part of capitalism if capitalism doesn't mean total control by business and not the workers. For workers to come together, work out what they believe is a fair salary and stand together to get it, is the only hope of the middle class. Frankly where corporations are allowed to bring in workers from other countries, they are undercutting that anyway.

I do think unions have to be responsible and understand their work may not be worth, to the economy, what they want it to be. When we look at this all from an economic viewpoint, we are weighing two different things for that-- one lifestyle I want to live versus income available in the collective pot to provide that.

If we had a true free system of capitalism, workers would have the right to organize, make demands and the businesses would have the right to hire someone else, a lot of someone else's if they could find workers for less money. That's free market. We don't remotely have that in any aspect.

We are in a time of flux and like it or not, we have to think of new answers for a new age. We don't have true capitalism despite the talk from the right of it being like a god to them for how it should be worshiped. We could have it but it would be a painful transition and most of us would probably suffer a lowering of our expected lifestyles especially today with the world being the marketplace.

more on Egypt

This is an interesting article to read about the unfolding story of what is happening in Egypt, what might have led to this point. It will take books to really explore the aspects and someday figure out all the ramifications; but for today, it's about pieces that we all try to put together.

Hosni Mubarak's Final Tragedy

You know he was someone I had regarded as the good guy with no clue what has gone wrong there until this all began to erupt. How much of what went wrong was the United States engaging in torture and asking our allies to do it for us when we did not? Did our policies unleash an unethical barrage of mistreatment that caused others to grow worse in what they were doing OR is it just how governments go as we see it over and over in history?

from foreign to domestic

The big issue that many of us around the world wonder about is what will happen with Egypt now? The military, who has been Mubarak's military and been supported a lot by the US is going to be in control for awhile but where does this story end? If you listen to Glenn Beck, you will think one way and if you get your news from MSNBC another.

Myself, I don't know and have concern for it to work well. I have seen some worrisome statistics for instance that only 30% of Egyptians are educated. Now to what level does that mean educated? The percentage of the population over age 15 who can read and write is 71 percent. (83 percent of men, 59 percent of women).

In a Pew Poll last year 48% believed Islam should play a large role in politics in Egypt. 85% believed Islam's influence in politics is positive. Two-thirds in a Zogby poll said Egyptian life would improve if clerics played more of a role in it. That my friends is a theocracy.

Egyptians, in polling, supported the central elements of Sharia Law. 84% agreed apostates or those who forsake Islam should face the death penalty. 77% favor thieves having their hand cut off. 54% thought men and women should be segregated in the workplace. 7 in 10 said they were positive toward Iran getting nuclear weapons in a July 2010 Zogby Poll and close to 80 percent favored abrogating the Camp David accords with Israel.

Do they still feel that way? What will that mean for the government they will choose when given a totally free vote? From what I have read, the Muslim Brotherhood is kind of a loose assortment of Islamic beliefs and not one consolidated set of ideas but where it comes to human beings anywhere, emotion so often rules and people don't think where it's taking them until it is too late. It is one of the fears many of us have felt about our own country.

The idea of Egypt being a modern Middle Eastern country, with their proud cultural history behind them, that is very appealing to the West. But the key here is modern and what that means. I looked at photos of the crowds demonstrating and then cheering to see if the women had their hair showing. Maybe it's just a fluke but every woman I saw wore a hijab; however, I didn't see any niqabs. Any photos of the Mubarak family showed his wife with her hair showing but she was I think half English. Was that why? Maybe head coverings aren't a good indicator of where this is going or is it?

But then there is a movement in our country which would head us toward religious fundamentalism also-- this movement claiming Christianity-- their version of it anyway. That wouldn't require head covering but it does have other rigid values that the leaders follow or are threatened with being thrown out of leadership if they do not.

Supposedly the tea party isn't about religious fundamentalism and the Republican party won't go that way now. They ran on caring about jobs, smaller government (don't ask how smaller government gets jobs), and lower taxes-- most especially on the rich (that might've once been where they expected those jobs to arise except we have proof during the Bush years that doesn't pan out).

So the House is now under Republican control and exactly what did they go after that would impact jobs? Making the government not pay for abortions in the case of rape without proof of violent force being used. Which means that thirteen year old, whose father had sex with her, that must have been consensual-- except how does that work since it's a crime. It's a felony to have sex with a minor but it evidently wouldn't qualify as rape to the right wing and hence they don't want to have the federal government paying for such abortions for the impoverished. I guess that would cover cutting costs... up until the girl asked for welfare anyway but then they'd cut that too wouldn't they?

When CPAC just met, the NRA's LaPierre hit on another of the favorite rightie causes which is that everybody should be equipped with an extended magazine. Nothing makes a woman feel secure like carrying a handgun in her purse with a 31 bullet magazine. I suggest she might want to switch that purse from side to side to save her back and shoulders from being hurt by the extra weight-- which she is more at risk of having happen than being attacked by a gang where she has to kill them all with her extended capability of firing many shots quickly.

Often I have said I favor the right to have handguns and rifles, to have permits for concealed weapons (which means taking a class and passing a background check). I got one almost as soon as Oregon allowed it. The issue here though is whether it would have helped as LaPierre claimed. What helped in the Tucson situation was a break in the shooting which a smaller magazine would have had happen sooner.

Someone trained in firearms has often stopped a shooter in the past but that training is on a military or police level. In Tucson someone did have a handgun and admitted if he had used it when he first saw the situation, he'd have shot an innocent person and let the shooter escape. This is split second stuff and knowing who the bad guy is has even been hard for the police.

To add to the weirdness from the right, I saw a clip of Glenn Beck expounding on how these Egyptian groups are mobs, and rule by mobs is always bad. They put at risk the whole idea of democracy. Of course, we know he thinks this is a plot of the religious right there in the Middle East to form a huge caliphate that Bush the I and II plotted to have Baghdad be the capitol of... Seriously, he even used a map to show how it will encompass part of Europe, not us though... so far as I know.

On this threat of mob rule, has he remembered he supports the Tea Party here, a group who brags they can bring together demonstrations of a million people protesting our government, where some proudly carry weapons to show they can, who talk of revolution as a possible future need in this country. Does he remember anything he says or claims to stand for? This was almost funny except he doesn't get it. Hasn't he been supporting the rule of the mob, of revolution with the tea party bunch if they can't get what they want through the vote?

That's different though. It always is.

WikiLeaks

It's not popular to discuss, has a lot of ramifications, but what is your thought about WikiLeaks and what they have done in releasing classified information? Before you answer, read this:

Obama Administration Traded British Nuclear Secrets to Russia for the Peace Treaty

I am torn on this and have been since the beginning. On the one hand it seems really wrong to reveal top secrets; but on the other hand, it's been done many times before-- Pentagon Papers being one example.

Does the government always deserve to have its doings kept secret? How do we decide when it's good or bad? When it hurts us diplomatically, it's bad but then what if we were hurt because we were doing bad things?

So supposing the Obama administration did what this article claims. Did they deserve to have that kept secret for a 'higher' good? That higher good is something we hear used as an excuse way too often.

Political mythologies

Continuing with my 'mythology' piece, I saw this which I wish more righties would read-- but they won't--

Obama's actual spending, estimate of the true numbers

I also watched the documentary Reagan last night on HBO. I hadn't known it was going to be on but found it checking out what HBO had on that evening. I wasn't sure how much I'd like it but I did and recommend it. They won't, but I really wish the righties, who are promoting him as though he had been the second coming, would see it. It puts Reagan's legacy in perspective. Some of which I mentioned in the last blog but they had a biggie that I had not mentioned-- Iran Contra.

The legacy, of the dishonesty, corruption, deceptiveness of the Reagan administration where it came to trading guns to Iran to get money to the Contras in Nicaragua and drugs for the US, was a forerunner to what the Bush administration did for its eight years. Lie to the people. Do whatever you want because you know best and lies are okay when they are for a good cause. Reagan set that in motion openly. Oh they did put a few sacrificial goats out there to take the legal fall; but the decisions always have to go to the top-- or at least what is supposed to be the top.

For those who might say that's in the past, let it go. Nothing like that is in the past when it is still impacting how certain people believe government should be run. How does our government find fault with the Mubarak regime? If you had thought Obama would be eager to see Bush prosecuted, you were kidding yourself. Governments protect themselves-- hence no prosecutions of the lies from the Bush administration, the torture, the willingness to do anything to protect their agenda. They don't want Mubarak forced out because who knows what all he will reveal if his way isn't eased. And only an extreme rightie would not know that.

Ex-leaders who torture and have abused their positions of power have been tried after they are forced from office. It should have happened in our country. What Bush did was way out there and he even admitted it in his book (proudly I might add); but too many hands were dirty with what went down is my guess why it didn't.

I have mentioned that I voted for Reagan his second term but not the first. I did so because I didn't like the alternative; but when Bush the first ran, I held my nose and voted for Dukakis based on my belief Bush the first was heavily involved in what happened with Iran-Contra. It's not like many Democrats wanted to vote for Dukakis that year. I was afraid Bush the first would continue what had gone on during the Reagan years. Well when his son got in, that's exactly what he did with bringing in the crew that had learned lying was beneficial when it serves their greater purpose.

The following article isn't in terms of ancient myths but the kind that are being spun out today.

Glenn Beck: Should Fox Toss Him Out of the Coop?

I heard an interesting opinion on that last night from Rachel Maddow. It appears that Beck gets most of his ideas from the John Birch Society, who we found out with the last elections, is still quite active within the right wing. She said they will put out some theory and three or four days later, it's Beck's lead story.

No wonder America is so divided. If you listen to Fox exclusively you get one slant of the world. If you listen all the time to MSNBC, you'd get a different one. Neither one are the whole story.

When Farm Boss was driving home the other night, he said he had on Clear Channel with Fox News and their whole report was devoted to one disaster after another-- killings, abuse, whatever was scary and negative. He switched over to a different news update from the left wing side of the news and got what is happening in the community in terms of events to attend, warnings of highway problems, but none of the disaster upon disaster. No wonder those who watch only Fox type stuff think they need a lot of guns.

From what friends have told me, the same thing has been true of the coverage over Egypt. If you listened to the left, you got the possibility this could be good, looking at the actual people who might try to influence what happens next in Egypt. If you listened only to the right, it's all scary and going to create a huge Islamic empire to threaten the world (Glenn Beck's take). All they had to hear was the name-- Muslim Brotherhood and they were off.

Neither side has all the truth on anything (most especially not Egypt) but shouldn't we be careful we are at least getting a mix?

Mythologies that lead to votes

The only thing more frustrating than watching a clip of Sarah Palin expounding on Ronald Reagan at the 100th birthday celebration was listening to a clip of her explaining Egyptian foreign policy mistakes by Obama which she evidently thinks including him not picking the next leader of Egypt.

Does she still think we live in the age of empires where a nation like Great Britain could appoint leaders and it stuck? Does she even know where Egypt is? Who the people are? Any clue at all? It's easy to Google the videos of that interview and worth any independent, who might consider Palin, to take a look see.

There was more excuse for her rampant ignorance when she was starting out, but not much when she was running for Vice President and even less now when she has had plenty of time to get herself informed-- assuming she knows how to read and she does have a college degree in journalism (not something most righties respect anywhere but with her, I think). She finally has figured out what magazines or books she reads-- all right wing. Has actually written two books now-- if you don't count ghost writers. So she must know how to read. She sure doesn't choose any books explaining the world situation though.

And on Reagan, her speech of how Obama is sending us on the road to ruin but Reagan is the example of how a leader should be and how she would be, well does she actually know what he did and was that a tongue in cheek statement? Actually I see no evidence she understands satire; so scratch that possibility.

Reagan increased our debt from the hundreds of billions to the several trillion. He cut lunch menu costs for schools by counting ketchup as a vegetable. He gave that amnesty bill for immigrants here illegally as he promised to secure the borders so it didn't happen again. Should I mention how that turned out?

He actually raised federal taxes every year of his two-term presidency and particularly raised them on the middle class while he did lower the rates on the rich; but his idea of trickle down has proven to mean really a trickle and you can be my maid if you will work for minimum wage (which he wouldn't even have if he could have abolished it).

Give this a try on the truth of Reagan. It's easy to Google such information; so Sarah Palin either doesn't bother with research or she ignores whatever she knows her base won't want to hear.

Five Myths about Reagan's Legacy

What is in that article won't be believed by the tea party types; but for everybody not in that category, it's wise to pay attention to it because it's how you end up with these mythologies-- like Camelot with the Kennedys where the truth is usually anything but.

Myths belong in fiction and fairy tale books but should not be part of a voter's thinking when they decide on leaders.

Income Disparity

The more I began to read about what has been happening in Egypt, the more I saw it as part of a system of income inequality. Oh I know that means I am a socialist. Well sticks and stones and all of that; but this is something that's been on my mind for awhile and it's not so much political as cultural.

Although this inequality has probably been more obvious in the Middle East, with all its oil wealth, statistics show it growing here with more and more people who cannot earn a wage sufficient to provide their family with medical care, housing, clothing, and food-- if they can even find a job.

This has required more two income households, overtime, or working several jobs, none of which may offer health insurance. It isn't even a matter of an education as some have the college paper but still can't find jobs that will support a family. A worse problem is that some are not going to be capable of getting that piece of paper and the jobs they used to be able to do with pride and a real sense of purpose have gone overseas leaving behind minimum wage work, if they are lucky, in a service industry.

We now have 1% of our population with the lion's share of the wealth, [Wealth in the US], but not to worry, Congressmen are not among those losing ground-- [Congressional Wealth grew 13% in 2007].

The power of the middle class used to be powerful unions. It was in the government that had put in place, after the Great Depression, regulations on the financial markets, that had improved working conditions through safety regulations, and had tax policies that didn't reward extreme wealth. Those were the years of the growth of the middle.

There are always going to be some for whom there is never enough money. They are the ones who don't care about their fellow citizens but instead wonder what bigger house they can build, what size yacht, how they can display their wealth to impress others. If government doesn't do anything to rein in such levels of wealth, do people really think the rich will do it themselves through donations and living more moderately? The answer is obvious now if it wasn't before. For every Buffett, there are hundreds of others who not only don't care about how others are doing but delight in profiting off the losses they are suffering.

How can anyone find joy when they know their prosperity is being funded by the near poverty of others? Evidently it's not hard for some. Do the ones who think it's not their problem really believe anybody poor just was lazy? This isn't about handing people money, unless they are disabled or children; but about recognizing you cannot tell a man to work if there are no jobs. This is about not asking for a bigger piece of the pie; so there is room for someone else to earn a living wage. It is about not working to get tax policies that make it profitable to send jobs overseas.

Apparently in Egypt, where we were sending $3 billion a year to encourage them to not turn against Israel or us, where we sent our war prisoners for Mubarak's people to torture, the money we sent helped the ruling class to stay in power. From what I can tell, the ordinary people were getting educations that didn't lead to jobs. 40% of their young people were out of work. Does that sound familiar as our own rate of unemployment in young people is becoming a national disgrace?

Some in our country make a big deal out of the very thought that there would be any government help regarding avoiding income disparity. Oh woe, cannot do that or we will be socialist. We haven't seen revolts like in Egypt here in this country.

The tea party, when they have their demonstrations here, want to hold onto more of what they have, are responding to feeling threatened by the idea that health care for all is bad news for them. But if we keep cutting back our police force, find more and more people out of work and feeling powerless, earning paychecks that don't cover their cost of living, we might yet see it.

How can that feel good to anybody? Is there any pleasure in going to a grocery store and knowing some there cannot afford all the food they need for their families-- even with food stamps? Wouldn't it feel good if we all were doing okay, sure some better than others, but all could afford to feed, clothe and shelter our families?

It wouldn't to you? Well then who are you?

I know one thing about you. You're not a follower of Christ's teachings whatever you call yourself. Try reading Matthew 25:31-46 if you don't think the government should be involved in programs to help people who are poor. And if you don't think the poor are your concern, check out the story of the Good Samaritan: Luke 10:25-37. The Samaritan wasn't considered a Jew. The story is more like a non-christian helping a Christian. Others passed by the injured man. The Samaritan was the only one to help based on need, a man who was a stranger, a man he didn't ask for repayment or to accept his idea of God. Jesus said at the end of the Parable-- go and do likewise.

No, it cannot be Christians who are denying help to the least of our citizens. They would remember how Jesus said the sheep and goats were being separated based on what they did for the least of their citizens. He wasn't separating them based on pretty words they said. Not what church they attended, their being baptized; no, it was what they did for those in need.

Churches that might be buying themselves fancy temples and big gymnasiums for their members' use, sending a few dimes off to help others while they try to gain new members, churches like that, if there were any, of course, would find themselves covered in the Book of Revelations with its analysis of what might be expected in the end times.

No, it cannot be followers of Christ, who would be denying help to the people in this country. So who is it?

Oh I can hear the right now saying we give to our church or the missionary service we support. Jesus wasn't talking about that. Funny there is no reference in anything Jesus said anywhere about building big temples to him or gymnasiums.

Also in this particular one, he's talking about a reckoning of the nations. Who might the nations be? Many countries take great pride in their military. Think a big powerful military will make points with him?

His words really are a blueprint for what many righties today call socialism. Now he doesn't talk about how it's okay to call it help while it's wasted on fraud. The responsibility of the nations would be to be sure it's not-- that it really does help.

The kind of help that Christ is talking about we can and have offered through government programs. When it's effectively done, it's a hand up, not a hand-out. That's though socialism to the right wing.

Do we need words from a holy book to convince us it's the right thing to do and we all will benefit from that rising tide that carries all citizens with it? You know most of the non-believers I know already believe in helping others-- they don't need a carrot or a stick to convince them either.

"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty, and give you drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? And when did we see you sick, or in prison and come to You?' And the King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me." "...truly, I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to the least one of these, you did not do it to Me.' translation from New American Standard Bible

Will we get the message before it's too late here?

Action on Egypt means what exactly?

In looking at what the United States should or even could do about Egypt, as well as what has led to this time, I thought this was another good look at Rebellion in the Land of the Pharaohs by Fouad Ajami and printed in the Wall Street Journal, the right wing's paper these days.

For those who think any action is preferable to waiting and watching, I would know they are also not into nuanced answers. It all must be black or white. They want a daddy figure for their president or in short a dictator but elected by them. What Obama is doing isn't -- bring it on-- and that they liked.

Well I am into nuanced living and answers and right now with Jordan possibly facing the same rebellion, I wonder how much of this is due to the economic condition in the whole world and not the fault of any one country or leader. How much of it is due to wealth, around the world, being too concentrated, and although leaders can impact that, when they do, they are called communists by the right wing.

Maybe we are seeing the result of too many years of right wing domination that let the wealth concentrate and left the citizens behind. This problem has been escalated in some of the oil rich countries of the Middle East (Egypt isn't one of them) where some know wealth beyond imagining and others cannot earn a living. Educations, and they say many of the Egyptians demonstrating do have college degrees, only help if there are jobs to go to.

This is also from the right with a quote from Ajami within it-- Six Weeks that Shook the World. The quote for anybody who doesn't read the article says, "Revolts of this kind are always a gamble on the unknown." Easy for him to say from a secure position as a university professor in the United States.

Since Ajami was a Bush advisor, it's not hard to see how he'd see all of this as they were big on talking democracy for the Middle East. That always sounds good, but hey, what happens when democracy chooses someone who is out to get the West? Still okay? Nuanced living asks that question. The daddy party does not. They want their leader to jump on something and they don't care much what it is-- action, they want action. I will say that the crowds are not acting like they want a religious ruler. They want options and a chance to make their own choices.

How do we differentiate mob rule from the democratic process? Maybe when we like the results? We know Mubarak's government has been a brutal dictatorship pretending to have elections. If we weren't pretty sure before, all of these people turning to the streets should confirm it but what exactly does the neocon thinker want the US to do about it? Invade Egypt next?

This was another good look at the options and problems from a right wing thinker, Joe Scarborough-- Now that Pandora's box has been opened, expect the consequences to be far reaching.

Jobs around the world are a serious problem, and it sounds like a catastrophic one in the Middle East, but can anything be done about them without governments making policies that work to divide up some of the wealth from the richest to the workers. Oh no, can't do that. Well then exactly what can we do? Bomb?

Update: Mubarak is expected to say he won't run again for president of Egypt. Does that mean the protesters will be satisfied? Who comes next and how do the people on the street want America to be seen?

Who is the Muslim Brotherhood is being answered different ways by different political factions and by different Middle East experts. I found this interview interesting: Muslim Brotherhood regarding what we might expect if they do get a big share of the power in Egypt.