Thanksgiving

Last week was Thanksgiving.  The lore of the holiday is that the native Americas and the recent immigrants sat down to share a meal.  It was done when the harvest was completed and the food was stored away for a long winter.  It is not for this post to explore the issues of the day.  But, it is to examine how our own myths about the holiday have more meaning than the reality.  Here are two groups of people that should have more to fight about than to share, sitting down peacefully at the dinner table – the quintessential symbolism of mutual trust and brotherhood.

To those invited, the only requirement to sit at the table was not to harm anyone.  They brought their own religious views, their own cultural mores and dressed as each did in their own homes.  At the table, there may have been passionate discussion about each side’s point of view, as is common at many Thanksgiving feast throughout the land.  But, in the end, everyone was able to be themselves.

The myth the symbolism portrays is that it should be part of the human experience to sit with our antagonist to share and talk.  By sharing a common human experience we can then begin to understand how many things beyond dinner we have in common.  We all have families, loved ones and dreams of a better life.  Of working with the world and creating a paradise for all to prosper.

That myth doesn’t always get expressed in the real world.  In our communities we have competing forces that work against each other.  This rivalry is not based on the things we have in common, but on our differences.  While we pretend to provide an open and free community, the restrictions that the patriarchal majority place on the minority are based on the differences between the two.  The restrictions should, instead, be based on the one requirement that the first Thanksgiving had, to not do harm.

The myth of Thanksgiving suggests that we shouldn’t care about the religion, political beliefs, gender, race, marriage or anything other differences of those that are sitting at the table.  What matters is that we invite all to break bread, to use a religiously loaded term.

Thanksgiving is a time when we should reflect on our achievements, even if they are only partial achieved.  One of our greatest achievements is the myth that all in the community can come together at the same table and share the bounty.  Existentialism tells us that while the Thanksgiving myth is only partially achieved in our community, to keep striving is the purpose.

With reflection on the true meaning of the Thanksgiving myth, we can come as close to the fully actuated myth as possible.

Why only 54% voting in last election

An Arizona woman ran over her husband with a car because she found out he hadn’t voted in the presidential election.  The woman, Holly Solomon, believed that if Obama was elected, her family would be worse off, so she took things into her own hands.  Solomon’s husband is in critical condition in the local hospital. 

If the man survives (I certainly hope he does) and if doesn’t get divorced (although, one can’t help to think he will) he will certainly think twice about not voting the next time an election comes around. 

Voter turnout this last election was at about 54% according to Loyola University.  That number might be revised in the future, but it is a working estimate right now.  This reverses a trend over the last couple of decades according to George Mason University.  In the seventies the percent that voted was as low as 40%, but has been rising since.  In 2008 during the last presidential election, a record setting 62% voted.

So much has been written about this subject at the end of every presidential election that it might be difficult to find a new angle on the story.  But, in this case, I am not sure it needs a new angle.  What the numbers tell us is that there a 50/50 chance that the guy standing behind you in the theater line didn’t vote.  Even though he didn't vote, he is still ranting about the evils of government to his date. 

The truth is we are living with a government that only half of the people are taking part.  The rest, live or die with the outcome, but don’t take the time to be involved in the choices.  In the 70’s, a minority of people made all the decisions.  In a representative democracy, that is a poor indicator of the apathy of citizens. 

When you think about the way political campaigns are conducted, it is no wonder.  If fast food marketing was like political marketing, I am not sure the industry would be doing any better than our political process.  The difference is fast food marketing avoids bashing the competition.  They also make sure that everyone can participant in the purchasing of fast food and enjoy it.   

Political advertising, especially those coming from Super Pacs, produce advertising campaigns that make all politicians look like evil incarnated.  (Yes, I know, many of you already think that, but part of the reason is that you have been told that by both sides.)  Rarely do they define the issues and propose clear solutions.  Fast food restaurants don’t talk about the poor nourishment of their competitors.  They know that might come back at them.  Instead, they show happy people enjoying their food while inviting us to join them.

But, more importantly, especially for this past election, fast food restaurants make sure that you are never far away from getting your fast food fix.  I doubt any of us are more than a mile away from a palace of grease.  The majority of the time, you are likely to be much closer to more than a dozen.  If fact, if you can’t get to them, they will bring the food to you. 

Every day, fast food chains are in our face telling us how close they are and how happy we would feel if you would just come on down.  In this last election, states and local communities were attempting to suppress voter turnout.  Then, they challenged those that did show up.  Can you image that happening at a fast food restaurant? 

“Burger and fries with a shake, coming right up sir,” the counter person would say.  “Do you have a driver’s license or other id with a burger-and-fries-with-a-coke card allowing you to make this purchase?”

 
There is no question that we need to make sure those that show at the polls are eligible to vote.   In advance, we need to ensure that everyone knows the rules, has the proper documents and has the time to understand the rules and obtain documents needed.  Then, make it easy to actually vote when it comes time.

End filibusters in the senate

Carl Levin, the senior United States Senator from Michigan, is calling for changes in the United States Senate filibuster rules.  The change is so overdue. Let’s hope he finds enough support come January to change the rules.  But, in an irony of circumstances, a minority can prevent it from happening

Right now, the senate’s filibuster rules aren’t even what are historically known as a filibuster.  In the past, a senator would stand and talk for as long as he could to prevent a vote on a piece of legislation from coming up.  Other senators that may have agreed with him would take some floor time and allow the originator of the filibuster to rest.  These maneuvers around the rules were done to give a brief pause before voting on legislation.  This would allow each side to get support for their point of view or change someone’s mind before voting.  Other times, it was intended to get the attention of the public.  But, after a day or two, debate would be cut off and a vote taken.  Currently, the House of Representative’s operates under the rules that a simple majority vote can cut off debate and move to a vote.      

But, the senate’s rules are much different.  It only takes a minority of senators to put a stop to any legislation.  (Although, the house and the president have found ways around the filibusters, it isn’t the way things are intended to work.)  If just 40 senators ban together they can prevent debate on the legislation from being cut off and a keep the full senate from voting.  Then, nothing happens.  Senators don’t get up to talk so senators are not under any pressure to get support or change someone’s mind.  They just stall the current legislation and move on to other business. 

That means that a minority in the Senate can effectively kill legislation.  And, if those 40 senators are from low population states, a small minority of the population can keep an up or down vote on any issue. 

The Constitution does say that the house and the senate are allowed to make its own rules.  So, at the start of each session, every two years, each body votes on the rules for the upcoming session.  This January when a new session of congress comes to town, new rules will be considered.  This provides an opportunity to get the rules changed on filibusters. 

The authors of the Constitution never intended the Senate to make rules that allow a minority to rule.  With few exceptions, those times when a two thirds majority is required, voting is based on a simple majority.  Even then, it is expected that a vote would be taken in a timely fashion. 

For good or bad, depending on your point of view, the winners of any election and the party with the majority of seats get to pass the legislation they want.  This is the way a representative democracy works.  To allow a minority to prevent legislation to come up for a vote is to ignore the will of the voters.

Carl Rove will not give up

Carl Rove, George W. Bush’s political advisor and director of the Super Pac Crossroads, said he will not give up the battle.  Even though Romney lost, Rove still believes strongly enough in his own point of view that he will continue to work for them.

Good for you Mr. Rove.  We don’t find answers in our human experience by blindly allowing one side or the other to dominate the debate.

Many years ago, Dr. Jacob Bronowski wrote a book called the “Ascent of Man.”  It accompanied a series that was broadcast on PBS stations.  He explores human existence from the very beginning to the present day.  Not so much a history of man, but more of an outline of man’s search for the truth.  Bronowski believed that by dedicating ourselves to science, research and knowledge we can find the truth that seems to elude us. 

On his journey through time, Bronowski stopped on Auschwitz, the infamous Nazi concentration camp that slaughtered perhaps millions of people.  He found a place in the camp where the ashes of the people that were killed there were dumped.  As Bronowski reached down into the mud on a rainy afternoon that could still contain some of the ashes from over 60 years ago, he looked straight into the camera and quoted Oliver Cromwell, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”

That very thought is the foundation of the research being conducted by SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence).  A scientist was asked during an interview about what happens when they find something that has some of the characteristics of being made by intelligent life.  The first thing they do is challenge their own findings.  This challenge doesn’t take the form of confirmation, that might lead them to just reinforce their discoveries.  It takes the form of error checking, that would lead them to another conclusion if they were originally wrong.  Then, they turn to the outside scientific community and ask them to tell them why they are wrong.  Repeat, why they are wrong!   

We don’t find truth for our country by adopting something that sounds good and resonates with us alone.  That is a personal outlook.  We find truth by asking questions of those around us and having questions asked of ourselves.  To have a single power in our culture or any culture that defines what is right and wrong is a dictatorship.  Looking back at the Nazi’s, that is what killed over ten million people.

The words of Voltaire, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is still true today.  Our collective quest for the truth must be based on that very phrase.  To silence on a single voice means that we have denied the freedoms that we all share to that single voice.  That could be our undoing. 

So, Carl Rove, keep up your work and your quest.  I will from time to time (if not a little more often than time to time) disagree with you.  But, the continuing conversation in the public form will help all of us find the right path.

Demand to know who is speaking

The next time you go to the doctor, don’t worry about who he is or what his credentials are.  It doesn’t matter and he shouldn’t have to tell you.  Or, when you go to your financial advisor, if he keeps hidden that he is an employee of the fund he suggests when he leads you to believe he isn’t, he has a right to privacy.  Oh, and your baby sitter – not to worry that you are not able to find out who she is and anything about her past. 

If you think those are really dumb statements, I would agree with you.  But, when a clandestine organization goes on television with information about one of the constitutional proposals or a candidate; you don’t have the right to know who they are.  If you wouldn’t accept advice or trust people in your personal life that you don’t know, why would you trust a group that you know nothing about in your political decisions?

That is what has happen during the last election more than any other time in United States history.  Claims, accusations and downright lies filed the advertising of the political ads.  It should make honest, good people ill.  (Yes, everyone, before you get excited, both sides have committed this sin.)  But, we didn’t have the chance to evaluate their point of view because we don’t know who provided the financial support for the advertising. 

Additionally, people and organizations called “bundlers” skirted campaign laws and used them to hide the source of money for candidates and parties.  Many of us were upset when we found out that Romney said things in private that were difficult to support in public.  Romney himself even said that it could have been said better.  But, did any of us find out who was in the room that night (other than the host, a bundler)?

Is there anyone that thinks that the “smoked filled rooms” of yore where secret deals were made was the proper way to govern?  Well, of course not.  If your local politician takes money from an oil company then votes in support of their petition to drill in your neighborhood, wouldn’t you want to know?  Do black hooded people stand on the floor of the United States Senate and make a speech about policy?  No, because we all demand to know who is speaking.

Yet, we put up with Super PAC's and bundlers that raise, over the last election in this case, literally billions of dollars.  This money flows to candidate’s campaigns and their parties like water down a hill, filling the lowest ground.  In this case, the money fills the coffers of candidates that are willing to accept every last cent.  There are candidates that don’t accept the money blindly, demanding to know where the money came from.  But, many of them, I feel confident, feel great pressure to accept the money so they can compete against a foe that does take the money. 

Don’t be fooled.  When people go to the store to buy a stove, they want certain features and they want it to work.  No one, let me repeat, no one, gives a dime to any campaign if they don’t think they will get the results they want.  Give enough, your voice will be heard.  A little more, your plan will be enacted. 

The Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech.  It is an amplifier to your own voice.  This is true.  Also, people do have the right to assemble to combine their resources so that their voice will be louder – and delivered with force.  But, the voters, as the ultimate decision maker in any policy decision, should have all the information available to make an educated decision. 

Let's all cry, "Enough of this lunacy!"  In a Responsible Community, when someone exercises their right, they are to take responsibility for their action.  It is not a violation of someone’s freedom of speech to ask that they take the responsibility to say who they are.  

If it takes a new ruling from the Supreme Court to change the current situation, then let’s find a case to carry to their doorstep.  If it takes more than that, then let’s change the Constitution.

A shift in social attitudes

The campaign from the right tried to make the 2012 Presidential election a repudiation of President Obama’s economy.  The message was; there isn’t enough job growth, the economy is sluggish and the deficit is too high.  Many voters did buy into this message.  The electorate clearly moved to the right in this election. 

Most Americas it appears are fiscal conservatives.  In the past, when the economy was slow or sluggish, the incumbent faced certain defeat.  Votes may want their religion and their guns, but what they really want is a job and a future for their children.  There is nothing wrong with that.  After all, the thinking goes, without a healthy economy it may all be for naught.

With the blind confidence that the right’s strategy to focus on the economy was the correct one, many thought the voters wouldn’t notice the other ideas that the right would bring quietly with them to their elected posts.  But, those Republicans who could not be controlled by their party came out of the woodwork.  (Maybe a better word than “woodwork” might be “cave”.)  Most of the ideas from the most extreme Republicans were talking points from a century ago.  Birth control, rape, abortion, race, the rejection of gay rights, the role of government (or lack thereof) and many other old, tired ideas.  While the generation that came from those times may have been happy to talk about them, those from the last two generations rolled their eyes.

With an economy portrayed as being bad and an electorate that shifted to the right (actually, more like a shift to the center) should have been enough.  But, the social positions that the right holds so dearly brought it all back to focus.  It turned enough voters back in support of Obama. 

This represents a fundamental change in the social attitudes of the country, as slight as it may be.  In this election cyle, a president with a liberal social agenda won in what was portrayed as a sluggish economy.  Perhaps as many as four states (three for sure) supported marriage equity.  The voters want the financial reforms that came out of the crisis to stay in place.  They supported the continuation of the health care reform.  The right to choose will be left in place.  Gay rights will be supported by more and more people.  Also, many other ideas from the last two generations will now become accepted as part of a new life of freedom and security in the country.

If the Republicans continue with their current track of holding on to old social ideas they will soon be obscure.  But, if they change they may have a chance.  That of course, in the irony of the times, is actually what they are fighting against.

Gay rights and marriage equity

The Responsible Community blog is working through the blog’s position on issues important to an equable community and comparing them to the presidential candidate positions and their respective parties.  Abortion and gun control have been reviewed in the last couple of days. 

Today’s issues are gay rights and marriage equity.  As I have asked in most every post about gay rights and marriage equality, where is the harm?

Government is tasked to protect its citizens.  That means making murder, stealing, assault and other actions like them illegal.  All those listed as well as many more not listed and the variants of each, hurt people in some way.  It can’t be shown in any way how being gay hurts anyone. 

To make it illegal for a same sex couple to get married is placing their action in the same category as those that commit one of the other crimes listed above.  There is absolutely no rationalization for it. 

Governor Romney has stated very clearly that he will not support gay marriage.  Members of the party he belongs to have tried for many years to pass a constitutional amendment that would prevent states from enacting laws that would permit marriage equity.  The party also, in the house and the senate teamed with a republican president, passed the Defense of Marriage Act (odd name for legislation that restricted marriage instead of expanding the rights of marriage to more citizens).  The courts have struck down the act, but those in supported of the act are fighting it to keep on the books.  It is believed that Romney working with his party would set back the quest for gay rights and marriage equity many years.

Obama on the other hand has come out in support of gay rights and supports marriage equity, although he said he would leave it to the states.  When the Defense of Marriage Act was declared unconstitutional by the courts, he refused to defend it, an action that let the court’s decision stand.  The house, controlled by Republicans, is now taken up arms in defense of the act. 

For gay rights and marriage equity, Obama receives the Responsible Community’s support.