Category Archives: Politics

Maryland’s 90-Percent Fail

Posted on by
Reply

This week, these nine members of Congress from Maryland voted along party lines in favor of a government shutdown. While their staffs flooded constituents with emails about how much they’re doing for the already-displaced federal workers, they voted to stop the pay and the public service of over six million more.

From the House, freshmen members John Olszewski Jr., April McClain-Delaney and Sarah Elfreth joined 44-year veteran Steny Hoyer, as well as Glenn Ivey, Kweisi Mfume, and Jamie Raskin were among the almost-unanimous Democratic Party rejection of an eleventh-hour attempt to prevent shutdown.

In the Senate, Maryland’s Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks ignored Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s appeal to reason and also voted for shutdown.

Old news? Not really. The federal government is only funded through September, which means, in six months, this piece of political theater will be revived, probably to even more dismal critical response. Is this an effort to stay in the news as the Executive Branch grabs all the headlines? If so, it’s ironic that our elected “representatives” can only be relevant by not doing their jobs.

Continue reading →

The Only Thing We Have to Fear

Posted on by
Reply

“…the only thing we have to fear is…fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

It’s unusual that I quote Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Overall, I’m not a fan, but the man knew how to make an emotional impact on his listeners. He spoke the words above during his first inauguration to the U.S. Presidency, March 4, 1933.

America was in the middle of the Great Depression, the worst economic downturn in our history as a nation. People were angry, tired, desperate… and scared. F.D.R.’s proposed, with his New Deal programs, to calm that fear and address the very real suffering of the population. Current wisdom says The New Deal did not end the Great Depression, (more here) but he did take positive steps to end suffering.

And he was right about fear. There’s no emotion more paralyzing, nor more counter-productive. Even avarice and blind lust drive us to do something. Fear stops us in our tracks, unless it becomes panic. Then it does make us do something, usually something very stupid.

Continue reading →

The Economic Blackout – What is the Message?

Posted on by
Reply

I’m posting a bit early this week, because I wanted a little lead time. There’s an event scheduled to begin Thursday. I want people to think carefully about that event.

A lot of my family and dear friends–very nice people–have been sharing a flier calling for an “Economic Blackout” to begin at midnight on February 27th and last throughout February 28th. The flier is headlined,  “As our first initial act, we turn it off. For one day we show them who really holds the power.” It then instructs us to not make purchases, that if we must spend, we should do it only at small local businesses, and we should not use credit or debit cards.

“If we disrupt the economy for just ONE day, it sends a powerful message,” it says, then closes with the vaguely sinister statement, “This is our first action.”

If you firmly support this effort, I’m can’t change your mind. You have to obey your own conscience. But I ask you to join me in considering a few questions.

Continue reading →

I Blame Norman Lear

Posted on by
Reply

I do.

Well, not for everything that’s wrong, but for one specific American obsession that’s causing us no end of trouble at this moment. That obsession is our unbridled romance with “The Tell-Off.”

Let me back up. I am a huge fan of Norman Lear, and the above statement is mostly tongue-in-cheek. The late, great Mr. Lear brought us, beginning with All in the Family, entertainment that challenged our deepest-held beliefs and forced us to consider the topics that nice people just didn’t talk about. He gave us the Jeffersons, Sanford and Son and Good Times, changing as he did the way the majority of America saw an important minority group– onewhose history was just as “American” as that of countless families of White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants. He gave us Maude and One Day At a Time, making us take a hard look at the roles of women in America. He founded People for the American Way to stand up to the Moral Majority, and he shared with me a great love for the Declaration of Independence.

But, if you watch enough of his shows, you see something happen again and again: The Tell-off. Many, if not most, of the episodes climaxed with one of the main characters, dripping with moral outrage, wreaking verbal havoc on the episode’s “big bad,” making their opponent look small. It was immensely satisfying. Some of those beats were brilliant: Edith finally telling Archie to “Stifle!” is the standout, but I also loved George Jefferson’s response to a boorish client who told him that, because he stood up for his maid Florence, he could kiss their proposed contract goodbye. “I ain’t gonna tell you what you can kiss,” quoth George.

Classic 70s put-down.

Continue reading →

Testing the Limits of the Welcome Mat

Posted on by
Reply

Many of my readers (and a lot more readers than I often have!) congratulated me on last week’s post, the text of my Friday night speech at Farpoint. A lot of members of the audience congratulated me too. That was very kind of all of you, and it’s nice to know my words hit home. A writer is a performer, and all performers live for audience feedback.

Unfortunately, last Saturday evening, the parameters I had laid out, for who is and should be welcome at our convention, were tested. That test has caused me a lot of soul-searching.

Here are the facts:

One of our regular attendees approached me late Saturday night to complain that another of our regular (so I was told) attendees was wearing a MAGA hat. The complainant wanted the other woman to remove her hat for the duration of the weekend and suggested that at least the hat and possibly the woman did not belong there. [There was a D.J. playing music.]

Continue reading →

Popper’s… Cop-Out?

Posted on by
Reply

A while back, a friend of mine shared on his Facebook timeline that he had just confronted the problem of having civil discourse with some homophobic relatives. When I was growing up, it was pretty much standard issue to have an older relative, out of step with the times, who made judgmental and even bigoted comments at family gatherings. It was so common that one of the most-watched TV shows of the 1970s centered around such a character. Google “Archie Bunker” if this is ancient history to you. Trigger Warning: Archie says all the words.

I sympathized with my friend and was yet a little surprised when someone commented to the effect that he simply should not have anyone homophobic in his family circle. And the old observation that you can pick your friends but not your family came to my mind, as Harper Lee summed it up in To Kill a Mockingbird, “You can choose your friends but you sho’ can’t choose your family, an’ they’re still kin to you no matter whether you acknowledge ’em or not, and it makes you look right silly when you don’t.”

We live in intolerant times. One might say I grew up in intolerant times as well, hence Archie Bunker. I guess that’s true, but I feel American society at large has grown more, not less, intolerant. Instead of pitying the Archies of the world, who are, in the end, ignorant and frightened, not evil, we meet intolerance with intolerance, hate with hate, and we quote philosophy to back up our two-wrongs-make-a-right approach.

In past blogs, (here and here) I’ve made a appeals for tolerance toward those with whom we disagree. Both times, I was advised in feedback to have a look at Popper’s Paradox. I did have a look at it. I’ve never really shared my reaction to it. So here it is: I think Popper’s Paradox is a cop-out. Nothing more than an excuse to behave badly.

Continue reading →

Punching Up, Punching Down

Posted on by
Reply

This entry is dedicated to–and prompted by–my old friend Ben. In response to last week’s post, he suggested that he’d like to know my thoughts on comparing the United Health murder case with the case of Daniel Penny. 

Ben suggested that conservatives tend to admire the “Dirty Harry” model, being okay with the use of force, even deadly force, against those who dwell on the lower rungs of society’s ladder, while liberals seem to express admiration for those who use violence against the rich and powerful. This got me thinking, “Do conservatives believe in punching down, while liberals believe in punching up?” 

I don’t like people who punch down. These include successful people who are rude to servers, bosses who emotionally abuse and threaten subordinates, and V.I.P.s who are okay with getting special privileges based on their status. I have both liberal and conservative views on issues, but I wouldn’t want to be a person who punches down. 

Let me start by saying that Liberalism and Conservatism are both forces for good. Liberalism pushes for needed change; but change introduces risk. Conservatism resists change in an effort to reduce that risk. Taken to extremes, they can also be forces for against the good. But, overall,  I think even a person who leans heavily to one side is participating in the social process and providing part of the balance we need. 

Continue reading →

Of Rights, Radicals and Ridiculous Assertions – The United Health Murder

Posted on by
Reply

When I was in 8th grade, my best friend’s parents gave me a copy of The Rights of Students – The Basic ACLU Guide to a Student’s Rights  (An American Civil Liberties Union Handbook.) I think it was a Christmas present. Maybe it was for my birthday. We studied American Civics that year, ably taught by Mr. Haddaway and Mr. Rosin. I was very fired up about the Bill of Rights and about the idea that people who had not reached the legal age of majority should still be treated as, well, people.

One passage from the book that struck me and has always stuck with me was this: 

Can students be prohibited from expressing their views if those who hold opposing views become angry and boisterous. 

No… courts have consistently held that the rights of those who peacefully express their views may not so easily be defeated.

The ACLU has fallen significantly from its perch as a champion of free speech rights since 1977, when the book was published; but, at the time, their stance was strong. I took a broader interpretation away from this question / answer couplet, which was that a person who is exercising his right to free speech cannot be held accountable for illegal actions performed by others. 

Continue reading →

The Highland Clearances… coming to a suburb near you?

Posted on by
Reply

After promising a weekly blog, I posted on two successive Fridays, then skipped two Fridays and did a Monday. I started this one resolved to miss only one week, assuming I posted it by Friday, August 26th. Then I realized that I needed to do a lot of background research to write this piece, and that was not a realistic date. I did another review in the meantime, and now, here’s the piece I intended to run. Hopefully I’ll be back on a weekly track through the Fall.

I missed a few postings because I went to Scotland. It was an eight-day trip. We left on a Thursday, on a 10 PM flight. Which meant getting to Dulles International by 7 PM. Which meant leaving home about 5:30. We rolled in the door of our house a little after 7:30 PM the following Thursday.

But this isn’t a travelogue. I’m writing about one particular part of our trip, and how it got me thinking. What better part of a trip is there?

On the morning of the Glencoe Massacre, villagers, forewarned of the attack, crossed this treacherous mountain pass in search of a safe haven.

We went to the Highlands by bus from Edinburgh, ostensibly to see Loch Ness. Our guide for the charter was Rose, a Scottish National Storyteller (a seanchaidh, in Scottish Gaelic. The Internet disagrees, but she pronounced her calling “Sen.uh.shee”). It’s a prestigious title. I believe Rose said there are less than 100 of them. She has interned for 20 years, has just finished her 20 years of practice, and will now mentor for 20 years.

Continue reading →