David Simon on the "Horror Show" of Two Americas

I have always believed in the inherent goodness of the free market, in the need to be skeptical of excessive governmental control of the economy (and all other aspects, by extension).  Real life has intruded into the black-and-white views I had during my years as a Reagan Republican.  The excesses of the tea party movement serve as a bold underline of what could happen without an adequate government presence in society.

The Wire's creator David Simon gave an address which is excerpted in the link below and appeared in the Guardian.  Simon is skeptical of Marxism, as I certainly am, but the following passage shows his view that Marx got it right on how unfettered capitalism can be destructive: "I'm not a Marxist in the sense that I don't think Marxism has a very specific clinical answer to what ails us economically. I think Marx was a much better diagnostician than he was a clinician. . . . [H]e was really sharp about what goes wrong when capital wins unequivocally, when it gets everything it asks for."

Simon argues that the blooming of our middle class came because neither those with capital nor those with labor won all their arguments.  He also argues that profit is the wrong metric by which to measure our economy's health.  I include this link to keep and study his reasoning.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/david-simon-capitalism-marx-two-americas-wire

The debt crisis deserves a serious respons - The Washington Post

While I feel the Great Recession economy has gotten pushed to the back burner and the austerity crowd has shrieked "austerity!" over and over, the Washington Post editorial board has pointed out the sharp growth of U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP with no clear motivation by either political party to address it.  While the parties quibble over a CR that will fund the government for 10 weeks (Obamacare! Shutdown!), the debt has risen from 39% of GDP in 2008 to 73% in 2013.  That should give any serious person pause, particularly in our seemingly rudderless federal government.

The debt crisis deserves a serious respons - The Washington Post

Adapting from Youthful Absolutes

My old editor at the Amplifier in Bowling Green, Kentucky paid me the honor of quoting me in a social media discussion she was having.  She reminded the fellow of my words to him in an earlier discussion about the fallacy of seeing the world in black and white.  I said:

"I'm old enough and have enough life experience to know that the conservatism of my youth does not explain the world sufficiently or answer all of life's problems. I've had to grow and adapt, and I've had to shed youthful absolutes. I don't like the damned shades of gray instead of black and white, but such is living in the real world."

Six Types of Nonbelievers

This is a subject I've never thought of, but the CNN article linked below is a thought-provoking look at the different types of atheists and agnostics identified by a UT-Chattanooga study.  They vary from active atheists to agnostics who wholly embrace uncertainty to non-believers who never think in terms of religion/nonreligion at all.  It's a good little read, and as the study says they may find many more types as more study is made.

Where am I?  At this time, somewhere between seeker-agnostic, intellectual agnostic, and anti-theist.

Behold, the six types of atheists – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

From a Social Media Conversation

A quote from myself in the midst of a Facebook conversation on how the ugly brand of social conservatism blames protestors for their supposed anti-social conduct and continues to brand "takers" with a scarlet T ... using the Texas SB5 anti-abortion bill drama as a backdrop:

Believing that people should bend over without complaint while they're being screwed -- and that they are somehow immoral people if they fight back -- is part and parcel of a supercilious conservatism that wishes to force the genie of the '60s back into the bottle.

The Hijacking of the Pledge of Allegiance

This article in Slate by David Greenberg is an informative overview of how the Pledge of Allegiance was fundamentally changed in the 1950s from its secular nature to, in President Eisenhower's words, "the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."  Against a backdrop of the communist menace, a movement materialized that swept aside the Founding Fathers' intent not to institutionalize religion in government.  By 1954, Congress fell over themselves to insert "under God" in the Pledge.  1955 saw the insertion of "In God We Trust" on all paper money, and the same four words replaced E Pluribus Unum as the national motto in 1956.  The current rush to theocracy among way too many on the political right had its seeds sown in the 1950s where "under God" was stuck into the Pledge to oppose what communism stood for -- not because communism was totalitarian, but because it was atheist.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2002/06/the_pledge_of_allegiance.single.html

Majority Ruled

I don't think I've seen a better, more thorough analysis of why the will of a majority of Americans does not get expressed into law than E. J. Dionne's column linked below.  About 9 out of 10 of us favor universal background checks for gun purchases, and nearly two-thirds of Americans think job creation should be Washington's top priority.  Yet neither seems to be a priority among lawmakers, and Dionne's analysis shows how this has come to be.  For instance, Dionne explains how senators that represent only 11 percent of the nation's population can stop any bill from even being considered in the U. S. Senate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-the-end-of-majority-rule/2013/04/07/74d8a6d6-9e30-11e2-9a79-eb5280c81c63_story.html

Castles In The Air

For most of my life, I've gotten used to people make observations (some in amusement, some in annoyance) that I was lost in thought, off in my own little world, or daydreaming.  My mind tends to always be busy -- sometimes spinning in place like a hamster in a wheel, but busy.  In addition to everyday stuff and everyday cares, I'm thinking ahead to musical goals, setlists, and writing ideas.  I may obsess over something I want to achieve and turn it over repeatedly in the mind.

A post I came across on Google Plus referred to a blog on creativity by Dustin W. Stout, a specific entry titled Stop Dreaming and Start Creating (link below).  It starts with "Creative people have a tendency to be dreamers. We can get lost for hours letting our brains drift off into endless possibilities. Sometimes though, we can become lost in the dream and forget to ever take action."

Hello. That hit me where I live.

Some creative people overindulge in dreaming.  Dustin likened it to going to the top of a skyscraper and looking at the tremendous view, each vista a presentation of endless possibilities.  I experience at times the sense of being overwhelmed by the infinite choices - which do I choose and make finite?  Other times I indulge my all-too-highly developed skills of procrastination, fearing my first step in any direction will be a wrong one.

Dustin Stout's view is it's okay to go up to the ledge of creativity and dream.  Where it becomes unhealthy is when one doesn't go on and act: "When you don't take action it’s like the onset of creative obesity. You begin to get bogged down by ideas seeing none of them come to fruition."

For years I've had a plaque hanging on the wall of this quote by Henry David Thoreau: "If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them."  Thoreau and Stout are saying the same thing.  Creation requires dreaming, and we must allow ourselves to soar into the clouds without feeling we are slothful.  But sooner or later, we must come back to the ground and act to make the dreams tangible.

http://dustn.tv/stop-dreaming-start-creating/

The Unheard Voice of Average Gun Owners

My brother directed me to this Wall Street Journal article that I wish everyone, especially the extremes on each side of the gun debate, would thoughtfully read.  Entitled "Why Our Gun Debate is Off Target," Dan Baum writes from the perspective of a gun enthusiast with a concealed carry permit who is also a self-described liberal Democrat.  Baum castigates the "angry extremism" of the NRA and the insults to "gun culture" from the far left.

If we heard from rank-and-file gun owners like the ones Baum talked to, there would be a lot more understanding of the affinity the nation's 100 million gun owners have for guns - their history, workmanship, and the confidence-building effect of mastering them.

Baum stated that while gun owners dismiss the political left simply because of their "tribal antipathy to guns," gun owners have a lot to answer for in gun violence.  I like how he boiled the argument down: "[B]oth sides of our "gun debate" can think no further than what government might do. Gun controllers call for more restrictive laws, gun guys gnash their teeth over same. Meanwhile, the single step that I believe would save the most lives wouldn't involve government at all."  That step is to require guns and/or ammunition to be locked and/or separated.  Baum described the safe he keeps his handgun in under his bed that pops it up toaster-style with a three-digit code.  "Many gun guys use such safes," Baum said. "They just don't want to be told to use them."

The additional measure that would make gun control laws unneeded, Baum said, is for gun owners to "make unsafe gun behavior socially unacceptable, just as it has become unthinkable, among most Americans, to smoke inside another person's house or to make lascivious comments about underage girls."  Baum suggests gun culture would change if, say, owners would not go shooting with others who don't secure their guns in their home or if they refused to patronize businesses who sold guns but not safes: "Little by little, shooters and gun stores would get the message, and the problem of unsecured guns—the main source of gun tragedy—would wither away"


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324162304578304000178156938.html?mod=WSJ_myyahoo_module

Gun Regulation and Fears of Confiscation

I feel the need to address the overreaction and just plain nonsense coming from the Second Amendment's more frenetic defenders.  There is a hysteria coming from the most strident advocates who refuse to recognize any limitation on the right to keep and bear arms and overemphasize the Second Amendment as a check on governmental tyranny.

I do not subscribe to the "slippery slope" argument that any regulation will end in gun confiscation. Prohibitions of machine guns began in 1934 with the National Firearms Act, and the Feds have yet to see fit to confiscate my pistol.  I strongly believe that no citizen needs or has a right to military style weapons.  Heller v. District of Columbia established in 2008 that the Second Amendment has limits; Justice Antonin Scalia, hardly a liberal, wrote for the majority "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

President Obama's recent executive orders on background checks and the call to ban assault weapons and high capacity clips are common sense measures that do not nullify the Second Amendment.  Most Americans and even most NRA members support universal background checks to purchase a firearm.  It's time we move beyond simplistic arguments fueled by NRA leaders and borderline seditious demands for assault weapons.  A robust right to keep and bear arms can be regulated without being infringed.

Drug expert explains how generics do and do not differ from brand-name drugs - The Washington Post

Since I am a certified pharmacy technician and work in a retail community pharmacy, I'm providing a link to this Washington Post story on the similarities and sometimes important differences between generic drugs and their brand name counterparts.  Generics in the U. S. are bioequivalent (essentially the same rate and duration of absorption once administered) and have the same active ingredient and same route of administration, although they may differ in the inert materials.  The main categories of drugs where generics may not work quite the same are thyroid, seizure, and blood thinner medications which require a specific blood concentration to work properly (and for which blood levels need to be checked).

Drug expert explains how generics do and do not differ from brand-name drugs - The Washington Post

Harold Meyerson: In modern GOP, the old South returns - The Washington Post

This column by the Washington Post's Harold Meyerson lays into the adoption of the worst of the old South into the mainstream of the Republican Party: "In its hostility toward minorities, exploitation of racism, antipathy toward government and suspicion of science, today’s Republican Party represents the worst traditions of the South’s dankest backwaters."  Meyerson makes a point-by-point case and concludes "we’re left with a GOP whose existential credo is, 'We’re old, we’re white and we want our country back.' The rest, as the sages say, is commentary."

Harold Meyerson: In modern GOP, the old South returns - The Washington Post

Natalie Coughlin, Gold-Medal . . . Farmer

I found this interesting since I've dabbled in gardening for years and became more aware after my wife's celiac disease diagnosis ... it's a lot easier to track where food comes from when it comes from your own garden.  Olympic swimmer Natalie Coughin gave this interview with the Sierra Club and talked about urban farming (replacing landscape with edible plants) and how her favorite thing to grow is kale (which has become a favorite of mine).  If you're interested in "backyard farming" or just do a little gardening, there's good stuff of interest in this interview.

Natalie Coughlin, Gold-Medal . . . Farmer? - The Green Life

Conservatives' Contraception Obsession

It is difficult not to sound full of righteous indignation when addressing conservatives’ fevered obsession with contraception. Birth control had been settled political ground for decades; now a nasty strain of political misogyny masquerading as religious freedom has reopened the subject.

Legislation such as the defeated Blunt Amendment and Arizona’s House Bill 2625 would allow employers to refuse insurance coverage for birth control medication on religious grounds. The Arizona bill would further allow employers to require women to certify their use of contraceptive medication to be for non-contraceptive purposes or be fired. This should go without saying, but what business is this of employers? It is utterly offensive to give a boss the right to pass some arcane moral judgment on female employees.

Rush Limbaugh called Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and “prostitute” for attempting to testify before Congress in favor of requiring insurance coverage of contraceptive medication. Fluke, who was not allowed to testify, publicly talked of a fellow student who took contraceptives for polycystic ovary syndrome and was denied coverage. Limbaugh made the recklessly false characterization that Fluke actually went before the committee and “essentially says that she [Fluke] must be paid to have sex.”

These egregious assaults on women’s access to contraceptives raise the question of the true motive behind the assaults. When you bully and coerce in legislation and in the public square, you forfeit the right to call your motives religious freedom.

Calling Radicalism by Its Name - NYTimes.com

The New York Times editorial linked below underscores the points made by President Obama's speech April 3 at the AP Luncheon in Washington.  The Times highlighted Obama's emphasis on what I've believed for awhile now, that the Republican Party is uninterested in consensus or compromise in pursuit of an extreme agenda.  To quote the editorial, 'But, in this speech, he finally conceded that the party has demonstrated no interest in the values of compromise and realism. Even Ronald Reagan, who raised taxes in multiple budget deals, “could not get through a Republican primary today.”'

Another telling part of the editorial dealt with the disingenuous criticism by House Speaker John Boehner.  'The speech was immediately attacked by the House speaker, John Boehner, for failing to deal with the debt crisis, but Mr. Obama pointed out how hollow that charge has become. “That argument might have a shred of credibility were it not for their proposal to also spend $4.6 trillion over the next decade on lower tax rates,” he said.'

In my view,  the contemporary GOP -- so far removed from the days when I was a Reagan Republican -- serves only its donors and their corporate interests.  All else is a fig-leaf covering to justify what the Wall Street set wants: regulatory gutting, Citizens United judicial decisions, reduced workplace rights from insurance coverage to internet passwords, and the like.  Baldface flow of benefits toward the upper class squeezes the middle class toward the vanishing point, and it is somewhat reassuring that President Obama is mounting a more forceful defense of equity and of the middle class ... and finally abandoning his three-year effort to compromise with what has become an intransigent political party.

Calling Radicalism by Its Name - NYTimes.com

The Reason Rally: A Woodstock for nonbelievers - Patrick Gavin - POLITICO.com

This March 24 is the date for something called the Reason Rally on the Washington Mall. It's an event for secularists, the nonbelievers in and questioners of religion. The link to the Politico article on this event is below. Paul Fidalgo, communications director at the Center for Inquiry, gave a view on why religious belief is popular: “In American culture right now, religious belief is seen as a kind of shorthand for morality. If you can espouse your devotion to a particular faith, it’s your way of indicating that you are now a moral, upright, upstanding person.” Along with an opportunity for like-minded people to get together, Fidalgo's take on a desired message to believers is “We want you to know we’re your neighbors, and we’re not scary.”

The Reason Rally: A Woodstock for nonbelievers - Patrick Gavin - POLITICO.com

The God of Thuggery

Recent instances of the kind of Christian love I could do without:

A teen objected to a prayer mural at secular Cranston West High School in Rhode Island. A federal judge ordered it removed, and the student has received multiple violent threats, including one to "drown that atheist in holy water."

Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal cited Psalm 109 to wish for the death of the President and the widowing of the First Lady: "Let his days be few; and let another take his office. May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." He added, “At last — I can honestly voice a Biblical prayer for our president!"

On the heels of Tennessee's "Don't Say Gay" bill that would bar teachers from discussing homosexuality, State Rep. Richard Floyd proposed a bill to ban transgender people from using public bathrooms that do not match the gender on their birth certificates, citing “the potential for pedophiles and molesters to come into the restroom" and promising to "stomp a mudhole" into any transgender person who entered a restroom that his family was in. Think of whether you've heard of a transgendered person who molested a child; now think of how many clergy have done so.

With countless incidents such as these recent examples of hatred by so-called Christians, maybe Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church is right when he contends that God hates. You certainly can get that impression. If this is not the case, Christians should do what so many have demanded from Muslims after 9/11 and publicly denounce the hatred within their own ranks.

Nobody Understands Debt - NYTimes.com

I have wondered for the last two years or so why so much damned emphasis has been on federal debt -- not the deficit, but the debt. While I'm not so sure where the push-to-exclusion-of-all-else for austerity came from, this piece from Paul Krugman is the most thorough explanation of why it does not matter nearly as much as the debt Chicken Littles make it out to be.

Nobody Understands Debt - NYTimes.com

The Dead Billionaires Club – The Dead Can’t Vote, but Should They Give? « Truth-2-Power

I've been wondering why there seems to have been a push to take America back to the turn of the previous century since the start of the W Administration. This article opened my eyes to forces that could explain the return of the robber baron mentality among corporate America. Time was that thinking this way would have had me question if I was being paranoid; after reading the intergenerational efforts of the moneyed elite, that internal reflex to think this is just paranoia is, unfortunately, wrong.

The Dead Billionaires Club – The Dead Can’t Vote, but Should They Give? « Truth-2-Power

Bottom Line - Political rancor stifling economic policy debate

I'm linking this story because it refers to a reluctance by economists to offer solutions to our economic problems due to the polarized political climate and what a Princeton University political historian called "the climate of distrust of expertise" -- another disturbing exhibit of evidence that we are paralyzed by loud practitioners of know-nothingness

Bottom Line - Political rancor stifling economic policy debate