It's with some concern for certain friends of ours that we've noticed a heightened level of anxiety lately, specifically about the Federal budget and the debt negotiations going on in Washington, DC.
It's not that we aren't concerned with the insane obstinance and utter stupidity of the Republican leadership in Congress - or the repeated naiveté of the Democratic leadership - on the issue of the debt. We've been concerned enough about the topic of sensible budgeting - both bringing in more revenue and cutting wasteful spending - that we've discussed the topic at least once a month, every month, for the entire history of this publication.
That being said, we're not overly worried that the government of the United States will end up breaking its proverbial neck on our debt ceiling, regardless of what kind of hostage techniques Congressional Republicans try to pull off. As former corporate lawyer and longtime legal journalist, Reynolds Holding noted in a column for Reuters on Tuesday, America's constitution - specifically the Fourteenth Amendment - doesn't technically allow for us to default.
Still, even if we take a Pollyanna-like approach that the federal budget and debt negotiations now being led by President Obama will work out, that sadly won't change the selfish, self-centered, poisoned atmosphere that permeates much of America.
In our hometown of Lincoln, we used to be proud of a crazy annual community event known as the Star City Holiday Parade. We're intimately aware of how unusual it is for a midwest city to host an outdoor parade, annually, on a morning in early December (Our web guru helped host that parade for his former radio station, outside, in the cold, for seven years in a row). As crazy as it was, it was an event that brought the community together, attracted huge crowds, and had grown over its 25 years to become Lincoln's kickoff to the holiday season.
When the economy crashed, the funds for the parade went away, and we highly doubt it will return. It was an unusual event, but one that raised both the economy and the quality of life for everyone in the area. Even more unusual, was the fact that none of Lincoln's "money guys", including members of the Lincoln Independent Business Association, were willing to step up to the plate with checkbooks at the ready to continue this long-standing, successful community tradition. They should all be ashamed. We surely are.
Now, instead of acting together as one community to do things that will benefit the greatest number of our citizens, even "family friendly" Lincoln, Nebraska, seems to have turned inward and selfish in many ways.
Yes, the citizens of Lincoln did vote to build a new entertainment arena last year, a vote that was easily twenty years overdue when it passed. But a single vote doesn't improve the overall quality of life in a community. In fact, instead of working to make the venue more energy efficient and less of a drain on the pocketbooks of future Lincolnites, Lincoln's Mayor has recently decided that the city can't spend a little more money now, to make sure the arena is built right the first time.
After all, the arena suites are scheduled to go on sale soon for between $45,000 and $65,000 a year - and Lincoln simply couldn't ask for more money from the poor little rich folk, who can afford such extravagance in our current economic climate, right?
As syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. noted last weekend, there are reasons all of us, rich and poor alike, pay our taxes. Making our communities worth living in is one of those reasons. Paying the debts we all owe is another.
Getting past the debt ceiling argument won't be the hardest thing America does in the near future. The hardest thing we'll do is finally address the question of what kind of America we actually want to live in.
We hope that the America that we collectively choose doesn't end up being one where we toss out traditions and things that have made our country such a great place to live and work for so long, in order to make way for the "suite life" of the super rich. If that turns out to be the case, then we at The Daily Felltoon will be truly concerned.
For now, count us as worried - but holding tight to the Fourteenth Amendment.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Playing Dumb
We have a strange idea for a litmus test of sorts, for whomever is going to win the 2012 Presidential election.
We think that whatever candidate is going to win the election, which will give them the keys to the largest and most powerful military and nuclear arsenal on the planet, should know the difference between John Wayne - famous actor from Winterset, Iowa - and John Wayne Gacy - the serial killer who posed as a clown and killed 33 young men and boys in the 1970s. That's not to mention the difference between New Hampshire and Massachusetts, or that the founding fathers did not, in fact, seek to end slavery.
Sadly, the latest entrant into the Republican Presidential primary race, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, doesn't know any of these things - or at least, she appears not to.
We have friends who live in Minnesota - solid, sane, Republican friends - who are horrified by the thought of Ms. Bachmann as the President of the United States. They don't even really like her as a Representative, for many reasons. They've said she's pretty enough - but it seems almost beyond belief that she's really as stupid as she appears. Our Democratic and Independent friends there concur - Bachmann should not be underestimated.
It's an old actor's axiom that the people who play dumb the best are actually highly intelligent. If a person's intelligence can be accurately judged by their degrees and accomplishments, Ms. Bachman must be much smarter than her actions lead most people to believe. She worked on President Jimmy Carter's campaign in college. She earned both Bachelors and Masters degrees in Law, and was a practicing federal tax lawyer for five years. She's even ridden the wave of Tea Party discontent higher than any other national politician, establishing the Congressional Tea Party Caucus, for which she is the chairperson.
As journalist Matt Taibbi points out in the current issue of Rolling Stone magazine, Bachmann is anything but a joke.
For one thing, the base of people Ms. Bachmann appeals to includes a large portion of people who have longstanding grudges against those who are better educated than her base. In Bachmann, her base voters see someone just smart enough to possibly get elected as President - and just dumb enough to hate all the same people they do.
Of course, the rubes she's trying to pull a fast one on don't seem to have learned - yet - about the nearly $30,000 in state and federal funds that her husband's business has received over the last five years. They also haven't learned that her family's farm in Wisconsin, in which she is a partner, received over a quarter million dollars in ag subsidy money during a similar time period. The subsidies that are lining Bachman's pockets now are the same ones she's been railing about for several years, when she continually wailed that the federal government and state governments need to reduce wasteful spending - like unnecessary agriculture subsidies.
If we didn't know better, we'd think Ms. Bachmann was trying to run for the presidency of the Lincoln Independent Business Association - but that spot is already occupied by another hypocrite, who makes a living criticizing the pay and benefits of public employees while feeding at the private sector trough.
The truth is, if politics were always about the better candidate, we'd never be concerned about Michele Bachmann going up against Barack Obama for the highest office in the land. Unfortunately, as we've all seen far too often over the last ten-to-twelve years - including a presidential race decided by a 5-4 Supreme Court vote - that's not how politics works these days, in America.
If you know anyone who thinks Michele Bachmann is a viable choice for President, we ask that you point out to them the facts behind her lies - and then remind them of the old actor's axiom we cited earlier in this column.
Bachman may appear stupid - but she's way too good at it to really be that dumb.
We think that whatever candidate is going to win the election, which will give them the keys to the largest and most powerful military and nuclear arsenal on the planet, should know the difference between John Wayne - famous actor from Winterset, Iowa - and John Wayne Gacy - the serial killer who posed as a clown and killed 33 young men and boys in the 1970s. That's not to mention the difference between New Hampshire and Massachusetts, or that the founding fathers did not, in fact, seek to end slavery.
Sadly, the latest entrant into the Republican Presidential primary race, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, doesn't know any of these things - or at least, she appears not to.
We have friends who live in Minnesota - solid, sane, Republican friends - who are horrified by the thought of Ms. Bachmann as the President of the United States. They don't even really like her as a Representative, for many reasons. They've said she's pretty enough - but it seems almost beyond belief that she's really as stupid as she appears. Our Democratic and Independent friends there concur - Bachmann should not be underestimated.
It's an old actor's axiom that the people who play dumb the best are actually highly intelligent. If a person's intelligence can be accurately judged by their degrees and accomplishments, Ms. Bachman must be much smarter than her actions lead most people to believe. She worked on President Jimmy Carter's campaign in college. She earned both Bachelors and Masters degrees in Law, and was a practicing federal tax lawyer for five years. She's even ridden the wave of Tea Party discontent higher than any other national politician, establishing the Congressional Tea Party Caucus, for which she is the chairperson.
As journalist Matt Taibbi points out in the current issue of Rolling Stone magazine, Bachmann is anything but a joke.
For one thing, the base of people Ms. Bachmann appeals to includes a large portion of people who have longstanding grudges against those who are better educated than her base. In Bachmann, her base voters see someone just smart enough to possibly get elected as President - and just dumb enough to hate all the same people they do.
Of course, the rubes she's trying to pull a fast one on don't seem to have learned - yet - about the nearly $30,000 in state and federal funds that her husband's business has received over the last five years. They also haven't learned that her family's farm in Wisconsin, in which she is a partner, received over a quarter million dollars in ag subsidy money during a similar time period. The subsidies that are lining Bachman's pockets now are the same ones she's been railing about for several years, when she continually wailed that the federal government and state governments need to reduce wasteful spending - like unnecessary agriculture subsidies.
If we didn't know better, we'd think Ms. Bachmann was trying to run for the presidency of the Lincoln Independent Business Association - but that spot is already occupied by another hypocrite, who makes a living criticizing the pay and benefits of public employees while feeding at the private sector trough.
The truth is, if politics were always about the better candidate, we'd never be concerned about Michele Bachmann going up against Barack Obama for the highest office in the land. Unfortunately, as we've all seen far too often over the last ten-to-twelve years - including a presidential race decided by a 5-4 Supreme Court vote - that's not how politics works these days, in America.
If you know anyone who thinks Michele Bachmann is a viable choice for President, we ask that you point out to them the facts behind her lies - and then remind them of the old actor's axiom we cited earlier in this column.
Bachman may appear stupid - but she's way too good at it to really be that dumb.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Silent "Civil" Marriage Wins Loudly
With a triumphant shout from the gallery in the New York state senate Friday night, and the signing of the bill by Governor Cuomo on Saturday morning, New York state did something that only five other states and the District of Columbia have done so far - legalize same-sex civil marriage.
Note the use of the word "civil" in our comment. It's not a mistake or a typo. In fact, it's likely one of the most important words missing from the debate on same-sex marriage in the United States.
There has nearly always has been a separation between religious laws and the secular laws of America and most of its states. There have been those individuals, from time to time who have used the power of the government to inflict their religious codes on others. Over time, however, American law has always swung back (so far) to re-establish the important division between the two.
On the subject of marriage, there is a vast difference between "civil marriage" and " religious marriage." Because of that separation, the State has no ability to force religious institutions to acknowledge the actions of other religions - or even sub-factions of their own religion. This was a fact specifically acknowledged in the New York law.
The government DOES have the ability to regulate "civil marriage", however, as it's a specifically defined category of legal contract. Every type of contract has specific rules that govern its enforcement, from bilateral real estate contracts, to unilateral contracts of action; from inter-corporate contracts to that special kind of contract between two individuals that covers many different laws, levels, and specifications with one word: the marriage contract.
Civil marriage contracts are mostly agreements that cover personal property rights - things like death benefits, tax relief, and the rights to make medical decisions for one's partner. It's a very specific class of contract - and there is no separate or similar kind of contract that bestows the holder with the same rights anywhere in the U.S. or any of its states or territories.
Even in states where "civil unions" are allowed between same-sex couples, the rights of those individuals are not the same as those relationships acknowledged with a legal label of "marriage" by the state. There are over a thousand benefits on both the federal and state level that only married couples enjoy, while those under civil unions receive approximately about 300 similar benefits. Such stark differences further drive home the fact that separate is not equal.
If anyone has a problem with same-sex couples using the word "marriage" to define their legal status, we would be completely fine if that legal label was disallowed for gay couples - so long as it was also disallowed for straight couples, and a new label given that would apply to all couples, across the board.
Until then, bigots and ignorant folk are simply going to have to learn to hear the silent "civil" when gay couples speak of their marriages to each other.
For our part, we're very glad for our friends in New York as well as for Americans around the country who will soon be able to go to New York and enter into fully legal civil marriage contracts. [New York has NO residency requirement for marriage.]
Passing this law wasn't merely an honorable action for the New York state government. Economists also estimate that in the next three years, the boom in same-sex marriages in the Empire State will bring more than a quarter of a billion dollars in new revenue to their state. So this law not only helps America be more just - it may rapidly help America, and New York specifically, to generate more tax revenue AND more jobs.
More jobs and new sources of revenue for the government, in a time when America needs both so desperately, are things we think even the most hate-filled homophobes should eventually cheer for.
Note the use of the word "civil" in our comment. It's not a mistake or a typo. In fact, it's likely one of the most important words missing from the debate on same-sex marriage in the United States.
There has nearly always has been a separation between religious laws and the secular laws of America and most of its states. There have been those individuals, from time to time who have used the power of the government to inflict their religious codes on others. Over time, however, American law has always swung back (so far) to re-establish the important division between the two.
On the subject of marriage, there is a vast difference between "civil marriage" and " religious marriage." Because of that separation, the State has no ability to force religious institutions to acknowledge the actions of other religions - or even sub-factions of their own religion. This was a fact specifically acknowledged in the New York law.
The government DOES have the ability to regulate "civil marriage", however, as it's a specifically defined category of legal contract. Every type of contract has specific rules that govern its enforcement, from bilateral real estate contracts, to unilateral contracts of action; from inter-corporate contracts to that special kind of contract between two individuals that covers many different laws, levels, and specifications with one word: the marriage contract.
Civil marriage contracts are mostly agreements that cover personal property rights - things like death benefits, tax relief, and the rights to make medical decisions for one's partner. It's a very specific class of contract - and there is no separate or similar kind of contract that bestows the holder with the same rights anywhere in the U.S. or any of its states or territories.
Even in states where "civil unions" are allowed between same-sex couples, the rights of those individuals are not the same as those relationships acknowledged with a legal label of "marriage" by the state. There are over a thousand benefits on both the federal and state level that only married couples enjoy, while those under civil unions receive approximately about 300 similar benefits. Such stark differences further drive home the fact that separate is not equal.
If anyone has a problem with same-sex couples using the word "marriage" to define their legal status, we would be completely fine if that legal label was disallowed for gay couples - so long as it was also disallowed for straight couples, and a new label given that would apply to all couples, across the board.
Until then, bigots and ignorant folk are simply going to have to learn to hear the silent "civil" when gay couples speak of their marriages to each other.
For our part, we're very glad for our friends in New York as well as for Americans around the country who will soon be able to go to New York and enter into fully legal civil marriage contracts. [New York has NO residency requirement for marriage.]
Passing this law wasn't merely an honorable action for the New York state government. Economists also estimate that in the next three years, the boom in same-sex marriages in the Empire State will bring more than a quarter of a billion dollars in new revenue to their state. So this law not only helps America be more just - it may rapidly help America, and New York specifically, to generate more tax revenue AND more jobs.
More jobs and new sources of revenue for the government, in a time when America needs both so desperately, are things we think even the most hate-filled homophobes should eventually cheer for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)