My Jerk of the Month, John Tyner

Every once in a great while, there emerges in the pubic consciousness [pun intended], an individual who is so obnoxious that the situation calls for instantaneous revulsion, on a personal level. Such a person is John Tyner, the young man from San Diego who told a Transportation Security Agent who was about to pat him down, "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested." It is reported that John was on his way to South Dakota so that he could shoot lots of little holes in some pheasant. Apparently, the season was getting short and he didn't have time for national security considerations. Instead, he first refused to submit to a body scan and, then, in a brazen flaunting of law and the safety of his fellow travelers, threatened the security person with retribution if he (the patter is, by law, of the same gender as the patty [pun intended]) should dare to place his rubber-gloved-hand anywhere near his "junk".

I was not familiar with the word "junk" as a slang term for genitalia. I can't imagine any self-respecting man employing the term in a public setting. Having done so, I can only conclude that Mr. Tyner is straight, thinks sex is dirty, or was molested by a man in his younger days. Still, nothing justifies his current status as a folk hero among similarly jaundiced frequent flyers. Only in America, would spoiled youths create such a self-important stink over a momentary encounter with what many gay men would consider a cheap thrill. Get over it, people. Not everything is about you!

Which political party is more interested in winning than governing?

A brand-new poll by USA TODAY/Gallup tells us all we really need to know about the difference between Republicans and Democrats. In the lead article from USA Today for Tuesday, November 9, 2010, Susan Page summarized the results thus:

Democratic voters want to sit down and work things out. Republicans are ready to rumble.

Republicans are more than twice as likely as Democrats to say it's more important for political leaders to stick to their beliefs even if little gets done. Forty-one percent of Republicans put themselves at four or five on a scale in which five is the most unyielding. Only 18% of Democrats feel that way.

Democrats are almost twice as likely as Republicans to say it's more important for political leaders to compromise in order to get things done. Fifty-nine percent of Democrats rate themselves at one or two on the five-point scale compared with 31% of Republicans.

Interestingly, 49% of independents, upon whom Republicans relied upon for their sweeping victory last Tuesday, say it's more important to get things done, against only 24% who want leaders to stick to their beliefs.

Thus, it would appear that the country is destined to experience a repeat of the same obstructionism on the part of Republicans from the 112th Congress that we saw with the 111th, with the added dimension of a more powerful--and even more effective--Republican influence in the House. It's as if the boy who refuses to eat his vegetables is now planning the family meals.

The Republicans are saying that their first priority when the "Lame Duck Session" begins in ten day or so is to renew all of the 2001 tax cuts indefinitely, despite their persistent insistence during the election cycle on reducing the massive federal deficit. On the other hand, some Republicans are threatening to vote against increasing the deficit ceiling, which could result in a shut-down of the entire federal governmental apparatus.

Ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Forget about it. Ratifying the Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty? Am I nuts? Further stimulus spending to head off a double-dip recession? Who am I kidding? Putting a price on the CO2 that is over-heating the planet? What's the rush?

According to this same USA Today/Gallup poll, when asked "Do you think President Obama will make a sincere effort to work with Republicans in Congress to find solutions that are acceptable to both parties?", 64% said "yes"; when asked if Republicans in Congress would do the same, only 43% said "yes; when asked if Democrats in Congress would do the same, 51% said "yes". Unless the Democrats are willing to meet the Republicans on their own terms on every issue, deadlock seems almost certain. Nevertheless, 57% of Americans say that, as a result of the recent elections, they are more upbeat about what will happen over the next two years. Which proves either that a dollop of optimism is added to every bottle of water or voters are more naive that even I thought. No wonder the gaming industry is doing so well.

Which political party is comprised of the true "activists"?, Part I

In a most-welcome announcement, hundreds of climate scientists have decided to set aside their past policy of disengagement from the world of politics and confront head-on congressional conservatives who deny both the existence and principle cause of global warming. Republican Congressmen Darrell Issa, Joe Barton, and F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., all expected to be assuming the chairmanships of key committees on January 2, 2011, have pledged to investigate the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions and the so-called Climategate scandal involving the hacking and release of thousands of emails between leading British climate scientists. (Multiple independent investigations subsequently cleared the scientists of any wrong-doing and validated their research.) I would hope that they would be attempting to find who was behind the illegal invasion of privacy but I doubt that is going to happen.

James M. Taylor, senior fellow and specialist in global warming at the conservative Heartland Institute in Chicago, was quoted by Neela Banerjee, Tribune Co. Washington Bureau, as saying, "The budget is spiraling out of control while government is handing out billions of dollars in grants to climate scientists, many of whom are unabashed activists". (For conservatives true concern for budget deficits, see my preceding blog post.) First, research grants are in no way "handouts". Ask any PhD. Second, according to Wikipedia, an "activist" is "one who is politically active in the role of a citizen". Therefore, a scientist who renders an opinion based upon his or her research cannot be an "activist". Nor could Mr. Taylor, for that matter. The difference is that Mr. Taylor's statement, which cannot be based upon peer-reviewed scientific research, is, therefore, opinion. (I realize that anyone who places science on a higher level than ideology-tested opinion is likely to be accused of being an elitist. I'm willing to take that chance.) Mr. Taylor's job as a think-tank mouthpiece doesn't make him a mere citizen; nor does it make him an expert. He is paid to find arguments which justify the pre-determined biases of his employers. He seems to fulfill that role very well.

Which political party is the true "big spender"?, Part I

House Republican leaders, such as Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, took a strong stand yesterday against allowing the Bush tax cuts from 2001 to expire for those individuals making more than $200,000 a year for individuals or $250,000 for couples. (The tax cuts are due to expire at the end of this year--10 years after passage--because they were not "paid for" through countervailing budget measures.)

President Obama is a strong advocate for renewing the tax cuts only for those making less than those amounts. Should the Republicans get their way, the federal deficit would increase by $700,000,000,000 more over the next 10 years than with Obama's proposal. Since tax cuts have the exact same effect on the federal deficit as spending--without the concomitant widely-dispersed benefits--it is plain to see that the Republicans are the real big spenders. Boy, won't the Tea Partiers be pissed when they realize this!

Announcing my own Tea Party Points to Ponder

[Preface: Over the coming days up to the November 2nd election, I will be posing a series of questions designed to help members of the Tea Party movement dispel some of the fog in their own minds as to which political party actually serves their interests. It is clear to me that they are allowing their emotions to get the best of their powers of reason. For example, they rail against growth in government at a time when corporate power--over which they have zero influence--is at a zenith and has nearly resulted in a second Great Depression. They decry high taxes when taxes are lower than they have been in decades and our nation's infrastructure is crumbling. They bemoan government regulation of business at a time when lack of effective regulation has led to worldwide economic meltdown and environmental disasters of heretofore unseen magnitude. They whine about loss of freedom due to so-called socialistic Democratic policies as massive numbers of Americans have more free time than ever because of their lack of employment due to Republican policies for which they wax nostalgic.]

One of two things is happening--1) either they are simply in need of some lens cleaner so that they can see the world--as it really is--clearly or 2) they have lost touch with reality and need to be placed in some type of managed care facility. As a writer, I need something to do, so I will assume that the correct remedy is alternative # 1 and offer some Points for Tea Partiers to Ponder before they burst a blood vessel:

Case in Point # 1: Assuming you--the Tea Partier--agree that we live in a capitalist society and that "private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism" [from the Wikipedia definition of "capitalism"] and assuming that you agree that there is a role for government in capitalist societies in the areas of consumer protection and fair and open competition, the question arises, "As a consumer, who is in the better position to look out for your interests: A corporation, whose principle stakeholders are the shareholders and employees, or the government, whose principle stakeholder--outside of corporate lobbyists--is the voter?"

If you answered "corporations", then you might want to ignore news stories about product recalls, ponzi schemes, sticking accelerators, oil spills, and corporate malfeasance; trust your soul to Wall Street and keep voting for Republicans.

But if you answered "government", then I have to ask, "What the heck are you thinking when you're out there supporting people like Palin, O'Connell, Joe Miller, and Angle?" Are you saying that you support these champions of laissez-faire economics as a shareholder or employee? If not, then who else do you expect to fight for your rights as a consumer/private citizen, if not your government? Or, has your conservative ideology become the enemy of your personal well-being? If so, then at least have the intellectual honesty to say so and stop hiding behind your irrational and irresponsible anger. For from such comes anarchy or, worse, totalitarianism.

From dots to dashes (of the highway paint line type)

About a month ago, while in the throes of hypertension-reduction therapy with a new doctor (without much success at the time), I decided that, more than medications, a change in lifestyle was called for. I notified those friends and acquaintances to whom I had been forwarding up to a dozen emails per week concerning the political "outrages" of the day that I was out of the calamity clearinghouse business. I suspended the once monthly political forums I was facilitating at my Unitarian Universalist Church. I stopped watching The Rachel Maddow Show as if it were a religion. I unsubscribed from three dozen or more listserves. Finally, I vowed to distance myself from involvement in politics or debates about the rightness or wrongness of any side of the debate on political issues, except on occasion with my closest friends. Like water off a duck's back--and unlike oil off a brown pelican's--I will keep abreast of developments while never allowing it to get on my chest.

This new policy has already paid dividends. Since I began to put it into practice, my average blood pressure (diastolic) has dropped 20 points. I have much more time to pursue other interests, including long-distance calls to relatives, reading books, and planning vacations. The last undertaking is the reason for the title of this post. Relieved of the self-imposed duty to connect seemingly randomly-dispersed "dots" of truth, I can now spend my retirement life finding ways to enjoy the world as it is...or, at least, my little corner of it. In July, we will be undertaking a 4000-mile journey via Ford Focus to visit friends in Nanaimo, BC, CA, taking in half-a-dozen national parks along the way to and fro. In October, we will drive to Detroit to attend my first-born child's wedding and visit old friends there. As our Focus gets nearly 40 mpg on the open road, my conscience allows us to do this while feeling free of guilt for sins against the planet.

Socrates made a perhaps fatal point of decrying the usefulness of democracy as a form of governance, questioning whether an electorate ignorant of science, geography, other cultures, and the workings of government could possibly make better decisions than a Senate comprised of the intellectually elite. Having followed the recent meteoric rise of Sarah Palin and the Tea Partiers, I must finally acquiesce to his wisdom. Having seen one of two major political parties adopt as its primary strategy not finding solutions to the existential problems that face us today but rather snuffing out the life of any ideas whose execution would not directly accrue to the advancement of their ideology, I am beginning to seriously doubt whether the U.S. is capable of saving ourselves, let alone bringing enlightenment to those far-flung corners of the world where the peddlers of ignorance, prejudice, poverty, and dogmatism find voice.

So, I will not turn my back on social justice, ecological sanity, and all the causes that I have championed for decades. However, I will turn my face more to welcoming the beauty and grace of this planet and its inhabitants while it, they, and I last. I can do this knowing that others--many of them so young--have already picked up the torch and are carrying it more faithfully than I ever did. I no longer feel responsible for curing the world's ills. What a relief! I have already seen many turnings toward the light, just in the last couple of years. If we don't turn back, there is still some room for optimism. I just won't have "my hand on the till", as if I ever did. To all of you still fighting the good fight, I say, "more power to you and Godspeed".

Porsches, not politics

I have always had a thing for people who drive expensive German sedans or sports cars. Call it resentment, call it envy, whatever. Like all status symbols, such indulgences are typically a way for the owner to set him/herself off from the humdrum crowd.

Anyway, last Saturday, Laurin and I were visiting a friend who lives in a high-rise senior community. We parked our car--a 2009 Ford Focus--on the street in front of the building. As I was getting out of the car, a man drove by in one of those "classic" Porsche Carrera's with the "whale tail". He turned into the circle driveway in front of the same building we were headed for. As he coasted through the drive, he blipped his throttle a couple of times with the clutch in, no doubt hoping to attract attention to his ineluctable good taste and high fortune. (Perhaps, he was simply trying to keep his race-tuned engine from getting loaded up with carbon?)

As we walked up to the entrance, I glanced over at the driver--a silver-haired white male in his 60's or so--hoping not to attract his attention so as to give him the satisfaction of feeling that he had scored another jealous conquest.

Inside, we stepped up to the desk to sign in. As I leaned over the guest book to ask the receptionist a question, I felt a hand against my right flank pushing me aside. Who should it be but the creep in the Carrera. Now, I'm normally pretty restrained when dealing with people in general. But that morning, I was feeling a little edgy. I turned and said to him something like, "So it's the guy in the Porsche who obviously feels like the ordinary rules of life don't apply to him!"

To my utter amazement, he reacted with a degree of grace and aplomb that still stuns me. He smilingly replied to the effect that "Yeah, I'm like one of those alluded to in the joke about Porsches and porcupines." I knew what he meant. One of my favorite jokes--although when told to me concerned BMWs, not Porsche's--goes like this:

Q: What's the difference between a BMW/Porsche and a porcupine?

A: The porcupine has its pricks on the outside.

He had totally let the scirocco out of my sails. All I could think to say was, "When I heard it, it was about BMWs." Lame.

Lesson-learned: You can never judge a boob by his blips.