#220 - Does Anybody Really Care?

"Does anybody really know what time it is?" - Chicago

As I write these words, we are roughly two hours away from Donald Trump taking the oath of office as this nation's 45th President. This fact makes me angry.

What makes me angrier is the fact that less than half of those casting votes actually voted for the new President, yet his supporters think that gives him an absolute mandate to change things. It does no such things. It tells me Trump needs to find a middle ground (something he's never shown much ability of doing) and fast.

What makes me angriest is that roughly half of all Americans who could vote in this past election didn't care enough to do so. That means the new President was chosen by 25-percent (or even a little less) of the people. Hardly the people's choice.

In baseball, only getting a hit 25-percent of the time makes you a marginal player at best. In football, only converting third downs 25-percent of the time makes it highly likely you will lose the game. Yet Trump supporters view his getting 25-percent of all possible votes as a sweeping victory. Seems a bit delusional to me.

To those who didn't care enough to vote - in my eyes, you are even worse than those who voted for Trump. You didn't like Hillary. Fine. Most, if not all states had other options. Me, I nearly voted for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate.

Sometimes, a protest vote is important. It registers unease, concern, even anger. Not voting registers just one thing. Apathy. It is obvious to me at this point that most people really don't care about politics. I see it all the time on Facebook.

With that in mind, I am proposing a new third party, the Apathy Party. I am willing to be the party's first presidential candidate if need be. I believe I am capable of caring as little as the next person. However, I am willing to make way if another candidate comes along who cares even less. I don't care. Just let me know. I'll get back to you. Or not.

#214 - The End Is In Sight - At Last

We're in the final death throes of yet another ugly Presidential campaign. Since television became the major medium for communicating with the masses, it seems each campaign has tried to outdo its predecessor when it comes to mudslinging, half-truths, and just downright overall nastiness.

It is now six days until we either unleash Armageddon or jettison our remaining American traditions (depending on which candidate you support and assuming the other person gets in). I am discounting all of the third and fourth-party candidates because they, sadly, have no chance of being elected under our current system.

I do not like, admire, or respect Donald Trump. I admit that off the top. (It is difficult for me to respect or admire someone who brags, as Trump does, about avoiding taxes.) Nor do I tend to believe much of what he says. However, in one respect, I think he is right on the money, although not in the way he intends.

Trump has used the word "rigged" on several occasions during this campaign, hinting that the results will be rigged if he fails to win the White House. In that regard, he is mistaken. I do believe that the process is rigged to eliminate consideration of third-party candidates and to ensure that either a Democrat or a Republican is elected.

If memory serves, no third-party candidate has been invited to participate in the Presidential debates since Ross Perot in 1992. That is, in fact, the only time a third-party candidate has ever been invited to participate in a Presidential debate.

I suspect the 1992 election sent shock waves through the corridors of power, seeing how popular Perot's message was, and the money men on both sides of the political divide (despite some gains by women in terms of access to power, I suspect men still pull most of the strings) took steps to ensure no future "fringe" candidate ever got as close as did Perot to the Presidency.

Given the strong feelings against both of the major candidates, this election cycle might well have benefited from the participation of the Green Party"s Jill Stein and the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson. If nothing else, the answers to some of the debate questions might have had a better chance of staying on-topic.

Every four years, we go through this madness. Every four years, we complain about the candidates, saying this candidate will set back progress in some area 50 years or that candidate will destroy traditional American values. Every four years, we realize it didn't happen because the system is set up to protect the only traditional values that matter to those who actually control such things - power and money. Everything else is just window dressing.

I have no answers, no possible solutions. When I began writing this, I thought perhaps an election system similar to Britain's, in which third parties seem to be more valued, might be a possibility, but I'm not sure it could work here.

Instead, I suspect this "grand experiment," as America was once referred to, is slowly grinding to an end. America could well dissolve in the next few generations into a number of smaller nations based on shared geographic and cultural values. We have simply become more divided than we are united. Perhaps we have always been so and it ha simply become easier to recognize in this always connected world in which we live.

The good news is: the election is almost over. The bad news is: regardless of who wins, the vast divide between the two major political parties will continue to make it all but impossible to accomplish anything. That, and the fact that the next Presidential campaign will likely begin within a week of this election's conclusion.

We have the 24-hour news cycle and the 365-day political cycle. The noise no longer stops; it just becomes a constant hum in the background of our everyday lives.

#212 - Making The Best of a Bad Situation

I've been thinking about this post off and on for a while, eight weeks to be exact. That's how long it has been since my last post.

Part of that delay is not knowing exactly what to write about. Part of it is due to everyday life getting in the way, but part of it is knowing I needed to write this while dreading it at the same time.

I don't fool myself into thinking that I have many readers of this blog. However, I'm pretty sure that the few readers I do have are not all aligned politically, culturally, religiously, or any other -ly. (Which is why I normally shy away from writing about politics, in particular.) So, I suspect whatever I have to say in the following paragraphs will not be agreed with or appreciated by all.

It has taken me until this day, exactly six weeks before election day to firmly decide which candidate for President would receive my vote. For several months, I had convinced myself that I would vote for one of the third-party candidates, a refusal, if you will, to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Having lived through a number of Presidential elections now, it seems that too many of them have been a choice between the lesser of two evils, regardless of which side of the ideological spectrum you stand on. This coming election may yet be the clearest example of that.

On the one hand, you have Hillary Clinton, the first woman Presidential nominee from a major political party. She is shrewd, clever, intelligent, and also calculating, possibly devious, and perhaps a bit disingenuous. I firmly believe she moved many of her positions to the left because of the candidacy of Bernie Sanders.

I don't really trust Hillary Clinton to do many of the things she says she will, even if Congress were inclined to go along. I suspect she will only do what she thinks she has to do to win and stay in power.

Now, before I am accused of being misogynistic, let me say that two of my favorite bosses during my working career were women. Let also say that, in spite of my misgivings and mistrust of her, I will be voting for Hillary Clinton in November.

The simple reason is that, on the other side of the ticket we have Donald Trump, a man who wouldn't know a fact if it bit him in the ass. Just as I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton is a politician in the worst sense of the word (I know some don't think there is any other), I also believe Donald Trump is a liar and a cheat (his good points) as well as a racist, a bully, and a misogynist. Not to mention a complete and utter egomaniac.

Trump has changed direction on various issues and topics so many times over the years, I'm not sure he could find north on a compass if someone pointed it out to him. (Others have documented some of these reversals and apparent "lapses of memory," so I won't bother here.) He speaks for whites afraid of losing their all out of proportion privilege and power and promises things he knows he can never deliver. (Just how will he "make" Mexico pay for his proposed wall, anyway? Does he plan to declare war on that country?)

Donald Trump is a bit like this century's version of Joseph McCarthy, he of the Communist witch hunt fame from the 1950s. Trump makes wild accusations, which he then fails to back up and says he did and said one thing when the record clearly shows he did and said the exact opposite (President Obama "birther" issue, anyone?).

Donald Trump is like a David Duke wet dream, promising to restore an America that thankfully died long ago, one where white men were in complete control, women knew their place, and minorities were treated as the second-class citizens he seems to believe them to be.

Trump plays upon the fears of whites who see the world changing in ways they don't understand, of gun owners who believe their rights are being taken away (even though that won't happen), of tinfoil hat wearers sure the government is out to get them, of and of individualists who believe we can return to the days of the open West when people were free (supposedly) to do what they wanted and make their own way, including those opposed to federal government regulation of any kind.

This latter group fails to understand that clean air and water are too important to leave to individual states and fails to accept that what one state does can and will impact its neighbor, if not now, somewhere down the line. After all, air and water to not recognize artificial boundaries drawn on a piece of paper.

For some time, I considered voting for Jill Stein of the Green Party. Her views, especially on the environment, align with mine closest of any of the candidates. Since I live in Idaho, I figured my vote would not help elect anyone anyway, especially since I never had any intention of voting for Trump, his numerous robo-calls (especially at meal times) not withstanding.

In the end, however, I decided I would hold my nose and, despite my misgivings about what exactly she stands for, vote for Hillary Clinton. Because, while I'm not sure what Clinton might do as President in terms of policy, I feel confident that I know exactly what a Trump Presidency would lead to, and that vision scares the hell out of me.

#208 - Trump, No Trump

"Publicity can be terrible. But only if you don't have any." - Jane Russell

"There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary." - Brendan Behan

"I have bought golden opinions from all sorts of people." - William Shakespeare

This is not actually a political post. Okay, it is. A little. This post is about Donald Trump, but it is not about my views on Trump or his politics. What this post is about is some recent experiences having to do with Donald Trump.

Now that Trump is the presumptive Presidential nominee of the Republican party, his campaign is swinging into general election mode. (Is it me or does the word "presumptive" sound like something you might associate with a disease such as tuberculosis?) Of course, we all know what that means - talk about the Democrats (or the Republicans depending on which party you are campaigning for), speeches geared more toward winning an election than toward winning a party's nomination, and the dreaded robo-calls.

One day last week, I received four such calls from the Trump campaign in the course of a few hours. Since I hung up on each call after a few seconds, I can only conclude the call-backs were based on an assumption I was having phone trouble and that the campaign never entertained the possibility I was not interested in the message. (My own assumption is that political campaigns often assume political views based on geographical location.)

I have been called by the Trump campaign (or on behalf of it) close to a dozen times now, and each call has started out the exact same way. My assumption is that they want to make sure I hear and understand the first message before additional messages are sent my way, but who knows?

My other recent experience having to do with Donald Trump is more disconcerting or surreal, depending on how you view such things.

This past Friday, we went out to a local restaurant/bar to have a few drinks and listen to some live local music. Behind the bar, big-screen television was playing with no sound. The channel on display was what I must now refer to as The Network Formerly Known As CNN.

During the three hours we were at this local establishment, every story I happened to see displayed on the television screen had to do with Donald Trump in some way, shape, or form: Trump disavowing controversial comments made by his former butler, Trump stating that his call for a ban on travel by Muslims to the United States was "only a suggestion," Trump denying that he once posed as his own publicist in a series of telephone calls to news outlets in the early 1990s.

Okay, perhaps not every story dealt with Trump - one headline did state that Bill Clinton feels Hillary is facing the same kinds of attacks he faced in 1992, and the news ticker underneath did stream a few non-Trump related headlines at a speed few people would read - but you get the general idea.

It reminds me a little of the old joke, "I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out."

I came away from the evening glad that I no longer work in anything remotely related to journalism and also glad that I am more interested these days in music than in politics. I have a much better grip on my own personal sanity and my blood pressure as a result.

I am also forced to conclude that we have helped to create the ineffectual government we complain about by allowing the creation of Super PACs where donors can hide behind a cloak of anonymity; by allowing unlimited spending on political campaigns, thereby forcing our elected officials to spend a disproportionate amount of their time on raising money toward and campaigning for re-election; by replacing true debate on issues with 30-second soundbites and Facebook memes; and by the 24-hour news cycle and the desire to be first.

I decided to close with a quote from Edward R. Murrow, still seen by some in the industry as the patron saint of broadcast journalism. I had a plethora of quotes to choose from, but I'll close with these:

"The speed of communications is wondrous to behold. It is also true that speed can multiply the distribution of information that we know to be untrue."

"We are in the same tent as the clowns and the freaks — that's show business."

#205 - A Nation Divided, Part 1

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." - Abraham Lincoln

First, a disclaimer. I pay little attention to the news these days, not because of the "distortion" and "fabrication" of stories in the "liberal media" (sorry, but when a small group of corporations controls nearly all mass media outlets, there is nothing "liberal" about it), but because, after spending more than a decade in broadcast journalism, I no longer need or desire the aggravation, stress, or depressing thoughts that come from watching or reading the news on a regular basis.

I do occasionally scan the headlines, and I read with utter amazement some of the things a handful of my Facebook friends post. As a result, I have come to the conclusion (suggested once before on this blog) that this nation, in its present form, is not long for this world.

We've reduced positions and arguments to their lowest common denominator (perhaps we always have). Serious discussion followed by consensus or compromise no longer exists, and we reduce issues and views to a black and white battle between two opposing sides when, in fact, there are likely a multitude of views and positions between those two polar extremes. Each extreme pushes back against the middle, further polarizing the other and driving the margins further apart.

I was told once by a former friend that as I got older I would become more conservative. That has not happened. Because of what I described in the previous paragraph, I have, if anything, become more progressive or liberal in my views.

For instance, I support Bernie Sanders' call to make college tuition free. Not because I want a lot of "free stuff" (as critics deride this stand) or believe I am "entitled" (another argument used against young people and certain classes of society, neither of which applies to me), but because I believe it is an investment in the future of this nation.

We need more scientists and engineers and doctors and philosophers, and the best way to get them is to make college affordable and available to those who are academically and intellectually able to attend without requiring those students to all but mortgage their futures in order to do so. I believe this country's decision to deregulate student loans (thereby allowing banks to charge higher interest rates and make the ultimate cost of college that much more expensive) was a huge mistake.

I believe affordable access to health care is a basic human right. By this, I don't simply mean access to hospital emergency rooms. I mean maintenance and preventative health care. One way to make and keep health care affordable it to make sure symptoms are treated before they become serious problems and require a hospital visit. A healthy people is a productive people, and I don't believe funneling the sick and the poor into and through overworked and overcrowded hospital emergency rooms is the best solution or the best use of health care resources.

I also believe that everyone working deserves to be paid a living wage. Conservatives will argue that some people work harder and deserve more or that those who want to succeed can. I don't disagree with the first part of that argument but believe the second part becomes less true every day (if it ever was true).

Not everyone can be a millionaire/billionaire and not everyone can own his/her own business. We will always need people to collect our garbage, to serve us in stores and restaurants, to clean in our businesses. Have we decided that these people are less worthwhile, less deserving because of what they do?

We complain about illegal immigration while making certain jobs so low-paying that only illegal immigrants can afford to take them. We believe certain jobs are not worth more than minimum wage and then complain about the service we receive from those workers. We complain about the quality of our education system while at the same time we pull our children out of public schools and put them into private or charter schools.

The very first phrase of the U.S. Constitution reads "We the people of the United States." It doesn't read "some of the people" or "only the people who are like us" or "those people who think like us." To me, "we the people" means all of us, which I believe means we have to do certain things and provide certain services for all of us, not simply those who can afford them. From where I sit, that means access to affordable and quality education and health care.

I've written all of this and realized I did not even touch on the one thing that inspired or provoked this post. I'll save that for another time.

#193 - Something Else That Starts Much Too Soon

In my last blog post, I wrote in response to my local newspaper's posing of the question "What are your thoughts about whether the Christmas/Holiday Season starts too early these days?" My answer was, as I suspect it is for anyone over 30 or 35, "Yes." In fact, the only other thing I can think of that starts much too soon is the Presidential campaign we must endure every four (or perhaps it's now only two) years.

By the time the 2016 race for the White House ends, we will have been subjected to more than 18 months of half-truths, innuendos, accusations, bold promises, temper tantrums, ego-stroking, and braggadocio. And that's all from one candidate. (I'll let you guess which one.)

I'll make no secret of the fact that I support Bernie Sanders for President. Opponents ridicule his ideas for expanding Medicare and offering free college tuition as giveaways. I prefer to think of them as investments in the true infrastructure of America, its people.

However, this is not a post about Sanders or any other specific candidate. It is, instead, about the interminable length of the Presidential race, the duration of which makes it impossible for anyone without access to tens of millions (likely to so be hundreds of millions) to run for the office. From where I sit, this seems to ensure that the political process will continue to be controlled by the wealthiest of Americans for decades to come.

Regardless of which candidate you support (please tell me it isn't Mike Huckabee), I think most of us - with the possible exception of comedians and late night talk show hosts who benefit from months of material without really having to work hard for it - can agree that the process starts much too soon and lasts much too long.

I'm not entirely convinced that this is simply due to the evolution of or the complexity of the political process. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think this is some sort of insidious plot by those who wish to control the process.

Somewhere in some smoke-filled room (cliche, I know, but isn't that where these kinds of things get done?) someone or some group of people came up with the idea of extending the Presidential election process to the point where it becomes almost like "white noise" and gets tuned out by the majority of the electorate. How else would you explain the continuing decline in voter turnout in many areas? (I'm sorry, but quality of candidates is too easy an answer.)

The added benefit for these puppet masters is that this "white noise" filters down below the Presidential level to state and local races, reducing voter interest and turnout, making it easier for the candidates they support to win election and re-election time and again. For me, at least, this is the only way I can explain poor people in Kentucky voting to elect a governor who openly promised to end the one program that gave them access to affordable health insurance. (Your mileage may vary.)

The political process has reached the point where the joke is that a newly elected official must begin work toward getting reelected the day after getting elected in the first place. Running for election is all but a full-time job in and of itself. I think it is safe to say that the only thing with a longer shelf life than the electoral process is fruitcake, and I'm not sure we want anything competing with that.

#190 - Football, Flag Waving, and Facebook

A discussion on Facebook with a family member about Monday night's football game between the Seattle Seahawks and the Detroit Lions got me to thinking, and that thought process led to this post. (Warning: Some may feel insulted or slighted by this post. That is not my intent. I am merely sharing my own imperfect observations.)

The vast majority of my family are devout, even fanatic Seahawk fans. Based on some of their Facebook posts, I suspect they think every announcer and every referee is biased against their team. I know of no empirical evidence to support or refute such a stand, but based on my game day Facebook News Feed, I have to conclude that is the general consensus of at least my more vocal family members.

The discussion about Monday night's game centered on the announcers post-game discussion of a controversial non-call near the end of the game. (The level of controversy no doubt depends on whether you are a Seahawks fan, a Lions fan, or a somewhat neutral observer.) The non-call centered around the apparent batting out of the football out of the back of the end zone by a Seahawk after it had been knocked loose from a Lions receiver.

According to the rules, deliberately batting the ball out of the end zone is supposed to be penalized, in this case by giving the ball back to the Lions and penalizing the Seahawks half the distance to the goal. That was not done, even though the NFL's own Vice-President of Officiating later said it should have been.

Because the announcers (with the help of a former NFL official) discussed the rule and the non-call, they were seen by some in my family as biased. However, being a fan by definition means that you are biased, so I suspect that filter would affect any interpretation of views being expressed (i.e., an announcer biased in favor of your team might be interpreted as being non-biased, and so on).

Our discussion (and the flavor of a political discussion it began to take on) got me to thinking again about Facebook in general. As I always have, I continue to have mixed feelings about Facebook.

On one hand, I think Facebook has been one of the great technological developments of the last 25 years. It has allowed me to stay in touch with family, find kindred spirits (in terms of my views), and reconnect with many of the people who have been a part of my life throughout the years (people I worked with and went to school with who are now scattered across the country). In this respect, Facebook has been a Godsend and perhaps even a life saver.

On the other hand, I think Facebook has been one of the worst or most dangerous technological developments of the last 25 years. It has made it even easier for us to speak without consideration or thought and, based on some of the hateful posts I've read, say things we likely would never have said in the days before Facebook to another person's face.

Facebook has helped to enable and embolden us to say things and express thoughts we would have previously kept to ourselves. Some might say Facebook has allowed people to be more honest and true to themselves, which may be true. At the same time, I believe it has allowed and even encouraged us to say things without thinking them through, things we might not even believe once we really examine them. It then all but forces us to defend those thoughts once someone responds.

So, football got me to thinking about Facebook, which got me to thinking about the political discussions, stories, posts, and feeble attempts at humor I see on Facebook. I think what I find particularly insulting is what I call "flag-waving" (so-called patriotic posts) from my conservative friends that insult moderates, liberals, and progressives and seem to imply that only conservatives are patriotic and that anyone else is a communist who hates America.

A number of these posts and shares involves some Internet meme that later turns out to be false, but because one person posted it and others shared it, it takes on the power of fact. It reminds me of the quote toward the end of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence, when the newspaper editor says to the Jimmy Stewart character, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." One of the good and bad things about technology is that, once something is said, once it is out there, it is out there forever and cannot be unsaid.

Some time ago, I made the argument that Facebook is not the place for serious, thoughtful discussion. I find that still to be true. Although I have seen and been able to take part in some serious and thoughtful political discussions on Facebook, for the most part, I find the conversation to be more often than not talking at one another at best and talking past one another at worst.

Insults and name-calling seems to be the norm rather than the exception, and as we get closer to 2016, I suspect it is going to get worse. Our nation is devolving into one of extremes. As the extreme right gets louder, it pushes many others further to the left. The middle, once squeezed out by the two ends of the political spectrum, now seems somewhat vacant (much like the vanishing middle class). The result is a black or white divide where no gray area is allowed to exist.

One area where this divide is most evident is in the controversial arena of gun control. Calls for stronger background checks and better regulation of gun shows are interpreted as the government coming to take one's guns. People who own guns (or at least who own more than one) are increasingly seen by some as fanatical and dangerous.

I am somewhere in the middle on gun control, as I suspect most Americans are. If we could remove the National Rifle Association's hype machine from the equation, I suspect most Americans could have a rational conversation about guns and regulation. I do believe stronger background checks are needed, and I don't believe gun shows should get a pass. I believe private sales should be reported so that some kind of check might be possible. On the other hand, while I don't always understand the need or desire to own guns (especially more than one or two), I have no desire to outlaw gun ownership entirely. I do question the need to own certain types of guns, but I believe that is and should be a separate discussion to background checks.

One thing I do find ludicrous is the continuing argument from some conservative gun owners that regulating guns means that only criminals will have guns. By that logic, we should eliminate speeding laws and speed limits, auto insurance requirements, driver's licensing, and building regulations. None of these things prevents bad or even criminal behavior, but they increase the possibility that only qualified people are allowed to participate in these activities. They are there for protection and guidance as well as prevention, and while they are not 100% effective, I do think they beat total anarchy, which is the alternative.

My own conclusion based on what I see and read on the Internet? Where we were once a nation where two sides compromised to get things done, we are now a nation where two extremes prevent things from getting done. As the right has moved further right and become more strident, I have moved further left. Others, I suspect, refuse to be aligned with either side and have dropped out altogether. Based on what I sometimes read on Facebook, it is tempting to join them.

#187 - Blood, Sweat, and Fears

It is said that blood is thicker than water. Having seen both, I would agree. What blood does not appear to be thicker than is politics and emotions.

I recently returned from a family gathering from which a number of family members were missing. I don't know and don't care to know the particulars, but it is safe to say that something got said and some feelings got hurt, to the point that said family members decided not to attend an even that has been going on for seven years now.

I won't speak for the host, but I will say I missed their presence, although no enough to keep me from having a good time. If anything, I would argue they were the ones who missed out. But that is neither here nor there. I have not been asked to take sides and at this point don't plan to. (For some reason, I am suddenly reminded of the old adage, "be careful what you wish for.")

Perhaps it is because I live a fair distance from most of my family, but I have never caused or been the recipient of that level of animosity where family members are concerned. Perhaps it's because I haven't cared enough or worried enough about what they thought.

Until I was almost 12 years of age, I didn't even know I had aunts, uncles, and cousins. We became close for a time, drifted apart for a time, and then came back together to some extent. Perhaps that puts me in a good place as far as balancing family goes. I don't know.

I do know that I have received some push back from family on occasion because of my political views, which admittedly do not line up with the majority of my family. Said push back has, in my case, been temporary. I suspect that my family, being what it is, will find some way to come back together before this time next year. Unless it doesn't. We are, as those who know us will attest, a proud and stubborn clan.

What is interesting to me these days is that the people I felt closest to in my teens are people I sometimes am not really sure I know. At least they are people I don't often talk with, while a cousin I hardly knew growing up has been the family member I perhaps most relate to and have the most in common with.

It's funny sometimes how life works out.

#184 - The Circus is Back in Town

(imagine calliope music in the background)

Step right up folks! See the amazing tap dancing presidential candidates. Watch in wonder as they spout platitudes and verbally slam one another with half-baked innuendo and overwrought criticism.

Yes, the political circus is back in towns all across America as the political machine gears up for the 2016 presidential campaign. Yes, I know the election itself is not for another 18 months or so, but the pollsters, strategy architects, and political pundits have to justify their existence somehow.

So far, the race is shaping up to be some Republican against Democrat Hillary Clinton, a polarizing figure even to many in her own party. Not that any of the GOP candidates so far are great unifiers.

Entered into the fray thus far for the Republicans: Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who is categorized as pro-life, anti-same-sex marriage (leaving it to the states to decide), anti-gun control, against the Affordable Care Act, anti-IRS, pro-Israel, and anti-net neutrality. Cruz is also widely seen as one of the main forces behind the 2013 government shutdown, in large part because of his efforts to include de-funding and removal of the authorization for the Affordable Care Act in any stop-gap funding measure. He also support abolition of the IRS and believes in climate change, though not in the role of humanity in global warming.

We also have Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a pseudo-libertarian who nonetheless wants to restrict a woman's right to an abortion (something of an oxymoron there, someone who wants to reduce the influence and reach of government yet wants to increase it, at least in this area). He has also proposed gutting the Department of Education and eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, played a leading role in blocking a treaty with Switzerland that would have allowed the IRS to conduct tax evasion probes, and been accused on a number of occasions of plagiarizing speech and article material from other sources. Like Cruz, he is opposed to gay marriage but would leave the issue to individual states to decide, and he is against all forms of gun control.

Then we have Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. Like Cruz and Paul, he is pro-life. He also supports raising the age for Social Security benefits eligibility and opposes same-sex marriage, suggesting (like Cruz and Paul) that it be left to individual states to decide. He supports extension of the Bush tax cuts as well as elimination of both capital gains taxes and the estate tax. Unlike the other two announced GOP candidates, Rubio held elected office prior to becoming a U.S. Senator, serving nine years in the Florida House of Representatives.

These are the three GOP candidates announced so far. They have one thing in common aside from many of their political views - they are all considered Tea Party activists. Both Cruz and Rubio are under age 45.

Other likely and potential Republican candidates include retired surgeon Ben Carson (expected to announce May 4), largely identified as a conservative who opposes same-sex marriage and does not believe in evolution but who at one time stated that for-profit insurance companies should be eliminated and has said that semi-automatic weapons should be better regulated in large cities and high-crime areas.

The GOP field could become even more crowded if former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, current New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorino, U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker decide to run.

Then there are the usual Republican suspects, who have run before and could decide to run again: former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and business magnate Donald Trump of New York.

So far, the circus is primarily restricted to the GOP, as the Democrats have only one announced serious candidate to date: former Secretary of State, U.S. Senator, and First Lady Hillary Clinton. Unlike her GOP counterparts, who appear to have always been politically conservative, Clinton was not always a liberal. She campaigned for Barry Goldwater in 1964 and was president of the Young Republicans for a time while a student at Wellesley College. At the time, she was a moderate Republican but left the GOP after the 1968 national convention.

Clinton has supported repeal of the Bush tax cuts (announced as temporary when first enacted), release of oil reserves, exploration into alternative energy sources, including hydrogen-powered vehicles (along with tepid support for nuclear power), campaign finance reform, and a retention of the Social Security tax cap (unlike many of her fellow Democrats), and health care reform somewhat similar to the Affordable Care Act.

She has also faced criticism for her role as an advisor to her husband while he was president (perhaps an argument by some that a First Lady, much like a child, should be seen and not heard) and for sitting on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart. Unlike her GOP challengers, Clinton is identified as pro-choice. While initially opposed to same-sex marriage (but in favor of civil unions), Clinton appears to have changed her view over time. She also supports net neutrality.

I'm not going to get into the entire Benghazi thing as that has been beaten to death by so many others and will no doubt come up again during any presidential campaign.

It is still possible that Clinton could face challengers for Democratic nomination. Former Rhode Island Governor (and Republican U.S. Senator) Lincoln Chafee, former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, and former U.S. Senator (and former U.S. Navy Secretary) Jim Webb of Virginia (another former Republican) are all said to be exploring a possible run.

Other possible candidates who have expressed interest or who have been speculated about include: current Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Bernie Sanders (who runs as an independent), former Vice President Al Gore, former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, current Delaware Governor Jack Markell, and current U.S. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut.

All in all, it promises to be another overwrought, over-analyzed, over-advertised, overreaching, over-attacking, over-criticizing campaign, generally lacking in substance from either the candidates or those who report on them. In the end, the nominations and ultimately the general election itself will likely be decided by which candidate wins the most favor with the Super PACs and garners the most money in campaign contributions from said shadowy political organizations. This truism is perhaps never more true than when it comes to political campaigns; "money talks."

#169 - Maybe We Can All Get Along — Or Not

“Right and wrong - do you know the difference / Right and wrong - do you know the difference /
'Tween the right and the left and the east and the west / What you know and the things that you'll never see”

Joe Jackson “Right and Wrong”

According to a new paper published in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences and discussed in numerous articles, including this one in Mother Jones, our political beliefs – whether we identify as liberal or conservative – may not be so much a product of how we are raised as it is a product of our physiological and genetic makeup. That’s right, political beliefs may be different because we are different physiologically and genetically.

According to the study by John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska, political conservatives “have a ‘negativity bias,’ meaning that they are physiologically more attuned to negative (threatening, disgusting) stimuli in their environments.” These included things such as the image of a dazed person with a bloodied face. As the Mother Jones article puts it, ”the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets—centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns—would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology.”

What to me is equally interesting is that the paper’s main premise found almost overwhelming agreement among the 26 researchers invited to comment, with roughly 90% of them accepting the general idea of a conservative negativity bias. On the other hand, it also appears from this and other papers that conservatives tend to be happier and more satisfied with the lives than are their more liberal counterparts.

At first glance, Hibbing’s paper might appear to suggest that there is no hope for ever bridging the gap between the left and the right enough to accomplish much politically. The current situation in Washington would seem to support such a pessimistic view which would then call into question the bottom line usefulness of what Hibbing and his colleagues have written. The Mother Jones article, however, concludes on a more hopeful note:

All of this matters, of course, because we still operate in politics and in media as if minds can be changed by the best honed arguments, the most compelling facts. And yet if our political opponents are simply perceiving the world differently, that idea starts to crumble. Out of the rubble just might arise a better way of acting in politics that leads to less dysfunction and less gridlock…thanks to science.

If I had stopped reading there, I might have allowed myself a hopeful feeling about the future politically. Unfortunately, I then read some of the comments on the  Mother Jones website and comments and responses such as the following:

“Assimilation is certainly more of a liberal trait.”

“Liberal trait? That's funny. It's always conservatives that insist people follow their religious dictates, their ideas about what marriage is, what a legitimate relationship is, how women should be treated (always by their own tightly bound rules)...conservatives are the ones that want everyone to be the same, that get nervous when everyone isn't just like them. They are hardly accepting differences in others.”

“Wrong. Liberals I've met are far more in lockstep on all issues from abortion to gay marriage to gun control. But you wouldn't call them in lockstep if they are right, right?"’In lockstep’ likely because they're more open-minded, or liberal, on those issues. And I don't discount your personal experiences, but you need to look beyond them.”

“I know more liberals than conservatives. From my experience, the conservatives are more diverse in their views (libertarians, objectivists, tea party advocates, laissez faire capitalists, isolationists, nation builders, etc.)”

“Describing the difference between conservatives 'groups' like trying to argue the substantial difference between swiss chocolate ice cream, dutch chocolate ice cream, and plain chocolate ice cream...”

After reading several dozen comments in the same vein, I am forced to conclude that while Hibbing may be correct in his thesis that political ideology may be at least partly genetic in nature, the optimism set out by the Mother Jones author appears to be premature. Based on comments such as those quoted above, dysfunction and gridlock will continue to be the order of the day for some time.

Some liberals accuse some conservatives (and vice versa) of having their heads in the sand with regard to various issues (insert favorite hot button topic here). Based on the comments I read after the Mother Jones article, keeping my head in the sand doesn’t sound so bad. It certainly seems a friendly and safer place to be these days than either Washington, DC or the internet. *sigh*

#165 - What's Happened to Us?

I should learn my lesson; I really should. At my age, with my level of education, I should know better that to try and discuss serious issues on social networking sites, such as Facebook. (I imagine Twitter, with its 140-character tweet limit, would be even worse, but I don’t have a Twitter account.) Yet I persist.

I must be a glutton for punishment. Almost never do I encounter consistent and thoughtful discussion, particularly when it comes to political issues. Instead, I see name-calling along the lines of “(insert the name of your least favorite President) is the worst (insert favorite derogatory phrase) EVER!” Opposing views are seen as disrespectful, and each side becomes polarized against the other with no space for discussion, no room for compromise (which is itself seen as a dirty word), and no middle or common ground to be found.

Social networking venues, such as Facebook and Twitter were heralded as great democratizing forces. Personally, I think Facebook is great for keeping up with the goings-on of family and friends. As far as democracy goes, however, I think social networking sites, so-called “citizen journalism,” and the 24-hour news cycle have each done more to polarize this nation than perhaps anything since the battle over Civil Rights in the 1960s. 

Each of these, in its own way, is more about “instant gratification” than it is about meaningful discussion. There are repeated instances of erroneous information being distributed, widely read, widely believed, and widely available for several hours before it was shown to be wrong. The correction gets lost or missed in the avalanche of response to the original report.

The 24-hour news cycle, with its pressure to be first, is largely to blame for this. Social networking, with its ability to quickly and widely share such information, is not blameless. Such instantaneous dissemination of information encourages and even demands instantaneous response. 

I would argue that at no time in history has an instant response to anything ever been well thought out. Thoughtful response and instant reaction are mutually exclusive to one another by nature. (Let's not even talk about the fact that something posted by Joe Schmo potentially carries the same authority and weight as something posted by NBC's Brian Williams since the internet has no way to discern which voice is more trustworthy or authoritative aside from measuring web traffic.)

As I mentioned, compromise has become a dirty word in today’s political arena. Yet for years, give and take by both sides was how anything in this country got done. Today, action is replaced by gridlock caused in large measure by both political parties mapping out positions increasingly at the extreme edge of their respective ideologies in order to even further differentiate themselves from the other side. The President then gets blamed for inaction, unless he actually tries to do something through Executive Order, in which case he gets accused of bypassing Congress and acting like a dictator.

Some of this I have touched upon before, but if anything, things have gotten even worse. I’ve concluded the wisest thing (or at least the safest) is to disengage from politics and political discussion. Such an act is seen as capitulating to the opposite side and as being part of the problem rather than the solution. However, I have now lived long enough to see that people will believe even the most outrageous lies if they are repeated often enough just as many people, for whatever reason, seem inclined to vote against their own base interests based on some faceless group’s assertions that “X (whether it be reduced coal emission, a higher minimum wage, clean air, etc.) is bad for America.”

 

I am increasingly convinced that America as we know it is nearing the end of its life cycle. We should not be surprised; no empire or democracy lasts forever, and America has had a pretty good run. Not as good as the Roman empire, but not bad. I don’t think the end of America will come because of its failure to address the national debt or because of its failure to protect its environment or a failure to transition to alternative fuels or because of a decline in the nation’s morals or an abandonment of “the American ideal," whatever that ideal is.

No, when American as we know it is no longer, it will be due to the fact that we have lost the ability to talk with one another on the national stage in a meaningful and respectful manner. We have lost the willingness to compromise and the desire to search for common ground with one another. That, more than anything else I can think of, will be our undoing.

#138 - Looking Forward, Looking Back

New Year's Eve. The time of year when we traditionally look ahead and look back. As I get older, there is more to look back at and less to look ahead to simply because more of my life is now behind me. However, that doesn't me I don't still look ahead.

In the new year, I look forward to more opportunities to get out with our RV and perhaps find new places in which to enjoy nature. When I am out in nature, I feel myself closer to God. I hope to experience more of that in 2014.

In the coming year, I also hope to do more writing. Writing is a challenge for me sometimes. I'm good at it, and I have plenty of ideas on which to write. What I lack is discipline and focus. In 2014, I hope to find some of each.

I hope to start that process with this blog, hopefully becoming more consistently productive in terms of blog entries in 2014. One of the ways I hope to do that is by using this space to weigh in on various issues and topics. I have in the past shied away from writing on political matters here. That will likely end in 2014.

For some time, I have lamented the level of political discussion on Facebook. I have openly stated my assertion that Facebook is not the place for serious political discussion and is likely not an appropriate place for truly serious discussion of any issue. Twitter, because of its 140-character limit on each tweet, is even worse. Both are, to my mind, the 21st century technological equivalent of the 30-second soundbite. They might sound good, but they are not likely to give you the full story or even an in-depth look at any issue.

In the new year, I hope hope to do a better job of getting in touch with and of staying in touch with the people who have been a part of my journey to now. Facebook and this blog will, I hope, play a big part in fulfilling that desire. My cousin's annual get together of family and friends will also help, I suspect.

Those people, family and friends, some all but forgotten, were on my mind as I was writing these words. They were also on my mind when I wrote the words below, words with which I close this entry and 2013, words with which I embark on 2014. Happy New Year everyone!

My New Year's Wish

It's time to turn the clock again
Reflecting on the things we've done and hope to do
Another year has come and gone
Went by so fast, it seems as if the time just flew

More and more these days, I seem to find
Myself looking to another time
Filled with friends and memories in my mind

Here's to you -
Here's hoping that your dreams will all come true
I hope that you find joy in all you do
This is my New Year's wish for you

Looking back at all I have or had
I've come up short but learned to let go of regret
Remembering those who've shared this ride
Wish you were here but know that I will not forget

Along the way, each of you played a part
And your memory lives on in my heart
Long as it does, we'll never be apart

Here's to you -
Here's hoping that your dreams will all come true
I hope that you find joy in all you do
This is my New Year's wish for you

Time and distance separate us
We've had our bumps and bruises on the way
And while there may be things that I'd do different
I wouldn't trade a single day

Here's to you -
Here's hoping that your dreams will all come true
I hope that you find joy in all you do
This is my New Year's wish for you

I hope your dreams will all come true
This is my New Year's wish for you

2013. All rights reserved.

#93 - The Facebook Effect

Today, I took what was for me the unpleasant and somewhat painful task of removing one of my Facebook friends, someone I had worked with for several years during my past life as a television news producer.

A recent political discussion begun by said former friend on Facebook had turned a little too ugly for my tastes, ugly to the point where it was suggested I hate America and told I should leave. So I did leave - the friendship, that is. Not the country.

The exchange is, I think, indicative of something I'll call the Facebook Effect. While we become what Facebook calls friends, we are often nothing more than connections.

There is little true intimacy and often little in the way of civility. The way many of us were taught to talk to and to treat others goes out the window on Facebook. We each sit behind our computer keyboards and talk at each other rather to each other, assuming from a few words written here or there that we know all there is to know about the other person. That false familiarity and the safety of hiding behind our keyboards gives us the license we seek to speak to one another in ways we likely would not if face to face.

Of course, not all interactions on Facebook are as I describe here. But there are enough such interactions to make me wonder sometimes whether I am really cut out for "social networking."

The aforementioned exchange left me with a sour taste and a feeling similar to the one which led me to get out of television news. I could feel myself beginning to sink to the level of those who were spewing their hatred at me. So I got out.

Since he has 4,800-plus other friends, I doubt I'll be missed by my former Facebook friend. It's sad in a way, though. Facebook has the potential to bring people from various places and various viewpoints together for meaningful discussion. I've seen it happen.

However, that potential is a double-edged sword as it also allows people of similar views to insulate themselves from different people or different views. In such an insular environment, progress can never occur, understanding is doomed, and cooperation is prevented.

I've experienced too much of that side of the Facebook effect lately. Now I'm ready to rediscover some of the best of what the Facebook effect has to offer.

#76 - The Trouble With Labels

My wife, Teresa, is a fan of the late Jesuit priest and psychotherapist Anthony de Mello. Before his death in 1987, de Mello wrote a number of books and led a number of retreats around the world, one of which was videotaped in its entirety and available for viewing on the Internet.

One thing de Mello said which has resonated with me since I first heard it is the notion that labels are a dangerous thing. As de Mello argued, once you put a label on something all meaningful discussion about that thing ceases. Looking at the current state of affairs today around the world, I would argue he is right.

Labels do not allow us to find commonality with one another; they tend to put us at odds with one another. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, capitalists and socialists, and so forth.

Labels these days tend to produce extremes. Once you are labeled as a liberal, everything you say is suspect in the minds of conservatives. And vice versa. Tell someone you are Muslim and you are immediately a potential terrorist. If you are a Republican, you are suddenly an obstructionist in the eyes of many.

None of these positions are conducive to meaningful dialogue about the problems and the opportunities facing our nation and our world. If we come from a position of antagonism, how can we ever hope to find those areas where we might actually agree?

We are more than the sum of the labels placed upon us. For instance, a conservative friend and I have discussed, even argued at times about the need for health care reform in America. We agreed that certain things could be improved, even if we did not agree on the best approach for doing so. We could not have found any common ground on such a contentious subject had we not been able to get beyond our labels.

The problem is that the labels are reinforced every day by those who would foster divisiveness and dissension and who profit from it. They have no desire to see meaningful discussion on any topic and resort to name-calling and innuendo in order to prevent serious discussion and debate.

The current political climate in America and the lack of meaningful action on many issues in Washington reflects the damage that is done when we allow ourselves to be labeled and we resort to labeling others. The only label that matters is human being. We all of us have that in common, and it is that common ground from which we should begin to approach, address, and debate the issues affecting us and our world.

#74 - Getting Off the Political Merry-Go-Round

When I was younger, I used to be very much into politics. As the Editorial Editor for my high school newspaper, I came out in support of the then very real possibility of gas rationing. This was easy for me as I did not have a car. I also wrote about censorship and book burning involving a school board in Kansas.

I would often play devil's advocate; it rarely mattered the subject. I enjoyed the exchange, the banter, the give and take. It made me feel alive.

I say all of this as prelude to discussion of some of my recent experiences on Facebook. I have one Facebook friend, a former colleague in another life and another career who often posts political items, items that to me seem incendiary and designed to arouse anger, passion, and debate. All too often, I take the bait and find myself arguing as one self-proclaimed progressive against a wall of conservative thought.

Every time I allow myself to get sucked into one of these debates, I tell myself it will be the last time. I find myself exasperated that they won't even listen to or consider an opposing view, and I am sure they feel the same way about me.

So why do I continue? I suppose it must be the remaining idealist in me, though these opposing and often intolerant voices are slowly beating that idealism out of me. They aren't changing my views merely helping me to realize that politics is ultimately all a game.

I am rapidly concluding that governments - Republican, Democrat, or even Communist or Socialist - don't really care about me. Governments are about two things, when it comes to it - power and control, and they cater to those who can help them get it and keep it. If it were different, the rich would not be getting richer while the poor get nowhere, and corporations would not be seen as having the same freedom of speech (backed by 1000s of times the money) as  individuals.

This realization is likely why many argue for term limits in government. Sadly, I think all that will do is increase the number of people who grab for more power in a shorter period of time by creating a bit of a revolving door effect.

None of this is helped by the fact that the two major political parties seem unable and certainly are unwilling to work together to accomplish anything of major benefit or importance. I believe this will only get worse after the November elections. Since the minority party typically gains seats in midterm elections, I think we can all look forward to two years of infighting, back-biting, and legislative stalemate.

So, I am going to try to give up what has long been an intellectual passion of mine: politics. For me, it may well prove to be as difficult as giving up smoking is for others. But I managed to do that once upon a time, so this may not be as hard as I think.

I have reached the conclusion that life is too short, and there are other things I'd much rather be doing that arguing with people I often don't know and usually don't agree with. Listening to music, for instance. Solving a challenging crossword puzzle. Reading a good novel.

Top of that list would be taking the trailer out for a weekend somewhere, anywhere. Besides, I feel much more alive sitting outside my trailer in a campground overlooking a river or a lake than I ever feel arguing political points on Facebook. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

#63 - Random Musings

I don't really have a specific topic, but I realized I had not posted in a while, so I hope you'll forgive this series of brief and random reflections.

All weekends should be three-day weekends. Two days just doesn't seem enough time to recover and unwind from the previous week. It also is not enough of a buffer before the start of the week to come.

To me, it doesn't get much better than a Saturday afternoon sitting in a nice wooded campground, enjoying a nice glass of wine or a cold beer. Unless, of course, it is a Saturday evening in a nice wooded campground, enjoyed a nice glass of wine and a juicy grilled steak.

Television would be much better if it were a little less "real." Reality TV? Who are they kidding? What is so real about about putting a bunch of strangers and making them perform a number of artificially contrived challenges? And how many people do you know who can work out six to eight hours a day every day to drop 200 pounds of excess weight?

Anyone who claims insight into the will of God is either a con artist or is delusional. I now believe that no one faith has a monopoly on the Truth and that two people can have fundamentally different beliefs yet both be right - and wrong - at the same time.

I am discouraged by the name-calling and bickering that passes for political debate these days. Perhaps if we could find a way to concentrate of the ways in which we are alike instead of focusing on our differences we might better be able to find solutions to the issues our modern world faces.

Could it be that ignorance truly is bliss. I find I am much more peaceful on those days when I do not read the news or the political ramblings of others. I am much more at ease when I do not take the bait and respond to those with whom I disagree, for they cannot hear me anyway.

When I was younger, I loved to talk politics and to even argue politics with others. These days, I love to cook and take the trailer out for a weekend. Somehow, I think I am much better off.

The Older I get

When I was a kid, I was a bit out of the ordinary. I really enjoyed politics and political discussions. And I loved political arguments.

When I was younger, such arguments seemed to be about the merits of a position and the reasons for that position. This new century, coming as it does in the midst of this so-called Information Age, has seen a change in such arguments and not for the better.

The Information Age, bringing with it almost instantaneous access to any kind of information and the 24-hour news cycle has all but killed true political debate and with it thoughtful reflection. Instead, reactions are nearly as instant as the stories they respond to.

We have become a knee-jerk nation. Instead of truly considering and debating positions, our political leaders and their followers call each other liars, morons, and sometimes worse. I'm not surprised that nothing gets done on what many see as the major issues of our day: health care, immigration, the economy.

There seem to be fewer and fewer reasoned voices on either the left or the right. Because of that, the party in power is doomed to failure from the moment they take power. Every two or four years, I think the pendulum will swing back in the opposite direction, and both major parties will be so dizzy from the constant shifting, they won't be able to clear their heads long enough to get anything done, at least nothing worthwhile.

When I was in my 20s, I had a friend call me a radical and say that I would get more conservative once I got older. I don't think I have except when it comes to my view of the prospects of government accomplishing anything.

I have become very disillusioned about our government, primarily because they always seem to talk about doing something and then fail to follow through and actually do it.

Sadly, I don't think either major party has a recipe for success. Government for government's sake (what those on the right might argue the Democrats are all about) is not the answer. However, the less is more, hands-off and abdicate all responsibility approach of Republicans and Libertarians is no answer, either.

I have lived long enough not to trust the private sector to police itself or do anything to benefit the greater good. (Anyone remember Enron, Three Mile Island, the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez crash?) However, I have no confidence in government to act to rein in the excesses of private enterprise.

And so, in the midst of my middle age, I have lost interest in politics and political debate. The political era I reveled in during my youth is gone. Maybe it never really existed. Part of me wonders if perhaps it is finally time for us to admit that this Grand Experiment, as Alexis de Tocqueville called it in Democracy in America, has failed. Money talks, and the rest of us are silenced.

So much to say, so much to say, so much to say

First off, apologies to Dave Matthews for borrowing a line from one of his songs for the title of this entry. Also, apologies to anyone whi may have read this blog and waited for the next entry.

Life has kind of taken precedence. And, there is just so much out there worth discussing, I couldn't decide. It was like being a kid in a toy store who is told he can get anything he wants. What to choose?

I have also been wrestling with a decision regarding the coming November election: how I would vote or even if I would vote. Right now, it depends.

If Barack Obama is able to secure the Democratic nomination for President, then he will get my vote. Despite every underhanded tactic tried by the Clinton mob, Obama has maintained his dignity and his poise and his cool. Quite frankly, those are all qualities we need in our next President. Hillary Clinton possesses none of those characteristics.

Thinking about it as I write this, Hillary Clinton reminds me a little of Richard Nixon. She appears willing to do anything to gain an advantage, even lie, cheat, or steal if necessary. She has changed her stand on so many issues during this campaign. I didn't think any one person could talk from so many different sides of their mouth.

First, she lobbied the super delegates to support her even though she was losing in the regular delegate count. Then, when many of those super delegates came out for Obama, she argued that they should not go against the will of the people. I honestly don't think she gives a damn about the will of any people except for herself and a few moneyed supporters.

The other day, in time to be sacreligious for Easter, key Clinton enforcer James Carville came out and likened former Clinton cabinet member Bill Richardson to Judas because he had the audacity to publicly support Obama. The suggestion is that Richardson will get his "30 pieces of silver" should Obama win the nomination. Even if that is true, how how is it any different from whatever Clinton is promising to those super delegates who publicly endorse her?

It is increasingly clear that Hillary Clinton, deep down, cares for no one other than Hillary Clinton. She has no interest in the Democrats winning back the White House. She is only interested in Hillary Clinton winning the White House. If she can't get the nomination, she is determined to make sure Obama doesn't win in November. Hillary Clinton's loyalties are to the Clinton political machine first and foremost. The Democratic party and America itself come in a distant second and third (or maybe third and fourth behind her richest supporters).

Earlier in the campaign, I was prepared to cast a reluctant vote for Hillary Clinton in order to prevent a continuation of the disastrous Bush policies. Now, though I am a loyal and lifelong Democrat, I can no more vote for Hillary Clinton than I can for John McCain. So I won't. She's an opportunist who calls herself a Democrat. If she loses the nomination, I would not be surprised to see her launch an independent campaign.

Hillary Clinton ought to be booted out of the Democratic Party for her and her husband's suggestions that of the three Presidential candidates remaining, only two of them are honorable and loyal Americans, and neither of them are named Barack Obama.

Well, she got part of it right. There are only two honorable and loyal Americans still in the race for President. But she's not one of them.

And Then There Were Two

Two candidates dropped out of the beauty pageant that is the race for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations today, leaving two major candidates on the Democratic side and two or three candidates on the G.O.P. side, depending on how seriously you take the candidacy of Mike Huckabee.

Rudi Giuliani left the G.O.P. race, a move that came as no surprise after his "all or nothing" strategy in Florida netted him exactly that. Nothing. It's hard to see how he and his gimmicky one-page tax form will be missed.

Equally unsurprising but ultimately more disappointing to me was the departure of John Edwards from the Democratic race. He likely had no chance to win the nomination, but I would have liked to have seen him stay in the race at least through Super Tuesday.

One reason I am sorry Edwards is leaving the race is that, for me, he embodied the spirit, the passion, and the memory of JFK and perhaps even more so of Robert Kennedy. His idealism and commitment to the poor certainly seemed to me to evoke Bobby's memory and the idea that once existed for many that America could be a great and compassionate country for all of it citizens, not merely those who could afford to buy a Senate or House seat.

Edwards seemed from my perspective to be the first candidate, at least on the Democratic side, to express actual ideas rather than talking in sound bites. His idea of creating a "green infrastructure" to both reduce our dependence on foreign oil and provide an economic boost through the new jobs such a philosophical shift would create was a marked departure from the same old "let's drill in Alaska" approach.

His notion of "one America", which perhaps an unattainable ideal, evoked the spirit of both Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Moreso than any other candidate, his statements upheld the idea at the forefront of the Declaration of Independence that "all men", not merely those with power, connections, or money, "are created equal".

As the campaign progresses, I expect to draw upon the Declaration again to discuss the views of the different candidates. For now, I wish John Edwards and his valiant wife well. As he said in his announcement withdrawing from the race, "I'll be fine." As long as America has men and women like John Edwards to remind us of what we can and should aspire to, it will be fine as well.