tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31961003163402000702024-02-19T22:28:54.284-08:00Views of a Liberal with Glimmers of RationalityKaren Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-79843048671729305232015-04-15T10:57:00.000-07:002015-04-15T10:57:29.223-07:00Iran: Let's Give Them Something to Talk About<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
America—the United States of—was founded on an awe-inspiring
belief: “We the people.” <u>We</u>—with no
qualifiers. All of us. At our country’s inception, this was not
true, but words have power, and that power compels many of us to continue to
believe in our possibilities. I cling to Langston Hughes' poetic hopes--"Let America be America again, the land that never has been yet and yet must be."<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are those who proclaim American Exceptionalism, and
they condemn anyone who discusses some of our historic failures as being less than
patriotic. Supposedly, <i>we</i> do not love
America as much as <i>they</i> do. Does our
love of country need to be blind? How then is any country to become all that it can be if its citizens are oblivious to its
faults? How can our country rectify
historic wrongs if we pretend not to see them?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let us then engage in some serious introspection about the consequences of
Western actions in the Middle East. (The term <i>Middle East </i>was not widely used until after World War I to
describe the area of Northern Africa and the Arab states, but at that time, it was to separate that area from the Far East
and the rest of Africa.) When we study
the unintended consequences of Western actions in this area, we cannot be
surprised that many in the Middle East regard Westerners—sometimes particularly the U. S.—as
nations meddling where we don’t belong and/or as oppressors. We do say that we want peace in the Middle East, but
our words and actions often seem to contradict this. There are exceptions, but in general, Western
powers have done more harm than good whenever we/they took on a superior or
paternalistic role <i>in</i>--or attitude <i>about</i>--this area. After all, colonial powers <i>did</i>
draw lines on a map after World War I to create <u>new</u> nations, but the
cultures in these areas are ancient, not new.
Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon are among those nations created on paper, but
Iran—formerly Persia—remains in essentially the same place as it has been
for centuries. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We need to remember that history, especially since the neo-Cons who
started a war with Iraq by choice <i>and</i> on bogus intelligence are now telling us
<u>not</u> to consider talking to Iran about their nuclear capabilities. The Powers that Be took the neo-Con advice
about Iraq. That was disastrous. Why are those people even talking now? More importantly, why is anyone listening? After we could not
find the non-existent WMDs, the not-war, rather an "operation," became all about a democratically
elected government in Iraq. Rumsfeld was
totally shocked that a Shiite majority won, even though he could have found out
that Shiites--who had been oppressed by Hussein and the Sunni minority--have outnumbered Sunni in Iraq forever, had he checked. Then Bremer disbanded Hussein’s Sunni
army, and they became the insurgents.
There wasn't an al Qaeda in Iraq when we started the war, but there was an al
Qaeda in Iraq during and after.
Petraeus, the general to end all generals, used the Sunni for a bit, and
then that was over. So now, they've
morphed into ISIS/L. This disaster is a
direct result of our ill-informed, ill-considered actions when we marched into
Iraq. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a tyrant
who “gassed his own people.” (When the G. W. Bush administration said that, they hoped we’d forget that the gassing of his own people occurred
while we were <i>allied</i> with Iraq against Iran.)
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And now Iran is a worry of ours, a worry that Iraq—with
Hussein in charge—had kept in check. Get a grip people. We
cannot magically wipe out the reality that Iranian scientists already know how
to make nuclear weapons and, that in time, they <i>can</i> produce a nuke. Given that, why is it a bad idea to negotiate
to delay this as soon as possible?
McCane and his “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” gang seem determined not to
talk to Iran. Forty-seven GOP
Senators even went so far as to write a letter to the Ayatollah of Iran, telling him
not to trust any deal with us. Why are
they--and some Democrats--so intent on our <u>not</u> working with other
nations alongside the Obama administration in attempts to avoid
war? We finally have many of the globes’
powerful nations—Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany—working
together to lessen the threat of increased nuclear proliferation. And this is a non-starter? Why?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Going to war with Iran is a very bad idea. Lest you have any doubt about this, check out
some of these facts.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Compare the areas--Iran: 636,400 sq. miles to Iraq: 168,754
sq. miles. Compare the populations--Iran: 81 million people to Iraq: 36 million people. Look at the difference in percentages of Sunni and Shiite Muslims in each country. Iran is 90 percent Shiite and about 9 percent Sunni. Iraq is 60-65 percent Shiite with 15-20 percent Sunni. There are Christians and Jews in both areas, but other religions are a very small part in either country.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Add to these facts that Iran is one of the globes’ oldest
civilizations (Persia—224 AD). Iraq was carved from Mesopotamia and drawn on a map by the League of Nations in 1920
after the demise of the Ottoman Empire. It only became independent in 1932. The geographic identity of Iranians is centuries old; Iraq is a much newer nation. Think about these facts, and you can see that fighting with a much larger country with more people might deserve some critical thinking before rash acting.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Just touting American Exceptionalism and saying USA! USA! does not excuse us from being rational
when we make decisions that have far reaching, life or death consequences. Before we barge headlong into a war we might
just be able to avoid, think <b><i>détente,</i></b> all you Reagan lovers. And do study your history and the facts as
well as recall the events of the Second Gulf War—as we now call Operation
Whatever. (Congress <i>will</i> not and <i>has</i> not
declared war since World War II. Our
police actions or conflicts or operations are only called <i>war</i> after we finish
them.) War with Iraq was far from a promised cake walk, and that mission is far from accomplished. The tragic deaths and life-long repercussions for the men and women who fought for us there deserve our best. They deserve to believe that we do not ask so much of them without considering the cost to them and their families. Now Iran?
Dear Congress: Please think before you shoot off either your mouths or the guns.<o:p></o:p></div>
Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-53561086157153572142015-04-01T14:22:00.000-07:002015-04-01T14:22:57.864-07:00I've Already Been There. Why Are We Going Back?<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I came of age as the image of June Cleaver collided with
the voice of Gloria Steinem, when the country basked in our goodness--“One
nation, under God”--while enforcing Jim Crow laws with water hoses and snarling
dogs. Lake Erie caught fire, and young
men I knew were fighting—some dying—in a civil war in the jungles of
Vietnam. We’d ignored humankind’s
ongoing damage to our environment and slipped and slid into a civil war in
South East Asia. “Those who cannot
remember the past are doomed to repeat it.” (George Santayana, 1863) Read
history. What have we learned?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">We marched and spoke out and wrote letters and joined
political campaigns, believing that we could make a difference. We wanted equal civil rights and voting
rights for people of color and for women, a sane foreign policy, and a safer
environment. And change did come.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Because of the courage of so many, Congress passed laws
to make the 14<sup>th</sup> and 15<sup>th</sup> Amendments a reality. The war ended. We vowed to better the environment and lessen
our dependency of Middle Eastern oil.
The 26<sup>th</sup> Amendment gave 18-year-old citizens the right to
vote, a right they’d certainly earned since they’d been deemed old enough to go
to war. The birth control pill and <i>Roe v. Wade </i>gave women the power to
control their own reproduction. Then, in
2008, the U. S. elected a Black president.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I naively became certain that my children and their
children would see a world of equality, of fairness, of thoughtful
actions. That they would live in a world
of safe food and drink; of clean water and air. The idealist in me hoped politicians would
have learned the lessons of history when sabers once again began to
rattle. I was so certain……..then.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Not now. Howard Nemerov
did warn us: “We know that we know better than they knew/ And history will not
blame us if once again/The light at the end of the tunnel is the train.” Looks like a big Kaboom may be right in front
of us.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">While racism has never been extinguished, very few felt
comfortable being overt about it. And
then Tea Party members proudly carried protest signs depicting President Obama
with a bone through his nose. Talking
heads convinced a gullible segment of the population that Obama wasn’t even born
in the U. S, that he was a secret Muslim intent upon destroying the country. Uber capitalists fought to weaken the EPA and
regulations that protect the consumer.
On Meet the Press, Vice-President Cheney talked of “preemptive strikes”
to begin a needless war with Iraq, a war that has unloosed chaos throughout the
Middle East and strengthened Iran. Women’s
rights have been assaulted. The Supreme
Court has allowed a few billionaires to buy political power through<i> Citizens United, </i>something that unites
only the power of money and the weakening of ordinary citizens. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I look at my grandchildren and worry about their futures
unless everyone--in and out of government--awakens, reads, looks at the big
picture, thinks long term, and realizes that the “Good Old Days” were only good
for prosperous white men, not for most everyone else. I so long for a day when America becomes a
country intent to do what it takes to become what it promised to be. Langston Hughes pleads, “O, let America be
America, again/The land that never has been yet/And yet must be.” Please, America, let us not go back to the
past. I’ve been there, done that, and I
want to move beyond all that. The past
was not all that great for far too many in this country.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-82649586119332944772015-03-28T15:36:00.003-07:002015-03-28T15:36:14.330-07:00Corporations as People? No. Money Is Speech? I Don't Think So!<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I cannot understand some of the recent Supreme Court
decisions. Some of the justices seem to
have read another constitution than the one I have studied and treasured
throughout my academic life. The
interpretations about the political process beginning with the <i>Citizens </i>decision seem to negate my
ideas about equal rights. How can a
corporation be a person? When people are
ill, they seek medical help; they don’t get government bailouts. When people miss mortgage payments, they lose
their houses. When big banks lost money
on mortgage gambling, tax payers came to their rescue. They are too big to fail. People are too small to be saved?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">According to the first definition of <i>person </i>in Miriam Webster, a <i>person
</i>is <i>a human being. </i>A corporation is not a living human being
and therefore, cannot be a person. A
corporation cannot vote, even after it has given all the money it wants to skew
the political process. Nonetheless, even
though it cannot literally vote, it can buy votes. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">How can money <u>be</u> speech? First of all, money is not free, and not
everyone has the same amount. Does that
mean that a full-time minimum wage earner making a little over $15,000 a year
can talk as loudly, metaphorically speaking, as Bank of America’s CEO whose
yearly compensation is $24.8 million?
When these figures are seen, even saying that money is speech is absurd. Mitch McConnell is the Senator of Kentucky,
and every time I’ve heard him equate money and speech, I am astounded as he
should know the reality of poverty’s hardships well. Kentucky is in the top five states in terms
of poverty. How can a representative of
my home state say, “Money is speech,” as he is wont to do, when he should know
what the out-of-work coal miner makes? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And finally, how could SCOTUS so weaken the Voting Rights
Act of 1968 by declaring that it is no longer as needed? At this point, over 20 Red States have
enacted new voting laws that make it difficult for inner-city residents to
vote, even if they have voted numerous times in the past. They have no need of a driver’s license,
which is required for voting in many states, even though they may have
numerous, verifiable photo ID’s. Some of the elderly either have never had a
birth certificate either because they were born at home or have long ago
misplaced the one that they had. Not in the
least surprising is that most of those for whom voting has been made more
difficult lean toward the Democrats. It
is absolutely loathsome when Republican governors like Florida’s Gov. Scott
shorten voting days and polling areas in Democratic-leaning neighborhoods,
especially after evidence of long waiting lines and vote times in the last
elections. Florida’s ballot is often
pages long, stuffed with amendments from the sublime to the ridiculous, and it
takes the conscientious voter more than a moment to cast a vote. Additionally,
his and other GOP governors’ moves to cut Sunday voting directly impacts the
African-American community who have long made voting the Sunday before election
day—Souls to the Polls--a tradition of long standing. And Sunday voting also aids those who work
six days a week and don’t get leisurely lunch breaks to do with as they
please. To deliberately make it
difficult for certain voters and not others is discriminatory without a doubt.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">When I watched John Lewis and others beaten and gassed as
they peacefully walked across the Pettus Bridge in 1968, I wept. And then, when they and many, many others
completed that march all the way to Selma, I was so very hopeful that equal
rights was going to become a reality.
And then followed the passage of the Voting Rights Act thereafter; it made
me believe that the US had finally become what it could be, what it was meant
to be. I now feel very naïve because I
really believed that was that; all could vote.
It never occurred to me that this could be undone!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">What can you and I do about it? Register to vote, no matter how inconvenient
they make it for you. Start early and
find people to help you if you run into obstacles. Lobby your elected officials to extend voting
times and dates. Shame them on social
media if you must, but do make your views known. Money is loud but so is persistence,
especially if you organize others to make noise with you. Do vote in all local and state
elections. The Democratic base turns out
in presidential elections but is less faithful in off-year and local
elections. When we don’t vote, we cede
our voice to others who don’t have our concerns for the environment, health
care, the social safety net, women’s choice, etc. Our failure to vote in 2010 state elections
allowed Republicans to take more gubernatorial races than ever before in
history. That not only resulted in
giving them power to gerrymander to their party’s advantage as well as to redo
voting rights’ laws.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And so here is the take-away: SCOTUS rulings have made
the rich and powerful more rich and powerful.
SCOTUS has made it more difficult for some to vote. We, the people not rich and powerful in
money but in voice, need to vote and vote and vote and to make our voices heard
whenever and wherever. Tweet, Facebook,
e-mail, blog, write op-ed pieces. Old
school or new, do what it takes to reclaim your place in the political
spectrum.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-75382545523311088352013-04-27T19:08:00.001-07:002013-04-27T19:08:09.104-07:00It’s the Right to Vote. It's Not an Entitlement<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> Is the
Voting Rights Act in danger of being overturned or weakened? The very thought
of this moves me to tears. For my entire
adult life, I have taught young people about our country’s struggle to deal
with the issue of race, partly because I was so oblivious to and ignorant of
anything about it until the violence engendered by the Civil Rights Movement
came into my living room via John Cameron Swayze, Peter Jennings, and Walter
Cronkite.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> The right for
African-Americans to vote was paid for in blood. Philadelphia, Mississippi, 1964:
Klansmen murdered James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner. One of the murderers was the deputy
sheriff. Why were they killed? Because they were registering Blacks to
vote. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"> On Bloody Sunday, March 7,
1965, I and many others in America watched in horror as the televised airing of </span></span><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">The </span></span><span style="line-height: 18px;">Nuremberg</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"> Trials </span></span></i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">was interrupted to
show the horror of unarmed men and women being gassed and beaten as they
crossed the Pettus Bridge in Selma. Alabama, peacefully marching to ask for the right to
vote. Current Congressman, John Lewis of
Georgia, led that march and was severely beaten for the effort.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> The attitude of some on the
Supreme Court is that these two events among so many others are “oh so
yesterday.” And then there’s Justice
Scalia. He actually stated that the
Voting Rights Act is a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> Mr. Justice Scalia: Voting
is a right and the responsibility of a citizen.
Your seeing it as an entitlement is utterly appalling!<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> Chief Justice Roberts made
comments leading me to wonder if he was asleep while some Red State
legislatures did everything they could to disenfranchise the minority
and youth vote, constituencies that turned out for Obama in 2008.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> The Supreme Court sits in D.
C. where some waited in line for up to four hours to vote. In Miami, FL, the average wait time was 90
minutes. That was the<u> average</u>. Many in minority districts waited well over 4
hours to vote.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"> Before 2012, most of us
voted with any ID or none if the poll worker knew the voter. But in 2012, voting for some became much more
difficult. Nineteen states tried to make it very hard for minorities and the
young to vote; certain restrictions for registration or for re-</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">registration</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"> made it more than difficult or even impossible for some to overcome. Because of the Voting Rights Act, these new
laws were blocked in some—but not all—states.
And it’s not over. As the Court
deliberates, other states are considering new ways to disenfranchise some
voters.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"> Just last month, the NC
legislature passed a bill aimed at curtailing the college student vote. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that college
students have the right to register and vote where they go to school. To get
around this, NC is proposing to remove the tax exemptions for dependents who
register to vote at any address other than their parent’s homes. Why?
In 2008, college students in NC voted overwhelmingly for Obama, and
Obama won the state. And while he </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">didn't</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"> win the state in 2012, he did take over %48 of the vote and a huge percentage
of the youth vote. So, the GOP
legislature in NC wants to nip that in the bud if at all possible. Taxing to prevent votes for Democrats is a
tax the NC GOP can support.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> A democratic republic like
the US is dependent upon making it possible for all citizens among the many
constituencies to register and to vote. Even
after the Fifteenth Amendment was passed in 1870, in the Jim Crow South and
some other parts of the country, whites only could vote. We cannot be that kind of country again. This is not an all-white country today nor
has it ever been. The Voting Rights Act further assured
that the Fifteenth Amendment would be enforced.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> These legislators working to
curtail the rights of some of these constituencies cannot call themselves
patriotic, cannot wave the flag and declare themselves super Americans. Their attempts to impede the voting rights of
their fellow American citizens are anything but good for the country. They claim to be preventing voter fraud, but that is a smoke
screen. <b><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">Out of the 197 million
votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were
indicted for voter fraud, according to a</span> </b></span><b><a href="http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Minnite.pdf" target="external"><span style="background: white; color: black; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Department of Justice study</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">outlined
during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013
percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas</span></span></b><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 115%;">.</span>
<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376#.UXwih7WR_XQ">http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376#.UXwih7WR_XQ</a> <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> What about voter fraud even
more recently? </span><b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">What we can go by is the number of times that people have been
prosecuted successfully for such crimes. And the number is ridiculously low.
You have a better chance of being hit by lightning than discovering an incident
of polling place fraud. </span></b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: #005ea6; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><a href="http://www.usnews.com/weekly">[Read more Q&As in <i>U.S. News
Weekly,</i> now available on iPad.]</a></span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> It is my fervent hope that
the Supreme Court can see its way to the truth about what is really going on
and keeps the law that protects us from the machinations of those trying to keep
all the electoral power for their own kind.
Remember, what goes around politically comes around. The GOP would not like it if Democratic Party
controlled legislators enacted laws to curtail Republican voter turnout, and I
would be just as unhappy about those attempts to disenfranchise anyone. Our country’s well-being depends on free and
fair elections. Voting should be encouraged. It should be made more, not less, possible
for all eligible to cast a ballot.
Candidates then have to make their cases to all voters and to win on
their merit, regardless of party affiliation.
Our country will be the better for it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-54674048450124492372013-01-21T15:00:00.000-08:002013-01-21T15:00:08.577-08:00Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. All Men Are Created Equal. Words that Are Meant!On this day, January 21, 2013, I saw an America in which I believe with a whole heart, an America living up to the words penned by our Founding Fathers--that we have been endowed with "unalienable" rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and that all are created "equal." While we may not be all that we have the potential to be yet, we are much closer than I ever thought we'd be in my lifetime, Having come of age in the Mad Men/Jim Crow eras, seeing an African-American take the presidential oath of office for his second term is nothing short of astonishing.<br />
<br />
<br />
America continues to change and to become. The Founding Fathers were all white males. They were highly educated property owners, including some who owned slaves. But they wrote that we are all equal, that we all have the same rights. Even if they did not mean everything that they said at the time, the people of this country have held the Founding Fathers' feet to the proverbial fire. Those who already had those rights took them for granted. Those who had yet to gain them--the poor, the people of color, all women--treasured those words and expected them to be true for them as well. After all, those words had been written and enshrined. The words were therefore <u><b>meant.</b></u><br />
<br />
<br />
On this day, the juxtaposition of the inauguration and the day that yearly honors Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the words of the Founding Fathers almost jump from the page. In August of 1963, I sat in front of a television set in the Alpha Delta Pi basement at the University of Kentucky. I and those watching with me were sure that King's eloquent words would sway everyone to see that all should be afforded equal rights. And the view of all those on the mall--white and black, old and young, rich and poor, Jews and Christians and Muslims--standing together singing "We Shall Overcome"......I felt then that maybe we had. Sadly, the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, AL less than two weeks after that, a horror which killed four little girls, blasted us dreamers back to reality. But today, America saw a Black man who had been elected by over 50% of the American people for the second time. That is the dream Dr. King saw, not the nightmare we still sometimes see when people--even some politicians--use demeaning dehumanizing language to diminish those who are seen, in any way, as different.<br />
<br />
<br />
Nonetheless, the words--yes, the <b><u>words</u></b> of the Founding Fathers and the words of Dr. King are becoming increasingly real. Many of the Founding Fathers died of old age and natural causes, but their words survived. Dr. King's life ended abruptly with an angry bullet, but the haters can't kill and idea or a dream with guns and ammo.<br />
<br />
Once wordsmiths like Jefferson and Madison penned the young country's aspirations on paper all those years ago, they lived and continue to live. Today, President Obama noted that what helps one helps us all, and I was reminded of something else Dr.King said. "We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever effects one directly effects all indirectly."<br />
<br />
<br />
Today we saw the widow of slain Civil Rights worker, Medgar Evers, give the invocation. We saw the Tuskegee Airman honored in the parade. We saw the America that Langston Hughes wrote about in "Let America Be America Again." "Let America be America again, the land that never has been yet and yet must be."<br />
<br />
<br />
Today, we moved even closer to the country that we can be, that we must be, to thy country that we were promised,<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-73326936504768280222012-11-08T12:13:00.004-08:002012-11-08T12:13:49.832-08:00You Have the Right to Remain Silent. Please, I Beg of You, Donald, Do!<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I realize that Donald Trump is a successful man, but it
is difficult for me to take him seriously.
First, there is the hair. .Whatever does he see when he looks in the
mirror? He cannot possibly see what the
rest of us see. Maybe that topper he
wears keeps sanity from seeping in, because for a man who has made gazillions
of dollars, he says some really crazy things.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.5pt; border: none; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext 1.5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Regardless of where you
stand politically, the birther nonsense the Donald continues to promote is too
fringe for the Republicans I count among family and friends. How much conspiracy would it take for a
mother to give birth to a son in Kenya, simultaneously convince a newspaper in
Hawaii to print a birth announcement on that very day that her baby was born in
Hawaii, and then keep all of this a secret until he decided to run for
president four decades plus later? There
are reasons to argue about things President Obama should have done and could
have done, but his not having been rom here has nothing to do with that.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext 1.5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<h1 style="margin-top: 11.25pt;">
<span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; font-weight: normal; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"> </span></h1>
<h1 style="margin-top: 11.25pt;">
<span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; font-weight: normal; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">President Obama finally caved into the birthers over
a year ago and did release his long form birth certificate. No other president has ever been harassed in
this manner, and I wish the president had just ignored them. I didn’t think it would change any of their
minds. Facts are of no concern to those
kinds of people.</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; font-weight: normal; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Daniel Patrick
Moynihan said it best: “Y</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; line-height: 115%;">ou are entitled to your own
opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts?” But some of the fringe in
the GOP now choose to have their own “facts.”
If they were no longer to accept that people who once spoke Spanish
settled Florida and California, they would say, “Well that’s your opinion. We do not believe that.” Remember, one of
Romney’s campaign leaders proudly said that they were not going to be bothered
with fact checkers. Reality? No thanks.<o:p></o:p></span></h1>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">In April, Trump tweeted the
following: @realDonaldTrump</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: #999999; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; padding: 0in;"><br />
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">An 'extremely credible
source' has called my office and told me that </span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://twitter.com/BarackObama" target="_blank"><span style="color: black; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Barack
Obama’s</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> birth certificate is a fraud.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; padding: 0in;">A credible and, as always,
unnamed source who either does not exist or who is as crazy as the gullible who
buy what he is saying, regardless of facts—<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; padding: 0in;">The real birth certificate sows
that Obama was born August 4, 1961m in Honolulu’s Kapiolani Maternity and
Gynecological Hospital.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">"I know that
there is going to be a segment of people for which no matter what we put out,
this issue will not be put to rest," Obama said. "But I am speaking
for the vast majority of the American people as well as for the press. We do
not have time for this kind of silliness. We have better stuff to do. I have
got better stuff to do. We have got big problems to solve."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.5pt; border: none; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; border: none; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; padding: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">By May 29, 2012, Trump said in a </span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/donald-trump-romney-obama-birther_n_1553074.html" target="_hplink"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: windowtext; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">CNBC phone interview</span></a></span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> t<span style="color: #333333;">hat
the document was not enough, and that "nothing has changed my mind."
In a CNN interview on the same day, the "Celebrity Apprentice" host
continued to press the issue, </span>prompting </span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/wolf-blitzer-donald-trump-ridiculous_n_1553916.html" target="_hplink"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; color: windowtext; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; padding: 0in; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Wolf Blitzer to say
Trump </span></a></span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">was
"beginning to sound a little ridiculous."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; border: none; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; padding: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; border: none; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; padding: 0in;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Trump upped the ante when he began to question President
Obama’s academic record. For the record,
Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School and earned his
Bachelor’s in international studies from Columbia. He is sure that some document will list the
President as a foreign student. Trump
has also implied that the President can’t be that smart. Even if affirmative
action played a part in Obama;s acceptance to either of these prestigious
schools, the assigning of Magna Cum Laude is only earned by academic
achievement. Obama was President of the
Harvard Law Review. This is an
unarguable fact. You do not have to
agree with his politics to accept that.
For some reason, Barack Obama’s academic achievement just sticks in the
craw of the Trumps and Limbaughs of this world.
Why is this? In one breath, they
accuse the president of sounding “too professorial.” In the next, men like John Sununu suggest
that Obama is lazy, or, in Sarah Palin’s view, the president “shucks and
jives.” Is this about anything but
race? About Obama’s being the other? One
<i>not like us</i>? I say it is.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Trump’s most recent rant borders on publicly extorting
the President of the United States. He
demanded that the president release his college records and passport
applications to see if they note his place of birth. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 15.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 15.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">“Donald Trump criticized
President Obama on Thursday for not agreeing to release his college records and
passport application in return for a $5-million donation to a charity of the
president's choice.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 15.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 15.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">“The real estate magnate
and TV personality announced last week that he was extending the offer to the
president, and that Mr. Obama had until Wednesday to comply. In the aftermath
of Hurricane Sandy, he extended the deadline to noon Thursday.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 15.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 15.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">“After the deadline came
and went, Mr. Trump posted a video on YouTube calling it a "very, very sad
day for the United States of America." He suggested that the president's
snub prevented him from giving $5 million to a group such as the Wounded
Warrior Project, American Cancer Society or to the families of victims from the
embassy attack in Benghazi, Libya.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 15.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 15.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">“’Someday those papers
will come out, and people will say, 'You know what? Donald Trump was right,'’
he said in a video.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 15.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">___________________________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 15.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Perhaps, Donald, someday
people will say, “You know what? Donald
Trump was nuts!”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 15.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 15.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The President has
maintained a sense of humor about all of this kerfuffle about his
legitimacy. When he appeared on The
Tonight Show, he joked that he and Donald Trump had had bad blood dating back
to their school days in Kenya. "We had constant run-ins on the soccer
field," the president said. "He wasn't very good and resented it.
When we finally moved to America, I thought it would be over." </span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/">http://www.washingtontimes.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 15.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 15.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Donald
Trump, you have a right to remain silent.
Anything you say can be used against you. If I hadn’t been brought up to be polite, I
might just say, “Shut up! You’re making
an ass of yourself!”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-13082498925240003452012-02-17T19:13:00.009-08:002012-02-19T15:30:44.258-08:00War with Iran? Really!<div><div><div><br />It seems foolhardy to hear politicians rattling sabers at Iran, implying or even saying that they will go to war if Iran attempts to get nuclear weapons. There are definitely dangers inherent in Iran’s procuring nuclear weapons, but going to war with them does not seem to be the only answer. </div><div><br /><br />The United Kingdom and France, our allies, are part of the nuclear club. Pakistan and India are nuclear, and while they frighten one another, we have not threatened to go to war with them. And, while it is not official, we all know that Israel has nuclear capabilities.</div><div><br /><br />We ignored China until they detonated a nuclear bomb in 1964. Prior to that, we had not recognized the entirety of mainland China, calling Taiwan “China” after Mao Tse Tung and the Communists drove Chiang Kai Shek’s Nationalist forces onto that island. I always thought it a bit absurd that we did not “recognize” a land mass of 3696100 square miles (according to Britannica Encyclopedia), but that’s all we did when China went nuclear. We just didn’t officially notice them. </div><div><br /><br />Because the former Soviet Union had actual weapons of mass destruction, we were engaged in a Cold War from the end of World War II to the fall of the Berlin Wall in1989. That Cold War period lasted four decades and countless lives were lost containing Communism. We fought wars in Korea and Vietnam ourselves and financed wars by surrogates across the continent of Africa and Latin America.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>And how about North Korea with nuclear weapons? No one has ever accused their leaders of sanity, have they? </div><div><br /><br />I’d just as soon no one had the kind of power to annihilate entire populations, but, as my grandmother always said: If wishes were horses, we’d all take a ride. Like it or not, several countries have nuclear weapons, and, therefore, we have to learn to co-exist with them. We have used diplomacy and sanctions as well as working with other nations to keep those we fear at bay. Iran’s Arab neighbors are keeping very vigilant about Iran’s acquiring nuclear weapons, and so I hope that Israel does not get trigger happy too quickly. I fully understand why Israel is so leery about a nuclear-armed Iran, but I also hope that they do not start a war with Iran and drag us into it.</div><div><br /><br />Let us not forget that we invaded Iraq on the unfounded belief that they had nuclear weapons. Remember President Bush’s speech to the United Nations? “Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year,” he told the U.N. General Assembly in New York in 2002. In September of that same year, National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice said on CNN: “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” As it was, Iraq had no nuclear weapons, but nearly 45,000 Americans died in that war and thousands more were wounded. We’re still in Afghanistan. Do we really want to wade into another war in the Middle East unless there is absolutely no other way?</div><div><br /><br />Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Isn’t that how it goes? Wars have<br />unintended consequences. Iran’s new strength is partly a result of our having weakened their arch nemesis: Iraq. For decades, Iran and Iraq kept one another in check by fighting against or preparing to fight against one another. When we invaded Iraq, the U. S. and Iraqis had to concentrate on first squelching insurgents and then rebuilding a government and bombed-out buildings and infrastructure. With their eye off the Iranians, Iran grew stronger and more bombastic. There was no enemy on their border any more. We had seen to that.</div><div><br /><br />Yes, Iran is a problem. But then so is North Korea with nukes and a crazy man at the helm, civil war and unrest in parts of the African continent, a weakening European market, a U. S. Congress who can’t play well with others, crumbling infrastructure in our own country, and so much more. Saber rattling and bellicose talk are of little use. As the old saying goes, talk is cheap. furthermore, loud talk is even less valuable. Dealing with the complex world in which we live requires a multiple pronged approach, not just guns blazing. Our foreign policy has to be more sophisticated than threats of war at every turn. We cannot afford to lose more lives and money to force our ideas on another country. How much of the world can we occupy? How many countries can we control? There are better ways. Instead of politicians standing around talking tough, we need statesmen and women, sitting around a table, thinking, reasoning, and strategizing. Please! More grownups in the room!</div></div></div>Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-3071025485860891162012-01-25T16:01:00.000-08:002012-01-25T16:42:39.193-08:00Have We Really Overcome?<div><div><div><div><div>It’s taken me a while to complete this piece as I wanted to sound rational and not as hyperbolically hysterical as I was initially when I heard and read about the events discussed herein. The Republican debate hosted by Fox News on the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday exposed shocking behavior and commentary about the lack of racial sensitivity among the candidates as well as the audience. I refer to Fox News commentator Juan Williams asking Newt Gingrich about some of his recent statements referencing race.<br /><br /><br />Williams asked Gingrich about his having said that blacks have no work ethic and choose to be on food stamps. He asked the former Speaker about the Gingrich janitorial work plan for black children. Specifically, he asked Gingrich,” Can’t you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans but particularly to Black Americans?”<br /><br />Gingrich shrugged and said, somewhat flippantly, “No, I don’t see that.”<br /><br /><br />The largely White audience gave him a standing ovation, cheering and whistling as Gingrich went on to underscore his plans for poor Blacks. Juan Williams, in contrast, was booed! Cheers and applause for proud racial insensitivity? Boos for Juan Williams when he asked again if Gingrich’s comments were meant to belittle the poor and racial minorities? Boos. More boos for Williams. Condescension from Newt. I felt that I had been transported back to the pre-Civil Rights Era of my youth and young adulthood.<br /><br /><br />Gingrich even doubled down and reiterated his “plan” to help poor children in general and black children in particular—who have no work ethic, according to him--and he laid out his plan. He suggested that poor black children work as janitors in their schools. He seemed nonplussed as he ignored long and humanely established Child Labor Laws and asserted that black children grow up without a strong work ethic because they don’t see anyone around them working. (I would urge Mr. Nasty to get up very early one morning, drive to a poor neighborhood, and see all the men and women lined up at the bus stops, waiting to report to work, many of them African-Americans. Or he could watch the night cleaning shifts, for example, who work when he is sleeping.)<br /><br /><br />The Gingrich plan for impoverished black youths goes something like this: Fire the “union” janitor and let the children clean the school. There, they would develop a work ethic and earn money. “The average salary for a school janitor is $18,000.”* If we use the Gingrich number of 30 children for each janitorial position—“Hire 30 kids for the price of one janitor. They’d be getting money which is a good thing for the poor. Only the elites despise earning money.”—each of those children would net $600 a year and miss getting an education, thereby trapping them into a life of poverty in perpetuity.<br /><br />School janitors’ jobs are more than sweeping floors and cleaning restrooms. They must know how to use and dispose of dangerous chemicals for stripping floors and cleaning problem areas. They clean up science labs, repair equipment, use heavy machinery for that cleaning and repair, move heavy furniture and equipment, etc. Janitors arrive before the school opens and are there afterward. They have to be certified in several safety and chemical use procedures. These are not jobs suitable for children! For a complete look at requirements and jobs for a school janitor,<br />consult this website:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.mymajors.com/careers-and-jobs/School-Janitor">http://www.mymajors.com/careers-and-jobs/School-Janitor</a><br /><br /><br />Next, note that Gingrich gleefully called President Obama the “Food Stamp President.” He then added that “Black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps.” First, I agree that more people are on food stamps. That is a fact. But that has a lot to do with a shrinking middle class as well as disasters like fires, floods, and devastating tornados and storms, most recently in Alabama. Food stamps are just one of the safety nets when disaster strikes. If you want facts, look it up. Here is just one site:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.dailyjobsupdate.com/public/food-stamps-charts">http://www.dailyjobsupdate.com/public/food-stamps-charts</a><br /><br /><br />As Gingrich continually attempts to don the Regan mantle, it might be interesting to see what Ronald Regan himself said about food stamps. In this one case, Gingrich is somewhat correct. The usually pleasant demeanor of the former president was not in play when, in 1976, he referred to “welfare queens,” saying these women defrauded the government by applying under multiple names for Medicaid, food stamps, and any other free program. That may have been true in a few cases, but certainly not in all cases.<br /><br /><br />Extrapolating on his comment that President Obama is the Food Stamp President, Gingrich tied Blacks to food stamps as if they were the only people in need of this aid. This belies facts, facts being something with which Gingrich plays pretty fast and loose. One need for increased numbers of people on food stamps is the increased rate of poverty in this country, something that has been occurring for about 10 years plus. Politifact rated the statement about President Obama’s being responsible for the increased number of people receiving food stamps—food stamps being the term still used although food stamps are actually SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—as half true. Here is their conclusion, but you can read the entire<br />decision at <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/17">http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/17</a><br /><br /><br />“.…One last point: The number of food stamp beneficiaries had started to head upward under President George W. Bush, partly because of more aggressive efforts to get eligible Americans to apply for benefits, and partly because of changes in the rules that had the effect of broadening<br />eligibility. The experts we spoke to agreed that both policies began under Bush but were retained by Obama.<br /><br />“Our ruling<br /><br />“The number of SNAP beneficiaries is at a record level, and it has risen in most months of the Obama presidency. But Gingrich oversimplifies when he suggests that Obama is the root cause. Much of the reason for the increase was a combination of the economic problems Obama inherited combined with a longstanding upward trend from policy changes. But Obama has supported those policies. On balance, we rate Gingrich’s statement Half True.”<br /><br /><br /><br />It is impossible for me to overlook the Gingrich comments because I continually hope that race relations in the United States will continue to improve. For decades, I have been teaching young people about the history of race in this country, and what I see and hear from them is so heartening that I become convinced that all is going to be well. I refuse to believe that that is delusional of me, and I continue to believe that the hope lies in this next generation since members of my generation represented on the debate stage seemed not to have evolved very much on the question of racial equality. Much of what Gingrich said about people of color was not just code for the racists in the audience. It was blatant racism. If Gingrich wanted to delve into the issue of food stamps, he could just as easily said that he wanted people—not black people—to demand jobs, not food stamps. His comment was not at all subtle. And yet, not one other candidate on the stage commented that Gingrich was making racist statements or said the GOP should not engage in racial divisive comments. No, they were silent and now Gingrich is<br />raising money on clips of what he said to Williams at that debate. It should make South Carolinians angry about what Newt Gingrich is saying about them.<br /><br /><br />To make matters even more clear that we had entered a time warp and fallen back into another era, a white woman in the audience of a Gingrich rally the following day told the former Speaker that she was proud that Gingrich had put Williams “in his place.” I hadn’t heard that kind of openly racist statement in years. Where is the place of a black news commentator in that woman’s estimation? Gingrich just smiled, and the audiencecheered and clapped. Yikes!<br /><br /><br />This country has made progress since our Constitution counted blacks as 3/5 of a person. Real servitude ended after the Civil War with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made the economic servitude resultant from Jim Crow laws illegal. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 made it illegal to keep people of color from the ballot box.<br /><br /><br />After the Supreme Court finally overturned the “separate but equal” decision of Plessey v. Ferguson, our country witnessed a violent reaction in some parts of the country. Who can forget Alabama Governor Wallace’s proclamation of “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”? After the Brown v. Board of Education decision, we’d watched and read about the murder of Emmett Till in Money, Mississippi. We’dseen the beaten and jailed college students attempting to integrate lunch counters. We’d witnessed beatings and murder of some trying to integrate interstate bus transportation. We’d seen the murder of three Civil Rights workers attempting to register blacks to vote. We must remember those church bombings, those lynchings, the fire hoses and police dogs attacking children, the marches and peaceful demonstrations. We have come far since the march across the Pettus Bridge that led President Johnson to underscore the 15th Amendment with the Voting Rights Act. But when I hear things like the utterances of Gingrich and the responses of some in the South Carolina audiences, I wonder just how far we have come after all.</div></div></div></div></div>Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-62581449640107551572012-01-17T18:46:00.000-08:002017-02-02T14:20:56.005-08:00Yes. We Still Need Black History Month.February is officially Black History Month; some celebrate, many trivialize and others disparage the need. Why<b> do </b>we need a specific time to remember that ordinary and extraordinary African-Americans have been a part of our history since the beginning?<br />
<br />
<br />
It is evident that a set-aside Black History Month has not taught us much. Even now, a few politicians use suggestions of secession, literacy tests, interposition, and nullification to gin up their crowds.. These are words freighted with historic pain and should not be made carelessly or deliberately<br />
to score points against an adversary. If they knew anything about the history of race in America, they would never make some of the statements they make.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Secession</i></b> is not taken lightly by those of us who know anything at all about the Civil War, a war that bloodied our soil with the loss of over 600,000 lives. It supposedly taught us that “all men are created equal” means what it says. After the Civil War, Lincoln’s dream that we would not be a house divided supposedly came true. No one should trivialize the price that far too many paid by tossing out threats of secession to score political points, whether the word<i> secession</i> is meant literally or metaphorically.<br />
<br />
<br />
Texas' former Governor Rick Perrydid--on several occasions--talk of the secession of Texas to the roaring applause and delight of those at his rallies. Did he mean it? It may have been a veiled reference to score points with some or a metaphor for get-the-government-our-of-Texas for others. Next time Texans say they want to secede, tell them, “Done. You’re out.” Call their bluff. I’m<br />
surethey’ll think twice before scolding the federal government about its role in state affairs. Where would Texas be without it?<br />
<br />
<br />
It might be good for the U. S. bottom line if we grant Texas secessionists their wish. As of 2005, the federal government paid Texas $.96 for every tax dollar Texas paid. We could surely make up the four cents without too much trouble. Whatever could we do with the 23 military bases and installations located in Texas? I’ll bet the other 49 states would be happy to divvy up those installations as they would benefit from the 195,000 jobs no longer manned by people paying taxes in Texas. Another coastal state could snatch up the Houston Space Center. Poor Texas, they are so burdened by paying taxes. Please. Texas ranked third in government procurements, receiving well over $20,639,000,000 in 2005 alone. They like to play cowboy so much. Let them shoulder the cost of border patrol and illegal immigration entering the U. S. through Texas. We could build the border fence above Texas instead of below it if they want out so badly.<br />
<br />
<br />
And now a note to former Representative Tom Tancredo: What exactly did he imply when suggested a need for literacy tests in order to vote? Tancredo’s remarks at the opening address of the Tea Party Convention received thundering approval. Since he is old enough to know better, I have to assume that he knew exactly what he was saying when he said that voters who couldn’t<br />
even say the word vote elected a committed socialist to the office of the presidency. It is reprehensible to suggest we return to the Jim Crow laws that denied many citizens of color the vote. And, the ugliness aside, may I remind Tancredo just who elected Barack Obama? According to <a href="http://www.carnegieendowment.org/">www.carnegieendowment.org</a>, Obama won the college-educated voters by 62-38%. I’m pretty sure that means that they could read and say the word “vote.”<br />
<br />
<br />
What do the words <b><i>literacy tests</i></b> invoke to anyone who knows or lived through that history? Literacy tests were a part of the same Jim Crow laws that came after the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876, a compromise that ended Reconstruction. The real servitude the Civil War had been fought to end was replaced with economic and social servitude that endured until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 said, “And we really mean what the 14th Amendment says.” By 1968, with the passage of the Voting Rights Act, the 15th Amendment was once again enforced. Many people, perhaps Tancredo himself, would fail some of those literacy tests. Before one could register to vote, a registrar administered a literacy tests to qualify a potential voter. That consisted of an interpretation of a section of a state’s constitution “to the satisfaction of the registrar.” First, those excerpts from the state constitution are awkwardly worded and full of convoluted legalese. Next, the test was scored by a registrar who probably could not have passed himself. Whites always passed. Blacks never did.<br />
<br />
<br />
After the beatings of peaceful Civil Rights marchers on Bloody Sunday as they crossed the Pettus Bridge in their march from Selma to Miami, President Johnson was able to pass the Voting Rights Act, saying, “And we shall overcome.” But have we conquered over two centuries of racial hatred? If we have, why then would Tom Tancredo suggest that we should return those Jim Crow days? He and those who cheered as he said it obviously don’t know much about Black History<br />
or history of any hue, for that matter.<br />
<br />
<br />
And then, just when I thought I couldn’t be any more shocked by veiled or purposeful racism, I heard something that catapulted me once again into the Jim Crow Era. Debra Medina, while running for governor of Texas—what is wrong with these people?--suggested that Texas should use <b>interposition and nullification</b> as much as they could to fight federal interference in her state. This harkens back to George Wallace standing at the door of the University of Alabama to block two black students from entering. He had begun that year by proclaiming, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever” in his inaugural speech. Who still thinks those were the Good Old Days? If so, grab your hood.<br />
<br />
<br />
Those who wanted the good old days of the Whites Only policy and segregation now and forever resorted to the claim of <b><i>States’ Rights</i></b>, referring to the 10th Amendment. However, the 10th Amendment is quite clear where it stands on the separation of powers between the state and federal government. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Jim<br />
Crow States’ Righters chose to ignore that “the United States” means the federal government or that the amendments after the 10th Amendment created federal law they had to follow, laws that allowed Blacks equal treatment as well as voting rights.<br />
<br />
Debra Medina threatened<b><i> interposition.</i></b> This doctrine was used by segregationists and was another State’s Rights argument. Interposition, according to www.dictionary.com, notes that states “used this doctrine to say that any individual state of the U. S. could oppose any federal action it believes to encroach on its sovereignty.” The doctrine of <b>nullification</b> was the “refusal of a U. S. state to aid in enforcement of federal laws within its limits, especially on Constitutional grounds.” Both of these doctrines that Debra Medina cited imply that a state can do whatever it wants and federal law be damned. What kind of country would this be if all states could do just that? We resolved that issue after the failure of the Articles of Confederation didn’t we?<br />
<br />
<br />
Martin Luther King, Jr. in his stirring Dream Speech reminded us of the ugliness of these policies: “….I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right here in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.” Study your history, Ms. Medina, Mr. Tancredo, and Rick Perry. Please. You may not be a racist, but why do you want to use words so heavily laden with America’s ugly racist past?<br />
<br />
When this country elected Barack Obama by a healthy majority, I naively thought we had turned the page on an issue that had divided us since our nation’s very beginnings. Let us not forget that our Founding Fathers chose to compromise on the slavery issue by counting slaves as 3/5 of a person so that the slave-holding states could have more representatives. The Founders tabled the issue of slavery until later. That “later” led us to a horrific Civil War that nearly destroyed us. Even after that, Jim Crow laws maintained our racist past until late in the 20th century. But 53% of our registered voters elected a man or color whose wife’s ancestors were slaves. I want to believe Dr. King’s dream: One day—today, even—we will come to realize that the freedom of all citizens, citizens of every color, is “inextricably bound to our freedom.” We all need to remember the web of mutuality about which he spoke.<br />
<br />
<br />
It’s not that I disagree with Morgan Freeman who contends that Black History Month trivializes the contribution of African-Americans in our history and undermines the fact that “black history is American history.” I happen to think that he makes a very good point. However, as long as men and women are willing to throw around words like <b>secession, interposition, nullification a</b>nd suggest a need for <b>literacy tests</b> or carry placards of Barack Obama in white-face or photo-shopped with a bone through his nose, it is clear that we do need Black History Month. Better yet, we all need to know our history, not just what a blogger—including me—writes or what some pundit or politician claims. Please read the Constitution yourself. It’s a very short document. Know your country’s history. We have the potential to be everything our Founding Fathers dreamed we<br />
could and would be, even if they didn’t always practice it themselves. To paraphrase everyone’s mother: We should act as they said we should act, not as they sometimes did.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3196100316340200070&postID=8413724283625845993&from=pencil" title="'"><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></a><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3196100316340200070&postID=8413724283625845993&from=pencil" title="'"></a>Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-45149320839045678612011-11-04T20:14:00.000-07:002011-11-04T20:14:15.437-07:00In Defense of Liberal and Fine Arts<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;">In
Defense of Liberal and Fine Arts<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;">I just heard a piece on
NPR’s “Fresh Air” about Steve Jobs’ belief in the interrelatedness of
technology and liberal arts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a
graduate from the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Kentucky
with a major in History and English, I remain convinced that my education’s
broad-based knowledge has served me well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Those of us in the College of Arts and Science had to take a number of
hours in physical and biological sciences, arts and humanities, mathematics,
philosophy, and languages along with many more hours in our major field.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This broad-based knowledge has allowed me to
find interests in many things, not just my own majors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has allowed me to think in complex ways
using both sides of my brain, and that alone has further enriched my life.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;">My friends, fellow high school teachers in the fields of higer mathematics and science, are also talented in music and/or art. My daughter, a PhD in micro-biology, was as gifted in music and composition as she was in science. My brother-in-law's major in English did not impede him in any way when he and his friend created LexJet, a company focused on technology. Their creative ways of implementing new ideas have made LexJet one of the fastest growing small companies in Florida.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;">I am
always saddened when I hear politicians say we need to stress <em>only </em>technology,
math, and science and go on to say or imply that anything in the arts is either
a luxury we can’t afford or simply superfluous.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We need arts, science, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">and</b>
technology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Steve Jobs’ iPhone, iPad,
and Macintosh computer have revolutionized technology, and he did this by
applying the arts <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">and </i>employing both
kinds of experts in the design of his projects.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If one studies the great past civilizations--from the Greeks and Romans
to the Renaissance--one thing is a constant: arts and science were honored
equally.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The Greeks were both
scientists and scholars and created or invented many things we continue to
use.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Philosophy was valued as highly as
mathematics; art was as honored as much as science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Research in all of these fields was supported
by the government.</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Anaximander, a philosopher from Miletus, is historically accepted
as the creator of the first map of the world, and the creation of the map greatly improved
navigation and trade.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Greek dramatists included Sophocles, Euripides, Aeschylus, and
Lysistrata; plays like Homer’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Iliad </i>and<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> Odyssey.</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Masks used in the enactment of dramas were designed to maximize acoustics
and the theatres were architectural wonders built on hillsides and arced to
allow many to see the plays well and to hear the actors perform. The grand Greek
amphitheaters were constructed so as to transmit even the smallest sound to any
seat. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Art, therefore, produced science
and technology.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 7.5pt 0in 7.5pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The love of art did not hinder the Greeks in their development of
the modern weapons of their day, including the catapult, the best “weapon of
mass destruction” for more than a thousand years. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;">The Romans, like the Greeks,
valued art, music, philosophy, and science in equal measure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;">Pythagoras, 5<sup>th</sup> century B. C. Italian
philosopher--someone most of us learned about in math class when we were
introduced to the Pythagorean Theorem-- exposited that mathematics was
everywhere, and that music depended upon math.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;">The Roman Colosseum and the Pantheon; sculpture
like <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Apollo Belvedere</i>; landscape paintings
and elaborate mural; <i><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Media, Oedipus,</span></i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> and <i>Agamemnon</i></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>—these are but a few of Rome’s artistic
wonders.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;">The creative minds that produced the fine
arts aided the development of aqueducts that delivered water to cities, indoor
plumbing, dams, bridges, and vast systems of highways, not to mention lipstick and
umbrellas.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;">It goes without saying that
Leonardo Da Vinci is the epitome of the marriage of art and science as he not
only painted <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Last Supper </i>but also
designed an airplane.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To Leonardo, Mr. Renaissance,
art and science were one.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;">And so, it seems
counterproductive to say that we, in the U. S., must have <strong>either</strong> math science,
technology <strong>or </strong>the arts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We should value all
of these.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A
wealth of information allows for a thinking outside the box so needed in
planning for the future.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;">It is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">because</i> I see value in the arts as well as the sciences that I view
funding cuts in art and music in elementary and high schools as very
short-sighted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Creative thinking is not
only a skill used by painters and writers, it is also a skill vital to dreaming
up new concepts in technology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Florida’s
Governor Scott has disparaged college majors like anthropology, having said it
was a useless skill.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This just shows
that he has a limited awareness of anthropology as a discipline.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does he not see merit in demography, an understanding
of cultures? It is this lack of vision in Scott and others that could doom us
to a world of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">only </i>technocrats.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Without fiction, movies, opera, live theatre,
painting, sculpture, dance, and all forms of art, how drab our lives would
be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We’d be little more than automatons.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;">Yes, we do need young people
who are very computer savvy, but who will dream up the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">next </i>computer?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We do need doctors,
mathematicians, and engineers well skilled in their fields; but as importantly,
we must have the creative minds to discover <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">new</i>
ways to cure diseases and questioning minds to lead us to a better
understanding of our universe and a desire to explore others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>To ensure
that our country not only keeps apace with the rest of the world but also
excels in all areas, we must have a generation who can use both sides of the brain,
a brain that can look beyond the paradigm, to think over, under, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">and</i> outside the box.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we only focus on one kind of knowledge and
devalue all else, we will be a second-rate nation that learns to use what other
nations develop.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, there is a place
for the liberal and fine arts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Don’t
lose sight of that.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-22105452198082702342011-10-01T17:09:00.001-07:002011-10-01T17:09:05.761-07:00It's Time to Choose, and I Choose Government
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">It’s
Time to Choose, and I Choose Government<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Witnessing the recent Congressional debacle, it is
apparent that the pro/con government debate is in full throttle. It’s time to
choose a side, and I choose government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>A government small enough to drown in a teacup is not my cup of tea, if
you’ll pardon their pun.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I like many of
the things that government does, and I’ll bet many others do as well if they
take the time to consider something else besides the rhetoric.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">First of all, what is “government,”
this word some use synonymously with all things horrid?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The legal definition of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">government</i>—according to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Merriam-Webster’s
Dictionary of Law </i>(copyright 1996)<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>is:</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span><b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">1 : </span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">the act or process of
governing; </span><i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">specifically</span></i><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></i><b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">: </span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">authoritative direction
or control <br />
</span><b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2</span></b><b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> : </span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">the office, authority,
or function of governing <br />
</span><b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">3</span></b><b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> : </span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">the continuous exercise
of authority over and the </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">performance</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">of</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> functions for a
political unit </span><b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">: </span></b><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/legal/search?db=mwlaw&nq=rule"><span style="color: windowtext; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">RULE</span></a><span style="color: black;"><br />
</span><b><span style="color: #333333;">4</span><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: #333333;">a</span><span style="color: black;"> : </span></b><span style="color: #333333;">the</span><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: #333333;">organization,</span><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: #333333;">machinery,</span><span style="color: black;"> or agency
through which </span><span style="color: #333333;">a</span><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: #333333;">political</span><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: #333333;">unit</span><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: #333333;">exercises</span><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: #333333;">authority</span><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: #333333;">and</span><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: #333333;">performs</span><span style="color: black;"> functions and </span><span style="color: #333333;">which</span><span style="color: black;"> is usually classified </span><span style="color: #333333;">according</span><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: #333333;">to</span><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: #333333;">the</span><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: #333333;">distribution</span><span style="color: black;"> of </span><span style="color: #333333;">power</span><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: #333333;">within</span><span style="color: black;"> it <b>b : </b>the complex of political institutions, laws,
</span><span style="color: #333333;">and</span><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: #333333;">customs</span><span style="color: black;"> through which
the function of governing is carried </span><span style="color: #333333;">out</span><span style="color: black;"> <br />
<b>5 : </b>the body of persons that constitutes the governing </span><span style="color: #333333;">authority</span><span style="color: black;"> of a political
unit or organization.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I am not sure what part of government all the naysayers abhor, but
it is ironic that many of the “I hate government” people are actually a part of
it, Actually, we all are.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Government<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>is us if we
participate as voters, and<i> </i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">we
all need government whether we know it or not. The federal, state, and local
governments make our lives manageable.</span></span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">America is a great nation <u>because </u>fifty states
function as one nation under a federal system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>No one state has the wherewithal to stand on its own—and yes, Gov. Rick
Perry, this also means Texas--and our fifty states would be considerably
weakened were we a European Union-like confederation. As a <u>united </u>group
of states, we do need a federal government to govern.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Founding Fathers envisioned things like
interstate commerce in our earliest days.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They imagined a people who traveled from state to state as citizens of
the same country, not tourists needing a visa to go from Kentucky to Ohio, from
Georgia to Florida.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, they did see a
need for states’ rights, and they provided for those with the Tenth Amendment,
but they did not set up states as independent countries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Furthermore, this country fought a bloody
Civil War to determine that we were a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">union
</i>of states making up <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">one </i>country.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">And so, what can government do for you?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thank the government that you have an
interstate highway system that makes traversing this country much easier than
it was before Eisenhower—yes, Eisenhower, a Republican—helped to make this a
reality. If you commute by rail or transport or receive goods by rail, thank
the government and Abraham Lincoln—another Republican—for that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He had the foresight to continue building the
transcontinental railroad even during the Civil War.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you have visited a National Park, thank
Teddy Roosevelt, another Republican. T. R. was a conservationist and proud of
it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He signed into law five areas into
the National Park system. The Antiquities act—1906—allowed President T.
Roosevelt and his successors to designate historic landmarks and structures so
that they would be preserved for succeeding generations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These important decisions by three Republican
presidents depended on a government large enough and powerful enough to see
beyond the moment and into our futures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>What would they think of the Republicans who want to diminish
government<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>into tea-cup-drowning size.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">.</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">When
you turn on your faucet to get water, don’t you want to be reasonably certain
that you won’t be ingesting toxins and pollutants?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Don’t you want to feel safe eating fish
caught in our lakes and rivers?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Don’t
you want to know that you are not water skiing in sludge if you vacation on a
lake shore? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">By
the1970’s, Lake Erie became so polluted because of the quantity of contaminated
industrial waste that the Detroit River actually caught on fire. The beaches
were filthy and laden with bacteria.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
was not safe to eat any fish caught in Lake Erie or its tributaries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Time </i>magazine
reported in August, 1960: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">“Each day, Detroit, Cleveland, and 120 other
municipalities fill Erie with 1.5 billion gallons of ‘inadequately treated
wastes, including nitrates and phosphates. These chemicals act as fertilizer
for growths of algae that suck oxygen from lower depths and rise to the surface
as odoriferous green scum. Commercial and game fish—blue pike, whitefish,
sturgeon, northern pike—have nearly vanished, yielding the waters to trash fish
that need less oxygen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Weeds
proliferate, turning water frontage into swamp.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In short, Lake Erie is in danger of dying.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">I
remember seeing pictures of dead fish floating atop the once beautiful Great
Lake. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because of the Clean Water Act
passed in 1972, water pollution limits were established.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even though these controls worked to clean up
our water, it took decades for the damage previously done to be mitigated. Not
until the early 1990’s were some species not present since the days of the
dying lakes seen to return.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I, for one,
do not wish to return to those bad old days.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I am all for industries making a healthy profit but I don’t want those
profits to be a result of their not taking the necessary precautions to
properly dispose of their waste.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And so,
I definitely want government regulations to see to it that they do just that.
Businesses are there to make money, and many will take short cuts to do so
unless there are---creepy music intro---regulations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our history is littered with the tragic results—human
and environmental—caused by unregulated businesses.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 5.75pt; mso-outline-level: 4;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Along with
water, a basic need, we depend upon breathing air that won’t make us ill.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, Big Business is free to make a good
profit but not at the expense of our lungs. <a href="" name="caa70">The Clean Air Act
of1970 <u>did</u> give the government the power to develop comprehensive
standards for air quality, and I am happy that they did and do.</a> The Clean
Air Act governs the number of airborne contaminants that maybe released into
the atmosphere. Some companies have protected their profits by outsourcing
these kinds of operations, and critics blame the Clean Air Act for these job
losses. However, the need for clean energy devices has also generated jobs and
can generate more if they are incentivized.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is incumbent upon all citizens—and this includes the owners of
business and industry—to work within parameters that </span><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">protect this country and
its citizens. If that means government has to police their actions, so be
it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>History has shown us that these
corporate entities do not police themselves.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184; width: 61px;">
<tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;">
<td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 7.5pt; width: 15.3pt;" valign="top" width="20">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 3pt 7.5pt;" valign="top">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 7.5pt; width: 15.3pt;" valign="bottom" width="20">
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Aren’t you happy that you can be reasonably sure that the
meat you purchase is safe to consume?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That the toothpaste you use doesn’t contain harmful ingredients?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Have you already forgotten the tainted foods
and building materials that slipped into this country via China when the FDA
and other federal regulators were fewer in number under the G. W. Bush administration?
I just heard Arianna Huffington remarking that businesses were not expanding
because of harmful government regulations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Well, I want some of those regulations, and the businesses screaming the
loudest about these regulations seem to be doing just fine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Oil companies could indeed make more money
without regulations about where they can drill and what precautions they must
take when they do drill.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We saw what can
happen even with these regulations with last summer’s sea of oil in the Gulf of
Mexico.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Can you even imagine what the
land and sea would suffer with no regulations at all?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">This country has seen more than a century of reforms that
have made our workplace safer, our transportation less treacherous, and our
food less toxic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We have restrictions on
the length of the work day, on child labor, on work environment safety. We have
communities that are more secure because of police and fire fighters. Guess
what folks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is all government.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">And finally, so many in Congress keep talking about
“entitlements” and the need to cut them, but I don’t hear any of them talking
about cutting all the entitlements <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">they</i>
have.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those who have been elected to
Congress get excellent health<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>care
benefits, a fabulous pension, travel expenses, and much more than any of those
under the entitlements<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>they want to cut
ever get.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unless those in favor of
entitlement-cutting can figure a way to means test Social Security and
Medicare, cuts in these programs can result in devastating losses for fixed-income
seniors and the disabled.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many of them
barely eke out a living on the Social Security benefits they now receive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Furthermore, many seniors’ whose health
insurance was once provided by their employers lost that when they reached
Medicare eligibility.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What is to happen
to America’s seniors in a health care market that is becoming ever more
expensive at a time when their health care issues become more pronounced with
less and less Medicare.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One of the
suggestions was to cut funds for providers, not those on Medicare.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Guess what? If doctors lose money on Medicare
patients, fewer doctors will accept Medicare patients.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then what? In the meantime, while seniors
lose some health care benefits and some of their Social Security, Congress
people active and retired continue to live just fine, thank you very much tax
payers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">And so I say: I choose government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s not perfect and does need some reform,
arguably a lot of reform.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But I’d rather
fix those things that are broken rather than return to a time when we had fewer
protections. I don’t mind paying taxes to have this security, and as a retired
teacher, I pay a greater percentage of my income than most hedge fund managers
and even some corporations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And, I don’t
mind it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whenever I see a traffic light,
a policeman, a fireman, a soldier, an airport, a highway—you get the picture—I am
quite happy to have contributed to the upkeep of a nation I love.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-27085102625648566272010-10-18T17:36:00.000-07:002010-10-18T17:54:01.624-07:00Words, Words, Words! But What Do They Mean?Do any of us ever <em><strong>listen</strong></em> to what we are saying? Do any of us even <em>know</em> what we are hearing? All too often, the answer is: NO. In this Age of Information—an age of massive amounts of <strong>instant</strong> information—do we stop to think about the meaning of words? <br /><br /><br />Just yesterday, I heard a politician vow to his listeners that he would use the line item veto if he were president, and many in the crowd roared and clapped enthusiastically. That man is either ignorant of recent history or simply duping his audience. The Supreme Court answered that one once and for all 12 years ago. (In <em>Clinton v. City of New York</em>, the court ruled 6-3 that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated :”the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution” because it impermissibly gave the President power “to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress.”) While many governors do have the power of the line item veto as their state constitutions allow, the U. S. Constitution does not. It is quite explicit about disallowing the executive branch to usurp the powers of the legislative branch. Furthermore, many who cry out for the line item veto also want a <em>weaker</em> executive while demanding a power for him that would give more muscle to the office. Reread Articles I and II of the U. S. Constitution. It is quite clear whose powers belong to whom.<br /><br /><br />Now let’s talk about another pundit/political candidate bugaboo: those <em>earmarks</em> made famous by (R-Alaska) Senator Ted Stevens’ “Bridge to No Where.” Would I like it better if there were fewer earmarks? Yes, but am I happy when my own Senators and U. S. Representative bring home money to my state for a much needed bridge, grant, or program? You bet! That’s why I voted for them. Naturally, every other state’s bacon is pork. Of course that which comes to my own state is necessary and worthy. Isn’t that what most of us think? We elect men and women to go to Washington to intercede on our state’s behalf and expect those in congress to be proactive in seeing that our state gets what it wants and needs. <br /><br /><br />Opposing politicians of both parties like to rant and rave over the length of the other party’s bill, as if <em>shorter</em> bills would be the cure-all for all of our problems. Bills are written to anticipate everything that may come up as a result of their passage and to anticipate and close every loop hole possible. I’ve worked with Kentucky Youth Assembly where students propose and write laws. This is no easy process and takes much research, all of which must be contained or referenced within the proposed law. If a bill that encompasses many aspects is over a thousand pages long, think how long the directions were for assembling a child’s bike and compare the two in their scope and magnitude. <br /><br /><br />When a decision is rendered in the Supreme Court, and we disagree with their interpretation, then the Court is being an “activist court.” What does that even mean? The Supreme Court admittedly has sent down decisions I have found abhorrent from time to time, decisions like <em>Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission </em>2010, for example. But, the Supreme Court is an <strong><em>equal</em></strong> branch of government, a fact many seem to forget. The Court is there to interpret the laws as the justices see fit, according to what is written in the U. S. Constitution. Those who want “originalists” for justices surely don’t understand what that means. Some of the Constitution as originally written would value people of color as 3/5 of a person and make slavery legal (Article I Section ii). This same Article and Section also allows state legislatures—not the voters--to choose U. S. Senators. That was the original idea. Do originalists still want the ballot open only to males and property owners? Women did not get the vote until 1920 with the 19th Amendment. The Constitution is a beautiful doctrine, but it was written in 18th century America and ratified in 1788. Our Founding Fathers had the vision to know that our laws would have to be elastic enough to allow for changes through time. Specifically, Article I, Section viii, clause 8, sometimes called the “Elastic Clause,” states that “The Congress shall have Power—To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” to execute the powers given to Congress. “Necessary and proper” allows for contingencies in an America and a period of time that the founders could never even imagine, but an America for which they prepared nonetheless.<br /><br /><br />While a few in the Tea Party reference the Boston Tea Party, they forget that the Tea Party occurred before the Constitution was ever written; furthermore, they were protesting paying a tax when they had no representatives in parliament. The Tea Party was about the <strong><em>lack of representation, not the specific paying of taxes</em></strong>. When the Constitution was penned, Article I, Section ii states that “direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union….” The Founders permitted taxation; therefore, it is not unconstitutional. Gripe about the amount you pay, but remember that taxation by the federal government is <em>explicitly</em> constitutional and so stated in the very first Article of the U. S. Constitution, not as an afterthought.<br /><br /><br />This is a large and complex country, and our problems are myriad and varied. There are no simple “sound bite” answers, and if that is all you are hearing, I suggest you stop to think for a moment about the probability of that simple solution’s becoming a reality. As citizens, it is our own responsibility to check the truth of what we see, read, and hear. Just because we read it in an e-mail does not make it true. Be careful when you hear some TV pundit make an allegation and then end it with a question. Example: Some say that aliens are now running the military. Is it true? Or be careful when you yourself say “I heard that….” if you are not absolutely certain of your own facts.<br /><br /><br />Yes, we live in the Age of Information. We network like meth head spiders. We tweet and Face Book, e-mail and text, talk and talk and chat and chat. But do we ever research anything? Not often enough. Maybe it’s time we did.Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-78300006439929813752010-10-08T14:30:00.000-07:002010-10-08T14:33:52.457-07:00Fear and Loathing in the U. S. A.<em><strong>Fear</strong></em> and <em><strong>Hate</strong></em> are a duo with a history as long as humans have peopled the planet. It is that fear of <em><strong>The Other</strong></em>, of those who look different from us, who speak a different language than we do, who practice customs or religions unfamiliar to ours that make us uncomfortable, suspicious, and afraid. It has been so as long as our country has existed, and sadly, still is.<br /><br /><br />I was naïve, I know, to believe that Americans were on the road to recovery from our ugly past, a past that included: forcing Native Americans onto the Trail of Tears and into reservations on worthless land; of interning Japanese Americans during World War II, even though they had been born here and were citizens of this country; of enslaving African Americans early in our history and then forcing them into economic and social servitude even after the Civil War.<br /><br /><br />I was rosy-eyed to a fault when I truly believed that the Jim Crow Era would end the moment people heard Martin Luther King’s Dream Speech. And I now know that I was a fool to believe that the election of a black president in my lifetime meant that we had finally come to terms with who were meant to be as a nation, a nation where anyone’s son or daughter could eventually grow up to be president. I hear racial slurs about our president and see signs with racial epithets and depictions not seen in public since the 1960’s except at a Klan or skin-head rally. Disagree with his policies if his views are contrary to yours, but do it without demeaning his parentage or questioning his citizenry. Those who insist that he is an Other, a man illegally holding our highest office because he wasn’t born here--all evidence to the contrary—must be hysterical or hate-filled.<br /><br /><br />I have lost track of how many groups have been labeled with epithets and regarded as inferior in our history, many of whom continue to be, even in the 21st century: Native Americans, Jews, African Americans, Catholics, Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Hispanics, Muslims, women, gays and lesbians, people who are mentally challenged, just to name a few.<br /><br /><br />The United States of America was an idea, inspired by enlightened ideals. Men penning the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, those uttering uplifting phrases like “all men are created equal,” owned slaves and accepted that all free women were little more than chattel. And yet they wrote that we were forming “a more perfect union.” Are we there yet? Obviously not. Are we closer than we have been? Yes. Should we continue to strive for that ideal? Absolutely yes.<br /><br /><br />Is it all right for all of us to take our eyes off the majesty of the promise in our founding documents? Shouldn’t all of us keep our eyes on that prize? More than ever, each of us has to try harder to treat others as we would have them treat us. Instead of listening to those who spew hatred, turn away and perform a random act of kindness. Try to transform fear of The Other into trying to understand those who seem different and unlike you.<br /><br /><br />And yes, I know how sappy this sounds, how all unicorns and puppies I seem. I realize that there is plenty of ugly out there and that sociopaths, fanatics, and truly amoral and immoral people exist. But I also know that not all Muslims are al-Qaida, that all African American males are not gang bangers, that all illegals are not part of the Mexican drug cartel, that all strong women are not femi-Nazis, that all gays and lesbians are not a threat to hetero-sexual marriage.<br /><br /><br />If all of us would just limit our application of that broad brush with which we paint those who are different from us, it would be a beginning. Remember, for every travesty with which you accuse one of “Them,” there is someone of your ilk who has done the same or worse.Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-70664586205044183332010-08-28T18:53:00.000-07:002010-08-29T17:31:13.561-07:00Has Hysteria Obfuscated the True Meaning of "Freedom of Religion"?When this country was first conceived—for it was conceived less as a physical state and more as an idea of what a good country could be—the Founding Fathers well remembered the history of Western Europe in general and British history in particular. They had learned a lesson from history, a rare occurrence indeed as most often, the errors of history are endlessly repeated. What had they learned? Religious intolerance or dominance led to wars, both foreign and domestic. Persecution became legitimized under the guise of religion. Many suffered and many died because others believed that they had God on their side.<br /><br />It is no surprise then that the First Amendment not only includes Freedom of Religion but also begins with it.<br /><em><strong><br />“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”</strong></em><br /><br />What then are we to make of all of the concern over where a mosque or Muslim cultural center may be built? Are we a Christian nation as some proclaim? Our Founding Fathers were quite specific when saying that we are not. Even though the vast majority of early American settlers were Christian, the Bill of Rights was written to guarantee that the majority belief could not deny the beliefs of the minority. In one of our first treaties as a new nation, a treaty written during the presidency of George Washington and signed during the presidency of John Adams, this nation’s earliest leaders gave no doubt as to how they saw the role of religion in American politics. Please note the Treaty of Tripoli signed in 1796.<br /><br /><br />“Annals of Congress, 5th Congress<br /><br />Article 1. There is a firm and perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, made by the free consent of both parties, and guarantied by the most potent Dey and Regency of Algiers….<br /><br /><br />“Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen*; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan* nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries...."<br /><br /><br />“Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211— corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796"<br /><br />(*Mussulmen”—This is how non-Muslims referred to Muslims at this time.<br />“Mohametan nations”—Nations where the citizens followed the teachings of Muhammad.)<br /><br />I, too, have a reasonable fear of religious extremists, those who murder others in the name of religion with the surety that God is pleased with their actions. The followers of Osama bin Laden justified their actions with the belief that Allah would reward them in Heaven and because Allah had commanded them to kill infidels—anyone not sharing their belief system. Yes, these were murderous Islamic extremists. But not all Muslims are like Al Qaida. Let us not forget that over 50 of those who died when the terrorists flew planes full of passengers into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and on the passenger-aborted mission to fly into the White House were peaceful followers of Islam. Muslims were among first responders; they were working in the Pentagon and in the World Trade Center; they were passengers on those planes. The victims of 9/11 included some who practiced a far different Islam than that of the 9/11 attacking extremists. <br /><br />Proponents of religious views who believe that God is telling them that they are members of His army and that they must kill in His name are not restricted to Islam. Let us not forget the myriads of people who were killed in the name of Christianity from the Crusades to the Inquisition to a Right to Life believer who murdered a doctor in his church. Let us not forget the thousands dying today because they are Sunni rather than Shi’ite Muslims or Arabs rather than Jews. Need I go on? I would venture to say that more have died in the name of religion than almost anything else. It is remarkable that we now hear people ginning up hatred in the name of religion be they Muslim or Christian or any other religion. Is it not absurd that people throughout history have killed while firmly believing that God was on their side and their side only? Bob Dylan makes this point so eloquently in one of his songs, “With God on Their Side.”<br /><br /><em>“The Second World War came to an end<br />We forgave the Germans and then we were friends<br />Though they murdered six million in the ovens they fried<br />The Germans now too have God on their side” </em>www.songlyrics.com<br /><br />Or, for a more revered voice, I give you Thomas Jefferson’s views on the same subject:<br /><br /><em>“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” </em>---Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782<br /><br />If we allow ourselves to proclaim that we fervently believe that the moderate Imam who wants to build a mosque within two blocks of Ground Zero may do so legally but decry their doing so in an attempt to get them to build it somewhere else, do we really believe in Freedom of Religion? How close is too close? If I am a Jew, may I decide how close a Christian church may be built next to me? Unless we want to allow the murderous 9/11 attackers to win in the end, we have to remember who we are and what we believe. Al Qaida well knew that they could not bring the entire U. S. to its knees by attacking the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and even the White House, had they been successful in that attempt. What they hoped—and what they now may see happening--is that our fear of them—the other—would cause us to destroy ourselves from within through fear. <br /><br />Edward R. Murrow proclaimed while going after Eugene McCarthy’s campaign of labeling people communist sympathizers or “fellow travelers’: <em>“We are not descended from fearful men.” </em><br /><br />Throughout much of our history, Americans have not been a fearful people. We fought the British to become a nation and again to remain a nation. Pioneers crossed wide rivers and steep mountains, going deeply into unknown territory in order to make us a nation spanning from sea to shining sea. We sent men to the moon because we believed that we could. Why are we now cowering because a mosque may be built near Ground Zero? What message are we sending to our Muslim allies? To Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait? What message are we sending to law abiding American citizens who happen to practice Islam? What are we saying to those who have seen America as the haven for religious tolerance? Have we become a people so fearful that we cannot allow our first right in the Bill of Rights to be upheld?<br /><br />Thomas Jefferson may have said it best when he referenced what they meant by the wording of the First Amendment: <br /><br /><em>"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."</em><br /><br />-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802<br /><br />Those words leave no wiggle room as to what those words mean in the First Amendment. Let us not allow fear to obfuscate them now.<br /><br />More importantly, let us not forget the words of Benjamin Franklin: <em>“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”</em>Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-62145957880429652012010-05-19T12:16:00.000-07:002010-05-19T12:53:33.148-07:00Drill Baby Drill? But What's the Real Cost of Off-Shore Drilling?It is absurd to call what‘s happening in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of the explosion and collapse of BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig an “oil spill.” This is no spill. It is an oil gusher. This mess is destined to make the <em>Exxon Valdeze </em>oil spill of 1989 pale in comparison. And in case you’ve forgotten about that mess, people can dig down a foot or so on the Alaska shore in the spill’s vicinity and still find oil. What did we learn from that environmental disaster? Evidently, not so much.<br /><br /><br />If any of you witnessed the Congressional hearing featuring See No Evil, Hear No Evil, and Speak No Evil from BP, Transocean, and Halliburton, you didn’t miss anything if you were looking for answers. Those CEO’s sounded like my kids when they were all younger. “It wasn’t <em>me</em>. <em>He</em> did it.” “<em>I</em> didn’t do it. <em>He</em> did.” It was disgusting. I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing well-heeled CEO’s from this industry or Goldman Sachs and the rest of the banking mess’s cohorts sit at a hearing and say, “It wasn’t my fault. And besides, stuff happens.” It makes me want to run screaming into the wilderness.<br /><br /><br />On May 3, it was reported that at least 2,500 square miles of ocean was covered in this oil, and it is not getting any smaller since it continues to flood out thousands of barrels a day. Yesterday, a BP spokesman reported that the new siphon hose was working. Well whoopee! He said they were able to capture about 1000 barrels a day. How lovely since at least <em>50,000 </em>barrels are gushing out into the Gulf each and every day. I suppose it is nice to know a siphon hose works better than a huge dome or a flipping top hat. But hey, the junk shot may work. Really? It sounds like third graders are in a room, brainstorming how one might stop up an underwater oil volcano. And besides, BP’s CEO announced that he was sure that the “environmental impact will be very, very modest ” (05/19/2010 on BBC news). When this same company wanted to do this deep-water drilling in the Gulf in the first place, BP assured all officials that they knew how to prevent any possible damages from such drilling, and that they didn’t expect any problems. As far as I’m concerned, any assurances from BP about <em>anything</em> should be taken with a grain of salt.<br /><br /><br />In spite of that siphon hose's marginal success, as of May 15 <em>Pelican</em>, a marine research vessel in the Gulf, found shocking amounts of oil beneath the water’s surface. These oil plumes are around 10 miles long, 5 miles wide, and 300 feet thick. This massive oil mass is severely lowering the oxygen in areas around these plumes which will most surely result in massive dead zones on the ocean’s floor. And yes, fish need oxygen. That’s what those gills are for. I actually heard someone ask, “What difference does it make if there’s no oxygen? It’s water, isn’t it?” Obviously, he flunked elementary school science.<br /><br /><br />As of today, May 19, an area the size of the state of PA is off limits for fishing in the Gulf. Senator Bill Nelson of FL just noted that strong southerly winds have already pushed a string of this oil into the Loop Current and that it is expected to reach the shores of Key West in 5 days and Miami beaches in 10.<br /><br /><br /><br />Gulf shore community's economies depend upon the food and recreational fishing industries as well as tourism. This is no “modest” impact, and I’m pretty sure BP knows that. They have made decisions about their own bottom line, and so they can pay for the mess they made. The Senate currently has a bill to raise the liability of oil companies to $10 billion since the last cap was set in the 1970’s. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (R Alaska) put a hold on it for a couple days. Now James Inhofe (R Oklahoma) has a hold on it because he fears the size of this cap would prevent “Mom and Pop” companies from going into the oil drilling business because they couldn’t afford to pay this cap. If they can’t afford to clean up the possible messes of their business, they shouldn’t go into that business. Other businesses have to have the insurance they need to do that business, don't they? Does Inhoff think you and I should shoulder disaster costs because Mom and Pop’s Oil Drilling Company can’t afford it? <em>BP</em> can <em>well</em> afford it. They have had successive quarters announcing profits (not income—<em>profits</em>) of $4 and 5 billion. They made the mess, and they have to clean it up. However, they are also ruining state and individual businesses’ livelihoods. The few million now set aside for liabilities won’t be a drop in the bucket for what they’ve already done. I say if they drill down and cause a disaster, they can cough up the money to pay those affected. If you can’t pay, stop playing.<br /><br /><br />Transocean surely does have the money to pay their part. Nonetheless, they are, at this moment, in a Texas court arguing that <em>their </em>liability should be capped at $27 million, and this is not because they can’t afford to bear any more of the responsibility. They finished drilling the Deepwater Horizon well for BP on April 19 and flagged it form the Marshall Islands—a teeny tiny country with almost no regulatory laws--and on April 20, the $650 million rig exploded. Two days later it sank and the oil is still rushing out over twenty days later. If one were to look at the $650 million loss, maybe the $27 million dollar cap could seem less unreasonable. That is, unless you knew that the company, headquartered in Switzerland—known for its ocean frontage? No, it’s lax rules on drilling—hadn’t had a shareholders meeting this past Friday where they voted themselves over a billion dollars in cash to be distributed among their shareholders now. (I know: An oil well dug off coast of U.S., flagged in Marshall Islands and headquartered in Switzerland...Logical? Not really. I wonder why?)<br /><br /><br /><br />We have all lived with the belief that these industries can regulate themselves. We now know the price of this kind of lax regulation. They are in the business to make money. We should be in the business of making sure that they make that money without destroying the local environment, the lives of people living there, and the planet as well. If they decided it would be too much trouble—and therefore cost--to take the time to replace a stupid gasket to assure pressure measurements were correct, it is obvious they need watching, and careful watching at that. <br /><br /><br /><br />We now know they only invested in ways to get the oil out. They made no plans as to what to do if one of those wells blew. A Tom Toles editorial cartoon at <em>Washington </em><em>Post.com </em>sums it up well: If a hat doesn't work, how about a shoe or other Monopoly tokens? I myself would like to see a halt on all off-shore drilling until they show plans for disasters, <em>well-tested plans</em>. We may pay a little more for gas at the pump, but as it is, we will any way, and we will also pay the cost in the grocery store for sea food. Restaurants may go under in some areas, and hotel and recreational facilities located on the Gulf will continue to hurt, resulting in lost livelihoods and tax revenues. Whose fault is it? Not yours or mine.<br /><br />Let’s act instead of waiting to react.<br /><em></em><em></em>Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-20452546709936285882010-04-12T10:14:00.000-07:002010-04-12T12:18:36.409-07:00To STARTor to Stop?<strong>"I call on the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete."</strong>
<br />I can already hear Rush Limbaugh's derisive rant. This is obviously something said by a starry-eyed, naive liberal, right? It isn't, unless you believe President Ronald Reagan was an idealistic leftist.
<br />
<br />
<br />Some nay-sayers, hell-bent on denouncing anything President Obama does, are now crying out "Weak!" and even "Treason!" about our president and President Medvedev of Russia signing a new nuclear arms reduction treaty this past week. Does no one else find it odd that Republicans, who laud Ronald Reagan at every opportunity, have suddenly forgotten Reagan's great cause: to rid the world of nuclear weapons? Do they not remember the <em>cause celebre </em>when President Reagan and Gorbachev signed the initial START agreement?
<br />
<br />Well, I do remember. I admired President Reagan for his work to cool down the Cold War. I am old enough to remember the Red Scare days of my childhood when people built bomb shelters, when air raid drills were held more frequently than fire drills at my elementary school in Alameda, California. I have not forgotten the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 when everyone in Jewell Hall at UK thought we were standing on the precipice of World War III. It should come as no surprise that when President Reagan began efforts to engage the Soviet Union with efforts toward detente and later, with Gorbachev, to work toward a reduction of nuclear arms, I felt grateful.
<br />
<br />Regan was quite clear in his feelings. In is Second Inaugural Address, January 21, 1985, Ronald Reagan said: "There is only one way safely and legitimately to reduce the cost of national security and that is to reduce the need for it. And this we are trying to do in negotiations with the Soviet Union. We are not just discussing a limit on a further increase of nuclear weapons. <strong>We seek, instead, to reduce their number. We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth."</strong>
<br />
<br />Reagan made it clear, on numerous occasions, how he felt, once saying: <strong>"The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas--a trial of spiritual resolve--the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, and the ideals to which we are dedicated."<strong> I still believe this with all my heart, even more so after 9/11. No one and no security system can stop every single mad person bent on killing, but we must keep those fanatics from causing us to be <em>like</em> them. We must pass the test of our own will to remain true to the ideals on which our country was founded.
<br />
<br />Has every Republican in Congress today forgotten what their hero said and believed? It would certainly seem so to hear those taking the mike at this time. Now, a
<br />treaty--yet to be ratified or apparently even read--signed by Presidents Obama and Mededev in Prague is a travesty, at least according to the some of the same people who regard Reagan as the greatest president in our history.
<br />
<br />I've read this treaty. It is not difficult or obtuse. This Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) begins efforts to keep loose nukes from the hands of terrorists and rogue states because the spirit of Reagan's START--the 1991 START-I--expired December 2009. What are some of the treaty's components?
<br />
<br />1). Both Russia and the U. S. will cut their nuclear stockpiles to 1550 (rather than the 30,000 each had at the beginning of the conference). Who thinks 15,000 nukes makes us weak? In some cases, one would do the trick.
<br />
<br />2). The treaty has a clear verification process. If we do as Reagan said--"Trust but verify"--as the treaty specifies, why was it good when Reagan did this and treason when Barack Obama does it?
<br />
<br />3). President Medvedev of Russia said: "What matters most is that this is a win-win situation. No one stands to lose from this agreement." How is it that the Russian President sounds more reasonable than some in Congress? I grew up with Khrushchev pounding his shoe on the lectern at the UN, telling us the the USSR would "bury" us. Now it is congress people shouting that this treaty is doom and destruction.
<br />
<br />
<br />Recently, the Obama administration released the Nuclear Posture Review,articulating its policy on nuclear weapons. It is here that the President declared:
<br />
<br />1). The U. S. will not use nuclear arms against countries in compliance with the Nonproliferation Treaty.
<br />
<br />2). The purpose of the U. S. is to deter attacks against this nation.
<br />
<br />3). Washington's nuclear policy now concerns nuclear terrorism and proliferation, rather than potential wars between nations, as its first priority.
<br />
<br />4). The president can re-evaluate the withholding of nuclear action should he or she feel it is warranted.
<br />
<br />5). The Nuclear Posture Review does not rule out the use of nuclear weapons against those rogue states that will not sign the treaty and comply with it by allowing inspections--nations like Iran and North Korea.
<br />
<br />The responses from Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Sean Hannity have been predictable and virulent. Hannity supports using nuclear weapons even against non-nuclear nations and has said so on Fox News many times. He wants "all options open," even in the case of a cyber attack. What then do we say when Iran gives the same excuse for their building up nuclear capability? Palin threw in the usual sound bites that show her lack of knowledge about the topic, and Gingrich went on and on about Obama's being a socialist and leading the worst "regime" since 1865. (I must say, some of this rhetoric <strong>is</strong> akin the hyperbolic speech leading up to the Civil War.) Glenn Beck cried, again, and worried that the treaty would cause the end of the world. Spare me.
<br />
<br />Some Republicans no longer in power and no longer seeking power--George Shultz, Reagan's Secretary of State, for example--see things more sanely and without an eye to besting Obama and winning in 2010. People like Henry Kissinger say that our failure to articulate a willingness to reduce our nuclear arms makes us impotent to tell nations like Iran and others not to develop their own.
<br />
<br />How liberal can a policy be when people like Shultz and Kissinger agree with it?
<br />
<br />It was Ronald Regan who said:
<br /><strong>"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."</strong> When President Obama expresses those exact sentiments, many call him naive. How about a little perspective, people? How about a little less hypocrisy?
<br />
<br />Everything is <strong><em>not</em></strong> about elections. Everything <strong><em>is</em></strong> about finding a way to work together to protect, defend, and maintain this country and what it has been and can be. Our goal should be to keep fro being blown to smithereens, shouldn't it?Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-63340375195604572552010-04-05T12:57:00.000-07:002010-04-05T13:05:42.615-07:00Caling Miss Manners: SOS!Is civility dead and gone? It would certainly seem so. As citizens of the U. S., we have a constitutional right to assemble, to speak freely, and to petition our government. We have the right to protest government actions with which we disagree, even a duty to do so. But there are lines that we should not cross lest we diminish our message or the reputation of the group with which we associate. Few of us learn the lessons history teaches us, mostly because we think that message does not pertain to us. We do not learn from history because we are not the same people who learned it the last time. <br /><br /> As we listen to the hatred and vitriol being spewed in some protests today, I am reminded of a lesson I did learn from history because I am one of the people learned it last time. Some on the left lost both credibility and respect when peaceful anti-war protest became laced with hateful epithets hurled at soldiers who had honorably answered their country’s call. Environmental protest that had effectively called attention to our disregard of nature’s fragility lost support and credibility when words were replaced with violence. The honor and dignity of the Civil Rights nonviolent protest showed the ugliness of racism and yielded positive change through the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. But when the non-violent protest was replaced by the armed anger of the Black Panthers, some of the progress made by people like John Lewis and Dr. King was overshadowed by the by the rage of others like Angela Davis, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale<br /> <br /> Today, some on the right have forgotten the lesson history learned by some of us on the left. We remember what happened when some in our groups became so extreme that they engendered fear and hate. They did not persuade anyone. If anything, they caused a backlash, and liberal became an epithet equated with rage and unreasonable nastiness. Progressive ideals were largely regarded as naïve or more like Don Quixote’s swatting at windmills: unrealistic or even unreasonable. Those allied with the Tea Party movement have every right to express their disapproval of legislative acts that they do not like. But all must remember one immutable fact. There are philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans. That’s what elections are about. Those out of power will always march against the winners. These protests are at the very heart of what it means to be an engaged American citizen.<br /><br /> But the ugliness of a fringe element—and note that I said fringe—allied with the Tea Party movement has become almost frightening in its intensity. Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D. Missouri), an African-American, was spat upon walking up to the Capitol Building. The face of that enraged man made me recall another face contorted in rage and shouting at Elizabeth Eckford in 1957 when she, as part of the Little Rock Nine, entered newly desegregated Central High School in Arkansas. There is no excuse for that kind of behavior, ever. Not when some spat on soldiers in the 1960’s and not when angry whites spat at black students integrating formerly all white schools. Ant not now. Furthermore, it was deplorable and reprehensible to see anti-war protesters call returning G. I.’s “baby killers,” and it is just as deplorable and reprehensible that Representative Randy Neugebauer (R. Texas) called Bart Stupak (D. Michigan.) a baby killer on the floor of Congress. And while I’m at it, it is never all right to call a gay man a “faggot,” and it was obscene for someone in the Tea Party crowd to shout that at Barney Frank (D. Massachusetts), just because the protester did not like Frank’s politics. And, it is abhorrent—beyond comprehension—for another in that crowd to call Representative John Lewis (D. Georgia) a “nigger.” To hurl this kind of racial slur at this man--a man beaten and jailed during non-violent Civil Rights marches, a man who faced hatred, clubs, and tear gas as he crossed the Pettus Bridge during the first march from Selma to Montgomery—is beyond the pale. <br /><br /> It is anyone’s right to express a contrary point of view of any policy. I applaud and cherish that right and use it myself, frequently. But it is never all right to level personal epithets when it is a policy with which you disagree. Grow up, people. Try to take your political discussions beyond playground taunts and behavior.<br /><br /> Finally, there are some facts that seem to have been lost in the shuffle in some of these protests:<br /><br /> 1). The original Tea Party in Boston was a protest against Britain’s taxation of the colonists without colonial representation in Parliament; i. e., “taxation without representation.” We had an election in 2008, and voters chose their representatives. The protesters are represented, whether or not they like their representatives. That’s what the next election is about.<br /> <br /> 2). To those carrying placards reading: Keep the government out of my Medicare. It is the government that provides your Medicare. Medicare is a single-payer government-run program that most seniors love. Either don’t use it or get over it.<br /><br /> 3). None of the cable news programs gives fair and balanced anything. I as liberal-leaning, watch CNN and MSNBC because I like to have my sentiments supported. I feel the same way about Fox News as some Glenn Beck lovers feel about Keith Oberman. And guess what? Not everything you read on the internet or in a forwarded e-mail is true. If you want to know what is going on, you must dig a bit deeper and read multiple sources. Don’t be lazy and take anyone’s word for anything.<br /><br /> 4). Do not let someone else tell you what is or is not in a bill or what a politician did or did not say. Read the bill yourself. Listen to or read the transcript of the politician’s speech or broadcast yourself. I know you must have played gossip or telephone in elementary school. I know you know what happened to “So and so told someone who heard it from his cousin who knew….” Distortion of any resemblance to the truth is the result. Do your homework before you yell. Had some done this, no one would have shouted about a health care bill that advocated Death Panels much less believed it.<br /><br /> 5). I voted for President Obama, but I fully understand that some, or even half, the American citizenry may not agree with me. You and I should be free to agree to disagree in a civil manner. And yet some of the Tea Party fringe elements feel no shame holding up a sign with Obama wearing African aboriginal attire and sporting a bone in his nose. If others standing next to those people don’t distance themselves from these sign-carriers, why should I not assume that they agree with this message? Ditto the protestors carrying signs of the president as Hitler or in white face. And to the birthers and all the cowardly GOP Congress members who are afraid to call them out, I have to wonder what you really mean.<br /><br /> All of us—left, right, and middle—have to find a way to work together to solve the problems facing us today and to do so in a civil manner. Very little constructive was ever accomplished by hysterics. Hissy fits rarely produce positive outcomes, and the fit-thrower is never respected. This country has some problems, but none that cannot be mitigated or solved if everyone sits down and discusses issues reasonably. Neither the left nor the right can ever have 100% of their issues enacted. Compromise is how this country was formed, and compromise is the only way it can survive. We have to rediscover civility and ways to have polite discourse, and soon.<br /><emKaren Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-24120435802338128512010-03-03T13:39:00.000-08:002015-04-01T11:34:30.008-07:00Credit Card Reform? Not So MuchNow that we have had some new regulations placed on credit card companies, they have had to make some changes, but believe me, the changes are minimal. I did appreciate the easier-to-read statement that included more specifics about interest costs and the length of time it will take to pay off the card paying only the minimum payment. Thanks a lot! Now, shall we talk about what the four and a half pages of tiny-tiny print say?<br />
<br />
After they discuss--in only slightly less mysteriously obscure language—our <strong>Agreement Acceptance and Amendments</strong>, they toss in the caveats: “We have the right to change the terms of this Agreement for any reason, and in any respect, by adding, deleting or modifying any provision, including APRs, fees, the Minimum Payment and other terms.” Really? And this is supposed to make me feel all better because? <br />
<br />
Another interesting proviso is the one under <em>Credit Line</em>. They tell us that the <em>credit line </em>is what they had called <em>the credit limit</em>. This is reform? Subtle changes in semantics? They add: “We may change or cancel your credit line without telling you ahead of time. If we do, it will not excuse you from your obligations to pay us.” Let me see: They can change the rules in the middle of the game, but we, the card-holder, are ordered to play the game by any rules they set down whenever they decide to do so? That’s like adding football rules to a basketball game at half-time. How does this make any sense at all unless one has fallen down the rabbit hole and is now hanging out in Wonderland? Actually, it’s more like playing a game with a child who makes up the rules as he or she goes along. It works out well for the child but not for anyone else playing.<br />
<br />
Let’s face it. We cannot win in this battle. No one can function in the world today without a credit card. We cannot make a hotel reservation or book a flight without one. It actually hurts your credit rating if you only pay for everything in cash, and in some cases, it is even suspect. The credit card companies have us just where they want us, and it is evidently impossible to pass substantial reform in Congress as enough congressmen and women are in the pockets of Wall Street and Money in general. The moneyed interests have deep pockets and the bonuses to prove it.<br />
<br />
A few years ago, I finally managed to pay off everyone and now have but my debit card and one credit card. I had held on to another that I never used because it had a higher credit line, just in case there were a huge emergency. A few months ago, that company wrote to me and discontinued my card because I had not used it in a year. It is not worth their time if I owe them nothing. Sad, isn’t it?<br />
<br />
And then, just when I thought I had heard everything, I read about one credit card company’s plan to add a fee to users’ cards if they hadn’t used them that month. All of this just gives me a terrible headache. However, I had better not get sick enough that I need to use a credit card for a hospital expense, only to learn that they have changed my credit line without telling me since they can do that “without telling you ahead of time.” What happens then? My bet is that my interest rate would go up to one that would make Shylock blush, and I’d owe some kind of penalty as well. Is <em>usury</em> even a word anymore? Is there some significant difference between some lenders and loan sharks? Next thing you know, your Master Card or Visa provider will be sending out some thug to knee cap us, literally. Now they only do it figuratively.Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-1575879388111144132010-02-22T18:39:00.000-08:002010-02-22T18:52:21.368-08:00Can the U. S. Be an “Experiment Going Right”?I, like many here and around the world, have been mesmerized by the Winter Olympics. Although I am no athlete of any kind, I do appreciate the training, determination, and—yes—fearlessness that it takes to reach the levels of excellence that these men and women have achieved. Apolo Ono’s skill on the ice and grace off the ice are admirable. Shun White can do things on the halfpipe that defy gravity and every other law of physics. Some of our skiers make death-defying maneuvers that make me wonder, “Whatever made someone think to do that in the first place?” But what have we learned from the <em>essence</em> of the Olympics? That thing called the Olympic spirit?<br /><br />The athletes themselves do have that spirit, and they have taken the Olympic oath to uphold its ideals: <em>“We swear that we will take part in these Olympic Games in the true spirit of sportsmanship, and that we will respect and abide by the rules that govern them, for the glory of the sport and the honor of our country.”1</em> This oath was first sworn in 1920, after World War I, to begin the 7th Olympics in Antwerp, Belgium. Even though the war kicked off with the Kaiser’s armies invading Belgium, the Olympic host country promoted an ideal that asked athletes to compete with respect, adhere to the rules, and to behave in ways that would honor their countries. That oath continues to be taken at the beginning of each Olympics, in spite of wars too numerous to count having taken place since that war that was to end all wars.<br /><br /><br />As we watch athletes from countries across the globe, we are reminded of that ideal. Watching the opening ceremony with the athletes of nations marching by, holding their countries’ flags erect, we saw a demonstration of countries working together but competing apart. It was a very moving event, but there was something that occurred near the end of the opening ceremony of the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver, Canada, that struck me personally and profoundly, one about which I have heard very little mention. A slam (or spoken-word) poet, Shane Koyczan, recited his exaltation of Canada, his beloved homeland. He referred to Canada as <strong>“an experiment going right for a change”</strong> and noted, <strong>“We believe in generations beyond our own.” </strong>Both of these concepts are idealistic, and I know full well that Canada, too, has its problems. However, I wondered if we in the U. S. haven’t sometimes forgotten that we have <em>always</em> believed that of ourselves, or at least we used to. Has our fear of terrorism after 9/11 led us away from the experiment of creating a nation of laws, that City on the Hill? Have we lost ideals in favor of security at any cost? Ben Franklin warned us of this: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”2<br /> <br /><br /><br /> America’s respect for the competitive spirit, our love for academic excellence, of team work and the game itself are an integral part of who we are. And yet, off the court or the field, competition may sometimes become competition for its own sake. Excellence and team work may be lost in playing the game. That is certainly true of Congress lately. Too many of our senators—yes, Democrats as well as Republicans—have forgotten that the game they are playing is not a game to those they represent. Members of Congress, like Olympic athletes, take an oath. Congress people take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. They are supposedly in Congress to represent all the people, not just the lobbyists who have purchased their loyalty. They are elected by their constituents to represent their constituents, not just the noisy ones—all of them. They won their seats to represent their state and the people who live in those states, not a political party only. And don’t these senators and representatives have an obligation to the country as a whole and to generations beyond their own? Perhaps they have been in office for so long that they have forgotten why they are there. Although one may run for the House of Representatives at age 25 and for the Senate at 30, we have a Congress that grows older and older because they work to keep the job they have rather than to make laws that benefit we, the people. The average age for a Senator today is 61.7 years of age and for Representatives, 56—both averages over twice the requisite age for getting the job. With age comes wisdom, supposedly. With the abuse of Senate Rules lately, I have to wonder if the minority party isn’t acting more childish than wise.<br /><br /><br /><br /> The GOP threatened the “nuclear option” when the Democrats were in the minority and held up a few appointments of some of Bush’s judicial nominees. Republicans were appalled at the abuse of the filibuster rule. They were outraged and indignant that the minority party could hold up the people’s business. Oh, but that was then. This is now.<br /><br /><br /><br /> Ezra Kline, of The Washington Post, interviewed Barbara Sinclair, a political scientist at UCLA and a student of Congress. Her most recent study about the use and abuse of the filibuster is most enlightening. “About 8% of major bills in the 1960s faced filibusters or filibuster threats, and 70% of bills in the current decade did the same.” She went on to explain that this escalation in the threat of filibuster, making every bill require a super-majority of 60 votes is part of the polarization evident since the Clinton years. But the most sinister reason she gave puts some of the onus on us, the voter. She saw this increase in the abuse of Senate Rule 22, which lays the ground rules for the filibuster, as “a strategic realization that the American people do not reward the majority if it fails to deliver on its promises, and the minority recognized it had the power to keep the majority from delivering on its promises.”3 If the minority party stops every bill dead in its tracks so that there can be no legislation passed, their hope is that we will not notice who’s at fault when nothing occurs. It is up to us to pay more attention, to read things for ourselves, to become a fully informed citizen. Sinclair went on to say: “When the Republicans were the Senate minority in 1991-1992, there were 59 cloture filings. However, when President Clinton took office, with Republicans remaining in the minority in the Senate, that number shot up to 80 in 1993-1994…. When Democrats reclaimed the Senate majority in the 2006 elections, cloture filings shot up from 68 in 2005-2006 to a record 139 in 2007-2008”4 What are we to make of this sudden need to filibuster everything? Can a minority party be satisfied with just saying, “No!” to everything?<br /><br /><br /> <br /> And saying no has become even more childish and contrarian. When John Kerry ran for president, he was accused of being a flip-flopper because he had been for a proposal until he decided he wasn’t. The Republican attack ads made hay of that. What then are we to make GOP Senators who once proposed cap and trade but are now against it because Obama is for it? Is this not a flip-flop? When some Republican senators proposed a bi-partisan committee to study ways to cut the deficit, Obama agreed to support it. Now it is a bad idea because Obama agrees with them? It reminds me of the stubborn child who disagrees just to disagree. Our Senators’ average age is over sixty-plus, but they are behaving more like six-year-olds.<br /><br /><br />The Senate was not designed to move as quickly as the House of Representatives. George Washington is reported to have said that he saw the Senate as a cooling saucer for proposed legislation. Nevertheless, I am certain that he and the Founding Fathers cannot have seen the Senate as a body ruled by only the minority. Had they wanted all legislation in the Senate to have required the approval of a super majority for every law’s passage, they would have said so. They did note specific times when more than a simple majority is required. It should then be assumed that they meant a simple majority is sufficient for all other instances. In its fledgling days, our leaders created the Articles of Confederation and thought that those laws would be a suitable framework for the new nation. That attempt failed. When the founders started anew, they were very careful when establishing the rules for law making. They had learned from experience that no country can govern if a super majority is required before any action can occur. <br /><br /><br /> While the filibuster is never mentioned in Article I that sets up the powers of Congress, it is not un-Constitutional. The Senate does have a Constitutional right to make its own rules, a right clearly stated in Article I, Section 5: “Each House may determine the Rules for its proceedings….” However, should the rules they create make legislation impossible? Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman, in a New York Times column, noted research which puts the current Senate paralysis resultant from the continual threat of filibuster in these terms: “In the ‘60’s, only about 8 percent of major legislation was affected by the filibuster or the threat to filibuster. By the 1980’s, it was 27 percent. By 2007, 70 percent of all major legislation faced a major filibuster threat. That’s a quantitative change so big it’s a qualitative change.”<br /><br /><br /><br />And so, I would ask our legislators to consider some of Shane Koyczan’s words as well as the words of the Olympic Oath. Please legislate for the “generations beyond our own,” not only for yourselves and your own political party. Make America, once again, “an experiment going right for a change.” Work with a spirit of fair play, guard against an abuse of the rules, and work for the glory and honor for this country. We are a great and powerful country, but this does not mean that we retain this status without the work and dedication it took to bring us to this level in the first place. Other nations are watching us now and making their own moves to harness clean energy, to provide health care, and to out produce us. If we have a legislative body content to win big politically by being and thinking small and only planning for the win of the moment, we will be out paced. Remember, there were other great powers in the history of the world: the Netherlands once ruled the seas; the sun once never set on the British Empire; the Romans ruled the known-world. Pride and complacency will be cold comfort for us if we do not prepare for the way the world and other nations change while we are squabbling and standing still. A good Olympic example would be to remember that the Soviet Union always won the gold in hockey, until it didn’t. In 1980, the U. S. beat them 4-3. It was called “The Miracle on Ice.” Bet no one, especially the Soviets, saw that one coming. Is that a lesson for all of us?<br /><br /><br /> 1. www.mapsofworld.com/olympictrivia/olympic-athletes-oath.htm<br /> 2. http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1381.html<br /> 3. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-lein/.html; December 26, 2009; 11:00 AM ET<br /> 4. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/the-rise-of-clotureKaren Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-84137242836258459932010-02-11T20:21:00.000-08:002017-02-02T14:21:51.355-08:00Do We Really Need Black History Month? Sadly, We Do.February is officially Black History Month. Nonetheless, some trivialize and others disparage the need. Why do we need a specific time to remember that extraordinary African-Americans have been a part of our history since the beginning? <br />
<br />
It is evident that a set-aside Black History Month has not taught us much. Recently, a few politicians have used suggestions of <em><strong>secession</strong></em>, <em><strong>literacy tests, interposition,</strong></em> and <em><strong>nullification.</strong></em> These are words freighted with historic pain and should not be made carelessly or deliberately to score points against an adversary. If they knew anything about the history of race in America, they would never make some of the statements they make. <br />
<br />
<strong>Secession</strong> is not taken lightly by those of us who know anything at all about the Civil War, a war that bloodied our soil with the loss of over 600,000 lives. It supposedly taught us that “all men are created equal” means what it says. After the Civil War, Lincoln’s dream that we would not be a house divided supposedly came true. No one should trivialize the price that far too many paid by tossing out threats of secession to score political points, whether the word secession is meant literally or metaphorically.<br />
<br />
Governor Rick Perry has--on several occasions--talked of the secession of Texas to the roaring applause and delight of those at his rallies. Does he mean it? It may be a veiled reference to score points with some or a metaphor for get-the-government-our-of-Texas for others. Next time Perry and his supporters say they want to secede, tell them, “Done. You’re out.” Call his bluff. I’m sure he’ll think twice before scolding the federal government about its role in his state affairs. Where would Texas be without it?<br />
<br />
It might be good for the U. S. bottom line if we grant Governor Perry his wish. As of 2005, the federal government paid Texas $.96 for every tax dollar Texas paid. We could surely make up the four cents without too much trouble. Whatever could we do with the 23 military bases and installations located in Texas? I’ll bet the other 49 states would be happy to divvy up those installations as they would benefit from the 195,000 jobs no longer manned by people paying taxes in Texas. Another coastal state could snatch up the Houston Space Center. Poor Texas, they are so burdened by paying taxes. Please. Texas ranked third in government procurements, receiving well over $20,639,000,000 in 2005 alone. They like to play cowboy so much. Let them shoulder the cost of border patrol and illegal immigration entering the U. S. through Texas. We could build the border fence above Texas instead of below it if they want out so badly.<br />
<br />
<br />
And now a note to former Representative Tom Tancredo: What exactly do you mean to imply when you see a need for <strong>literacy tests </strong>in order to vote? Tancredo’s remarks at the opening address of the Tea Party Convention received thundering approval. Since he is old enough to know better, I have to assume that he knew exactly what he was saying when he said that voters who couldn’t even say the word vote elected a committed socialist to the office of the presidency. It is reprehensible to suggest we return to the Jim Crow laws that denied many citizens of color the vote. And, the ugliness aside, may I remind Tancredo just who elected Barack Obama? According to www.carnegieendowment.org, Obama won the college-educated voters by 62-38%. I’m pretty sure that means that they could read and say the word “vote.” And, Tom, the Obama victory was 53% to 46%. This wasn’t a close call at all.<br />
<br />
What do the words “literacy tests” invoke to anyone who knows or lived through that history? Literacy tests were a part of the same Jim Crow laws that came after the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876, a compromise that ended Reconstruction. The real servitude the Civil War had been fought to end was replaced with economic and social servitude that endured until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 said, “And we really mean what the 14th Amendment says.” By 1965, with the passage of the Voting Rights Act, the 15th Amendment was once again enforced. Many people, perhaps Tancredo himself, would fail some of those literacy tests. Before one could register to vote, a registrar administered a literacy tests to qualify a potential voter. That consisted of an interpretation of a section of a state’s constitution “to the satisfaction of the registrar.” First, those excerpts from the state constitution are awkwardly worded and full of convoluted legalese. Next, the test was scored by a registrar who probably could not have passed himself. Whites always passed. Blacks never did. <br />
<br />
After the beatings of peaceful Civil Rights marchers on Bloody Sunday as they crossed the Pettus Bridge in their march from Selma to Miami, President Johnson was able to pass the Voting Rights Act, saying, “And we shall overcome.” But have we conquered over two centuries of racial hatred? If we have, why then would Tom Tancredo suggest that we should return those Jim Crow days? He and those who cheered as he said it obviously don’t know much about Black History or history of any hue, for that matter.<br />
<br />
<br />
And then, just when I thought I couldn’t be any more shocked by veiled or purposeful racism, I heard something that catapulted me once again into the Jim Crow Era. Debra Medina, running for governor of Texas—what is wrong with these people?--suggested that Texas should use <strong>interposition</strong> and <strong>nullification </strong>as much as they could to fight federal interference in her state. This harkens back to George Wallace standing at the door of the University of Alabama to block two black students from entering. He had begun that year by proclaiming, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever” in his inaugural speech. Who still thinks those were the Good Old Days? If so, grab your hood.<br />
<br />
Those who wanted the good old days of the Whites Only policy and segregation now and forever resorted to the claim of “States’ Rights,” referring to the 10th Amendment. However, the 10th Amendment is quite clear where it stands on the separation of powers between the state and federal government. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Jim Crow States’ Righters chose to ignore that “the United States” means the federal government or that the amendments after the 10th Amendment created federal law they had to follow, laws that allowed Blacks equal treatment as well as voting rights.<br />
<br />
Debra Medina threatened interposition. This doctrine was used by segregationists and was another State’s Rights argument. Interposition, according to www.dictionary.com, notes that states “used this doctrine to say that any individual state of the U. S. could oppose any federal action it believes to encroach on its sovereignty.” The doctrine of nullification was the “refusal of a U. S. state to aid in enforcement of federal laws within its limits, especially on Constitutional grounds.” Both of these doctrines that Debra Medina cited imply that a state can do whatever it wants and federal law be damned. What kind of country would this be if all states could do just that? We resolved that issue after the failure of the Articles of Confederation didn’t we? <br />
<br />
Martin Luther King, Jr. in his stirring Dream Speech reminded us of the ugliness of these policies: “….I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right here in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.” Study your history, Ms. Medina, Mr. Tancredo, and Governor Perry. Please. You may not be a racist, but why do you want to use words so heavily laden with America’s ugly racist past?<br />
<br />
When this country elected Barack Obama by a healthy majority, I naively thought we had turned the page on an issue that had divided us since our nation’s very beginnings. Let us not forget that our Founding Fathers chose to compromise on the slavery issue by counting slaves as 3/5 of a person so that the slave-holding states could have more representatives. The Founders tabled the issue of slavery until later. That “later” led us to a horrific Civil War that nearly destroyed us. Even after that, Jim Crow laws maintained our racist past until late in the 20th century. But 53% of our registered voters elected a man or color whose wife’s ancestors were slaves. I want to believe Dr. King’s dream: One day—today, even—we will come to realize that the freedom of all citizens, citizens of every color, is “inextricably bound to our freedom.” We all need to remember the web of mutuality about which he spoke.<br />
<br />
It’s not that I disagree with Morgan Freeman who contends that Black History Month trivializes the contribution of African-Americans in our history and undermines the fact that “black history is American history.” I happen to think that he makes a very good point. However, as long as men and women are willing to throw around words like secession, interposition, nullification and suggest a need for literacy tests or carry placards of Obama in white-face or photo-shopped with a bone through his nose, it is clear that we do need Black History Month. Better yet, we all need to know our history, not just what a blogger—including me—writes or what some pundit or politician claims. Please read the Constitution yourself. It’s a very short document. Know your country’s history. We have the potential to be everything our Founding Fathers dreamed we could and would be, even if they didn’t always practice it themselves. To paraphrase everyone’s mother: We should act as they said we should act, not as they sometimes did.Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-45652059596064272962010-02-07T13:36:00.000-08:002010-02-07T14:03:49.386-08:00Play Nice, Boys and Girls. Govern Like Men and Women.Sometimes I wonder if there will ever be civility in Congress, let alone among the pundits, bloggers, and commentators. And then I bounce back to reality and remember my American History. I recently read <em>The Devil’s Advocates, Greatest Closing </em><em>Arguments in Criminal Law </em>by Michael S. Lief and H. Mitchell Caldwell. The authors have compiled a number of cases and closing arguments they believe to have shaped our legal and judicial system. This book includes cases and their outcomes that have become an integral part of what we believe, from “every man’s house is his castle” to any of us wanting our Miranda rights. It shows the courage of John Adams’ defense of British soldiers accused of what Sam Adams and the press at the time called “The Boston Massacre.” It deals with the Randy Weaver defense after Ruby Ridge to Aaron Burr’s defense in his treason trial. It is the account of the latter that especially yanked my starry-eyed idealism back to the real world. Is incivility part of who we have always been? Is there any way for us to overcome this legacy? Have there never been times when two opposing political parties worked together for the greater good?<br /><br />We all learned that Aaron Burr did shoot and kill Alexander Hamilton in a duel while serving as Thomas Jefferson’s vice-president. And, since this was illegal in New York, Burr’s home state, as well as in New Jersey, where the duel took place, he had to flee to the territories until things died down. He wasn’t tried for this and even finished out his term as Jefferson’s vice-president during Jefferson’s first term. But it was the election of 1800 that set two other adversaries—Federalist Hamilton and Democratic-Republican Jefferson—out to destroy Burr. <br /><br />The election had ended inconclusively, and many of the Congressional Federalists were ready to support Burr, which would have given him the presidency because Burr, unlike Jefferson, had <strong>not</strong> been so absolute in his politics, <strong>had </strong>served as an officer in the Revolution, and was a New Englander. It was Burr’s long-time nemesis who set out to see that this never happened. Hamilton set out to be Burr’s undoing in word and in print. He asserted that Burr was “bankrupt beyond redemption except by the plunder of his country.” That he could “scarce name a discreet man of either party who does not think Mr. Burr a man unfit for the office of the president…..” He said that he was “selfish” without citing any facts to back up this claim or any of the others he had made. He proclaimed that Burr was only interested in “getting power by any means and keeping it by all means.”<br /><br />Burr had made the election of Jefferson possible by pulling New York and New England into the corner of the Democratic-Republican ticket. Without it, Adams may very likely have had that second term. And while there is no evidence at all--conversely, evidence to the contrary--that Burr did anything to wrest the election from Jefferson in favor of himself, it took 35 ballots for Jefferson to win enough votes to be named president, largely because Hamilton’s inflammatory proclamations finally paid off. Even after Jefferson won, and despite Federalists saying Burr had not conspired with them at all, Jefferson set out deliberately to destroy Burr. With the help of his ally with the <em>American Citizen </em>newspaper, Burr was continually attacked. He was called “most immoral,” perfidious,” one of the "most unprincipled of men,” and “possessed of an evil of great magnitude.” This was inflammatory journalism as hot as that of any blogger or any pundit today and just as bare of facts to back up the claims.<br /><br />Granted, Burr did not keep his cool as Hamilton and Jefferson’s media pals continued to cast aspersion after aspersion. Even though he had secured the office of the president for Jefferson, Jefferson was certain Burr had schemed and plotted because Burr did not concede immediately. The last straw for Burr occurred when a press release quoted Hamilton as seeing Burr as a “dangerous man….despicable….and one who ought not to be trusted with the reins of government.” When Burr asked for a denial, Hamilton simply said all was admissible in politics, a version of “all’s fair in love and war” and to Hamilton, in politics, too. Burr retaliated by saying that “political opposition cannot obliterate rules of honor” and that Hamilton seemed to have a will “to violate the courtesies in life.” He demanded an apology or a duel. Hamilton doomed his mortal self and Burr’s political future and reputation by accepting a duel as the better option. This is one historical example of a man’s stubborn refusal to admit his excesses resulting in a most unhappy ending.<br /><br />Fast forward to 2009-2010, and we have reached a new level. In a recent poll, more than 24% of self-identified Republicans believe Obama wants terrorists to win. Another 33% think he may but are not sure. More than a third—36%--believe that he was not born in the United States and another 22% are not sure but think it may be true. Am I to take heart in the fact that a whopping 42% of those self-identified Republicans are certain that the President was indeed born here? Sorry, but the fact that 58% refuse to believe all the concrete evidence to the contrary shows a sentiment that I cannot begin to understand. I myself sometimes maintained that Bush 43 lived on another planet, but if asked, I would never have made that assertion in print or in a poll. A sizeable number believe that Barack Obama, son of a white woman and reared by white grandparents, hates white people, I suppose because Glenn Beck told them so? <br /><br />And while I’m on Glenn Beck, a few days ago, he earnestly said that the President would not have “chosen”—that was the word he used—the name Barack if he wanted to identify with Americans. Does Beck mean to suggest that men named Ian or Sean are not true to America because their parents gave them Irish names? News flash, Glenn. Parents name their children; most of us don’t get to choose our names. Talk to Apple in a few years. This name thing is such an absurd comment, and it seems quite transparent what his real motivation is: to paint the President as an <em>other</em>, not one of <em>us</em>.<br /><br /><br />I have to believe that it is possible to disagree with a president’s or a political party’s policies without resorting to fear and hate mongering. It is always exciting to see a grassroots movement energize politics, but today, all too often, too many signs are over the top or even racist. What message does someone wish to convey with a placard of Obama in white face? Or attired in primitive African attire complete with a bone through his nose? When signs accuse him of being facist or socialist or even a communist sympathizer, it is evident that the carrier doesn’t know the definition of the term. And where is the logic in a sign that reads, “Keep the government out of my Medicare”? Medicare is a socialist program in that it is a single-payer, government-run health care system. The government is very much in Medicare and seniors love it. <br /><br />And now I come to Michelle Bachmann, queen of the hysterical and all too frequently factually inaccurate defamatory remarks. She has claimed, “Really now, in Washington, I’m a foreign correspondent being held on enemy lines.” She decries that we now have a “gangster” government. What is her meaning there? I ask you. She wants her people “armed and dangerous on this issue of energy tax….” What is wrong with conversation, with an exchange of ideas without becoming “armed and dangerous” in the process? According to Bachmann, “Not all values are equal,” and by this, I have to assume that she believes hers are the superior values and that those of us who don’t believe as she does have fewer rights. I’m pretty sure that she will not find that in the Constitution she swore to uphold. <br /><br />Her recent rant against the census was one of pure Bachmania. She decried the census saying, “If you fill out the census, you might end up in an internment camp. That’s how they rounded up the Japanese.” Again, may I refer her to the document to which she swore an oath? Article I, Section 3 deals with the states’ apportioned number of representatives saying, <strong>“The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years </strong><strong>after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States and </strong><strong>within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall </strong><strong>by Law direct.”</strong> Therefore, every ten years since that time, the federal government conducts a census of who lives in this country. According to the <em>Encarta Dictionary of English</em>, the word <em>census</em> means “an official count of a population carried out at set intervals.” Today, the census is very important to each state and district within that state. A state’s number of representatives is determined as is the amount of federal money available to that district and to that state. Why would Bachmann, whose district’s numbers depend on there being enough residents to be counted as a district within Minnesota, not want that census filled out? Baffling. Just baffling. <br /><br />I suppose my starry-eyed wish that things will change--that politicians and pundits will begin to criticize policies not individuals-—may, at this time, be unrealistic. But I do remember those times when some in Congress had the courage we should expect from our elected officials. President Regan wanted a larger tax cut than the Democrats in Congress. They talked, each side gave a little, and a policy of tax cuts less than Regan wanted and more than the Democrats thought necessary was put in place. Governing occurred because men and women did their jobs. <br /><br />I urge our politicians to frame their arguments by making a factual point, not a baseless and inflammatory assertion. Stop calling names. Think about your constituents more than your own reelection. Read the Constitution for the first time or again. Brush up on your American History. Think before you speak. Remember, what goes around comes around. You can’t expect people to cooperate with you if you are unwilling to cooperate with them. The word compromise implies that both sides have to give something in order to get anything. Play nice! Govern.<br /><br />If each political party becomes so intent on all or nothing, nothing will happen. There is no escaping that reality.Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-14597580398456353392010-01-22T09:08:00.000-08:002010-01-22T10:19:40.872-08:00The Only Thing We Have Is Fear Itself: Don't Let It Destory This Nation.Recently, my family and I saw <em>Avatar,</em> and our post-movie discussion began with the plot as metaphor for the military-industrial complex aided by a Black-Water-type security force and quickly led to an often heard question: "If the enemy has <strong>no</strong> rules of war, why do <strong>we</strong> have to obey those rules?"<br /><br />We <strong>do</strong> have a powerful, dedicated, regulated, well-armed military. The men in my family have served in every war since the Revolution and through Viet Nam. My own father was killed in the Korean War. I respect our military, arguably the best in the world. And, not the least importantly, we pride ourselves in being a nation of laws. We have a constitution and a military code of conduct. Why is this a bad thing? Why a liability? I refuse to believe that I am idealistic--or worse yet, unrealistic--to believe that the U. S. should set the example and keep the ethical bar set high. I shudder to think of our sinking to the depths of inhumanity we disparage when others are savagely inhumane to us.<br /><br />In December of 1949, the U. S. became a signatory of what we now refer to as the Geneva Convention. This set of protocols was established to avoid some of the horrors seen during World War II. Since then, we have believed that these Rules of War (even though those words juxtaposed are indeed oxymoronic) meant something. And many of us, non Cheney-ite Republicans included, have either decried or at least cringed when we became a nation that tortured, imprisoned people without due process, practiced rendition--a terrifying act belied by the innocence of the term--and swept people off the street and threw them into prisons in unknown places and unknown prisons without their families or friends knowing what became of them. What have <strong>we</strong> become? These are the practices of governments we have condemned while basking in our own moral superiority in the past.<br /><br />Have we forgotten the righteous indignation we felt while condemning the use of gulags for political prisoners in the USSR? The sorrow we felt for the families of the "disappeared" in Guatamala, Argentina, Buenos Aires and other South American countries when ruled by cruel dictators? Weren't we major players in the Nuremberg Trials at the end of World War II when we tried Nazi and SS war criminals? Didn't we try and convict Japanese soldiers for.....wait for it....<strong>water-boarding our prisoners of war? </strong><br /><br />Who and what has fear made us? This nation? If we don't stop to think about who and what the United States of America is and on what principles this nation was founded, Al Qaeda <strong>will </strong>win. We will have let the <strong>fear</strong> 9/11 engendered destroy us utterly.<br /><br />Those men who flew planes full of innocent people into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon--or crashing into a field in Pennsylvania--killed many more innocent people. They did so because they followed an extreme and fundamental tenant of Islam and were directed and trained by a lawless and power-hungry group proselytizing converts by killing unbelievers. They were able to train and arm themselves because they established their bases in countries with failed governments. I, like anyone who saw the events of 9/11, will never forget that day and those horrific acts of terror. We here in the U. S. had naively believed that those things just didn't happen here. We now know differently.<br /><br /><br />Despite the terror if 9/11, we came together on 9/12. We had a feeling of oneness, quite unlike the anger at our government recently co-opted by Cry-baby Beck in the name of 9/12. That spirit of "How Could This Happen to Us?" has metastasized into an overwhelming dread and anxiety that has led us to forget the dictates of our Founding Fathers and the U. S. Constitution they wrote to be our guiding principles. Al Qaeda only wins if we let them.<br /><br /><p>I, as much as anyone, want to feel safe. I spent my early childhood hunkering down under desks during air-raid drills because we feared the Soviets would drop the Big Bomb on us at any moment. My freshman year in college saw the ramped up fears of World War III after the Cuban Missile Crisis. I can't ever forget the assassinations of JKF, MLK, and RFK that scarred the rest of my college and graduate school years. I want to feel a safety and security that I, too, lost a bit more of after 9/11. But, I want us to beat Al Qaeda by doing more than using guns and beefed-up security, both of which are important as well. I want those who want to destroy this country because of what we represent to see us for what we <strong>say</strong> we are: a nation of laws. Like Pandora, the magical land seen in <em>Avatar, </em>the U. S. is a nation blessed with beauty and spirit. We cannot let our fear destroy the vision of who we are to the rest of the world. We <strong>dare</strong> not lose the vision and essence of who we are to ourselves.</p><p> </p>Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-33241408889530627532009-12-16T08:03:00.000-08:002009-12-16T08:41:33.527-08:00What Is True Suffering? A Man Cold!After years of deriding men for being such babies when they have a cold while we women have to slog through our daily lives with or without a cold, I now have shamefully to face a harsh reality: a man cold <strong>is</strong> worse than a regular cold. We all know that men appear to be pretty <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">wussie</span> when they have what we women have always regarded as the sniffles. The cold-suffering man lies listlessly on the sofa, wishing the proverbial <em>someone--</em>a wife or the nearest female--would fluff his pillow, hand him the remote lying inches from his hand, bring him a cool drink or something to soothe his troubled brow. He occasionally tosses in a sigh or a moan for good measure. Any female in the proximity rolls her eyes in disgust as she does or does not comply.<br /><br />We women have looked askance at cold-suffering men for generations, basking in our own superiority. We say things like, "If men had to be pregnant for nine months, or--God forbid--give birth, civilization would have ended with <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">pre</span>-<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">CroMagnon</span> man." Or maybe we just continue to roll our eyes at the pathetic heap on the couch, knowing that we are <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">tougher</span>, stronger--heck, let's face it--better. I have been as guilty as the next woman.<br /><br />Usually, when we get a cold, we grab a box of tissues along with the car keys or brief case or the children as we head out the door for our daily grind. Our noses become raw, our eyes, red, but the the work still gets done whether in the workplace or at home. Or at least that's what I <strong>had</strong> believed until I myself was the victim of a man cold.<br /><br />A man cold, I now know, is far different from a woman cold. This epiphany came to me as I lay on the couch for two days, sniffling and coughing, too helpless to do anything else. And, worse yet, I don't have a wife to wait on me, with or without the rolling eyes or the looks of disdain. No, I was a woman with a man cold left to suffer on my own. It was horrible.<br /><br />As one now aware of the existence of the man cold, I have a suggestion for Big <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">Pharma</span>. Spend less time researching things like pills we only have to take once a month to improve bone density, for example. All right, Sally may be right, and taking a pill once a month for <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">osteoporosis</span> might be more convenient than taking a pill once a day. But really? By the time someone needs a drug for <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">osteoporosis</span>, isn't she at least taking a daily vitamin or another drug any way?<br /><br />If medical research can redirect some of its focus to <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">something</span> like a cure for the common cold, or at least the man cold--and having a a man cold <strong>is </strong>suffering--then I say, "Focus people! Sore throats, congested chests, stuffy noses, and raspy coughs demand attention now. Please?Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-90463166919383401072009-12-15T08:37:00.000-08:002009-12-15T09:02:11.653-08:00Dear Santa: Please Bring Fat Bankers Some Gratitude and a Memory"Merry Christmas." I think not. More like "Bah. Humbug!" Or "Mine! Mine! All mine!" After the American taxpayer bailed out the big financial institutions so that they wouldn't go under and pull us all down with them, Wall Streeters' bottom lines are healthy, their stock prices up, and their bonuses and salaries are huge. Hello Ebenezer!<br /><br /><br /><br />And now, when Congress is entertaining some regulations for the institutions that ran amok, gambling as if they could never fail until they did, those same fat cats are sending in armies of their lobbyists to fight even the idea of changing anything. After all, they wonder, we're fine now. Why dwell on the past? When were we ever near financial ruin? Trust us!<br /><br /><br /><br />They just don't get it. Why in the world not? Their kind of free enterprise was only free to them.. It cost us taxpayers plenty, and some are still paying with eminent foreclosures and nonexistent jobs. You guys are so very, very welcome. If their own personal investors had wiped out a wad of their very own money by engaging in ridiculously risky practices, would those fat cats give them a raise, a big bonus, and tell them to keep on doing what they were doing? You and I both know there is no way in hell that they would. They'd fire them in a heartbeat and warn all their friends not to trust that investor. If an MBA candidate failed an exam because he or she hadn't studied for it, would their recommendation be, "Don't bother studying the next time either. Maybe you'll get lucky." Come on! Give me a break. People who gamble until they lose everything and then keep repeating the same behavior are candidates for Gamblers Anonymous. Who in his right mind would give that gambler their life savings and send them off to Vegas? That seems to be what Big Banking expects from us taxpayers.<br /><br /><br /><br />Also get a grip, reform-resisting members of Congress. At least pretend that you learned something. It's only been a little over a year now since we teetered perilously close to financial Armageddon. How short are your memories? Has the Haitian from <em>Heroes</em> been at your brains? The financial regulatory system we have now did not prevent or even alert us to the biggest economic disaster since the Great Depression, did it? No!<br /><br /><br /><br />I suggest that both the bankers and the reform-resistant members of Congress find their ethics and their souls and/or different campaign contributors (in the case of Congress) and take a good hard look at our broken financial regulatory system and fix it. ASAP. If they don't, those Congressmen and women and the greedy fat cats will be on Santa's Naughty List and mine.Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3196100316340200070.post-41962940376459557732009-11-30T12:31:00.000-08:002009-12-15T09:04:42.321-08:00Fame“Fame! I want to live forever!” The song lyrics have become a way of life for some, and so the question is: Which came first? The insatiable thirst for fame or the reality show? I suppose that’s a matter for a psychiatrist, but it seems that people are more and more willing to do anything to become famous—some infamous in my view.<br /><br />In recent weeks, we have seen a father try to get a reality show by having his children and wife lie about their youngest son’s so-called perilous balloon flight. This engrossed the news channels and the American public for most of a day and cost the state and federal governments’ untold amounts of money. Why would a father do this? He was seeking a reality show.<br /><br />This past week, a couple crashed the black tie state dinner hosted for India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his wife. This couple—whom I won’t dignify by repeating their names--managed to have their photo taken with the president, vice president, and Rohm Emanuel while there, then bragged about their social faux pas by posting the pictures on Facebook. The Secret Service has a black eye, and the Senate and White House are now going to take valuable time to investigate—all because some social climbers who lie pathologically about who they are and what they have accomplished want a reality show. I swear, if Bravo or any other channel signs them on, I will never watch another show on that channel. We have to stop encouraging these people.<br /><br />Do people seeking to be famous for being outrageous not stop to think about the consequences of their behavior? Of course they don’t. Their narcissism won’t let them. The rest of society pays a price for their folly. The next time a parent calls about some out-of-the-ordinary child mishap, will the emergency services hesitate for just a moment? Will some service be underfunded because of the money spent on a hoax? Will the Secret Service lose credibility at a time when our president has threats against his life too frequently? This is not funny, people.<br /><br />The airwaves are saturated with reality shows because they are cheaper to produce, and—let’s face it—people watch them, including me in some cases. And this tirade of mine is not intended to lump all reality television into the same clump. Some of these shows celebrate a competition of talent: Top Chef, Project Runway, The Next Iron Chef, American Idol, and others. Some are makeovers that are inspiring like Extreme Home Makeover and The Biggest Loser; others are roads to life changes: Clean House, What Not to Wear, Super Nanny, etc. These do no harm and feature and sometimes reward good or improved behaviors.<br /><br />What then can be the redeeming quality of Shot of Love with Tila Tequillia? Bad Girls? The Girls Next Door? And--I now apologize to even some members of my own family—how is it helpful to give a platform to assorted Real Housewives or Dallas Divas and Daughters? (Women who have chosen to be homemakers should not be trivialized by this spoiled lot. The real stay-at-home moms deserve more respect.) Because of this kind of reality television, people can become famous for contributing nothing to society except for their own shallow self-absorption. People can become famous for being infamously outrageous. These people make a living via a television contract for living their lives in front of a camera while being the most flamboyant self they can be.<br /><br />I suppose this is the quintessential entrepreneurial endeavor for those who don’t like to work much or desire to act when they have no innate talent for it. I know this makes me sound insufferable for being so outraged by this kind of societal promotion of the success of some who have done little to earn it. I can’t help it. I know that these shows will go on. They have a devoted audience. All I can do is vent, and so I am.Karen Pugh Eshamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04154556659687755994noreply@blogger.com1