Right Man, Bad Time?

Hello. my name is Vonnie, and I come from a long line of racists. Some of the things that have been said to me by members of my family (both sides) still embarrass me, though no one but me heard some of them. My mother, who grew up in rural Arkansas, remembers Jim Crow. In fact, he was a neighbor, and a deacon at her brother's church. One thing I knew from a very young age is that people are afraid of what they are not exposed to. They make up stories so that they can justify their fears. I've heard this from other points of view-Jewish vs. Christian, Christian vs. Muslim, America vs. USSR. Fear is what keeps us ignorant of each other, and ignorance keeps us afraid and apart. I've told the story before of a woman I used to know who worked at a convenience store that was robbed by a black man. She said to me later, "Now, every time a black man walks in the store, I get scared." I guess her family must have told her, as mine did, that all blacks look alike. When I hear comments like that, I think in terms of statistics-how many black men are there in this country? How many of them robbed you? How many would NEVER rob anyone? Which number is larger? I don't just apply this to race questions-I have the same gut reaction when someone tells me at the age of twenty-five that they are terrified of all dogs because a dog bit them as a child. I have a tough time with that one, being the dog lover that I am, because I know that many times a little education of children would keep them safe from dog bites. But I go through that equation in my head, how many dogs in the world? How many bit you? Etc.

I remember in 2007, when President Obama was campaigning, and people commented on his cool, calm demeanor. I don't remember now who explained it, but someone said that he very consciously disciplined himself because he is aware that many white people are still afraid of black people, and often see black men with a bit of trepidation, because black men are so often angry and hostile. This is precisely how he has conducted his presidency. He is the president who has tried harder than I have ever seen to get a contentious congress to come together to solve problems. He tries to ameliorate conflicts between black professors and white police officers with "beer summits." He plays golf with his staunchest opponents from the opposing party. He is trying to bridge the race gap in this country by showing that we are not that different from each other after all. He has a wonderful family-the statistical American family; lovely, educated wife, two precious daughters, a big black and white dog. He is the perfect person to be the first black president of the United States. He is the one who will make white people less afraid to vote for a black man from now on because he is showing that not all black men are angry and hostile, and they have good American family values. He is a faithful husband who adores his wife. Now that we have seen that it can happen, it will not be a big deal next time a black person runs for president. Of course, there is a subset of white Americans, to some of whom I am related, I'm afraid, who will never accept a black person in any role of leadership in this country. They will have to die off-they will never be changed. Hopefully their children have been exposed enough to the truth and will reject their parents lies about the differences between the races.

The problem, however, is that "No Drama Obama" became president at a time of great peril. The great recession actually began in 2007. One of the two wars we are currently fighting started in 2001, the other in 2003. We are going on our tenth year at war, and we are bombing Libya, Pakistan and Yemen (secretly.) The world economy began to sink in 2008, and has not been able to claw itself back into solvency yet. It is getting worse-especially for working people, who seem to be an easy target for people with lots of money who want to limit worker's rights. Not that it matters; many of those "job creators" are only creating jobs in other countries. There are divisions between the American people that keep us from even having civil conversations with each other. Forget civil-we don't even seem to have honest conversations with each other.

In the budget debate, and the health care debate, and in the midst of every piece of legislation that has been proposed by the Obama administration, there have been loud criticisms that the president has not been "leading," he has not strong-armed the congress to get things done that the American people both need and want. And it is true-that is not the type of leader he is. There is not a single person in the United States who ever knew that Barack Obama existed before he was elected president who should be surprised by this. He is the "Conciliator in Chief," the "Arbitrator in Chief." He does not strong arm people, he tries to get everyone to "just get along." This is not a bad thing. We do need to get along-we have big problems to solve. Problems that are leading the United States to decline. If we don't learn from history, the next step will be trying to make deals with barbarian armies, who then decide they don't want to share the US, they want to own us. I'm referring to the fall of Rome-not accusing any other countries today of being barbarian-I hope no one misinterprets me. But we also need a leader who is rational, which President Obama is, but can do a bit of Lyndon Johnson-style strong arming to get smart things done to turn around our economic situation, and to get us out of all our bellicose actions overseas. He needs to have a spine of steel to stand up to the anti-environment positions of  his opponents, and to support the working people of America.

Although I did not vote for Obama in the primary in 2008, I did vote for him as president, and I will again. Quite frankly, I think he is absolute perfect choice to be the first black president of the United States. He is not someone that white people should ever logically fear, no matter what they might have been told by their racist relatives. But I will cast my vote with trepidation, because in order to get some things done to fight Wall Street and the Koch brothers, and get this country back to work, we need a president that his opponents fear.

Recommended reading: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, Robert Caro

Can They DO That?

Ever since the advent of the internet people have been sending around questionnaires that supposedly tell friends more about each other. They always seem to include a question about favorite smells. I'm a very sensual person-things I smell or hear can move me in ways that I can't always fully describe. There is a young woman I work with who wears a cologne that lifts my mood every time she walks in the door; there are many smells like that. My answer to that survey question is usually "summer fruit-peaches, watermelon," etc. Last week I walked into the great soul-crushing retailer of our time, and was in the produce section. I smelled that magnetic, sweet peach smell, and looked around to see huge bins of peaches and nectarines. I couldn't resist walking over, my head swimming with the thought of ripe peach juice running down my chin, as I slurped the just-soft enough, not too mushy fruit. I picked up several peaches, and then several nectarines. Every one was as hard as a rock-and none of them had that "peachy" smell. How is that possible? There are some room fragrance products that have come up with peach scents that are pretty on-target for replicas. Is it possible that a retailer could use those scented products to entice customers to buy their produce? Nah! Weeelllll?????

Speaking of enticing smells, popcorn. I love the smell of it at movies, or from a microwave. I recently met my sister for a movie date, and while waiting for the movie to start and munching on my popcorn, I got really angry at all the commercials we had to sit through to get to our movie. We put up with commercials on "commercial" television in order to pay for "free" programming. But we pay a pretty big amount for the privilege of seeing a movie-and we see it in theaters so that we don't have to put up with commercials. We are charged ginormous amounts for snacks at movies when we could have snacks at home and watch movies on cable, where the only commercials are for other programming on the cable channel, and we can fast forward through them. Are you listening theater chains? We don't have to spend our money on you. And if you keep behaving like commercial television, we may not.

Shouldn't your doctor already know what medicines you're taking?

Does it bother anyone that commercials for drugs called "proton pump inhibitors," designed to help with heartburn and acid reflux, talk about being able to eat your favorite things once you take their pills? If we didn't eat a greasy diet, such as the pepperoni pizza shown on one particular commercial, we might not have this problem to begin with.

When I was a kid we had "Stiller and Meara." Now we have Jerry Stiller playing character rolls on sitcoms, and Ben Stiller, their son making comedies. Whatever happened to Meara?

Speaking of politics...not that I was, hehehehe, I heard Mitch McConnell this morning on State of the Union with Candy Crowley, harping, once again, the republican lie that any tax increase of any kind on anyone is a can absolutely not be done with 9+ percent unemployment. He cited as proof that democrats, in a big win for the right last year, must have agreed because they voted to extend the Bush tax cuts. If he is using this fact to support his version of economic truth, why then didn't all the rich-I mean "job creators" instantly start hiring? Surely their certainty was enforced by that two year extension? Don't they keep saying that it's uncertainty about tax rates that is keeping them all from hiring or investing in the U.S. job market? Why didn't Gloria Borger, who sat in for Candy Crowley this morning, pursue that question even one more level?

If we call oil, farm, coal subsidies what they really are, would the right be willing to eliminate them? It is corporate welfare to give money to these gigantic agribusinesses, oil companies, et al, and they don't even need it. They are making obscene profits. How can anyone who supports a free-market economy be for this?

Yes, I mentioned farm subsidies. I realize that farmers are, no pun intended, sacred cows in our country-I see the family farmer that way too. But the family farm is a tiny percentage of farms in our country these days, and huge chemical agribusinesses such as Monsanto own many of the farms from which we get our food nowadays. They make plenty of money, and don't need our subsidies. The family farmer, who has picked an industry that can be a captive of nature, has crop insurance if there is a bad year. They don't need our subsidies either. I'm sorry. I do love this country, and I love farmers. I WAS AT THE TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF FARM AID FOR GOODNESS' SAKE!!! Please don't suggest I'm un-American for saying this out loud, but they don't. So, let companies stand or fall based on the market.

How can an avowed, proud tree-hugger feel this way? Weeelllllll-believe me, when it comes to corporate responsibility for environmental mistakes, if the free market made companies pay for their own mistakes, perhaps BP would not be making such large profits this year, because they would be paying to clean up the gulf and reimburse families they harmed with their carelessness. I learned this idea from Robert Kennedy, Jr. in his book, from 2005, Crimes Against Nature.  One cannot be more of a liberal tree-hugger than that. Even if the cost shut them down-that's the nature of the free market. If Superfund hadn't paid to clean up industrial waste for so many companies, perhaps they would be more careful about setting rivers on fire, or poisoning our water sources.

When my husband asked me this morning what I want for my birthday tomorrow, did he "get it" when I said, "Something romantic and from the heart?" Did he hope I would name something specific instead of letting him call on our 13 year relationship, almost 12 year marriage to give him an idea? Should he need to ask? Should I still be bothered that he had to?

Just asking.

Sometimes Evolution Happens Quickly

O

Sometimes Evolution Happens Quickly

I’ve been discussing evolution one way or another for over thirty years. Back then I believed that evolution was a satanic tool for dragging our faith away from God. Yes, I too have been a “Young-earth creationist.” I believed in something that was then called “Creation Science,” but now is dumbed-down to “Intelligent Design,” which basically states that life on earth is so complex that there HAD to be some kind of omniscient being involved in its development. Now, we could spend a lot of time asking why, if that is true, didn’t this being do a better job of designing things like weight-bearing joints, and why there are genetic diseases that kill babies, or (in my view, even worse) auto-immune illnesses in which a person’s own body attacks it, causing illness and death. Doesn’t seem very intelligent to me-but that is not the point today.

The definition of the word “evolution” is change over time, to put it quite simply. Humans have used it to create domestic plants and animals that work according to our desires for thousands of years. That is why water dogs have webbed feet, and Labrador retrievers have water resistant coats, but terriers (their names come from the Latin “terra,” or earth) don’t always care for the water. Now, some would say that this is a sign of “intelligent design,” since humans directed it. But, again, since this type of design has often led to unintended consequences, and harm to the breed or plant, I would say it calls into question, once again, the “intelligent” behind “intelligent design.” But the fact that change over time occurs is without question.

In 1994 Jonathan Weiner published a book called The Beak of the Finch, in which he told the story of two biologists, Peter and Rosemary Grant, who spent twenty-years demonstrating that evolution could occur in closed ecosystems within a few generations. They went to the Galapagos Islands, made famous by Charles Darwin, and observed that the shape of the beaks of birds changed in such a short amount of time based on the scarcity or abundance of particular food sources. These biologists basically put to rest the argument that is often used by creationists that “believing in evolution is also based on faith because none of us were there to see it happening.” We can see it happening right before our eyes. Just this week, in the New York Times “Science Times,” on July 25, an article by Carl Zimmer was published in which we wrote about four biologists who are among a growing group of scientists doing research on “urban evolution,” or showing how urban sprawl is forcing organisms, including rodents and other animals to adapt to  new environments right before our eyes. Other organisms that are evolving right before our eyes are bacteria and microbes, which have spent the last century developing resistance to our insecticides, antibiotics, and other environmental chemicals. There are now bacteria that invade our bodies, and we can’t fight them because they have evolved the ability to absorb our medicines and anti-bacterial wipes and washes. We are not keeping up with them by developing resistance to them because we are not allowing our immune systems to work at fighting them.

All of that being said, there are several states, mostly southern, mostly “red,” that are currently-STILL trying to get intelligent design printed in their science text books. My state, Texas, is one of them. This battle has been going on for nearly a century. The Scopes Monkey Trial, which was fictionalized and immortalized in the 1960 movie “Inherit the Wind.” The trial itself took place in 1925, and some people still will not let this go away, despite the fact that nearly every new discovery supports the fact that all life on earth shares a common ancestor…the basic fact that is at the center of the entirety of our biological lives. Part of this comes from a level of human arrogance, supported by some religious texts, which claim that man is a “higher” form of creation, and is “above” and has dominion over earth and all other life forms. I could go on and on about all the harm we’ve done to earth in the name of this belief, but I won’t. Hopefully any thinking people who might read this will figure out what I mean.

On December 20, 2005, U.S. District Judge John Jones struck a blow to those who wish to teach intelligent design as science. Suit was filed over a school district in Dover, Pennsylvania, where teachers were being forced to give a statement to classes before teaching evolution saying that there were alternative theories to evolution, and that evolution is not “proven” science. After hearing arguments from both sides, Judge Jones decided that intelligent design is not science, and that it violates the constitutional separation of church and state. But the battle goes on. The arguments on both sides of this trial were presented on PBS on November 13, 2007 in Nova, Intelligent Design on Trial.

But wait!!! Barbara Cargill, a (gasp!) biology teacher, and conservative head of the Texas State Board of Education agreed to compromise and not push to have intelligent design added to text books printed in Texas, and purchased by school boards of the entire country. According to reports in Austin news sources, Ms. Cargill gave up the fight because it “looked like they would lose,” and didn’t have enough votes to push their anti-evolution agenda. Well for once, I would love to see some other states follow Texas’ lead. 

Where Do Idealists Get Jobs?

This is not a question regarding the current job market in the United States. There are several careers I can think of that require a certain idealism in order to choose them. Teaching, medicine (nursing in particular,) law enforcement, possibly political office. I know people in all of these careers, and after a certain number of years, each of them seem to lose at least some of the idealism, the desire to help others, that drew them to their career choices. There are others, myself included, who are generally idealistic, and try to always see the best in people, who just wind up having 'jobs' because there is no place for us to fit in with our idealistic natures.

In a conversation with a young friend, whose younger brother just graduated from high school, she told me that he is pursuing a degree in education, and that he hopes to teach in the inner city. He's done some volunteer work in that arena in Los Angeles, CA, and he absolutely loved it. I wonder where he will be twenty years from now, when he has seen just how many of those inner city children he will be able to 'save,' and how he will be the one blamed for their failures? The discussions being held in this country lately over what is wrong with our educational system, and why are children lag behind, is very telling. It seems that everyone, particularly legislators, want to blame teachers and teachers unions for our failures. Occasionally the home life, and participation of the parents is mentioned, but no one brings up the culture we live in. Who are the media heroes? Does our culture celebrate learning? Are the students who are motivated to learn encouraged and nurtured, or are they bullied by fellow students, and ignored by over-burdened teachers who must spend more time trying to keep peace from students with behavior or learning difficulties in their overcrowded classrooms? When they go home, are their heads filled with unchallenging programming on television and iPads? How any teacher can keep his or her ideals alive for an entire career would be beyond anyone's logic.

I'm close to some police officers and others who work for the police in civilian roles. It takes very little time for them to begin to see everyone they meet as suspicious. They spend their days immersed in the worst of what our society brings, and it colors their perceptions. Police officers take a pledge to "serve and protect," which takes a certain ideal of making a difference in society by removing crime so that the law abiding citizen can live freely. But their administrators are sometimes corrupt, they must become friendly and look the other way for some smaller crimes in order to get information on larger crimes, sometimes the people they've pledged to protect dislike them because THEY know someone who has been arrested, and on and on. Police officers traditionally hate the departments appointed to investigate crimes committed within their own ranks. Why? Because sometimes, after seeing how many criminals get away with it, and become rich doing it, and looking at how little they make for the amount of risk involved in their jobs, some policemen become corrupt, and rationalize doing so. Therefore they take the position that they should not be prosecuted if they 'take a little' off the top. How can one keep their idealism in such an unappreciated job. The corruption of the New York City police at the turn of the 20th century was a well known "wink, wink" fact. Police were typically paid for protection by organized criminals on a regular basis. But the city paid them almost nothing, and they were still expected, exactly as today, to put their lives on the line for the people. While police corruption can never be condoned, there were those who understood why police officers would be tempted to take bribes to supplement their paltry incomes.

One place one should be able to believe they can make a difference in the world around them is in politics. There was a time when I thought this would be my place to make a difference. But I have yet to see a single person in politics get elected and not soon be overcome by the amount of money it takes to win, which cannot come from "the people," because the people just don't have enough of it. Barak Obama probably came closer than anyone else during his 2008 election by taking so many very small donations from people online. But even he has taken money from corporations, and proven that the big donors, not the small ones, have more power over what is legislated. An example of this would be the deal he gave to the giant pharmaceutical companies before he even started negotiating his health care reform act. Politics is ugly-it always has been. I've seen some ads that were printed during campaigns in this country during the seventeenth century, and they were even worse than now in the names they called each other. At least now the mud is slung in real time-back then it took days for the ads to go out, and longer for them to be responded to, by which time the damage was often done. Newspapers were owned by business owners, not by idealistic journalists; they could say pretty much whatever they wanted without any challenge from other media sources, or "factcheck.org." So it isn't worse now with regard to mudslinging, but it is WAY worse with regard to the money involved. There will be no way to fix it as long as candidates have to raise more and more money to run for office, and as long as they owe favors to the ones who give them the big bucks.

Helping people by providing medical care ought to be a no-brainer. But after dealing with patients who are demanding when not really sick, patients who come to the doctor to feed addictions, insurance companies who stop real health care delivery, it is easy to see how the nurses and doctors in my orbit all over the country could develop a cynicism about the careers they chose in order to heal. Some of the stories I hear from friends who do home health care just rip at my gut. Some of the behavior of families I've seen who have very sick, disabled family members, does the same thing. I wonder sometimes when we stopped caring about our fellow man, and even more about our families.

In a previous blog I talked about how important a free press was to the learned gentlemen who wrote our constitution. But now the journalists are celebrities themselves,  and they party with the very government whose overreach the framers wanted them to protect us from. This is not true in every case-I have some journalistic heroes who put their lives in great danger to expose corruption at every level. But more and more, the people who report on the legislative class go to the same parties, travel in the same circles, and water down their stories and soft-ball questions to these people because they are 'buddies.' This makes idealism even harder because it diminishes the trust the people have in what they are hearing from the press. It also makes people who have, or might have, become journalists in order to expose corruption in our government, question that decision. I was in journalism school for a time, and when I saw the attitudes of some of the old-school newspaper men, I was disgusted. Even the word disgusted seems inadequate since one of those old newspapermen who had won a Pulitzer Prize for a series he wrote in the Washington Post, looked me in the eye and claimed that the fact that Sally Quinn and her husband, Ben Bradlee, the editor of the Washington Post, hosted some of the most famous parties in Washington, meant nothing when it came to reporting on these people. Really? Where were they before we invaded Iraq in 2003? Why did they wait nearly six years to expose the outing of Valerie Plame in retaliation for her husband opposing the invasion? The New York Times complicity with the invasion of Iraq is well known, but other papers, if they were following the ideals that framed the beginnings of the American free press were being followed.

I suppose the last area in which idealists should be able to work would be the non-profit sector. I have worked in two non-profits in my life. One was a children's home, in which the administration was so corrupt and dishonest that I quickly felt my idealism drain from me every time I faced one of them. The other was a food bank, that was run by some very odd characters for whom their mission seemed almost secondary. There was one person there who reinforced my ideals, and stayed sold on the mission no matter what. But she was only 20% of the entire staff. I hope she is still there, doing good.

My problem is that I hurt when my ideals are violated. I believe in the interwovenness of every living creature. I still have a, perhaps jaded, view of the 1960s, and wish that the hippies who were preaching peace and tolerance and equality hadn't gone on to become investment bankers and right-wing conservatives. Someone I work with recently quoted the old joke to me, "If you are not a liberal when you are young, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative when you are older, you have no brain." I told him I didn't find that at all funny, especially since my growth has been in the opposite direction. (...I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now." Bob Dylan.)  I still have hope that people can change, and begin to care about each other. I don't see it happening in my lifetime. There are too many people who think the old way is better because that's the way things have always been done. I would like to ask them about certain things that were done in the past-slavery, driving native Americans off their lands, or poisoning them with illness, conquering civilizations that were already advanced beyond the conquerors, etc. Should those things come back just because it is good to hold on to the way things were done in the past? I think not. But where can an idealist go to work, and have ideals intact upon retirement? 

Demagogue Is Not a Verb

This has been a busy summer in every area of interest to me. Politics, music, my family life, religion, food...all of these things leading to question after question. So, if anyone has answers, I'm open. If not, well, I'm used to it.

1. There are so many things we can hate politicians for, and what they are trying to do to our education system is one of them. But could we PLEASE get over the fact that governors and presidents and congress people send their children to private schools? Can you IMAGINE how disruptive it would be for the children of state or national leaders to be in public schools? Really, let this one go. Focus on the other crap they are doing to us daily.

2. I love dill pickles. Recently I had one of those giant ones you can buy at the convenience store in the single serving plastic wrap full of pickle juice. Also being a long-time label reader, I made the mistake of turning the package around and reading this one. Did you know it does not contain one shred of dill? It also says on the nutritional information that it contains NO FIBER! Are pickles not simply cucumbers "pickled in brine?" Since when do vegetables not contain fiber?

3. Why does anyone mow in the dead of summer? During a severe drought no less? It's hard work that often leads to health problems for the out-of-shape. The machines most people use contribute a great many nasty emissions, and watering the grass just to keep it green in summer uses a great deal of a precious resource that we will one day not have enough of that is usable for the consumption of our exploding population. So, if we get rain, be happy, your grass will be green. If we don't, you save the air, water, reduce medical costs-everybody wins!

4. When did small business owners become millionaires and billionaires? I keep hearing the republicans talk about increasing taxes on millionaires and billionaires is raising taxes on "small businesses and job creators." What is the connection? The billionaires are the owners of really big businesses, and do not seem to be the target of any suggested new tax rates.

5. Speaking of the possibility of new tax rates; I think the top tax rate is either 35 or 39%. But you know what, it doesn't matter what the tax rate is if there are so many loopholes and the richest people and largest corporations pay none or very little.

6. This all brings up another question: The right keeps talking about how we have the "highest corporate tax rate in the world." So-which of these other countries would our republican brethren like to imitate? If the US is the best country ever made, and our people are the best and brightest, most fabulous people anywhere, which country would they like us to be like? Do they realize that most of those other countries also have completely different priorities for how their tax revenues are spent-some even including (HORRORS, GASP) health care for everyone? So-France? How about France? Italy? Germany? Pick one, Speaker Boehner. But remember, there is always a package that goes with such things, and if you don't like the package, don't try to imitate one little piece.

7. Do the anti-government right-wingers realize that people who hate the government and wish to dismantle it are called "anarchists?" Anarchists used to be considered left wing. Does anyone but me see the irony in that? Anarchy in the USA!! Brought to you by Sarah Palin.

8. Who are the people who have been unemployed for over two years? Are they from any particular sector of jobs? If it is the over-fifty crowd, infrastructure jobs might not really help. But we need to rebuild our infrastructure, no question. We need high-speed rail nationwide. We need to reorganize our cities to accommodate mass transit. But I am deeply concerned about the middle aged workers who have been unemployed for so long. Where can they go? I'm not sure that building highways and filling pot holes in roads are jobs that they can do.

9. What is the evolutionary purpose of women's attraction to shiny objects and adorning ourselves? It seems that every woman I know is drawn to jewelry and shoes. On the one hand, I can see that the adornment thing may be in order to attract a mate. But I don't know many men who say they ever notice a woman's shoes. But some women I know who never, ever wear makeup still love shoes. And if attracting a mate is the reason for attaching shiny objects to our ears, fingers, wrists and necks, why do middle-aged women still have this desire? We aren't looking for mates. We may just be hoping the ones we have don't last much longer. We can't reproduce anymore, so how does this characteristic help us pass on our genes?

10. Who is the governor of Alaska now?

11. When they were young, what did Pat Sajak and Vanna White want to be. Surely not the hosts of a stupid game show for the rest of their lives.

12. I watch Morning Joe most every morning. It is often just background noise while I get ready for work. But do the producers really think no one notices when they re-run first hour? They do it regularly, and I'm not sure why.

13. I'm a big fan of the Harry Potter series. I've read every book, and seen every movie. I've semi-followed the growing up of the three main stars. Last week I saw a story about Emma Watson, who has played Hermione since she was ten-years old. She came to the US to attend Brown University for a time, but it didn't work out. Anyway, the story last week said that Ms. Watson is going to study "abroad." At Cambridge. She's a Brit-how is Cambridge "abroad" for her?

14. Lastly for now, I have a question about the whole Rupert Murdoch British press tabloid scandal. The stories have to do with the management of these papers being invited to all the best parties, hobnobbing with politicians and the wealthy and famous. They then used these relationships to make big, splashy, ugly headlines. Well, hoodathunk? I've said for years that it makes me uncomfortable to see American journalists invited to these parties with the Washington elite-or any elite. But it continues. So why should anyone be surprised that the integrity of the press might be compromised by inside access?

I Know it When I See It

Thomas Jefferson was really big on a free press. So much so that freedom of the press is a part of the very FIRST amendment to the United States Constitution. According to one of my old journalism teachers, journalism is the only career that is protected in the constitution. He wrote about it often in other writings. He said, "No government ought to be without censors, and where the press is free, no one ever will." He had a purpose in mind for that free press-the so called "fourth estate." The title "the fourth estate" was first used in Europe, also in the 18th century. It was said that each branch of government has three estates (in the U.S. those would be legislative, judicial and executive.) But the press, even there, was the "fourth estate," because it was also there to protect the people. Back to Jefferson-he also said that, "The press is the best instrument for enlightening the mind of man, and improving him as a rational, moral and social being." My, how far we have come. And how quickly. Even before he died, Jefferson also said, "The most truthful part of a newspaper is in the advertisements." This is pretty much where the hill started tilting downward for us as a nation. There are some journalists, and journals, who still take their responsibility seriously as the eyes of the people on the government. I'm a big fan of Jeremy Scahill, for example, who wrote a book exposing the use of Blackwater in the war in Iraq. But for the most part today, the press that is most often viewed by the American public has become nothing more than a large collective of pornographers. I think the fun they've had with the Anthony Weiner photo scandal is absolute proof. The other men who have recently misbehaved in a sexual way have not had the wall-to-wall coverage that this one has. It is amusing to me to watch the smug looks on their faces as they play word-games with the fact that Anthony Weiner's name is the same as a slang term for a man's penis. I have not, in fact, heard the word "penis" quoted on commercial or cable news so much in my life. What possible "redeeming social value" does this have? Why couldn't John Ensign, Mark Sanford or David Vitter have had such salacious surnames? I rest my case.

That's a pretty harsh statement, right? Well, show me a recent example of the mainstream media doing their business as designed-exposing corruption in the government, or enlightening the American public. I'm open. Please-show me! In the 1957 Supreme Court decision Roth vs United States, the court defined obscenity as, "the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole...appeals to the prurient interest, which is utterly without redeeming social importance." This is how I see a great deal of what is purported to be "news" in our country today. Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Anthony Weiner, and, yes, Sarah Palin, contribute nothing of value to our national discourse-except perhaps during the initial "this is what happened today," phase. And even during that phase, there is much of what is deemed news that I, and many people I talk to, wonder if it "enlightens" the public in any way. In 1964, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said, "I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so {defining obscenity} but I know it when I see it." This is where the subject becomes Sarah Palin.

I made a comment last week that I believe her to be a loathsome human being. A friend asked me why I thought that she is any worse than "any publicity seeking" person. And there are many reasons. Perhaps "loathsome" is not fair, but I do not share her "family values," her desire to have absolutely everything only on her own terms, and I do not believe that she has contributed one single positive line to the discussion of what ails us as a country. Here is why:

1. Sarah Palin LOVES the media. She Tweets, she Facebooks, she contributes something to Fox news, but she blames the media for every possible bad thing that has ever happened in her life. Every question is a so-called "gotcha" question. When she recently gave a rambling, incoherent answer about Paul Revere's ride, the "gotcha" question was, "What have you got from your trip, and what are you taking away with you?" She called that a "gotcha" question when she was called on her particular spin on the Paul Revere story. Gotcha!!! Every single person who runs for office is asked what they read, watch or listen to. People like knowing such things. I recently saw an interview with Mitt Romney in which he was asked what was on his iPod. He wasn't bothered by it-and he answered the question. We know a little more about him as a result. But when Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin what newspapers she reads, she got rattled and said, "Oh, all of them." And then accused Ms. Couric of asking "gotcha" questions. Her response shows that it was indeed a gotcha, because it should have enlightened the public about how well Ms. Palin thinks on her feet.

2. She uses her children as props, but wants the press to pretend they aren't there. During her recent bus trip around some U.S.historical sites, her daughter Piper said to the media, "Thanks for ruining our vacation." If I were the therapist who will most assuredly be counseling Piper twenty years from now, I would love to say to her, "Look, Darling, if it were just a family vacation, it would not be paid for by your mother's pac, nor would it be in a bus decorated to call attention to your family." A bus with Sarah's autograph on it, with a rendering of the preamble to the constitution, and an American flag on the side, this was not an anonymous family vacation. But Sarah wouldn't have the balls to say to Piper, "Piper, honey, we need a free press to keep us free from oppressive government." Or, "Sweetie, I want the press here. That's why I painted the bus that way." I won't even bring up Bristol's pregnancy, and how Ms. Palin stroked the family on stage when she got the nomination for vice president in 2008. A family is not a stage prop, brought along to polish an image. And if a mom marches the family in front of the public that way, they do become fair game. This is another thing I was taught in journalism school-public figures are "fair game." If Mama Grizzly doesn't want the kids to be fair game, she shouldn't use them as props.

3. She uses pac money for personal vacations. Or does she use personal vacations for campaigning? If it is the first, which, according to Piper it was, then it is illegal. Ask Christine O'Donnell. Using political contributions to pay for your personal living expenses is against the law. So, is she being dishonest about her purpose, or did she use the money in an illegal way.

4. She is completely dishonest about American history. According to her interpretation of Paul Revere's ride, for example, Revere rode, not to warn the colonists that the British were coming, but to tell the British that they couldn't take our guns. The second amendment to the constitution wasn't even written until twelve years later.

5. She contributes nothing to the national debate. She throws out red herrings, applause lines and extreme right-wing talking points, but she has not voiced an original idea since she entered the national consciousness.

6. When her "gaffes" are pointed out, she never, ever, ever admits that she was wrong. It's okay to say you were wrong. It doesn't mean you are weak. At least I hope not, since I am frequently wrong, and I admit it regularly. I was always taught that showing some humility, and admitting it when you are wrong is a sign of maturity. People are more likely to forgive a mistake if it is admitted. But when someone insists that they were not wrong, forgiveness and admiration of one's humility cannot take place. Ask George W. Bush. It was one of the things he was often criticized for. Some people are still talking about his comment that his biggest regret in life was "trading Sammy Sosa." Really? A guy who over-drank, used cocaine, sent us to war over WMD that did not exist? When Ms. Palin first came into the national spotlight, I compared her to a female George W. Bush. I'm completely afraid now that she would be way worse.

Speaking of being willing to admit being wrong, I think "loathsome" might have been a bad word choice. Based upon the emails that were released this weekend, Ms. Palin did (apparently) have potential as a national candidate. However, over and over again she has shown an inability to answer questions on the fly,  or think on her feet. What about that 3:00 A.M. phone call-the one on the red phone? Once her fame occurred, once she realized that no matter how silly it appears on the surface, the press will follow her like starving dogs, she lost her bearings. Her fame, new wealth, and rock star status went to her head, and because of her inability to process all that attention reasonably, she has done nothing but stumble. So while she may not be a loathsome human being, she may really be a victim of "new money" syndrome, she has shown that without doubt she would be a loathsome elected official. She has become a publicity whore, but one who wants to control a narrative that is not controllable. And the reason for that is because the press, according to the definitions given at the beginning of  this essay, the press are her pornographers. 

A Picture is Worth.....

During the war in Viet Nam we saw this:

and this:

and this:

It lead to this:

And this:

We've now been in Afghanistan for nearly ten years because they were the garden in which the plot to attack the United States on September 11, 2011 was germinated. But we don't have the protests going on. The Bush administration kept the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq off the books, so every penny spent is adding to our deficit while we pretend that it isn't costing us a thing. The lives of our soldiers and Afghan civilians are being wasted by traditional warfare-terrorists don't operate on a traditional field of battle. Not to mention that we have been told repeatedly that the terrorists who attacked us are now in Pakistan.

During this time we've seen this:

                                                                     And this:

 ...and many more disturbing pictures. Battle wounds that would have killed soldiers forty years ago do not now, so we have people surviving multiple limb losses, and traumatic brain injury. We've seen mercenaries hired by the US government kill multiple civilians, and giant corporations with ties to higher ups in our government make obscene amounts of money while doing shoddy work that has put our soldiers in danger. The same scandal occurred with the care being given in our military hospitals. The number of soldiers who have come home only to commit suicide or wind up homeless because care for mental wounds is even harder to come by is staggering. So, why aren't we angry? Is it really because we don't have a draft? We don't need do this:

Is it because we are too busy doing this:

And This:

Or this:

Or This:

Or This:

People, we can't continue to be so fat and lazy that we just won't bother to: