Some of us have a really hard time relating to the big Chick-fil-A controversy.  The economy is sagging, the Syrians keep killing each other, Mitt Romney is trying to appear presidential in the Middle East, Obama is doing something somewhere, and the Olympics are going on in London.  Then Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy declares gay marriage violates God's plan.  On the radio he said: "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage."  This suddenly became more controversial than health care. The anti-gays rallied around Cathy (including Sarah Palin) posting their pictures on Facebook smiling with Chick-fil-A bags in their hands and pro-gays posted pictures on Facebook of boycotts in front of Chck-fil-A stores.  What does this all mean?  Is it that Dan Cathy has become the sole interpreter of God's will on earth?  Are gays now forbidden to eat chicken?  Or should the religious right, including Mr. Cathy, just confine their opinions to their churches on Sunday and spare the rest of us their blatant bigotry.  This is not about freedom of speech, by the way.  The First Amendment guarantees Mr Cathy the right to say anything he wants without government suppression.  It does not guarantee that people will not disagree with him nor does it protect him from being criticized for what he says.

"Taxation is taking from one person and giving to another.  Taxation is theft."   This is the sad view of a self-professed libertarian in reaction to yesterday's blog entry.  I don't know why libertarians and right wingers always look at taxes as the government taking "my money" and giving it away to people who don't deserve it.  In case you have not broken the code, that means blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, drug addicts, gays, uneducated people who don't want to work and anybody else they feel are below them.  Actually, the government takes your money and spends it on such things as the Federal Aviation Administration air control system that keeps you safe when flying, the Center for Disease Control that monitors dangers to national health, the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard which protect our country, the FBI which fights crime throughout the nation, the Federal Drug Administration which attempts to make drugs safe for you when the pharmaceutical industry is not using politicians to strangle it, Social Security which most seniors live on.   It also spends it on dumb things like invading other countries but that’s another topic.  What libertarians and right wingers refuse to admit is that government can and does, under certain circumstances, serve some useful purposes.  But when your reason is blinded by bigotry you can't see that.

Why do rich people hate to pay taxes?  Since I have never been rich, I have never been able to relate to how rich people think.  Most of us--that is the non-rich--are content with having sufficient enough income to satisfy our needs--food, clothing, shelter--with maybe a little extra for some fun things, like the movies.  I must admit I have been fortunate and never been in desperate straights even when I was "downsized" (read fired) from a well paying marketing job because the company wanted to save money by dumping the older guys.  I was on welfare (unemployment insurance) for four months before buying, on credit, a small business.  Throughout all my working life I had some dumb idea that good citizens paid their taxes so their government could provide needed services.  Now I find that if you have lots of money, your only objective is to get more money and avoid paying taxes on it.  Some people, like presidential candidates, hide their money in off-shore accounts to avoid a tax bill and other spend huge amounts of money to elect a president who says he wont raise taxes.  Sheldon Adelson is worth about $25 billion and vows he will spend $100 million to defeat Obama. The Koch brothers who are worth $50 billion have pledged $50 million to defeat him.  If I had $50 billion would a few million more or less in taxes really make much of a difference in my life style?  I guess supporting your government by paying a fair amount of taxes is not the way very rich people and corporations think.

Mitt Romney wins his second Raser's Edge Dumb Ass Award.  This time for telling the British that their preparations for the Olympic Games had flaws he found "disconcerting."  He also evidently did not remember the opposition leader's name, calling him "Mr. Leader" and revealed he met with the head of British Intelligence which one is not supposed to do.  The British press skewered our would-be president.  They did not exactly call him an idiot but the London Times quoted a diplomat as saying "It's worse than Sarah Palin in terms of basic diplomacy."  Being compared to Sarah Palin qualifies Romney for a Double Dumb Ass Award.

Well the punishment police strike again and the Olympic dreams of a young Greek athlete are shattered.  Voula Papachristou, the 23-year-old Greek triple jumper posted this on twitter: "With so many Africans in Greece, at least the West Nile mosquitoes will be eating home made food."  For that she was deprived of the dream she has worked her whole young lifetime to achieve.  Was her tweet tasteless, offensive, stupid, racist even?  Yes to all.  Was it worth destroying her? No.  My granddaughter posted on facebook that a famous actor was "dog poop" but she in not an Olympic athlete so no one noticed it.  My email from right wing friends (yes I have some of those) are full of the most racist, bigoted vile comments about blacks and Hispanics you can imagine and the senders think these are really funny.  Of course, they are not Olympic athletes either so what the hell.  Freedom of speech?  Sure, just as long as you are not in the media spotlight and don't say anything that can be minimally construed to offend anybody.  I suppose the Greek government is really proud of punishing this kid and showing the world how tough they are on youthful stupidity.

It's too bad the NCAA does not have jurisdiction over the financial industry.  Now this is not another discussion on Jerry Sandusky who is a deplorable human being and if there is a hell he should rot there, nor of Penn State University.  It is a matter of principles and parallels.  Jerry Sandusky raped and abused young boys.  Higher ups new about it and covered it up to avoid bringing shame upon the university's football program and its venerated coach Joe Paterno.  So it was actually a few powerful men who were to blame for the mess.  Sandusky got his jail sentence, some of the cover up conspirators got fired and the NCAA came down like the hammers of hell on Penn State.  Without going into all the NCAA punishments which you have heard about elsewhere, the NCAA wanted to make sure Penn State got a merciless public flogging.  Okay.  Now here are the principles and parallels.  The financial industry raped and abused the American public by rigging the system with bogus financial instruments and conning people into mortgages they could not afford (there are other things but these will do for now).  The powerful men covered up as long as they could and when the shit hit the fan the government bailed them out.  Here's where we needed the NCAA approach but it never happened because the politicians of both parties covered the CEOs asses and did not hold them accountable.  Since the NCAA doesn't have jurisdiction over the financial industry, maybe, considering the similarities to the Sandusky case, it could get jurisdiction over the Catholic Church.

Why are politicians so frightened of and intimidated by the National Rifle Association?  After the calamity in Aurora, Colorado, not the President nor the Republican Presidential Candidate have had the guts to stand up and say we need to do something about gun control in this country.  Please note, this is New York Mayor Bloomberg's opinion.  It also happens to be mine.  Oh sure, Obama and Romney condemned the atrocity and offered their "thoughts and prayers" for the victims and their families and you know what?  That's a bunch of crap. When you are dead, especially at the hands of an insane person with an assault rifle, "thoughts and prayers" aren't worth a Goddamn thing.  Are the politicians going to reinstate the ban on assault weapons?  Please don't tell me anyone in America "needs" an assault weapon.  A 1999 Fortune Magazine survey found our esteemed lawmakers considered the NRA the most influential lobbying group.  By now they must have competition from bankers and oil and drug companies but the NRA still calls a lot of shots. (Excuse the pun.)  Several Democrats have sided with Republicans recently because those Dems are up for re-election and they feel they can't get elected without NRA support.  When the hell are politicians going to begin thinking about what's right for our country and not what's going to get them re-elected.  Obviously, the standard political response to a nutcase dressed like Rambo and armed to the teeth who kills a lot of people is to offer "thoughts and prayers" for the victims and their families.  Great.  The next thing you know they will suggest building a memorial.

Sideblog:   Now before the right-wing-nuts start accusing me of being one of "them lefty Democrat fascist, socialist, communist, anti-American, un-Patriotic dopes that want to take away my God-given 2nd Amendment rights" please note: I own two hand guns and I am very good at using them.  If our laws required me to have a license to own them I would be the first one to apply. 

An ill wind is blowing from the extreme right in this country.  It is an evil wind that recalls one of the most shameful periods in American history.  Michelle Bachmann and her right-wing fringe are dangerous.  Her latest rant in a letter to President Obama, signed by four other Republican Congressmen, declares that the Muslin Brotherhood has infiltrated the highest levels of the Federal Government.  She specifically accuses a Hillary Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, of ties to the Brotherhood.  For those of you who don't remember or weren't born yet, this has eerie similarities to Senator Eugene McCarthy who, in the 1950s, charged that Communists had "infiltrated the highest levels of the Federal Government."  His congressional hearings destroyed lives, reputations and careers based on tenuous evidence at best.  It was a very scary period pitting Americans against Americans by fomenting hatred and fear and it seems Bachmann & Co. want to repeat it.  Unfortunately, she has a following.  I found these comments about her letter: "If you're a Muslim, you cannot be an American."  "All Muslims should be jailed or deported."  "Michelle Bachmann is on the right track."  But fortunately, some see her for what she is.  As Senator John McCain said: "When anyone, not least a member of Congress, launches specious and degrading attacks against fellow Americans on the basis of nothing more than fear of who they are and ignorance of what they stand for, it defames the spirit of our nation."

The Presidential campaign will be like watching a NASCAR race.  A NASCAR race is pretty repetitious with the cars going round the track over and over again until someone crosses the finish line first. Our Presidential race is like that.  The candidates, like the cars going round and round, will say the same things over and over and over again.  Romney will tell you he has a plan.  That plan consists in cutting taxes for the rich, repealing Obama care, creating jobs and getting America moving again.  Obama will tell you he has a plan that will raise taxes on the rich, cut taxes for the middle class and small business, keep the Affordable Care Act, create jobs and get American moving ahead. Each one will keep telling you what an incompetent moron the other one is.  Okay, there may be a couple other things but you get the point. Everything the candidates are going to say you have already heard a hundred times (and will keep hearing).  Don’t expect anything new and profound. So here is how the campaign is like a NASCAR race.  Everyone is waiting for and hoping to see one of them go out of control and slam into a flaming, spinning crash against the wall.  We are all waiting for the big kaboom, when one of them makes a huge mistake that brings the electorate screaming to its feet.  Now that’s the kind of stuff our politics is made of.  Just keep repeating the same slogans and platitudes your supporters want to hear over and over and hope your tires don’t blow out.

Sideblog:  If non-citizens are prohibited from voting why aren't they prohibited from donating to the Presidential campaign?  Think about it.  Money, unfortunately, has more to do with who gets elected than votes.  (See post dated July 8, 2012)

The Democratic Party really needs a high profile goof ball like Donald Trump.  Someone who could whip up a frenzy over Romney's refusal to reveal all his tax returns.  How about calling them the "returners"?   If squabbles over Obama's birth certificate generated so much hysteria on the Republican right imagine what demanding Romney's tax returns could do to wake up drowsy Democrats.  The "birthers" won a victory of sorts since Obama did release a birth certificate which Trump and his followers doubted anyway.  Most Americans gave a collective yawn and hoped Trump would get lost and go back to promoting himself in other ways.  But tax returns are not birth certificates. It has become expected that candidates for high office demonstrate their fiscal purity by proving they did their civic duty and paid their taxes and did not make obscene quantities of money with little effort (like raking in huge salaries, bonuses and dividends).  Here is Romney's dilemma: The collective mentality in this case is not a partisan thing. All the public wants to know. The more he refuses to produce his tax returns, the more doubts he raises in the public mind that he is hiding something.  So the Democrats need someone to lead the "returners" and make sure they force the issue and get Romney to come clean.   Maybe they could find someone who Trump or Romney fired.

Sideblog:  Today’s Raser’s Edge Dumb Ass Award goes to the anonymous person or persons on the United States Olympic Committee who said:  “Hey I got an idea.  Why don’t we have Ralph Lauren design our uniforms and save a hell of a lot of money by making them in China.”

Why is it right wingers go semi-hysteric and accuse you of being "un-American" or, even worse, "un-Patriotic" if you do not agree with them? A recent Facebook exchange went something like this:  "I don't like the way Obama is squandering my money!"  (For right-wingers it's always "their" money.)  I pointed out that I thought Bush squandered a great deal of money on the wars he started.  Kaboom, the hysteria bomb exploded.  "You just ask all America-loving citizens if the money for the wars was wasted under Bush."  Of course, the implication is that I am not an "America-loving citizen" otherwise I would agree with him. Quite frankly I resent being called un-American or un-Patriotic by these knuckleheads and, unfortunately, you are going to see a lot of this from the right wing in the coming Presidential campaign.  This kind of thing, pitting Americans against each other with charges of being "un-American" is poison.  Those of you who remember the McCarthy era will know what I mean.  If you don't remember it, ask someone who does.  You will learn something.

Sideblog:  With this post, I am inaugurating the "Raser’s Edge Dumb Ass Awards" or the Daaaah.  These will be awarded from now until the end on the Presidential Campaign and will be bestowed upon anyone regardless of political party, official position (elected or not), or level of intelligence.  And the first Daaaah goes to Mitt Romney for his sterling ineptitude evidenced by standing before the NAACP and declaring:" I'm going to eliminate every non-essential, expensive program I can find. That includes Obamacare." I guess no one told him that "Obamacare" is the derogatory way Republicans refer to the Affordable Health Care Act or that the majority of black people favor it.  Yes, I know some Republican spinsters have rated Romney's speech a roaring success.

In 18th Century Colonial America private fire insurance companies maintained their own fire fighting squads.  If you were insured, you displayed your insurance company's sign or "mark" on your home.  If your house caught fire, several fire fighting squads would rush to the scene but if you didn't have the insurance mark of one of the squads, they let your house burn down.   This is a 200-year-old example of how private insurance companies were more interested in making money than providing a service.  They still are.  Back then, however, rational thought prevailed and the Colonials recognized it was not a good idea for insurance companies to also control the fire fighting squads. So it was determined that government was better than insurance companies at keeping houses from burning down.   Municipal fire fighting squads were formed and paid for by taxes for the benefit of all the citizens whether their houses caught fire or not. You know where this is going.  Substitute health care providers for fire fighters. We are now engaged in a great debate over whether private insurance companies or a government health care system should determine which fires get put out.  Perhaps we could take a lesson from the Colonials.

Sideblog:  The House is going to vote again to repeal the Affordable Health Care law.  This will be the 33rd time.  You know the famous saying, "Insanity, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."  Does this mean Republicans are insane or should we consider this more political grandstanding.  Or both?

Having written about politics for a few days, I thought I'd switch to something more uplifting, like cancer.  I am into the third week since my last five-hour chemo treatment and I'm actually beginning to feel almost like I once did.  The poisons are beginning to wear off, I am not collapsing into bed in the middle of the day and my fervent hope is that I never have to go through this again.   Of course, it brings up a philosophical question:  What if I do have to go through it again and how am I going to handle that?  The first time you really don't know what to expect so you deal with it on a day by day, night by night basis.  I hope that while they are looking for a cancer cure, they are also looking for more benign ways to treat it.  Without going into great detail, it suffices to say I would not wish cancer and its treatment on a politician. Now that it seems I can get back to a normal life and, at least for the moment, I am considered disease free, I have given way to reflection.  I am in a stage I would call "disbelief."  I want to believe it never happened, that it was all a bad dream, but then I look in the mirror.  Yes, I really did have cancer.  Yes, all my hair really did fall out.  Yes, I did go through radiation and chemotherapy.  I wish I hadn't, but I did.   I have discovered the "aftermath" is a whole new phase in the evolution of dealing with cancer.  It is amazing how many of my friends have had cancer and I did not know it.  They confide in me now about how long ago they went through treatment, five, eight, ten, 12 years. At this point I can only say three weeks. 

Here is an exciting new way to select our President and reduce the deficit all in one shot.  Instead of individuals voting and electoral colleges determining the winner (which few people understand) we could determine our President simply by how much money he can raise.  Effectively, this method will show how much people think a candidate is worth.  Or, you could say, how much they're willing to bet that the next President will do what they want him to do.  Now here is the beauty of this plan.  There would be no advertising.  TV networks would be paid to broadcast all stump speeches and debates.  (Just think of all the obnoxious negative advertisements we'd be spared in favor of boring, repetitious speeches and amusing debates.) All money would be collected by two big accounting firms, one nominated, by each party.  On Election Day, they announce the winner and the entire sum that both candidates raised would be turned over to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and applied to reducing the deficit.  Hey, this is the American way; Capitalism at it's finest.  You want your President, you buy him! And the proceeds go to the government of your choice. Now before any screaming, bleeding-heart liberals start ranting that this is unfair, this system would allow anybody, even little guys like me, to put up $25 and guys like Sheldon Adelson to shell out $100 million.  But remember, I'm part of the 99% and he's only one percent!  And you wouldn't have to worry about voter registration.   All you would need to vote is a credit card which proves you are a law-abiding capitalist, and you can do it online. This is perfectly constitutional.  Without doubt, if this went to the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts siding with the conservatives this time, would rule that in this context dollars are "votes" and not in any way could be construed as political contributions that would tend to corrupt politicians.  And when you come right down to it, this is pretty much the way we elect our President today anyway.

One of the staples of right wing political rhetoric is the absolute conviction that government, specifically the Obama government, it totally consumed with taking away: "my rights," "my freedoms," "my liberty."  Choose one or all of the above, depending on the degree of hysteria.  Our state representative Janet Adkins declared that Obmacare is "impinging upon the freedom of Florida families and small business."  She peppered her newsletter with some other hot button verbal irritants like "hold hostage," "penalize," and crescendoed into, "This (the Affordable Care Act) takes away the right to choose where your finances go."  Presumable Rep. Adkins has a driver’s license and owns a house.  The state (in this case hers, Florida) requires her to have car insurance.  Granted, if she chooses not to, she does not have to pay a tax, fine, penalty, love offering or whatever you want to call it.  But, if she refuses to get car insurance, the state denies her a license so the state has some leverage over telling her where her finances have to go.  If she owns a home, she must have home owners and possibly flood insurance.  In this case it is private industry (banks) that tells her where her finances have to go because they will not issue a mortgage unless she has the insurance.  I woke up this morning and really tried to think of what liberties the Obama Administration has taken away from me this week and I could not come up with a single one.

Do you remember the "why" stage kids go through?  Parent says:  "We're all going to a parade tomorrow."  Child:  "Why?"  "Because it's the 4th of July."  "Why?"  "Because it's the birthday of America." "Why?"  You get the point.  Most of these parent-child exchanges end with the parent declaring "Because I said so."  That seems to be the way our political discourse is going today.  Republican Party says:  "Obamacare is horrendous."  "Why?"  "Because it is." "Why?"  "Because."  "Why?"  "Because I said so."  Democratic Party says:  "The Affordable Health Care Act is wonderful."  "Why?"  "Because it is." "Why?"  "Because."  "Why?"  "Because I said so."  We live in a political world where everyone believes they are absolutely right but no one acknowledges they have any obligation to say why they are right. Pundits, especially Republicans, tend to indulge in hyperbole.  One remarked, "This is the highest tax in American history!"  It's not.  Another opined, "This is the worst thing that ever happened to America in its entire history!"  He obviously forgot George W.'s unwarranted invasion of Iraq which would be higher on my qualifying list.  How about Justice John Roberts's decision?  One law professor, obviously right leaning, labeled it "a sell out."  An equally qualified law professor, obviously left leaning, declared Roberts "saved the Court and defended it from being labeled 'activist'." Does anyone among you think the upcoming general election campaign will bring greater clarity? I have a hunch, no rather a fear, that there are a great many Americans who will not think for themselves (as usual) but simply acquiesce to their Party’s positions.  If they should have the temerity to ask “Why?” The Party will respond, “Because I said so.”

Medicare is good.  Our politicians who so adamantly want to destroy Medicare should try it, they might like it. (You knew this blog was going to get political sooner or later.) Would someone give me an answer to a very simple question:  Why is it bad for our government to provide universal health care for all its citizens?  It's a very straight forward question.  What is wrong with our government doing what the government of every civilized nation on the planet already does?  Are you going to tell me that it was wrong for Medicare, a government program that pays medical bills for old people like me, to pay for my cataract surgery and cancer treatment? Are you going to tell me the much touted private sector would do it better?  Just lie in a hospital pre-operation room where you are separated from other patients by flimsy curtains and listen as I did.  "The insurance company refused to pay for an expensive test my doctor ordered saying it was not medically necessary."  So who decided on "medical necessity"?  Not the doctor, the insurance company.  "In the state we came from my husband's insurance paid for my diabetes treatment.  When we moved here, the new health insurance company called it a pre-existing condition and refused to cover it."  Death panels?  We already have them.  They're called private insurers.   Anyone who thinks insurance companies are noble entities eager to provide you with health care is either hopelessly naive or incredibly stupid.   Insurance companies are in business to make money.  Period.  Are there things that need to be fixed in Medicare?  Of course.  Is health care getting more and more expensive and costs need to be brought under control?  Certainly.  Are there sensible solutions already proposed that can be applied to fix what's wrong and really give us the best health care system in the world?  Yes. The problem is the lack of political will.  One of our major parties has become so ossified in its thinking that it will not even consider alternatives or new ideas. (Even though the “private mandate” was originally a Republican idea and was included in Romney’s Massachusetts health   program.)  All they think about is privatizing everything (schools, social security, health care, prisons, military security.) This will drive many people I know up the wall but there are some things government can do better.  To be continued.