Once again, the “winds of war” are beginning to gain strength, as  international relationships between Iran and the West (including Israel) continue to deteriorate at a rapid pace.   There is little doubt that the volatile and vociferous  leadership of  Iran has made a decision to develop and strengthen their military capabilities, and to pursue an aggressive course of action against  neighboring countries.   The imposition of economic sanctions against the Iranians by Western nations has done nothing to weaken the Iranian’s resolve to develop nuclear weapons capabilities, and have failed to bring the Iranian government back to the “bargaining table.”  Although sanctions have impacted the lifestyles of the Iranian people by depriving them of certain imported goods, there is no sign that sanctions have in any way slowed down the government’s grand plan to develop nuclear weapons, to destroy the Nation of Israel, and to dominate the Middle East through force of arms.  This point was made abundantly clear yesterday in a speech by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, when he compared Israel to a “cancer” that must be removed.  By all appearances, the Iranian government has committed itself to war and has no intention of backing down, regardless of the consequences.

The militant attitude of the Iranian government, its continuing efforts to develop nuclear weapons, its threats against the West (particularly the U.S. and Israel), and its threats to close off the Straight of Hormuz  have now escalated to the point of being intolerable.  According to Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs, Moshe Yaalon, the Iranians have come close to developing ballistic missiles with a range of 6,000 miles, which would be capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to the East coast of the United States.  They already have missiles with a range of over 1,200 miles, well within the reach of any country within the Middle East.  Mr. Yaalon, in a meeting with U.S. officials,  indicated that all of Iran’s nuclear sites could be taken out with a sustained and coordinated attack by the Israeli and U.S. military.  Many defense experts do not, in fact, support Mr. Yaalon’s position, saying that much Iran’s military capabilities are buried deeply underground, well protected from assaults from the air.  The time to neutralize  Iran’s military capabilities may have finally come; however, the task will require a strong stomach and steely resolve on the part of war-weary Americans.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, speaking at the NATO Meeting in Brussels, said earlier this week that there was a “strong likelihood” that Israel would strike Iran in April, May or June.  This unusually candid statement by Mr. Panetta should be taken by the Iranian government as a “warning shot across the bow”.  The truth of the matter is that Iran’s military would be very quickly defeated by vastly superior Israeli and American forces.  In some ways this is reminiscent of the terrible days leading up to the Second World War, when Hitler held strongly to the delusion that the world would not be able to stand up to Nazi aggression.  Let us all hope that the Grand Ayatollah Khamenei does not hold fast to a similar delusion.

Rich

This time of year in Pennsylvania is usually dark, snowy, and somewhat foreboding-looking. This year, however, has been a mild and surprising winter. The sky is bluer and the temperatures are moderate. Snow has only been a light blanket that quickly melted. Perhaps Al Gore was right about global warming. But when it comes to the seasons, I cannot help making analogies to life.

We have all heard about the Springtime of our lives and how quickly that becomes the Autumn of our years. I have never been one to hold to those canards, though. The Springtime of my life offered much in the way of happiness and the thought of that ebbing away in the time of years could be fodder for dark moods. But not for me. I see every life-passage as an adventure with new images to behold and new trails to blaze sans the responsibilities that youth held. Children are gown and moving on with their own lives. As Khalil Gibran wrote in The Prophet,

“Your children are not your children.

They are the sons and daughters of life’s longing for itself.

They come through you, but not from you.

And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you.

You may house their bodies, but not souls.

You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.

You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.”

I have always loved these lines. They helped me when I began feeling that empty-nest syndrome and realized that this is my time, my time. I have a voice. I have longings. I have promise…still.  So the Spring in me still exists, and I embrace it. Tom Waits  sings in this song with his whiskey and gravel voice, “Even though you’ve lost your way, the world is dreaming, dreaming of Spring.” So let us forever dream of Spring, no matter the season. “You can never hold back Spring.”

—cher

As a young Navy man, serving duty aboard the U.S.S. Ticonderoga off the coast of Viet Nam in 1969, I’ll never forget the  feelings of pride and awe I experienced when told about the landing of two American astronauts on the surface of the Moon.  At that time, very few of us questioned why our nation would so feverishly pursue such an expensive and dangerous endeavor.  We simply knew that America had to beat the Soviets to the Moon in order to prove the superiority of American technology and  capitalism, and the inferiority of the Communist-inspired, Soviet  system of government.  By the time Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the Moon, it was already well established that our closest neighbor in space was nothing more than a sterile and inhospitable rock, with little or no commercial value, and almost no hope of ever being capable of supporting human life.  None-the-less, the victory of the Americans over the Soviets in the race to the Moon seemed worth it at the time, and provided a great (albeit temporary) lift to the national “esprit de corp”.  The historic flight of Apollo 11 was followed by another half dozen or so trips to the Moon before the American public finally shut down the manned space flight program due to a reluctance to pay the exorbitant costs that it entailed.

It’s been over thirty years now since the last trip to the Moon, although manned space flight has been continued by both the Americans and Russians through the use of   re-usable space shuttles and rockets that have delivered astronauts to various versions of space stations in low Earth orbit.  During this time it has become increasingly obvious that human beings are far too fragile to endure the rigors of extended space travel, and that the life support systems necessary to prolong human life are too cumbersome to supply and maintain life  for any length of time.  In short, manned space exploration doesn’t make sense, especially when unmanned vehicles and machines can do the job much more cheaply and infinitely more efficiently.  There is little doubt that NASA recognized this reality when the aging fleet of U.S. Space Shuttles were retired, and no provision was made for replacements.   From now on, any trips to the International Space Station, which is the only remaining place to go in near space these days, will have to be made aboard a foreign made launch vehicle.  Like so many other industries, the delivery of U.S. astronauts  to the I.S.S. has been (at least temporarily) outsourced.

In a recent campaign speech to partisan residents of Eastern Florida, Newt Gingrich proposed a mega-billion dollar joint effort between government and the private sector to return Americans to the Moon by 2020.  Not only did Gingrich propose returning to the Moon, but he also suggested establishing a permanent Moon colony.  The idea of spending hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money for such a foolish and wasteful endeavor, especially at a time when the U.S. National debt is over $15.0 trillion and millions of Americans are struggling to find employment, is just another  indication of Gingrich’s political extremism.  According to Newt, hundreds of billions of dollars should be spent for a colony on the Moon, but not a cent more should be spent on extending unemployment benefits, or for providing health care benefits to the uninsured, or for early education programs for the poor.  In essence, Gingrich is proposing tax cuts for the rich and a Moon base for the rest of us.  Perhaps Gingrich has lobbied Freddie MAC to underwrite the Moon Base mortgage?  Hmmmm, now it’s beginning to make sense!

Rich

Earlier this week President Obama delivered his third State of The Union address to Congress  since becoming President  in 2009.   To his credit, the President’s speech was an upbeat assessment of how much conditions have improved in America since the waning days of the Bush Administration; when the U.S. economy was losing 500,000 jobs per month, and the country was teetering on the precipice of total collapse.  Obama reminded his listeners that the U.S. economy has shown increases in employment for the last twenty-two months in a row, that the banking and auto industries were saved from impending bankruptcy, and that U.S. troops have been brought home from Iraq.  Although acknowledging that unemployment was still too high, and that the economic recovery was still gaining steam, Mr. Obama painted a very realistic and optimistic picture that things were  heading in the right direction in America.  Within the Obama Administration, and certainly within the population in general, there seems to be a renewed feeling of optimism in the air.

A feeling of optimism, of course, is the last thing that many Republicans want to happen during an election year.  Senator Mitch McConnell summed up the Republican Party‘s  number one priority quite well when he stated that defeating Barack Obama in 2012 was more important than anything else, even more important than serving the interests of the very people that sent him to Congress in the first place.  For McConnell, a decrease in unemployment, a turn-around in the residential housing market, and a steady increase in the value of Americans’ retirement funds spells nothing but political disaster.  In fact, even before the ink had dried on President Obama’s State of The Union speech, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich took to the campaign trail to tell the American people how horrible things were across the country, and how badly the Obama Administration had failed.  Unfortunately, the “truth-impaired”  Republican presidential candidates came across as desperate politicians, hell bent on doing and saying everything possible to convince the American people that the whole country would go down the tubes without the enlightened benevolence of conservative political thinking.  As the year 2012 presses on, and as the economic recovery continues to gain momentum, the Republicans no longer be able to deny the successes of the Obama Administration, and will see their “platform of dissent” melt slowly away.

There are few Americans who would deny that the last three years have been a time of unprecedented political gridlock in our county.  As a result of constant Republican obstructionism and the indiscriminate use of the power of the filibuster, the Obama Administration and the Democrats have been considerably slowed down in their efforts to improve the lives of middle class Americans.  In spite of Republican efforts to the contrary, however, the Obama Administration has guided America into a new age of prosperity, which lies just over the horizon.  There is little doubt that the radical voices of ultra right-wing conservatism will be shown the door in November, and that the progressive age of American politics will once again more forward under the leadership of Barack Obama.

Rich

After watching the four Republican presidential candidates “duke it out” on stage last night in Tampa, I finally came to the conclusion that a vote for “none of the above” was probably the best course of action.  I realize, of course, that primary voters will not really be given the option of selecting “none of the above” on their ballots, but perhaps they should.  How else can the Republican Party get the message that none of the four remaining  candidates are presidential material, and that none of the candidates have the leadership skills or strength of character to guide America through  the stormy waters that lie ahead.  In retrospect, the debate was more like a family squabble between Romney and Gingrich than it was a political forum where the candidates explained their positions on the issues.  Although it has been asked many times over the last six months, the question still remains “Is this really the best the Republican Party has to offer the American people?”

The presumptive front-runner, Mitt Romney, who has spent the last six years running for President,  has consistently failed to excite the electorate.  His political positions constantly change, depending on who he is talking to, and his business experience as a venture capitalist made him an expert in eliminating jobs rather than creating them.  Mitt is certainly not adverse to spreading lies and half-truths about his Republican competitors, and even more “truth-impaired” when it comes to President Obama‘s record.  The un-Romney candidate, Newt Gingrich, is even worse.  Gingrich, who is know far and wide as a bad-tempered and intolerant bully, got himself thrown out of Congress over a decade ago for ethics violations, left a trail of ex-wives who had lost their usefulness to him, and spent the last five years influence peddling for quasi-government organizations at the expense of taxpayers.  He was much reviled when he was Speaker of The House, and continues to be much reviled by those who know him the best.  It is beyond sad that the top two Republican candidates for the Presidency of the United States of America would be so totally unworthy of that high office.

The remaining two Republican presidential candidates, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, are so completely out of the mainstream political thought in America that they barely deserve mention.  The first one, Santorum, sees birth control pills as a threat to America’s freedom, and the second one, Paul, sees Medicare and Social Security as the ultimate downfall of American society.  Neither one gives a tinkers damn about the plight of the middle class, and both see the major role of the federal government as getting out of the way of laisez-faire capitalists.

Unfortunately for the Republicans, the cast of characters for the 2012 presidential elections has been set in cement.  There is no way that a decent, or even half-decent, character (or candidate) could be added to the slate at so late a time.   As time goes by, the writing on the wall is becoming clearer and clearer; President Obama will be elected in November to lead our country for another four years.

Rich

Preface: With this being an election year, one of the hot-button issues is that of Immigration. In wanting to know more about this issue and its wide-ranging impact, I contacted the Southern Poverty Law Center for their perspective. They graciously consented to have me interview Lecia Brooks. I was most interested in HB56, which appears to be a precedent-setting Bill with far-reaching ramifications. The following is my interview with Lecia Brooks:

Cher: Lecia, I would like you to briefly tell the readers about your background and how you came to be active with the SPLC. Also please delineate your role within the SPLC.

Lecia Brooks – SPLC’s Director of Outreach

Prior to joining the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2004, I was deeply engaged in human relations and anti-oppression work in Southern California.  In addition, I was a 5^th grade teacher to newly arrived immigrants in South Los Angeles. It was during my service as a classroom teacher that I became aware of SPLC through its Teaching Tolerance project. In 2004 I became the director of Mix It Up at Lunch Day, a Teaching Tolerance program designed to support youth in crossing racial, cultural and social barriers and build inclusive and welcoming school communities.

I now lead SPLC’s outreach efforts on key initiatives and social justice issues. As outreach director, I frequently conduct trainings and presentations around the country to promote acceptance and inclusion. I also serve as director of the Civil Rights Memorial Center in Montgomery, Ala., an interpretive center designed to provide visitors to the Civil Rights Memorial with a deeper understanding of the civil rights movement.

Questions:

Cher: The SPLC is currently fighting back on Alabama’s new anti-immigrant law, HB 56, saying this legislation is “a humanitarian crisis unfolding.” Please discuss the aspect of racial profiling and how it impacts immigrant families.

Lecia: HB56 empowers law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of individuals, which subject residents of Alabama – including countless U.S. citizens and non-citizens with permission to be in the United States – to racial profiling as well as unlawful interrogations, searches, seizures and arrests that violate the Fourth Amendment.

This law has devastated the immigrant community in Alabama. Under the provisions that are currently in effect, undocumented persons are unable to interact with the government—in any way and for any purpose. It has turned a significant class of people, effectively, into legal non-persons, subjecting them to a kind of legal exile. It has destroyed lives, ripped apart families, devastated communities, and left our economy in shatters.

Cher: Another aspect of HB 56 is the harsh impact on farmers and subsequently, consumers in Alabama. I read in the SPLC Report that Alabama’s economy stands to lose $40 million dollars per year under this legislation. Would you expound on this and the implications for the U.S. economy?

Lecia: This misguided law carries a huge price tag, which will be borne by taxpayers and consumers. While the state is grappling with a difficult economy and legislators are touting fiscal responsibility, the law will add substantial new costs for law enforcement agencies – costs that have nothing to do with protecting Alabama residents from crime. Plus, it allows citizens to sue agencies they believe are not adequately enforcing the law, potentially leading to millions more in litigation costs.

There are other costs as well. Farmers, small businesses and consumers will bear the brunt. Labor shortages caused by Georgia’s recently enacted anti-immigrant law are expected to cost that state’s agriculture industry $300 million. Alabama industries dependent on immigrant labor will likely suffer the same fate. Millions more in tax revenue will be lost. According to the Center for American Progress, if the whole undocumented population alone stopped working, tax revenue losses would reach over $130 million per year.

Additionally, Alabama businesses will lose sales as immigrants – undocumented or not – decide to leave rather than face the prospect of racial profiling and harassment. Economic development efforts, which in recent years have lured foreign businesses and thousands of jobs to Alabama, will also be stunted as the state’s past reputation for racial intolerance is revived across the country.

Cher: Has the SPLC learned of a rise in Hate crimes since HB 56 was implemented in Alabama, and is there an adequate way to track Hate crimes against immigrants?

Lecia: The latest FBI statistics, released in November, showed a rise of almost 11% in anti-Latino hate crimes in 2010. Earlier, anti-Latino hate crimes rose some 40% between 2003 and 2007 then diminished in 2008 and 2009. We have attributed the rise to the demonization of Latino immigrants over the past decade by politicians, pundits and nativist extremists. Anti-immigrant rhetoric has been shown to produce an increase in hate crimes against Latinos; with state-sanctioned anti-immigrant laws the trend will likely continue.

Cher: How many other states have Bills similar to HB 56, either implemented or pending?

Lecia: Six – Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana, and Utah.

Federal courts have already blocked key provisions of these laws in Arizona, Indiana and Georgia. A federal court in Alabama allowed some parts of the law to take effect, which continue to lead to devastating humanitarian consequences. Other provisions of the Alabama law have been blocked by the courts. Members of a civil rights coalition also have a pending case against Utah’s anti-immigrant law, which the court temporarily blocked pending a hearing scheduled for February.

Cher: Thank you, Lecia, for your informative answers and for your initiatives within the SPLC.

“All things truly wicked start from an innocence.”~~Ernest Hemingway

In 2009 eleven year old Jordan Brown, of Lawrence County, PA, was accused of shooting his father’s pregnant finance’ with a shotgun while she slept. Both Kenzie Houk and the child she was carrying died and Jordan Brown was charged with two counts of homicide, because Kenzie Houk was eight and a half months pregnant. Since that day, questions have arisen about Jordan Brown. What could have driven a child to such an act? Should he be tried as an adult or as a child?

Amnesty International got involved with the case at one point due to the PA Attorney General pushing for Jordan to be tried as an adult. If convicted of first-degree murder as an adult, Jordan Brown would have faced life in prison without parole. Amnesty International’s Director for the Americas stated, “Putting a child as young as Jordan Brown at risk of life in prison with no chance of parole is inconsistent with international human rights.”  They went on to argue, “The USA is the only country we know of in the world that pursues life imprisonment without parole against children, and it does so regularly.”

After much legal wrangling, the courts determined that Jordan Brown will be tried as a juvenile, and if convicted will serve in a detention center until he is twenty-one years old. But the nagging questions about what drove an 11-year-old child to have allegedly committed murder remain. We generally consider childhood as a time of innocence. When that time intersects with criminality, not only is the child punished but society at large is should be faced with culpability. Therefore, a new issue has arisen. Should the proceedings in the trial of Jordan Brown remain open to the public?

On the surface it would seem there would be lessons to be learned from these proceedings, and not just prurient interest. Until we hear from defense attorneys, we will not know what might have driven Jordan Brown allegedly to have committed the crimes of which he is accused. Many children have access to guns within their homes, but an eleven-year-old? Was the weapon not secured? Children at that age rarely have impulse control. Did Jordan Brown have the emotional and cognitive ability to distinguish between right and wrong? And what, if any, red flags may have been missed by Jordan’s family?

These questions arise, not as a defense of this alleged act, but rather as a means by which we as a society might learn. Children in our society are faced with too much violence, from video games to Internet access where even a child can view that which is inappropriate. It is difficult to help a child maintain their innocence these days. They seem to face problems never dealt with by us at their age. Perhaps viewing the court proceedings will enable adults to be more cognizant of children at risk in such open environs as our society and to take the necessary steps to ensure that ‘wicked things do not begin at the time of innocence.’ These court proceedings should be open to the public. It is time for us to look at ourselves in the mirror of our children.

—cher

**The following is a guest post from our friend Tony, better known as Bluzdude, at Darwinfish2 . Bloggers make terrific friends, and we are honored to count Tony among ours. Thanks, Bluz, for this terrific post! Oh and the remotes, all five of them, are on the end table.**

Right off, I’d like to thank Rich and Cher for inviting me to invade some of their space. (I promise I’ll move out once I get back on my feet. It should only take a couple weeks. Seriously! Now where’s the remote?)

Cher asked me if I might whip up a little political post for them, and as someone who is adept at throwing gasoline on our nation’s political fires, I was happy to agree. In fact I’ve had this one rolling around my brain for months.

Note before I start: When I refer to “Republicans” here, I’m referring only to the national party leaders and apparatus. The same goes for my use of “Democrats.” Local jurisdictions may vary and I have no knowledge or comment about them.

Often when I do a political post on my own humble blog, if I get any kind of blow-back in Comments, along the lines of “The Democrats do that too,” or “The Democrats are dirty too,” or “Oh yeah? Well double dumb-ass on you!”

The thing is, I don’t care about that. I think that there is ample evidence that both sides play dirty pool and both sides seek to enrich themselves and their benefactors while prolonging their grip on power. That’s a draw. The fact remains that one side is trying to accomplish things in which I greatly believe and the other side is fighting tooth and nail against them.

If the Republicans are right about one thing, it’s that elections are about values. We vote for what we value. The Republican Party values two main things: unfettered big business and regressive social policy (usually in the name of religion).

Actually, I believe it’s really just the one thing, or what I call their Prime Directive: the freedom for big business to do whatever they please in support of their bottom line. But because only Big Businessmen are prone to voting on such a platform and there aren’t very many of them around, Republicans need something else to get people to vote against their own economic interest. That’s where the religion and “family values” come in. I’m not saying that the rank and file Conservatives don’t actually believe that stuff; I’m saying that the top of the party doesn’t. But they’ll use it to keep their voter base in line because it doesn’t do any harm to their Prime Directive.

Now, I don’t have anything, per se’, against Big Business. Heck, I work for one of the biggest. But you don’t have to be a history major to see the damage that deregulation of the financial industry has done to the country. There is one party in favor of deregulation, and the other is in favor of preventing another year like 2007.

Likewise,

• There is one party trying to set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to function independently as they look out for the kind of financial malfeasance that robs the common people and enriches the executives of the financial industry. So far, that “one party” has tried to create political oversight of the department, (which completely defeats the intended purpose), to withhold approval for anyone to run the department (especially anyone that might be effective) and tried to defund it so that they are too understaffed and financially strapped to operate. Does that sound like it’s in the best interest of the average American?

• One party is trying to strip away any and all environmental regulations and contaminate the EPA the same way they’re contaminating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The other party is trying to maintain the viability of our planet to support our very existence. Adhering to environmental regulations costs money and so is in direct violation of the Prime Directive.

Any rational person would be concerned about continuing to spew contaminants like mercury and carbon monoxide into the atmosphere or water supply. A rational person might be concerned about destroying the living conditions on which we depend for our survival. But somehow there’s a disconnect. Republicans don’t believe in safeguards for the environment, outside of providing places for the privileged to hunt, fish and play with guns. Many go so far as to deny that humans have contributed greatly to our planet’s change in climate. A couple of hacked emails was all it took for people to plunge their heads into the sand and overlook overwhelming scientific evidence that the earth is warming and the polar caps are dissolving. This mantra is driven by the businesses that would be most affected by any tangible change in environmental policy.

Perhaps they have plans for a giant bubble to encase a small homeland for coal, oil and other fossil fuel industry execs, probably somewhere around Branson MO. It has to be inland because the Smokey Mountains will be the new eastern seaboard once the polar caps melt.

It’s alarming to me whenever someone “disbelieves” proven science because it goes against one’s political platform or costs money. It’s a sad state of affairs when our highest elected official can ignore decades of physical, provable science and say something as inane as “the jury is still out” regarding evolution. No, the jury is not out. It went out, came back 5 minutes later with the verdict and then went home for dinner, saying something about a mountain of proof. The proof is what makes it science and not opinion. Thank you, Republicans, for ushering in the Age of Ignorance.

• One party is loading pro-business-leaning judges on the Supreme Court. The other is placing those sympathetic to working class Americans. The next time the Roberts court finds in favor of the common people over the interests of big business, it will be the first time. We need look no further than the Citizens United case, which allowed corporations to be “people” and therefore flood the market with unlimited, anonymous campaign ads designed to misdirect people into voting against their own well being.

The saddest part of all that is that if we Americans were better at critical thinking or questioning what they see on TV, all those dollars wouldn’t matter. Unfortunately, all too many lap up anything they see, especially if it supports their existing opinions.

• One party aims to dictate what women can do with her body and the other considers women capable of deciding for themselves. You would think that all the “keeping government out of our business” mentality, would apply to our own personal business as well, but it doesn’t. The Republicans have spent years doing everything they can to prevent abortions, from required waiting periods, forcing doctors to read misleading and dogma-driven messages to patients and preventing insurance coverage (even among paying subscribers).

What they won’t do is promote the single most effective abortion preventative: birth control. It’s hard to believe that in this day and age, the Plan B pill is still controversial. Republicans provide a great hue and cry about Planned Parenthood providing abortions, either omitting or outright lying about the fact that abortions only make up 3% of Planned Parenthood business. Birth control and STD testing and treatment make up 70% of the primary services provided.

If you ask me, the problem is with the clientele. The well-to-do (Republicans) are not likely to go to Planned Parenthood. The poor and working class (Democrats) are. Heck, you’d think that they would be eager to keep Democrats from breeding. Maybe they ought to reconsider and then everyone will be happy. Of course, their solution is to fund abstinence programs instead. Unfortunately, they don’t work. Those subjected to abstinence programs don’t delay having sex by any significant margin, but they are far more likely to get pregnant when they do.

So, their solution is no abortion and no birth control, so don’t have sex. And obviously, that’s only for we here among the unwashed masses, not our Congressmen.

• One party is working to allow people that love each other to get married. The other is determined to prevent that.

“The Gays are Coming! The Gays are Coming! Hide your children, lock up your pets!” This is one of those wedge issues that through fear mongering, unsubstantiated claims and gross exaggeration, get people good and scared enough to vote Republican. Again, you’d think that the aversion of government intruding into lives would include the right to live and love those who you were genetically programmed to love, but you’d be wrong.

The Republicans might not want to work to see that you have clean air and drinking water, a viable Social Security program, or bank services that aren’t rife with hidden fees and charges, but they can prevent those two guys down the street from getting married! Boo-ya!

• One party is acting to ensure that everyone can utilize their Constitutional right to vote. The other party is busy erecting barriers to that very right, under the guise of fighting “voter fraud.”

The thing is, there is no voter fraud. The last I read, there may have been 200 votes in the last national election, that could have been prevented by the laws Republicans have passed that require photo ID and other residency requirements. That number is what’s known as “statistically negligible.” Contrast that with the tens of thousands affected by the new voter ID laws, or the election-rigging via understaffing urban voting centers. The only reason for these laws is to prevent those prone to voting Democratic from doing so. That’s it. That’s also against the very American values to which the Republicans claim to adhere.

So, to summarize, the Democrats try to ensure the financial industry doesn’t tank the country again, the Republicans are against that because regulations limit profits.

The Democrats want an independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to serve as a watchdog for we the people. The Republicans are against that because is might hurt corporate profits if they had to disclose what they were doing.

The Democrats are trying to enforce environment regulations to keep industry from poisoning the planet around us. The Republicans that there’s a problem because cleaning toxic industrial output costs money.

The Democrats put two justices on the bench in the last 3 years, who had long histories of service to the average American. The previous Republican added two shills for big business who have found for the powerful over the powerless at every turn.

The Democrats are in favor of birth control being widely available and of a woman’s right to choose whether she should bear children. The Republicans are against that, substituting the judgment of others over yours.

The Democrats are in favor of gay marriage. The Republicans are not because it’s icky and the Bible says so.

The Democrats are in favor of quick voter registration and easy exercise of the right to vote for all Americans. The Republicans are not because they know that there are more likely-Democrats than likely-Republicans, so the fewer that vote, the better for themselves.

Regardless of what I may think of the President’s effectiveness, or that of the other Democratic congressmen and women, the choices in 2012 are stark. Now is not the time to sit on the sidelines or be apathetic. We have to vote for what we believe.

If you are a big business executive, a high-income earner, were born into money, or if you are an Evangelical Christian that wants the government to adhere to your church’s rules, then you should vote Republican. They will represent your interests well.

I am none of those things, so I am voting Democratic. So should you.

***
Note: Bonus points for anyone that caught the reference to “Star Trek IV: The One With the Whales.” Republicans want those whales dead.

—Bluz

We know that No Child Left Behind has been shown to be a failure in our schools. In June of 2008 I wrote an article in which I stated, “Teachers who have traditionally been able to imbue their students with a love of learning have been thwarted. The ramification is that tens of thousands of teachers are dropping out of the profession or opting for an early retirement. They have been demoralized and de-skilled. When teaching methods are mandated to be standardized, the impact on creative and innovative instruction is severe.

Teachers have traditionally been one of the greatest resources for our children. How many of us recall a teacher who had a profound influence in our lives? Their importance cannot be under-rated or under-appreciated. In addition, this generates the loss of future teachers who shift career goals as horror stories emerge across the country.”
Read more about this..

One of most egregious horror stories I have read surfaced recently in Gwinnett County Georgia. Third grade students were given math homework assignments that included word problems. Ostensibly these problems were infused with some history in an effort to combine both studies. Many conscientious parents who saw this homework assignment were righteously outraged. The word problems used racist elements and referenced slaves in the most derogatory ways. No child should be faced with this demeaning of their own history, Black or White. What was this teacher have been thinking?

This is one more example of why No Child Left Behind must be cast away. If this video does not convince us, I do not know what will. Preparing our children through programs that include blatant racial overtones cannot be tolerated. Education in this country has become an uphill battle. We must remain vigilant. To parents: As the lyric goes in an old CSNY song, “Teach your children well.” Monitor what they are being taught and speak for children too young to speak for themselves. What happened in Gwinnett County may be happening in your child’s school. It is an abomination.

—cher

Over the last year the very small, but militarily powerful nation of Israel has watched cautiously as its neighbors have struggled with internal rebellions and regime changes.  Located in a region of the world that has been known for decades for  political instability and volatility, Israel has recently witnessed an unprecedented shuffling of the political deck of cards.  As a matter of national policy, the Israeli government has largely refrained from making public comments about the political affairs of its neighbors, and has avoided any kind of direct involvement in the various uprisings.  This has been a wise policy, considering that Israel has been universally vilified, and considered as a common enemy by all of its Arab neighbors.

Recently, however, the Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, uncharacteristically made a public statement that the fall of the Syrian government was imminent.  Much like the former regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the Syrian regime is dominated by a minority Muslim Sect, which is strongly opposed by the majority of the people who follow a different strain of Islam.  In the case of Syria, the al-Assad regime is primarily Shiite, and the population of the country is primarily Sunni.  It is highly likely that Ehud Barak is correct in his assessment that the regime will fall, since recent history in the region has shown that religious considerations always win out over the political muscle of minority governments.  Although the Israeli government is betting on  ultimate victory by the Syrian rebel forces, it is still very unusual that it would say so publicly.

The reason why the Israeli government has deviated from its policy of  “silence” concerning the affairs of Syria is that the fall of the al-Assad regime will have a profound effect on an issue that is near and dear to all Israelis: immigration.  The Israeli government has predicted that tens of thousands of former al-Assad backers and followers of Shiite Islam will flood into the occupied Golan Heights to seek asylum from political retribution.  In essence, the Israeli government could be faced with yet another occupied territory, similar to the Gaza Strip, that is teeming with Arab refugees, and looking to make future territorial claims.  Unfortunately, there is little that the Israeli government could do to stop the flood of Syrian refugees, other than to prepare its own people for the worst.

Although many Americans view the revolutions and upheavals of the “Arab Spring” in a positive light, the world (and especially the Israelis) may soon find out that regime changes often have negative ramifications.  This may be the case for Syria, when the Sunnis take over political power and everyone else heads for the hills of Golan!

Rich

It  just seems as if watching the parade of Republican circus clowns, each trying desperately to be more extreme than the other, is rapidly becoming tiresome.  There is Mitt Romney, who wants to turn back to the clock to the  days of unregulated and unfettered capitalism; then there is Rick Santorum, who wants to turn the country into a theocracy while denying that racial discrimination is a problem in America; then there is Newt Gingrich, who thinks that the best way to do away with all progressive legislation is to fire the judges who uphold it; then there is Rick Perry, who advocates sending American troops back into Iraq, even against the will of the Iraqi government; then there is Ron Paul, who thinks that most of the powers of the federal government should be dismantled and  given back to the states; and finally there is Jon Huntsman, who is the sole voice of sanity among the bedlam of  Republican voices crying out for war wherever they can start one.  It is only one  week after the Iowa caucuses, a single day before the New Hampshire primary, and most Americans are already looking for the craziness to end.  On January 21, they will probably achieve their wish  for the Republican circus to finally leave town.

January 21 is the day of the South Carolina presidential primary, and it will most likely be the day that Mitt Romney is anointed as the undisputed front-runner, and heir apparent to the Republican presidential nomination.  There is little doubt that Romney will win in New Hampshire by a wide margin, but since the Granite State is viewed by many as Romney’s home turf, many conservatives will not be convinced that a win  is indicative of the will of most conservative voters.  For conservatives to be convinced that Romney is their “man”, it will take a victory in South Carolina to seal the deal.  The “un-Romney” candidates, especially Santorum, Gingrich and Perry have already begun an all-out media blitz of negative TV and radio ads to attempt to cut into Romney’s commanding lead among the South Carolina voters.  There is little doubt that the negative ads will “draw blood” from the Romney campaign, but very little chance they will turn the tide of the election.

As of now, Romney has the support of around 40% of likely South Carolina voters, followed by Santorum and Gingrich at around 20% each, Ron Paul at 12%, and Rick Perry lagging far behind at around 5%.  Most importantly for the Romney campaign, is that their candidate leads in virtually every category of voter and demographic.  By most accounts, the Romney campaign is all but “unstoppable”.  The South Carolina primary will undoubtedly be the end of the presidential aspirations for three of the remaining six candidates; those being, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman.  It is probable that Gingrich will limp through to the Florida primary, before finally calling it quits, and even more likely that Ron Paul will soldier on for at least another month or two.

Based on the early polling data from South Carolina and Florida, and barring some kind of monumental slip-up on the part of Mitt Romney, it seems highly likely that Barack Obama will be facing Romney in the November 2012 general election.  This should come as good news to most Obama supporters and moderate independent voters, since Mitt’s extreme conservative positions will not go over well with the majority of the electorate.  At any rate, November is still eleven months away, and almost anything can happen between now and then.

Rich

There were so many shenanigans going on in Iowa that my head was reeling. Who would have thought former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum would play leap-frog over Newt Gingrich? I live in PA and I can tell you, we didn’t like Santorum that much when he was here.

There were questions regarding his residency. Did he live in Penn Hills, PA, Mt. Lebanon, PA or was he actually residing in Virginia for most of the time he represented Pennsylvania? The questions were never satisfactorily answered by Santorum, who was defeated by Bob Casey Jr. in what has been described as the “largest margin of defeat ever for an incumbent Republican Senator in Pennsylvania.”

There were other issues besides his residency that caused Santorum’s defeat by Casey. He seemed, and remains seen, as homophobic. He certainly does not approve of gay marriage. He also tendered an Islamaphobe characteristic when he stated that Islamists were “waging a more than 300-year old crusade with the intent to restore to power to Shia clerics in the Western world.” Casey responded that Santorum statements were outrageous. “No one believes terrorists are going to be more likely to attack us, because I defeat Rick Santorum. Does even he believe that?” These are just a few of the reasons PA booted Santorum from office.

Most recently Santorum has come under scrutiny for sending former Senator John Ensign a head’s up email that the husband of Ensign’s mistress was going public about the affair. Santorum may not come under fire for this, but it does somewhat taint his family values stance. What part does consistent practice of truth actually play?

Santorum showed spunk in Iowa, but still has not been vetted by the media, which was caught off-guard by his moment to shine. The candidates have been trading places in the sun for weeks. The media should have been ready. Romney showed he has staying power as he waits for friendlier turf in New Hampshire. Newt Gingrich looked pitiful and had a poor showing, along with the fact that his finances are slimming down. Ron Paul’s base was the most enthusiastic. And Bachmann closed up shop; down for the count. Perry, salving his ego, is holding on by threads, at least for now, and has the money to hang in there. In the end what does it all mean, these few votes that can change by the time of the Republican convention?

It is the best of our electoral system and it is the worst. We watch the man-on-the-street interviews in small Iowa towns and diners. Some residents may seem to reflect values held by many, but others seem out of touch as though they are not so blighted by the economy and are immune to big-city businesses. All seem mightily influenced by their respective churches. But it is interesting.

The media blitzes get us all riled up. Sometimes we cheer what “We, the people,” say and other times we slap our foreheads as in, “I can’t believe he said that!” It is a slice of Americana. It’s like a marriage that stays together for the sake of the kids, only in this instance it is for the sake of American politics. It is our tradition. It’s almost like being with relatives during the holidays because you have to be there, not because you like what they are serving.

The worst of what happened in Iowa were the attack ads, proffered by those who could afford them (Romney) and not done by those running out of money (Gingrich). It is not the Iowa caucuses so much as it is the shaping by the media for the electoral process. It is the best reality show on TV! It dos not, however, serve as a direct portend of things to come.

Governor Mike Huckabee’s 2008 victory in Iowa became a mere blip by the time of the GOP convention. Mondale won Iowa in 1984 and did not go far. Even Obama, who had an Iowan triumph in 2008, still had months of turmoil and struggle. And lest we forget, Reverend Pat Robertson had a strong showing in Iowa way back in 1984. It was an empty victory as the process went on.

So truly, very often what happens in Iowa stays in Iowa, but it is an integral part of the American democratic process. As quickly as the polls closed there, the media was already speculating about New Hampshire and the candidates hit the road. Iowa gave us more questions than answers about the candidates, but what a great entertainment! Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum emerged in a virtual tie – eight votes separating them. I don’t think the Donald could trump the reality show of Iowa.

—cher

As the first few days of 2012 slide by, there is very little indication that the new year will bring much relief from the political tensions and turmoils that embroil humanity from one side of the globe to the other.   The simmering tensions between the religious sects in Iraq continue to  heat up, the war between the Taliban and the government forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan continue to be  more explosive and destructive than ever, the much sought-after political reforms in Egypt, Libya and Bahrain continue to be elusive, and the Palestinians and Israelis continue to be hell-bent on following a path toward  another war.  Although 2012 will definitely be a year of simmering tensions across the Middle East and North Africa, the most dangerous potential conflict for the new year will most likely be between the United States and Iran.  In fact, things have already started out badly with Iran’s threat to block the shipping lanes in the Straights of Hormuz.

Over the last few years, the international community under the leadership of the United States, has imposed increasingly harsh sanctions against Iran, which have taken a significant toll on Iran’s ability to grow its economy and provide a higher standard of living to its citizens.  Although the sanctions are intended to motivate the Iranian government to halt the development of nuclear weapons, they have done little to slow Iran’s nuclear development efforts, and have  greatly increased the level of hatred among the Iranian people toward the United States.  There is little doubt that the imposition of even harsher sanctions against Iran will eventually cause them to push back with provocative actions such as closing the Straights of Hormuz, or even attacking Israel.  Once the “bullets begin to fly”, there will be no chance of turning back. The United States will once again be involved in a dangerous and bloody foreign war.

At the current time, President Obama has chosen to focus U.S. efforts on finding a diplomatic solution to the “Iranian Problem,” and he has combined diplomatic efforts with economic sanctions.  The United States’ policy has been to work with the U.N. and the community of nations to convince Iran that the development and deployment of nuclear weapons is not in its best interests, and certainly not in the best interests of the rest of the world.  This seems to be the right approach.  If, in fact, the Iranians should take a unilateral military action by closing off the Straights of Hormuz, then the U.S. should become part of a coalition of world powers to force Iran to back down.  Under no circumstances should the United States engage in direct, unilateral military action against the Iranian Naval forces.  Since the  blocking of the Straights of Hormuz would adversely affect powerful countries throughout the world, and since such a blockade would shut down the economic engine of many of Iran’s Arab neighbors, there is no reason why the United States should be the only country actively engaging in hostilities.  Similar to the coalition that helped to liberate Libya from the iron-fisted rule of Gaddafi,  let a similar coalition rid the Middle East of Iranian military aggression.

The public positions taken by the six remaining, Republican presidential candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) regarding relations with Iran  call for aggressive and unilateral military actions on the part of the U.S. military.  This would undoubtedly result in another long and bloody conflict.  A conflict that America can ill afford.

Rich

For far too long in history, women have been perceived as chattel, disposable and expendable. This past year we witnessed uprisings in the Middle East during their Arab Spring. Women often fought along side men to oust oppressive regimes. In Bahrain, however, women are still at risk of torture and rape. Yemen women played activists roles in toppling President Saleh, yet still fight vigorously to keep demands for their rights. Libyan women face a multitude of challenges in the face of change so that they may have access to education and basic human rights. Women in Egypt who protested during the Arab Spring now have forced virginity tests. They have been subjected to discrimination, violence, and harassment. And let us not forget the brutal rapes of women and children that continue in the DRC.  

The film, Women as Enemy, is a documentary report produced by Susan Sacirbey, directed by Muhamed Sacirbey for the UN Refugee Agency, and released by DiplomaticallyIncorrect.org. We can see some of these women and hear accounts from those who are seen as the enemy in their countries. Some are displaced without food, shelter, and without rights. All have aspirations of basic human rights for safety, education, and protection from violence. One line in this film was particularly striking, “When it was too hard to talk, they drew pictures of their worst fears: harassment, violence, abuse.”

This short film is brilliantly done, simplistic in its lack of drama as it allows us to absorb the voices of women who deserve to be perceived, not as the enemy, but rather as an integral part of their societies. Their need for obstacles against accessing education must be heard. Their need for social justice must be heard. And their cry against economic vulnerability must be heard. Please watch this short video and listen to them. Share this video, and with it the dreams of women in peril.

(Double click on the arrow for preview)
—cher

Watch more on Film Annex

With only one day left before the highly-touted Iowa caucuses, the rather pathetic pack of  Republican presidential wanna-bees  are frantically blanketing every corner of the state in search for votes.  I have little doubt that ordinary Iowans will be glad when the whole damn thing is over, and the rhetoric of ass-kissing politicians from Texas, Massachusetts and Georgia can be turned down a notch or two.  It just seems as if everything about the Iowa Caucuses brings out the extreme side of politicians.  Each candidate furiously  tries to establish himself, or herself, as someone with unique qualities that no-one else possesses.  Unfortunately, five of the six candidates espouse basically the same conservative approach to governance, and the sixth candidate, Ron Paul, is deemed by one and by all to be unelectable.

Given the fact that all of the “electable candidates” appear to be mirror images of each other, the only remaining question is just how far to the right do the Iowa voters want to push the Republican Party.  Will they give the victor’s crown to a very conservative right-winger, like Mitt Romney, or will they anoint an extremely right-winger, like Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich?  Interestingly enough, when the Iowa dust settles, it won’t really matter a “fig” where Ron Paul ends up in the rankings, because he is, after all, “unelectable”.  Time has come, however, to go out on a limb and give our readers AskCherlock’s predictions of tomorrow night’s election results;

First Place will go to Ron Paul due to his diligent efforts in organizing every small village and hamlet across the state, and for developing a cadre of hard-core supporters who are willing to battle the elements to get to the polls.

Since Ron Paul is deemed by one and by all to be unelectable (see above), the real First Place will go to Mitt Romney, who will finish after Ron Paul, but ahead of the rest of the amorphous mass of candidates.  Iowans will hold their noses and vote for Romney because they think (incorrectly) he’s the only one who could beat Obama in the Fall.

Second place (after Romney) will go to Rick Santorum because he’s so damn squeaky-clean that most people can’t figure out a good reason to dislike him.  The big advantage of a late surge in popularity is that Romney hasn’t had enough time to develop an effective smear campaign.

Third place (after Santorum) will go to Newt Gingrich, despite all the attack ads funded by the Romney supporters.  Frankly, Gingrich will come off to the voters as a pathetic has-been, loaded with political baggage and doomed by his own arrogance.  A large group of Iowans will probably vote for Newt as a protest against Romney’s smear campaign.

Fourth place (after Gingrich) will go to Michele Bachmann, who even the most conservative Iowans  think would organize an American version of the Gestapo to eliminate liberals if given the chance.  It’s a little scary to imagine Bachmann with the nuclear launch codes.

Fifth (and next to last) place will go to Rick Perry, who most Iowans think is a total horses ass.  Where in the world did the Republicans ever come up with this intellectual midget?

Last Place will go to John Huntsman, who by most accounts is the most capable and reasonable of all the Republicans in the race.  He doesn’t stand a chance against the Tea Party crazies.

Well, that’s it for the predictions!  Let’s see what tomorrow will bring!

Rich

It has been a rocky year politically, economically, and socially in many ways this past year. And it has been a fun year, now ending with Newt Gingrich in tears and a who-would-have-thought Iowa surge for Rick Santorum. Occupy rose to counter the Tea Party and we even attended an Occupy event. Activists to the end, we are! Global changes have caused both inspiration and a few times, some great concern. There is nothing so certain as change, is there? We have shared our ideas, thoughts, and opinions on a multitude of issues and treasure each one of you who has taken the time to read us and comment.

As AskCherlock enters its sixth year in blogging, we look forward to many more discussions and hope to have some impact on the fronts that concern us all.  Now we have the advent of another presidential election and the drama, hope, surprises, and sometimes turmoil it will bring. These are challenging times, but the best aspect of the Internet is having voices heard that may otherwise get lost in the din of rhetoric and diluted messages. I truly believe that bloggers can make a difference.

The new year is one that should bring positive changes, and for this day and the new year, we wish all of you the very best. Keep writing; keep reading, and stay informed. The blogosphere is a powerful realm, so let your voices be heard. Cheers to all of you and Happy New Year from AskCherlock!

This song from Diana Krall is my gift to you. By now many of you know that music is an integral part of my life, so this is the one I chose to share. I lift my glass and toast to new beginnings! What are you doing New Years?

—cher

“There is one state in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States.” ~Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.

The other evening I sat down and turned on the TV to catch up on the latest in politics. What I saw instead was a riveting interview by CNN correspondent Anderson Cooper with professor and author, Paul A. Lombardo, who discussed his 2008 book, Three Generations: No Imbeciles. While I make no claims to being an intellectual, I have a college degree and have done some post-graduate work. Not once had I read, nor been instructed in my classes about the practice of eugenics or social engineering in America and its subsequent influence on practices of the Hitler regime.

Paul A. Lombardo stated in the interview that forced sterilization was practiced in the United States from 1907 to well into the 1970’s. Appalled and aghast, I had to find more information. Has this been another chapter in American history books that has been conveniently tossed aside along with details of our internment of Japanese Americans, true accounts of slave and child labor, or a novel such as The Catcher in the Rye? What I will give you here is a cursory glimpse into the accounting of Paul A. Lombardo from his book. My hope is that it will spur you, as it did me, to read more of this horrific time.

According to Lombardo, legally-mandated sterilization was supported by a eugenics movement in the United States. The impetus behind this was to approve sterilization of the “socially inadequate.” Lombardo states, “Indiana enacted the first law allowing sterilization on eugenic grounds in 1907, with Connecticut following soon after. Despite these early statutes, sterilization did not gain widespread popular approval until the late 1920’s.” It then spread to at least thirty states. From what I have read so far, the grounds were rather arbitrary and were to be adopted as a cost-saving strategy “to relieve the tax burden in states where public facilities for the insane and feebleminded had experienced rapid growth.”

The criteria for involuntary sterilization included, “feebleminded, insane, criminalistic, epileptic, inebriate, diseased, blind, deaf, deformed, dependent—including orphans, ne’er-do-wells, tramps, the homeless and paupers.” By 1924 almost “3,000 people had been involuntarily sterilized in America; the vast majority (2500) in California.”

The laws in Virginia, according to Lombardo, “asserted that heredity plays an important part in the transmission of insanity, idiocy, imbecility, epilepsy and crime. It focused on defective persons whose reproduction represented a menace to society.”

It is not a stretch, then, to see how Hitler latched onto this movement in his quest for an Aryan Nation. Hitler wrote, “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.” As we know, Hitler then proceeded to mass extermination. And the impetus began here, in the United States of America.

There is a plethora of information on this topic. Have we truly learned from history, or are certain aspects left for us to delve on our own so that indeed, we do not repeat these horrific events? By the end of 1941 there was no safety from Hitler. Those people who did not possess what was deemed to be correct social genetics, or who did not conform to Hitler’s mandated ideals were sentenced to death or work camps, most especially the Jews.

Lawsuits are now in the courts for reparations for this destruction of our own people who were victimized. It is my hope that they will succeed and bring to light the necessity of shackling science for the betterment of society and not its destruction.

I had turned on the TV to listen to current political rhetoric, and instead I gained a lesson in American history. I can assure you, however, that I will be listening closely to all political rhetoric. There have been times when I have heard vague murmurs and underpinnings of the very movement which began a bleak time in this country, and spread to heinous, historic depths. And I think of a line by Holden Caulfield in The Catcher in the Rye, “People never notice anything.”

—cher

There is little doubt that the year 2011 will be remembered by most people as a fairly wretched  year in American history.  The country, along with the  whole rest of the world, seemed to be in constant turmoil.  Beset with chronic unemployment, falling real estate values, higher medical costs  and eroding pensions, Americans didn’t have too much to cheer about in 2011.  Making things worse, the U.S.  system of governance became tied up in knots, and was unable to provide direction or leadership or relief to a battered nation that looked to its politicians for answers.  With all of its problems America did, however, push through another year of weak economic performance, and disappointments to hold on to its resolve to become a better nation.  In fact, a well-known research firm, The Conference Board, recently released figures that showed a surprising high level of optimism among American consumers.

Last week, The Conference Board reported that the overall confidence index jumped up by over 9% in December, after recording a 14% increase in November.  The consumer confidence rate currently stands at a level of 64.5%, after recording the biggest two-month increase since March of 1991 (i.e. 20 years ago).  In a very real sense, the jump in consumer confidence is truly remarkable, given the less-than-stellar year that will soon be coming to an end.  Even more remarkable is the fact that more consumers now think that their incomes will rise over the next six months, rather than show decreases.  In a nutshell, The Conference Board reported that in  just about every category of measuring consumer  confidence, Americans were more optimistic about 2012 than they had been about the preceding three years.  This certainly bodes well for Americans, and perhaps may signal the end to a very painful and drawn-out period of tough economic times.

As an individual trained in the science of economics, I tend to look more at empirical data and leading economic indicators before postulating about economic trends.  Because of this training, I was taken by surprise by The Conference Board’s rosy reports of increasing consumer confidence.  What in the world is there to be optimistic about?  The U.S. political system is still locked in a semi-permanent state of gridlock, the unemployment numbers are still doggedly stuck around 9%, and the specter of runaway inflation fueled by  burgeoning government debt still looms over us like the Sword of Damocles.  In addition to America’s own  economic woes,  the troubles in Europe and China and elsewhere seem to only be getting worse.  What is it then that gives Americans such a new-found sense of optimism?

The answer to that question is really quite simple.  Americans are optimistic about 2012 because they truly believe the worst is over.  They believe that their home values will drop no more, that the unemployment rate has stopped rising, and that the value of their retirement accounts  have again begun to rise.  They realize that America can still survive, even thrive, without a functioning government getting in the way, and they understand more than ever that opportunities still exist that can propel them to a higher standard of living for themselves and for their children.  In a sense, Americans are entering 2012 with the defiant  attitude;  they will make things get better, with or without the help of government.  I think The Conference Board just might be right.  2012 is going to be a very good year?

Rich

In 2010 the Supreme Court of  The United States  reached a landmark decision that  profoundly affected the way American office-seekers could conduct their political campaigns.  Simply put, the Supreme Court green-lighted the activities of so-called Super PAC’s, effectively allowing them to legally raise and spend unlimited amounts of money.  In essence, any individual or corporation can set up its own political action committee, apart from a particular candidate’s individual political action committee, and be totally exempt from the $2,500 contribution limit.  The idea was that Super PAC’s should be allowed to operate separately  from individual political campaigns, and should not be restricted from spending whatever they liked to say whatever message they felt was appropriate.  The predominantly conservative  Supreme Court ruled that anything less than the total removal of spending limits on Super PAC’s would be an infringement of Constitutionally guaranteed  “free speech”.  Although the court’s ruling looked good on paper, in reality it gave free access to super-rich individual and corporate donors to “buy” politicians, and effect the outcome of elections.

For many, many years it has been  no secret that money has a corrupting effect on political campaigns.  In order to limit the ability of deep-pocket donors from gaining unfair access to political decision-makers, Congress wisely passed legislation many years ago (before being out-maneuvered by the Supreme Court) that limited donations to $2,500.  The campaign contribution limits worked well for President Obama in 2008, allowing him to raise hundreds of millions of dollars by accepting small donations from a broad base of support.  As a result of this, Obama was not politically indebted to, or unduly influenced by, any single interest group.  Because of the Supreme Court ruling, those times are over!  The new age of the Super PAC’s has arrived, and the  battle for political power and influence will be determined by which candidate is backed by the most money.  It’s “titan versus titan”, and the politician willing to sell his soul to the highest bidder will wear the victor’s crown.

The power of the Super PAC is already being experienced in Iowa, with the emergence of the pro- Mitt Romney group, Restore Our Future.  This Super PAC , run by former Romney political operatives, is funded by Romney’s prior investment firm, Bain Capital, and has poured mega-bucks into ads smearing the record of  Newt Gingrich.  In the meantime, Mitt Romney has claimed no responsibility for Restore America’s media blitz, and has defended their right to speak freely on behalf of his campaign.  A similar Super PAC, operating without donation limits or restraints, has also engaged in a major smear campaign in Iowa on behalf of Texas Governor Rick Perry.  When it comes to Super PAC’s, the “fun” has only just begun, and woe be to any office-seeker who has not lined up the monied, special interests to support his campaign.

It is no wonder that politicians in America are so universally disdained by the general public, and that Congressional approval ratings are at an all-time low.  The vast majority of middle-class voters across the country know full well that regardless of political party, their own Congressman or Senator has probably been unduly influenced by the special interests that funded their campaigns.  If they weren’t willing to take money from special interest groups and Super PAC’s, they would not have had the funds to wage an effective campaign against rivals who were willing to sell their souls to the highest bidder.  Unfortunately, the citizens of America are now more than ever going to get the best government money can buy, and this bodes very badly for our country’s beleaguered middle class.

Rich

This time of year is filled with so many emotions. The happiness of being with friends and family makes all the necessary work a labor of love. We at Askcherlock have much for which we are grateful. After some serious health scares that turned out to be all right, we are thankful for good health, and send prayers and good wishes to those whose health may not be good. Please know you are in our thoughts.

We have met new people through this blog and other blogging venues. I hold each one of you close to my heart and thank you for blessing us with your presence in our lives. You have made us laugh. You have made  us think. You have given us courage, and you are each delightful in your own charismatic ways.

As we finish our holiday shopping, we do so with great joy in anticipation of children, grandchildren and friends with whom we celebrate. It is not about the gifts, nor about the money, though there was a Christmas many years ago that makes me cringe. I was a single mom, working and doing the best I could to support my children. As too many of you know, when finances are limited, your heart aches for your kids. I had brought home a much anticipated Christmas tree. The kids were anxiously awaiting so they could decorate. When I brought it into our humble (as in poor) home, their faces crumbled into frowns. “It looks like Charlie Brown’s Christmas tree!” Tears began to flow. Gifts were not plentiful, and ornaments for the tree were homemade by me, mostly cross-stitched little things with their names, and Christmas scenes. They cried a lot that year.

As time passed and circumstances changed it got better, much better. Now the house is replete with a gorgeous tree, dazzling ornaments, and presents for all. The difficult times make us better people when we keep in mind that brighter days will arrive. We must cling to that hope and I bear witness to the fact that it can happen.

So to all of you, we wish you the best this holiday season! Thank you for all you are, and for the friendships so graciously extended. In honor of singer Etta James this year, I share this this song for all of you.

—cher