Friday, April 30, 2010
THE GOOD, BAD, AND UGLY
The bad and the ugly in state politics have been readily observable to the Oklahoma public, and lately even to the nation at large. But the good has been more difficult to discern within the Oklahoma legislature. It is there, nevertheless.
Right or wrong, most of us might be inclined to identify what is good in the state legislature as pertaining to our own hometown legislators. Although there are exceptions, most of us like our own legislators. The other guys down there are the bad and the ugly.
When our legislators visit with us personally, they normally make a lot of sense. They are pretty good guys. Basically they want what we want from government – good services efficiently carried out, responsiveness to the needs of the people, and that sort of thing. At least that is what they tell us.
However, in order for us to really discern the “goodness” or the “ugliness” of our own legislators, we need to see and hear them working a crowd that contains their own party base supporters and a few of their larger campaign donors. We may hear some different views and some different priorities enunciated to that audience.
When our legislators are members of a party that contains folk we think are a little crazy, and when the bills sponsored by those crazy people end up passing, we have cause to wonder. But we say to ourselves, “We can’t expect our good guys to stand up against their party leadership lest they lose their positions of influence. If they lose party status, then they cannot help us with our own special causes.” We are selfish.
We have to follow political news from broader sources, and follow the legislative insider reports, to find that there really are some good legislators from all around the state. These people battle for what makes sense. They stand for addressing real problems instead of grandstanding about emotional and religious issues. They see Rome burning, and they refuse to fiddle with the ruling majority.
The bad in our legislature has to include all those who have in the past in any way contributed to any diminution in our state’s income, and thus its ability to support a full spectrum of vital services to the people. Those who sponsored or voted for tax cuts, tax breaks, tax credits, or any other giveaways have proven themselves to be bad. It is not as if there weren’t leaders all around the state telling them that their actions were wrong and unwise. They were told again and again.
Of course, we are now in a recession, and natural gas tax revenues from the well-head price are down. But we are still missing almost a billion dollars in tax breaks given by the legislature in the last five years. Do we even dare to ask why the prices the gas company charges us (just for the product) are twice the market price of gas, and even more above the taxed price?
These legislators are bad because their party ideology got in the way of their good sense. They sacrificed the good of their state for the favor of those who supported them with money, or who shared the view that government is bad and the only way to reduce its size is to starve it. And so they did just that. State government is starving. These hypocrites then criticize the president while taking his bailout money just to survive.
These legislators are bad because they allowed their party ideology, and their vain quest for popularity with a reactionary group, to demagnetize their moral compass. They lost their sense of right and wrong. They became callous to the plight of their fellow man.
So now we have problems in the health services, aid to the elderly and poor, mental health patients, child abuse services, shelters for abused women, jails and prisons, and all the other eleemosynary services of the state for its people. And, we are firing teachers and professors, cutting office staffs, letting work (and bodies) stack and operations drag, and cutting educational television, perhaps losing the only decent state public affairs programming.
The bad people have contributed to this situation. Bad people feel no imperative to take actions to remedy the crisis circumstances. Do something! Do something! So shout we all.
The ugly in our state legislature are not difficult to recognize. They make us painfully aware of them in the news all too often. They shame us nationally, because they supposedly represent Oklahoma. We have made the national news when some legislators expressed the notion that we should sponsor our own state militia to resist the federal government about health care requirements.
One legislator became negatively notorious around the country years ago because of his weird conspiracy theories about federal officials plotting the Oklahoma City bombing of their own facility. He’s back. Somehow he managed to get elected again to join others of his ilk at the Capitol. He wants to declare Oklahoma sovereignty. Then he and others want to demonstrate this by having guns assembled in shops or garages in the state and selling those and ammunition within the state free of federal safety checking laws. This would not be interstate commerce, he says.
In the ugly class would be all of those who cater to the gun-toters, and who want legal gun-toting privileges on college campuses and in pick-ups on tech school grounds. They have some utterly foolish beliefs that guns make us safe. Have they not heard that even Wyatt Earp made the cowboys of Dodge City check their guns. How nutty can they get?
Further, we must include among the ugly all those hypocritical legislators to rant and rave about government regulation of business, but who simultaneously enact government intrusion into the personal lives of families, and of women in particular. One bill after another intruding on the freedom of women’s medical decisions comes from these ugly legislators. This year they have gone further by demanding doctors report names to the Capitol and dictating what doctors must do and say to their patients. Then these same ugly people show up at tea parties with ugly signs against government and labeling somebody else a Nazi or a Muslim.
This ugliness permeates the entirety of the legislature. Only those few who stand up against these wrongful intrusions into personal matters can escape the hue of ugliness and assume the glow of goodness. When the legislature actually passes such perfidious measures, then the party in control turns very ugly.
This week a columnist read nationally wrote: “This month the most dreadful legislation came out of Oklahoma and Arizona.” Nice image builder, eh?
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Right or wrong, most of us might be inclined to identify what is good in the state legislature as pertaining to our own hometown legislators. Although there are exceptions, most of us like our own legislators. The other guys down there are the bad and the ugly.
When our legislators visit with us personally, they normally make a lot of sense. They are pretty good guys. Basically they want what we want from government – good services efficiently carried out, responsiveness to the needs of the people, and that sort of thing. At least that is what they tell us.
However, in order for us to really discern the “goodness” or the “ugliness” of our own legislators, we need to see and hear them working a crowd that contains their own party base supporters and a few of their larger campaign donors. We may hear some different views and some different priorities enunciated to that audience.
When our legislators are members of a party that contains folk we think are a little crazy, and when the bills sponsored by those crazy people end up passing, we have cause to wonder. But we say to ourselves, “We can’t expect our good guys to stand up against their party leadership lest they lose their positions of influence. If they lose party status, then they cannot help us with our own special causes.” We are selfish.
We have to follow political news from broader sources, and follow the legislative insider reports, to find that there really are some good legislators from all around the state. These people battle for what makes sense. They stand for addressing real problems instead of grandstanding about emotional and religious issues. They see Rome burning, and they refuse to fiddle with the ruling majority.
The bad in our legislature has to include all those who have in the past in any way contributed to any diminution in our state’s income, and thus its ability to support a full spectrum of vital services to the people. Those who sponsored or voted for tax cuts, tax breaks, tax credits, or any other giveaways have proven themselves to be bad. It is not as if there weren’t leaders all around the state telling them that their actions were wrong and unwise. They were told again and again.
Of course, we are now in a recession, and natural gas tax revenues from the well-head price are down. But we are still missing almost a billion dollars in tax breaks given by the legislature in the last five years. Do we even dare to ask why the prices the gas company charges us (just for the product) are twice the market price of gas, and even more above the taxed price?
These legislators are bad because their party ideology got in the way of their good sense. They sacrificed the good of their state for the favor of those who supported them with money, or who shared the view that government is bad and the only way to reduce its size is to starve it. And so they did just that. State government is starving. These hypocrites then criticize the president while taking his bailout money just to survive.
These legislators are bad because they allowed their party ideology, and their vain quest for popularity with a reactionary group, to demagnetize their moral compass. They lost their sense of right and wrong. They became callous to the plight of their fellow man.
So now we have problems in the health services, aid to the elderly and poor, mental health patients, child abuse services, shelters for abused women, jails and prisons, and all the other eleemosynary services of the state for its people. And, we are firing teachers and professors, cutting office staffs, letting work (and bodies) stack and operations drag, and cutting educational television, perhaps losing the only decent state public affairs programming.
The bad people have contributed to this situation. Bad people feel no imperative to take actions to remedy the crisis circumstances. Do something! Do something! So shout we all.
The ugly in our state legislature are not difficult to recognize. They make us painfully aware of them in the news all too often. They shame us nationally, because they supposedly represent Oklahoma. We have made the national news when some legislators expressed the notion that we should sponsor our own state militia to resist the federal government about health care requirements.
One legislator became negatively notorious around the country years ago because of his weird conspiracy theories about federal officials plotting the Oklahoma City bombing of their own facility. He’s back. Somehow he managed to get elected again to join others of his ilk at the Capitol. He wants to declare Oklahoma sovereignty. Then he and others want to demonstrate this by having guns assembled in shops or garages in the state and selling those and ammunition within the state free of federal safety checking laws. This would not be interstate commerce, he says.
In the ugly class would be all of those who cater to the gun-toters, and who want legal gun-toting privileges on college campuses and in pick-ups on tech school grounds. They have some utterly foolish beliefs that guns make us safe. Have they not heard that even Wyatt Earp made the cowboys of Dodge City check their guns. How nutty can they get?
Further, we must include among the ugly all those hypocritical legislators to rant and rave about government regulation of business, but who simultaneously enact government intrusion into the personal lives of families, and of women in particular. One bill after another intruding on the freedom of women’s medical decisions comes from these ugly legislators. This year they have gone further by demanding doctors report names to the Capitol and dictating what doctors must do and say to their patients. Then these same ugly people show up at tea parties with ugly signs against government and labeling somebody else a Nazi or a Muslim.
This ugliness permeates the entirety of the legislature. Only those few who stand up against these wrongful intrusions into personal matters can escape the hue of ugliness and assume the glow of goodness. When the legislature actually passes such perfidious measures, then the party in control turns very ugly.
This week a columnist read nationally wrote: “This month the most dreadful legislation came out of Oklahoma and Arizona.” Nice image builder, eh?
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Monday, April 26, 2010
TEA PARTY ENIGMA
Regardless of the loud rhetoric and the signs carried, the tea party crowd remains something of an enigma. The rhetoric and the signs can be confusing. If these represent the tea crowd’s views as purported, they are a weird bunch. But journalists and pollsters are continuing to study this group to see if their identity and their perspective can be better understood.
The first and continuing impression from what one sees displayed in the media is that of a rowdy, ignorant crowd of uninformed and misinformed people who think they know it all. That is the face appearance of the group at its gatherings. But is there something more involved than meets the eye?
Ignorance, or perhaps denial of reality, is a major characteristic of the group. Busily objecting to being taxed, only 2% of those tea party people polled are aware that their taxes actually went down. In the general population 22% are aware of this. Not a very high number there either, or we would hear more public backlash on the tea party slogans. Over 90% of our citizens got tax breaks this past year, and average tax refunds are up 10% this spring.
While fear of increased taxes may be motivating the multi-millionaires who fund the tea party behind the scenes through groups like Americans for Prosperity or the Club for Growth, there is no merit in average people thinking they are being more heavily taxed under the Obama administration, when the reverse is true. A spokesperson for the Brookings Institute said: “It is hard to understand the tea party’s anger about taxes when these are lower than they have been in decades.”
When one gets into personal feelings and attitudes, some of their outbursts become more understandable, but no more justifiable. Three fourths believe that President Obama does not share their values, and a like number think he favors the poor. About the same proportion think he does not understand their problems, or listen to them. But, then, only 1% of tea partiers are black, and 1% Hispanic, and the poor are not well represented.
A large majority reports anger with Mr. Obama. Their reasons are: too much spending, health care reform, and opinions unrepresented. Ninety percent think the country is headed in the wrong direction, and 92% headed toward socialism. Two thirds believe Mr. Obama was not born in this country, and about the same number think he is Muslim. Although it would affect only 2% of the population (over $200,000 income), eighty percent oppose a tax to support health care.
Most blame Congress for the problems with the economy, and not the profligacy of Mr. Bush, deregulation of financial institutions, wars, and his tax cuts where most Americans look. And, 57% of tea partiers have a favorable view of Mr. Bush, while 57% of the general voter population has an unfavorable view.
Only 6% blame Bush for deficits, although his tax cuts benefitting the top 5% resulted in $3.9 trillion in deficits and his Iraq War added $1.8 trillion. But then, 80% identify themselves as republican, and only 5% are self-identified as democrat.
When half of the tea party group is 55 or over, half of them have incomes of $50,000 a year or more, and a third have attended college, it is hard to understand participation and support of a group with so little validity in truth. While nearly all favor leaving Social Security and Medicare alone, 90% think Mr. Obama is socialist and heading the country wrong.
Then there is the huge outcry for “taking my country back.” When one-fourth of tea partiers think the President favors blacks over whites, there is some tinge of race involved. However, anger over losing the last election, and the longing for “the good old days” of republican control may loom as larger influences.
Most of the issues claimed by the tea party folk do not hold up to logical scrutiny – hence the enigma surrounding this group. It appears to be a mixed group of ordinary people who have been fed a steady diet of distortions by the television and radio channels to which they attend. It appears that these folk have swallowed the republican party talking points hook, line, and sinker, without bothering to question these critically. They have been stirred by party leaders into becoming a highly emotional crowd of ignorant, misinformed, and even delusional people with inflammatory rhetoric and dangerously loose control.
Further, the tea party people have been manipulated and organized by wealthy business tycoons who have a personal interest in preserving their own personal tax privileges obtained under the other political party’s rule.
The tea party is populist only to the extent that it is no longer uncommon for ordinary people to be uninformed and misinformed, and to be gullible to emotional rhetoric and schemes of one kind or another. Neither is it uncommon these days for individuals to become politically active in causes that are not in their own best interest. Obviously, it is so with the tea baggers. Perhaps that is the enigma.
Nevertheless, at this posting Mr. Gingrich seems to have solved it all for us by declaring that there is no separate tea party, and that what we see is only the right wing of the Republican party. By golly, he may have something there.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
The first and continuing impression from what one sees displayed in the media is that of a rowdy, ignorant crowd of uninformed and misinformed people who think they know it all. That is the face appearance of the group at its gatherings. But is there something more involved than meets the eye?
Ignorance, or perhaps denial of reality, is a major characteristic of the group. Busily objecting to being taxed, only 2% of those tea party people polled are aware that their taxes actually went down. In the general population 22% are aware of this. Not a very high number there either, or we would hear more public backlash on the tea party slogans. Over 90% of our citizens got tax breaks this past year, and average tax refunds are up 10% this spring.
While fear of increased taxes may be motivating the multi-millionaires who fund the tea party behind the scenes through groups like Americans for Prosperity or the Club for Growth, there is no merit in average people thinking they are being more heavily taxed under the Obama administration, when the reverse is true. A spokesperson for the Brookings Institute said: “It is hard to understand the tea party’s anger about taxes when these are lower than they have been in decades.”
When one gets into personal feelings and attitudes, some of their outbursts become more understandable, but no more justifiable. Three fourths believe that President Obama does not share their values, and a like number think he favors the poor. About the same proportion think he does not understand their problems, or listen to them. But, then, only 1% of tea partiers are black, and 1% Hispanic, and the poor are not well represented.
A large majority reports anger with Mr. Obama. Their reasons are: too much spending, health care reform, and opinions unrepresented. Ninety percent think the country is headed in the wrong direction, and 92% headed toward socialism. Two thirds believe Mr. Obama was not born in this country, and about the same number think he is Muslim. Although it would affect only 2% of the population (over $200,000 income), eighty percent oppose a tax to support health care.
Most blame Congress for the problems with the economy, and not the profligacy of Mr. Bush, deregulation of financial institutions, wars, and his tax cuts where most Americans look. And, 57% of tea partiers have a favorable view of Mr. Bush, while 57% of the general voter population has an unfavorable view.
Only 6% blame Bush for deficits, although his tax cuts benefitting the top 5% resulted in $3.9 trillion in deficits and his Iraq War added $1.8 trillion. But then, 80% identify themselves as republican, and only 5% are self-identified as democrat.
When half of the tea party group is 55 or over, half of them have incomes of $50,000 a year or more, and a third have attended college, it is hard to understand participation and support of a group with so little validity in truth. While nearly all favor leaving Social Security and Medicare alone, 90% think Mr. Obama is socialist and heading the country wrong.
Then there is the huge outcry for “taking my country back.” When one-fourth of tea partiers think the President favors blacks over whites, there is some tinge of race involved. However, anger over losing the last election, and the longing for “the good old days” of republican control may loom as larger influences.
Most of the issues claimed by the tea party folk do not hold up to logical scrutiny – hence the enigma surrounding this group. It appears to be a mixed group of ordinary people who have been fed a steady diet of distortions by the television and radio channels to which they attend. It appears that these folk have swallowed the republican party talking points hook, line, and sinker, without bothering to question these critically. They have been stirred by party leaders into becoming a highly emotional crowd of ignorant, misinformed, and even delusional people with inflammatory rhetoric and dangerously loose control.
Further, the tea party people have been manipulated and organized by wealthy business tycoons who have a personal interest in preserving their own personal tax privileges obtained under the other political party’s rule.
The tea party is populist only to the extent that it is no longer uncommon for ordinary people to be uninformed and misinformed, and to be gullible to emotional rhetoric and schemes of one kind or another. Neither is it uncommon these days for individuals to become politically active in causes that are not in their own best interest. Obviously, it is so with the tea baggers. Perhaps that is the enigma.
Nevertheless, at this posting Mr. Gingrich seems to have solved it all for us by declaring that there is no separate tea party, and that what we see is only the right wing of the Republican party. By golly, he may have something there.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Monday, April 19, 2010
MILITIA -- NEAR AND FAR
Just over fifteen years ago, not long before the bombing of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, this writer experienced what he thought to be unusual happenings in and around Ponca City. Of course, nobody would expect anything not purely American to be transpiring in this broad geographic zone of peace and patriotism across north central Oklahoma. But, nevertheless, there were some peculiar happenings.
Ponca City was the home of an active low power television station at that time. It was available on cable and off the air. Mostly it ran old programming, and they had regular on-air auctions with some good and some poor merchandise selling cheap. These auctions were popular all around the Kay County area.
Then they began to try news and public affairs programming. The news effort was admirable, although weak. The public affairs programs were something weird.
Running the channels during the earlier of late-night hours, one might run into a panel, a guest interview, or maybe a call-in and call-up show. The host was a scraggly-looking young man gifted in neither looks nor wit. The topics of conversation were downright weird.
A frequent guest was a talkative, apparently well-informed, erudite man that one took to be an obscure local attorney. He talked a lot of about the law, going into great detail. Listening closely, one found to his dismay that this man was explaining why citizens did not have to pay taxes.
He found income taxes to be totally at odds with the law. Further, he did not believe in paying property taxes. He refused to pay either, he outlined his reasons clearly, and he recommended everyone join with him. He offered them legal advice and legal grounds for not paying taxes. Callers questioned the man, and many offered their support for his position.
Then, the call-up portions of programs involved calls to militia officers from around the country. There were calls to the head of the Texas militia, and even calls to the head of the well-known Michigan militia. And, yes, there were calls to the head of the Oklahoma militia, the existence of which was a new revelation to the casual, ordinary viewer.
Then there were topics related to common conspiracy threats seen by these folk. They were really upset by the Waco compound disaster, and they seemed to have an obsession against the federal ATF enforcement agency. The young host would often take calls and share information with militia chiefs about sightings and locations of black helicopters flying over or on trucks being moved or flown about in Oklahoma. One gathered this was in fear of the ATF, or some other federal agency.
This one listener became disturbed enough by all this that he wrote letters to various authorities, local, state, and national, calling their attention to what was transpiring – in case they did not know. Probably they did, and probably others reported in as well.
Shortly after, their little world fell apart. The man who posed as a lawyer was arrested for not paying property taxes and his property was seized. After trials, he ended up in jail. The young man disappeared. The little TV station was closed down for a while, to open later under new management.
Interestingly enough, this little scenario played only a short time before the domestic terrorist, anti-government actions of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols in bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building and killing 168 innocent people. On tapes McVeigh said he was not sorry and it had to be done – sounding similar to the Wichita abortion doctor murderer.
These people were all a part of a loose anti-government, anti-tax movement of the early 1990’s. Militias were forming all around the country, exercising their second amendment rights to arm themselves with military weapons. They conducted training exercises. There were anti-government threats and armed standoffs in Idaho as well as Texas. Nichols learned bomb-making from the Michigan militia folk. McVeigh and Nichols were associated at that time with an anti-government group in a compound in the hills of eastern Oklahoma.
These anti-government and militia groups were obvious threats then to the peace and lives of ordinary Americans. Their conspiracy plots developed and exploded into tragic instances of domestic violence and terrorism.
Since the Viet-Nam era, militia and anti-government groups flourish only when a democrat has been elected to the Whitehouse, never in republican administrations – even when there are plausible claims of a fraudulent election and constitutional violations. Coincidence?
Today, there are inflammatory signs and rhetoric brandished openly, with apparent protection as political expression or discourse. In the state Capitol there is talk by republicans, including one candidate for governor, of an Oklahoma militia to “resist the federal government.” What kind of nutty people do we have running the state now? To Oklahoma’s embarrassment, this has made the national news networks.
America is quite vulnerable to the enemies of democracy who lurk within our midst and pass themselves off as patriots. They love patriotic-sounding names. Democratic governments have that weakness as a part of their nature. So America must be cautious in allowing privileges of seditious speech, revolutionary conspiracy, and the brandishing of arms of rebellion. Good citizens should condemn such talk.
As Churchill once said, “Those who fail to heed the lessons of history are doomed to relive them.” So, during this time of intensifying anti-government political activities, and of revival of the militia movement, Americans should be fully aware of the potential consequences of the current traffic down that primrose path.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Ponca City was the home of an active low power television station at that time. It was available on cable and off the air. Mostly it ran old programming, and they had regular on-air auctions with some good and some poor merchandise selling cheap. These auctions were popular all around the Kay County area.
Then they began to try news and public affairs programming. The news effort was admirable, although weak. The public affairs programs were something weird.
Running the channels during the earlier of late-night hours, one might run into a panel, a guest interview, or maybe a call-in and call-up show. The host was a scraggly-looking young man gifted in neither looks nor wit. The topics of conversation were downright weird.
A frequent guest was a talkative, apparently well-informed, erudite man that one took to be an obscure local attorney. He talked a lot of about the law, going into great detail. Listening closely, one found to his dismay that this man was explaining why citizens did not have to pay taxes.
He found income taxes to be totally at odds with the law. Further, he did not believe in paying property taxes. He refused to pay either, he outlined his reasons clearly, and he recommended everyone join with him. He offered them legal advice and legal grounds for not paying taxes. Callers questioned the man, and many offered their support for his position.
Then, the call-up portions of programs involved calls to militia officers from around the country. There were calls to the head of the Texas militia, and even calls to the head of the well-known Michigan militia. And, yes, there were calls to the head of the Oklahoma militia, the existence of which was a new revelation to the casual, ordinary viewer.
Then there were topics related to common conspiracy threats seen by these folk. They were really upset by the Waco compound disaster, and they seemed to have an obsession against the federal ATF enforcement agency. The young host would often take calls and share information with militia chiefs about sightings and locations of black helicopters flying over or on trucks being moved or flown about in Oklahoma. One gathered this was in fear of the ATF, or some other federal agency.
This one listener became disturbed enough by all this that he wrote letters to various authorities, local, state, and national, calling their attention to what was transpiring – in case they did not know. Probably they did, and probably others reported in as well.
Shortly after, their little world fell apart. The man who posed as a lawyer was arrested for not paying property taxes and his property was seized. After trials, he ended up in jail. The young man disappeared. The little TV station was closed down for a while, to open later under new management.
Interestingly enough, this little scenario played only a short time before the domestic terrorist, anti-government actions of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols in bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building and killing 168 innocent people. On tapes McVeigh said he was not sorry and it had to be done – sounding similar to the Wichita abortion doctor murderer.
These people were all a part of a loose anti-government, anti-tax movement of the early 1990’s. Militias were forming all around the country, exercising their second amendment rights to arm themselves with military weapons. They conducted training exercises. There were anti-government threats and armed standoffs in Idaho as well as Texas. Nichols learned bomb-making from the Michigan militia folk. McVeigh and Nichols were associated at that time with an anti-government group in a compound in the hills of eastern Oklahoma.
These anti-government and militia groups were obvious threats then to the peace and lives of ordinary Americans. Their conspiracy plots developed and exploded into tragic instances of domestic violence and terrorism.
Since the Viet-Nam era, militia and anti-government groups flourish only when a democrat has been elected to the Whitehouse, never in republican administrations – even when there are plausible claims of a fraudulent election and constitutional violations. Coincidence?
Today, there are inflammatory signs and rhetoric brandished openly, with apparent protection as political expression or discourse. In the state Capitol there is talk by republicans, including one candidate for governor, of an Oklahoma militia to “resist the federal government.” What kind of nutty people do we have running the state now? To Oklahoma’s embarrassment, this has made the national news networks.
America is quite vulnerable to the enemies of democracy who lurk within our midst and pass themselves off as patriots. They love patriotic-sounding names. Democratic governments have that weakness as a part of their nature. So America must be cautious in allowing privileges of seditious speech, revolutionary conspiracy, and the brandishing of arms of rebellion. Good citizens should condemn such talk.
As Churchill once said, “Those who fail to heed the lessons of history are doomed to relive them.” So, during this time of intensifying anti-government political activities, and of revival of the militia movement, Americans should be fully aware of the potential consequences of the current traffic down that primrose path.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
DR. NO
A few doctors give the impression that they think they are gods. Nearly everyone has known one or two. It appears that Oklahomans may have one of those as U. S. Senator.
Doctors are usually very bright people. They have to be bright to pass the difficult regimen of medical college and to master the essentials of their profession. The problem comes when they go outside their sphere of knowledge and assume the same confidence of opinion in areas of less knowledge or expertise.
Of late, Dr. Coburn has taken up the practice of substituting his own judgment, or conscience as he puts it, for the wisdom of the entire Senate body. Several times he has blocked Senate consideration, and probable vote of approval, for legislation significant to people. A while back he did that on an issue of medical benefits for veterans. He did that on a humanitarian bill, bringing protests outside his Oklahoma offices by young people.
Now, “Senator No” is blocking extension of unemployment benefits for some 240,000 recipients, labeling it as an insignificant matter not worth its costs. Under the stupid Senate rule allowing him to do this, he keeps the other 99 senators from being able to vote up or down on the measure.
Singlehandedly and arrogantly, Dr. Coburn is assuming an omniscience he thinks the entire senate does not possess, therefore should never get to vote on something he doesn’t like.
Dr. Coburn says that he wants to block anything that is “not paid for,” meaning accompanied by a tax or by a cut in some other expenditure. Noble as that sounds, that is not the history of the senator’s votes. During the past administration he repeatedly voted for legislation, such as Iraq War costs and deficit budgets.
Mr. Coburn has repeatedly voted for tax cuts for the wealthy, although each one of those votes added greatly to the nation’s financial deficit.
But blocking a senate vote on a measure is not the same as voting against the same bill working its way through. Blocking democratic consideration is assuming an arrogant, one-person, autocratic ruling posture. Dr. Coburn says, “My conscience will not permit me to vote for (the measure) because it will add to the deficit burden of our children.” This seems somewhat hypocritical in view of past votes, but again, he can salve his conscience by voting against the measure – not by blocking other senators from having a vote one way or the other.
We suspect that Mr. Coburn’s real problem with this particular issue is that he does not really believe in extending unemployment benefits at all. Many republicans oppose that ideologically, and they are quite open in stating, “It is time for these people to get a job.” Never mind that jobs are short, and unemployment high, and that we are trying to keep consumer spending up to work out of the recession. But if this is what he thinks, then he should be honest and say that. But he should stop blocking a democratic vote on the issue.
Mr. Coburn has some ethics issues which he needs to be forthcoming about. He has told two stories about his role as a go-between in negotiating a financial payoff for his friend, Nevada senator Ensign, with the husband of his paramour demanding money. It would be good to have the truth about that ethics issue.
Further, Mr. Coburn has been associated with a group of fundamentalists, masquerading officially as a “church,” but offering deluxe, low-cost room and board arrangements for congressmen on “C” Street near the Capitol. From the facts emerging, this “church” tax exemption is questioned, and below the market room rates offered to congressmen may constitute unethical, as well as unreported taxable, “gifts.” Mr. Coburn and a dozen other congressmen face potential ethics and legal issues resulting from this long term arrangement.
Those who are involved in this cozy arrangement have some explaining to do, Mr. Coburn included. Other than to attack the journalists doing the investigating and reporting, there has been little response so far. The possibility exists that Mr. Coburn’s conduct has not been as pure as the driven snow. The public has a right to know.
It appears that Oklahoma will be stuck with Dr. Coburn for another six years by default. Thus far he has no opponent in either party. Too bad; he can’t really be that popular. But Coburn basks in the pledges of millions in support from the right-wing political group called Club for Growth, a tool of rightist billionaires, which also finances the tea party express bus and other operations of the fringe. They love Coburn’s irresponsible negative stance. Apparently all this scares strong opposition away.
In spite of all the above, we will credit Senator Coburn for showing some awareness of the need to tone down the rhetoric and emotionalism of the present hostile political divide in the nation. He is being attacked in his own party for saying this, and also saying that he thinks Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a “nice lady,” undeserving of the vicious attacks and threats made against her.
We suspect also that there may be a personal connection between the senator and President Obama. From certain subtle cues, there seems to be a genuine bond of some sort between them. If so, we think that the senator could do the nation a great deal of good if he would focus his efforts on expanding that kind of bi-partisanship and reducing the rancor that dominates politics today.
That would seem to be the Christian, biblical “peace-maker” thing to do.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Doctors are usually very bright people. They have to be bright to pass the difficult regimen of medical college and to master the essentials of their profession. The problem comes when they go outside their sphere of knowledge and assume the same confidence of opinion in areas of less knowledge or expertise.
Of late, Dr. Coburn has taken up the practice of substituting his own judgment, or conscience as he puts it, for the wisdom of the entire Senate body. Several times he has blocked Senate consideration, and probable vote of approval, for legislation significant to people. A while back he did that on an issue of medical benefits for veterans. He did that on a humanitarian bill, bringing protests outside his Oklahoma offices by young people.
Now, “Senator No” is blocking extension of unemployment benefits for some 240,000 recipients, labeling it as an insignificant matter not worth its costs. Under the stupid Senate rule allowing him to do this, he keeps the other 99 senators from being able to vote up or down on the measure.
Singlehandedly and arrogantly, Dr. Coburn is assuming an omniscience he thinks the entire senate does not possess, therefore should never get to vote on something he doesn’t like.
Dr. Coburn says that he wants to block anything that is “not paid for,” meaning accompanied by a tax or by a cut in some other expenditure. Noble as that sounds, that is not the history of the senator’s votes. During the past administration he repeatedly voted for legislation, such as Iraq War costs and deficit budgets.
Mr. Coburn has repeatedly voted for tax cuts for the wealthy, although each one of those votes added greatly to the nation’s financial deficit.
But blocking a senate vote on a measure is not the same as voting against the same bill working its way through. Blocking democratic consideration is assuming an arrogant, one-person, autocratic ruling posture. Dr. Coburn says, “My conscience will not permit me to vote for (the measure) because it will add to the deficit burden of our children.” This seems somewhat hypocritical in view of past votes, but again, he can salve his conscience by voting against the measure – not by blocking other senators from having a vote one way or the other.
We suspect that Mr. Coburn’s real problem with this particular issue is that he does not really believe in extending unemployment benefits at all. Many republicans oppose that ideologically, and they are quite open in stating, “It is time for these people to get a job.” Never mind that jobs are short, and unemployment high, and that we are trying to keep consumer spending up to work out of the recession. But if this is what he thinks, then he should be honest and say that. But he should stop blocking a democratic vote on the issue.
Mr. Coburn has some ethics issues which he needs to be forthcoming about. He has told two stories about his role as a go-between in negotiating a financial payoff for his friend, Nevada senator Ensign, with the husband of his paramour demanding money. It would be good to have the truth about that ethics issue.
Further, Mr. Coburn has been associated with a group of fundamentalists, masquerading officially as a “church,” but offering deluxe, low-cost room and board arrangements for congressmen on “C” Street near the Capitol. From the facts emerging, this “church” tax exemption is questioned, and below the market room rates offered to congressmen may constitute unethical, as well as unreported taxable, “gifts.” Mr. Coburn and a dozen other congressmen face potential ethics and legal issues resulting from this long term arrangement.
Those who are involved in this cozy arrangement have some explaining to do, Mr. Coburn included. Other than to attack the journalists doing the investigating and reporting, there has been little response so far. The possibility exists that Mr. Coburn’s conduct has not been as pure as the driven snow. The public has a right to know.
It appears that Oklahoma will be stuck with Dr. Coburn for another six years by default. Thus far he has no opponent in either party. Too bad; he can’t really be that popular. But Coburn basks in the pledges of millions in support from the right-wing political group called Club for Growth, a tool of rightist billionaires, which also finances the tea party express bus and other operations of the fringe. They love Coburn’s irresponsible negative stance. Apparently all this scares strong opposition away.
In spite of all the above, we will credit Senator Coburn for showing some awareness of the need to tone down the rhetoric and emotionalism of the present hostile political divide in the nation. He is being attacked in his own party for saying this, and also saying that he thinks Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a “nice lady,” undeserving of the vicious attacks and threats made against her.
We suspect also that there may be a personal connection between the senator and President Obama. From certain subtle cues, there seems to be a genuine bond of some sort between them. If so, we think that the senator could do the nation a great deal of good if he would focus his efforts on expanding that kind of bi-partisanship and reducing the rancor that dominates politics today.
That would seem to be the Christian, biblical “peace-maker” thing to do.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Thursday, April 08, 2010
THE FRINGE ON THE TEA WAGON
Two fringe movements have been spotlighted in the news lately. The Tea Party folk continue to be active, and a militia group in Michigan made the news, charged with seditious conspiracy. The tea party people have a bus going cross country toward Washington, D.C. to arrive near April 15, which just happens to be the day when federal income taxes are due. Of course, this is no coincidence.
The historical Boston Tea Party was carried out by a group of colonists who were enraged by a new British import tax placed on their tea. Essentially the current “tea party” movement is a tax protest. Many have never understood that. They think that it is a movement against socialism, big government, threats to liberty, national deficits, and government takeover of health care.
Since none of those issues stand up to the light of facts and reason, and serve as window dressing for ditto-heads, then the question arises: “What is the real motivation behind the Tea Party?” As indicated above, the basic reason is taxes. The tea party coordination, staff, activities, and publicity are funded by billionaires who do not want to pay taxes.
They fear the expiration and reversal of the Bush tax cuts the wealthy have enjoyed. It is as if nobody remembers when the richest paid a 90% tax rate in this nation, coincidentally the time when wars were fought and great bridges, dams, and highways were built. They forget that Reagan lowered taxes on the wealthiest and started the precipitous growth of the federal debt. The Bush tax cuts for the rich took deficits higher. Tax cuts have brought nothing but fiscal trouble for the nation.
For these billionaire backers added angst about health care reform is that they may have to pay more taxes to insure all those extra people -- mostly minorities, poor whites, and sick people. They have no social conscience when it comes to taxes. Unfortunately, this may well be the motivation also for those middle class white followers who already have a health insurance policy. The fact that an expensive 30% of Hispanics are uninsured and 20% of blacks, compared with 10% of whites, may add a racist tinge to motivation with some.
There is a certain amount of just plain anti-government hostility involved in all this tea party stuff, as well as in the militia movement. The notion that they are losing control of the country is paramount. Perhaps the recent election of a black president with a platform of change has been threatening to their sense of order. A long series of court decisions going against white males toward minorities and females is a source of rancor. The notion that the wage earner is paying taxes to support a lazy sub-class is involved in this fear of “socialism” among working class people.
A big problem for some lies in national demographics. The country is becoming less white and much more Hispanic, black, and minority. In a few decades, forecasts are that white people will no longer be a majority in the United States. This issue of change, compounded by immigration, threatens many white Americans. This is likely an underlying motivation for the militia movement, in that some Americans think that they may sometime in the future have to take up arms to protect their rights and their property – or to take their country back.
A large number out there believe that religion is being suppressed by government, and that the Bible is being tossed out of public schools and other public agencies. They have been threatened by a moral blow of rock and roll music and now comes “hip-hop,” whatever that is.
Some people no longer believe that they can trust “democracy” in government because “we” are becoming outnumbered, and people don’t vote according to our ideas of good and bad. Some feel that they can no longer trust legislative bodies to do right, nor can they trust other social institutions such as courts and schools to do right. So, they organize “patriot” groups of one kind or another – tea party, tea party militias, Hutaree militia, American patriots, or some groups with other similar high-sounding titles. There has been a 245% growth in number of “patriot” groups since 2008.
Those who see their way of life changing due to demographic and cultural shifts become easy prey to those political demagogues who are selling an off-brand type of patriotism. They respond to anti-government political movements, such as the tea party. They are handy pawns for political use by the party out of power against the party in power. They are even prey for those organizing militias and advocating violent resistance against the legitimate government. They respond to a Texas governor shouting “secession” into a microphone.
Those who are disenchanted for one reason or another are vulnerable to conspiracy theories, as well as lies told to gain political advantage. They are easily led by distortions of reality and demonizing rhetoric in pointing blame for problems, both imagined and real. They should ask themselves a basic question: “To look after my interests, do I trust unregulated big business more than government?” That is their choice.
This country is ripe for the growth of such fringe groups and organizations. Political and media demagogues have used biased media and other means to coalesce anti-government sentiment in our society into a broad movement which is potentially dangerous to our democracy and our nation. They have created a level of incivility and hostility in our political discourse which invites violence.
That is starting to occur, and it will worsen unless we stop it.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
The historical Boston Tea Party was carried out by a group of colonists who were enraged by a new British import tax placed on their tea. Essentially the current “tea party” movement is a tax protest. Many have never understood that. They think that it is a movement against socialism, big government, threats to liberty, national deficits, and government takeover of health care.
Since none of those issues stand up to the light of facts and reason, and serve as window dressing for ditto-heads, then the question arises: “What is the real motivation behind the Tea Party?” As indicated above, the basic reason is taxes. The tea party coordination, staff, activities, and publicity are funded by billionaires who do not want to pay taxes.
They fear the expiration and reversal of the Bush tax cuts the wealthy have enjoyed. It is as if nobody remembers when the richest paid a 90% tax rate in this nation, coincidentally the time when wars were fought and great bridges, dams, and highways were built. They forget that Reagan lowered taxes on the wealthiest and started the precipitous growth of the federal debt. The Bush tax cuts for the rich took deficits higher. Tax cuts have brought nothing but fiscal trouble for the nation.
For these billionaire backers added angst about health care reform is that they may have to pay more taxes to insure all those extra people -- mostly minorities, poor whites, and sick people. They have no social conscience when it comes to taxes. Unfortunately, this may well be the motivation also for those middle class white followers who already have a health insurance policy. The fact that an expensive 30% of Hispanics are uninsured and 20% of blacks, compared with 10% of whites, may add a racist tinge to motivation with some.
There is a certain amount of just plain anti-government hostility involved in all this tea party stuff, as well as in the militia movement. The notion that they are losing control of the country is paramount. Perhaps the recent election of a black president with a platform of change has been threatening to their sense of order. A long series of court decisions going against white males toward minorities and females is a source of rancor. The notion that the wage earner is paying taxes to support a lazy sub-class is involved in this fear of “socialism” among working class people.
A big problem for some lies in national demographics. The country is becoming less white and much more Hispanic, black, and minority. In a few decades, forecasts are that white people will no longer be a majority in the United States. This issue of change, compounded by immigration, threatens many white Americans. This is likely an underlying motivation for the militia movement, in that some Americans think that they may sometime in the future have to take up arms to protect their rights and their property – or to take their country back.
A large number out there believe that religion is being suppressed by government, and that the Bible is being tossed out of public schools and other public agencies. They have been threatened by a moral blow of rock and roll music and now comes “hip-hop,” whatever that is.
Some people no longer believe that they can trust “democracy” in government because “we” are becoming outnumbered, and people don’t vote according to our ideas of good and bad. Some feel that they can no longer trust legislative bodies to do right, nor can they trust other social institutions such as courts and schools to do right. So, they organize “patriot” groups of one kind or another – tea party, tea party militias, Hutaree militia, American patriots, or some groups with other similar high-sounding titles. There has been a 245% growth in number of “patriot” groups since 2008.
Those who see their way of life changing due to demographic and cultural shifts become easy prey to those political demagogues who are selling an off-brand type of patriotism. They respond to anti-government political movements, such as the tea party. They are handy pawns for political use by the party out of power against the party in power. They are even prey for those organizing militias and advocating violent resistance against the legitimate government. They respond to a Texas governor shouting “secession” into a microphone.
Those who are disenchanted for one reason or another are vulnerable to conspiracy theories, as well as lies told to gain political advantage. They are easily led by distortions of reality and demonizing rhetoric in pointing blame for problems, both imagined and real. They should ask themselves a basic question: “To look after my interests, do I trust unregulated big business more than government?” That is their choice.
This country is ripe for the growth of such fringe groups and organizations. Political and media demagogues have used biased media and other means to coalesce anti-government sentiment in our society into a broad movement which is potentially dangerous to our democracy and our nation. They have created a level of incivility and hostility in our political discourse which invites violence.
That is starting to occur, and it will worsen unless we stop it.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Friday, April 02, 2010
ALL TEA PARTY?
“We are all Tea Party here,” declared Sarah Palin appearing with John McCain at a recent rally supporting his re-election as senator from Arizona. The crowd screamed its approval of that statement, and John McCain beamed somewhat sheepishly. One wonders what was going through McCain’s mind at that time.
Was he thinking: “How did it ever come to this?” Was he mortified with embarrassment? Did he think: “A couple of years ago I picked this woman out of obscurity, and she was an embarrassment to me during the election. Now, look what I am into. She’s picking me up and dusting me off.” Or was it, “I’m an 80 year old war veteran and once a respected leader. I’ve endured terrible things. Now, why me, why this, Lord?”
Most of us had a lot of respect for John McCain during his earlier years as a maverick, going against his party and working across the aisle with the opposition on any number of issues important to the country. His succumbing to pressure from the right and picking Sarah Palin bothered most moderates. That topped off his shift to hard right rhetoric during his run for his party’s nomination. Then he continued to run an entirely negative campaign for the presidency, still using the style of the hard right.
Now poor John McCain is locked in a life or death struggle for his own senate seat with a loony from the fringe right, a political snake oil salesman if there ever was one. This guy lost his seat in congress after his involvement in the Abrahamoff bribery scandals shortly back. Now the guy is coming at McCain for the party’s nomination, running from the lunatic fringe.
Rather than revert to what many of us think his real nature might be, John has chosen to go further and further to the right. His public appearances and his speeches in the Senate have been full of right wing hostility and anger. At home he is apparently trying to get as far over to the right as this kook who is opposing him. This is what brought him to a crazed bunch of tea party fans of Sarah Palin, while accepting the gratuitous endorsement of this know-nothing political celebrity from the fringe.
Palin has a few new cutesy twists to the old talking points, and a generous lacing of biting sarcasm disguised as humor – not funny outside the tea party ranks. The followers have the familiar signs calling Mr. Obama a commie, a Nazi, a Hitler makeover, socialist, Muslim, and foreigner, and the Devil -- among other things. Their dialogue with reporters goes: “We want our country back; the government won’t listen to us; nobody wants that health care bill; health care (or you name it) is causing big deficits and bankruptcy; government is taking over health care; a bureaucrat will make your health decisions; don’t tread on me; and no taxation without representation.
The lack of validity to most or all of their signs and utterances doesn’t seem to bother the tea party crowd, nor their icon, Ms. Palin. Some should know better, of course, but those have shared the responsibility of selling an unthinking part of the public on the big lies.
One would think that all this hostility could not be generated from the health care issue alone, especially if this loony bunch actually believes all those lies and slogans. Unfortunately, this raucousness has been inflamed and goaded not only by the right wing talk radio and Fox News stars, but it has had its cheerleaders from among republican party stalwarts. “Hell, no, you can’t!” shouted House republican leader John Boehner after he lost the vote. That angry, hateful, threatening display by the party leader gave a clear “go-ahead” to the thugs in his party’s right.
Is it important to understand that research shows 75% of the tea party fringe to have republican party identification, while only 15% have democrat backgrounds? Of course, nobody would expect anything different.
History has shown that extremists on either side do not win elections. For example, republican Goldwater and democrat McGovern lost in landslides. If the Republican Party keeps to the hard right, as they have been doing, then history casts them as a loser in any national general election.
On the other hand, if the republicans disavow the tea party fringe, and that group organizes to run its own candidates, then other historical trends come into play. Does anyone remember 1992 when Ross Perot entered with a good following, and Bill Clinton beat the elder Bush with not quite half the votes cast? Ralph Nader has caused similar problems for democrats, resulting in George W.’s election.
As of now the republican party regulars seem to be allowing the tea party fringe, with the help of ultra-conservative broadcasters, to take over and dominate their party. Should they continue to do so, and eventually achieve the image of the hostile, pseudo-patriot tea party people, it is questionable that anything good can come for them or for anyone else.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Was he thinking: “How did it ever come to this?” Was he mortified with embarrassment? Did he think: “A couple of years ago I picked this woman out of obscurity, and she was an embarrassment to me during the election. Now, look what I am into. She’s picking me up and dusting me off.” Or was it, “I’m an 80 year old war veteran and once a respected leader. I’ve endured terrible things. Now, why me, why this, Lord?”
Most of us had a lot of respect for John McCain during his earlier years as a maverick, going against his party and working across the aisle with the opposition on any number of issues important to the country. His succumbing to pressure from the right and picking Sarah Palin bothered most moderates. That topped off his shift to hard right rhetoric during his run for his party’s nomination. Then he continued to run an entirely negative campaign for the presidency, still using the style of the hard right.
Now poor John McCain is locked in a life or death struggle for his own senate seat with a loony from the fringe right, a political snake oil salesman if there ever was one. This guy lost his seat in congress after his involvement in the Abrahamoff bribery scandals shortly back. Now the guy is coming at McCain for the party’s nomination, running from the lunatic fringe.
Rather than revert to what many of us think his real nature might be, John has chosen to go further and further to the right. His public appearances and his speeches in the Senate have been full of right wing hostility and anger. At home he is apparently trying to get as far over to the right as this kook who is opposing him. This is what brought him to a crazed bunch of tea party fans of Sarah Palin, while accepting the gratuitous endorsement of this know-nothing political celebrity from the fringe.
Palin has a few new cutesy twists to the old talking points, and a generous lacing of biting sarcasm disguised as humor – not funny outside the tea party ranks. The followers have the familiar signs calling Mr. Obama a commie, a Nazi, a Hitler makeover, socialist, Muslim, and foreigner, and the Devil -- among other things. Their dialogue with reporters goes: “We want our country back; the government won’t listen to us; nobody wants that health care bill; health care (or you name it) is causing big deficits and bankruptcy; government is taking over health care; a bureaucrat will make your health decisions; don’t tread on me; and no taxation without representation.
The lack of validity to most or all of their signs and utterances doesn’t seem to bother the tea party crowd, nor their icon, Ms. Palin. Some should know better, of course, but those have shared the responsibility of selling an unthinking part of the public on the big lies.
One would think that all this hostility could not be generated from the health care issue alone, especially if this loony bunch actually believes all those lies and slogans. Unfortunately, this raucousness has been inflamed and goaded not only by the right wing talk radio and Fox News stars, but it has had its cheerleaders from among republican party stalwarts. “Hell, no, you can’t!” shouted House republican leader John Boehner after he lost the vote. That angry, hateful, threatening display by the party leader gave a clear “go-ahead” to the thugs in his party’s right.
Is it important to understand that research shows 75% of the tea party fringe to have republican party identification, while only 15% have democrat backgrounds? Of course, nobody would expect anything different.
History has shown that extremists on either side do not win elections. For example, republican Goldwater and democrat McGovern lost in landslides. If the Republican Party keeps to the hard right, as they have been doing, then history casts them as a loser in any national general election.
On the other hand, if the republicans disavow the tea party fringe, and that group organizes to run its own candidates, then other historical trends come into play. Does anyone remember 1992 when Ross Perot entered with a good following, and Bill Clinton beat the elder Bush with not quite half the votes cast? Ralph Nader has caused similar problems for democrats, resulting in George W.’s election.
As of now the republican party regulars seem to be allowing the tea party fringe, with the help of ultra-conservative broadcasters, to take over and dominate their party. Should they continue to do so, and eventually achieve the image of the hostile, pseudo-patriot tea party people, it is questionable that anything good can come for them or for anyone else.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
