Why the bully mentality matters...

   The psychology of a presidential candidate is always interesting and can be important in how America functions inside its borders as well as with the rest of the world.
   A recent story in the Washington Post noted a long-ago incident involving Mitt Romney at his private high school. Apparently, Romney led a group of boys who took down another boy and used scissors to cut off the boy's longer hair.
   As some people have noted, kids can do some stupid things in high school. Even in college, too. And it doesn't mean they would ever do similar acts again...Or does it?
   I think too often people get forgiving boys and girls for youthful immaturity mixed up with trying to understand why they did it in the first place and how their personality, which they carry on into adulthood, is impacted by their actions and thoughts. Yes, it is forgivable to do stupid things as a kid. But, on the other hand, if they carry forth their mentality as adults, that's not so forgivable. If the teen is a bully, what are the chances that he will be a bully as an adult? Is there a reality for that connection?
   I recently read an article that noted that, for his campaign, Mitt Romney seems to lack the personal narrative of defending differences and thus standing up to the larger group. This is interesting because Romney is a minority when it comes to his Mormon religion. If anything, from this campaign alone, especially in dealing with evangelicals and conservative Christians within his own political party, he must realize the pressures that confront a minority group.
   But religion is a little different than the more appearance-based aspects of other minorities, particularly ethnic minorities. A person can have very different thoughts and beliefs but still blend in, through traditional appearance, and camouflage that kind of minority status.
   Romney comes from a conservative religious background. Conservative religious groups tend to celebrate conformity, not differences. The socialization is about being part of the group--Being like-minded, but also sameness in appearance and probably like-groomed and like-fashioned for acceptability.
   Thus, in the high school bullying incident, Romney apparently felt driven to assault some high school teen who dared to look different, as the boy with the long hair was an affront to the socialization of Romney's world.
   So, what does that say about Romney today, 50 years later?
   One lingering curiosity I would have is if any of the sons of Romney ever had long hair or looked the least bit different from one another. But that's personal and part of the family dynamics, so that's private and affects them but not the American public.
   More interestingly is Romney's comment on the campaign trail that he "likes to fire people." Hmmmm. Now who, even as an employer, would say that and use the word "like" with firing people from their jobs? Most employers I know don't find the matter of terminating an employee to be an enjoyable task. The loss of a job is going greatly harm someone's economic condition, whether they deserved the job loss or not. If a boss likes doing that, it rather fits the bully mentality.
   And why is the bully mentality something America needs to avoid at all costs? For one reason, it can mean a disrespect for people or groups perceived as different, which is contrary to the good ideal of diversity in America. That can impact social issues.
   Even greater, the bully mentality tends to surface particularly in the actions of war. I think that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had "bully mentality" issues of personality (which often also is a sign of insecurity). When secret prisons arise and the word "enhanced interrogation" becomes part of the national conversation and it's real meaning is "torture," then the bullies are in power and setting the agenda.
   And another grave consequence for America was two, long wars.

My advice about his advisers...

President Obama ought to fire all of his advisers and start over. The Clinton people and his friends from Chicago didn't do him a bit of good. He should start over, as it still might not be too late if he decides to be a real progressive, and he should look for advisers who read about FDR.

Otherwise, we need a new presidential candidate from the left (who really is from the left).

(Update: The same evening that I placed this blog entry, an Obama adviser was on TV, telling the news anchor and the audience of watching Americans that Obama has so tried to compromise with the Republicans on issues that he has even made his base unhappy. Wow, the Obama advisers are actually using the dissatisfaction from Obama's own base to promote the idea of compromise, as though any person from the right is going to vote for Obama. Newsflash: The people on the right don't give a rat's whisker about Obama's move to the middle or even to right. They aren't going to vote for him next time. Period. And if Obama doesn't keep his base and maintain his base since after all they are the ones who elected him, those goofy advisers can take him out of the oven because he's done, his goose is cooked. Wow, brain-dead advisers. Obama, for the love of the country, get rid of them and become the president you said you'd be as candidate.)

Ralph Nader was correct...again...

Ralph Nader was right, again.

He wanted to forge a third-party alternative to the corporate Democratic Party. He put his reputation on the line, taking considerable criticism, in hopes that something from the left, like the Green Party, would have at least a say at the table of American politics.

Democrats, even the progressive ones, were slow, or completely unable, to grasp the importance of an alternative party.

Their enthusiasm about finally achieving a "liberal" candidate named Obama apparently was based on false hopes. Saddled with a lackluster and corporate two-party system, America has suffered the consequences.

And ironically, it was the outrage and action of people from the right, unhappy with the corporate Republican Party, that actually spawned results in the form of the infamous Tea Party. Though it is only a minority group, it still has power and clout within the Republican Party and thus on the national stage.

Too bad it wasn't the Green Party minority from the left having the influence.

News, politics, religion, and pets...

Notes from the news...

In light of the current times in which we live when a 5-4 Supreme Court generally follows the mandate of "government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations," the Obama Administration deserves praise for going to the U.S. oil reserves in order to increase the oil supply and drive down the gasoline prices...and end the institutionalized robbery of the record profit-making oil companies upon the middle class of America. A thumbs-up to Obama on that one.

A thumbs-down to Obama on the war speech that was previously noted in this blog. A few additional statistics for that issue: The Afghanistan War has cost the lives of more than 1,000 soldiers, 10 years, and $443 billion. Some are predicting the United States will spend $1 trillion on the so-called training of Afghani troops to take over before the U.S. involvement is done. That's a terrible waste! And that's not even counting the expense in lives and money for the Iraq War. Wars are dumb morally, economically, and politically. The age of the war, for any competent and successful democratic power, has come to an end.

A thumbs-down to Obama on his "evolving" claim about whether or not he supports gay marriage. Oh, come on. It's marriage equality, as commentator Ron Reagan said recently. If you don't want a gay marriage, then don't get one. But don't discriminate in the meantime. If you are a progressive, Mr. Prez, then you believe in civil rights. Period. If not, you're probably playing dishonest political games for vote purposes. Some people on TV have said that Obama's conflict is a reflection of the conservative nature of the "black" church. That doesn't truly make sense to me, except again in a dishonest political fashion, because Obama comes from the Congregational Church (the church where I was baptised) and it is a liberal church and it came to terms with the issue of gay marriage years ago like the Unitarian Church and other churches. Maybe the first lady Michelle Obama comes out of the conservative black-church setting, but the president doesn't, according to his pre-presidential church history. It is both annoying and amusing when these churches, filled by minority groups who have been discriminated against, decide to discriminate against other groups. But it's about political viewpoint within churches. The liberal churches don't discriminate. The conservative churches discriminate. So, there are previously persecuted minority groups gathered into conservative black churches discriminating against gays, in Mormon churches discriminating against women and gays, in Catholic churches discriminating against women and gays, in Islamic mosques discriminating against women and gays. The fact of the matter is that when people choose their faith, they are often choosing their political attitudes as well. But I would suggest that all church-goers and politicians and evolving presidents read Frederick Douglass' biography to better understand when a church can be "wrong" and on the wrong side of history.

The worst news coming out of Missouri this month had to be the story about the baby who lost seven fingers after a loose pet ferret in the household chewed them off. Some animals are wild creatures generally...and then there are dogs. Most dogs make good pets. Goldfish are gentle enough, but aren't the best pets. Dogs make good pets when they are in the company of good people. Wild, undomesticated animals don't generally make good pets. A recent TV report noted that there is a large number of people who actually have lions and tigers at their homes or ranches in Texas. Wow, again, I just don't think lions and tigers are pet material. Here are some other Sage Street blog recommendations for non-pet status: wolverines, grizzly bears, whales, crocodiles, badgers, ticks, and pythons.

The speech that Obama should give...

Here's what I hope I don't hear from President Obama in his "war" speech tomorrow...

If President Obama announces tomorrow that he is only removing 10,000 U.S. soldiers from Afghanistan for 2011 and 20,000 from Afghanistan in 2012, that just amounts to a fraud.

It was Obama, after all, who "surged" the troop levels in Afghanistan two years ago by 30,000...and, oh, by the way, nothing much is better in terms of conditions in Afghanistan. (Note: At the time of the surge, I predicted that Obama would lose re-election and, with his generally hapless efforts to deal with Main Street unemployment--though I realize he's been hampered all the way by irritating Republicans--I am not going to back down on that prediction. I can't see how Obama re-energizes youth, particularly, as a war president, nor the middle class, as a Herbert Hoover on job creation.) I can't see how Obama wins, with the exceptions of the unemployment rate dropping dramatically or the wars being ended. Then there is the default way of winning re-election...and that is by having a presidential opponent who is so crazy and radical that it puts fear in the hearts and minds of anyone who likes Medicare and Social Security.

So, if Obama just takes out of the war zone the troops he surged in the first place, that still leaves 70,000 U.S. soldiers there (or double the amount that President Bush put there).

That would be a joke. I can't figure out why Obama doesn't see real value and distinction in getting to be the president who actually ends long, wasteful, expensive wars. In many ways, Obama seems like he represents opportunity lost instead of opportunity at hand. Don't wait for the college subcommittee to decide some incremental step. Don't wait for the bumbling generals to determine peace. Make something good and positive and progressive HAPPEN. And if that isn't in the cards for no-drama Obama, then the left needs to find a good presidential candidate. Perhaps Howard Dean would return. If Obama desires to be a Democratic war president, which is contrary to progressive ideas, then perhaps what will be needed is not the return of his youth vote, but instead the return of youth war protests on campuses again. This is certainly a moment and time for Obama to determine where a Democratic president needs to take his country. If he wimps out, I think he loses big time.

And as I am completely annoyed with U.S. generals who have contributed to the longest war in U.S. history, I would not do what some of the Republican presidential candidates suggested in seeking the advice of the generals before changing paths with the wars. About the only thing I would ask generals, if I were president, is what kind of toilet paper should be ordered. Otherwise, I would ask privates and sergeants and people in the real world of the war for an honest evaluation of the war effort.

Then I am also growing weary of the fact that NATO can't get one lousy dictator named Gadhaffi out of the picture. If that dictator can't be eliminated (as dictators should be) by the end of the year, then I will change my position on Libya involvement as well. When it comes to war, length almost always means loss. Speed is victory.

Here's the speech that Obama should give:

The troops will be leaving Afghanistan and Iraq as soon as they can get on the planes. We will leave some expert Navy SEALS units to strategically target actual terrorists who like violence. We will provide any woman who thinks her husband is going to follow the conservative and archaic ideas of the Taliban with a heavy frying pan, as the guy has to go to sleep some time. We will provide foreign aid for education for all genders, for the building of schools and hospitals, and for the training and benefit of honest police officers, lawyers, and politicians.

By saving $120 billion a year or so on the expense of the Afghanistan War, we will put much of that money into infrastructure projects, like FDR's WPA, for jobs for soldiers leaving the service and others who are currently jobless. In further channeling the wisdom of FDR, we will establish a CCC program for young people, providing summer jobs and, instead of money, the student workers, including children of illegal immigrants, will be granted free college tuition, board, and room for a year at colleges or universities (the colleges and universities who want to continue to receive federal funding and Pell grants for incoming students). And that will just be the start of our new jobs creation effort.

And God bless the United States of America.

The issues to win the presidency in 2012...

It was too bad that Congress passed and President Obama signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act without eliminating some of civil rights intrusion and violation aspects, particularly the part involving public libraries.

Concerning the library aspect, I have faith that librarians will continue to be hard-nosed about privacy of book reading and refuse to cooperation or cooperate in lukewarm, half-heartedly approaches. Frankly, I would put my money on librarians more than U.S. intellegence agencies any day in the battle of wills and the defense of freedom and rights.

While the field of potential Republican presidential candidates certainly makes Obama look good, the nation may need a candidate from the left to keep Obama's feet to the fire concerning the promises he has already made. The promise to end the wars. The promise to close down Guantanamo Bay prison.

I believe that the person who wins the presidency for the future will do it with these stances on these issues:

1. Supports Medicare and Social Security. (That means really supporting them and wanting them to exist and to be worthy for the citizens. It doesn't mean playing games with them, in hopes that a good social program vanishes. It doesn't mean shifting to privatization which just puts a lot of money into the pockets of a few and the social programs at great risk, depending up markets and bottom-line.)


2. Has plans for job creation and employment expansion. That probably means spending money upfront in order to attain benefits in the long-term. (Chrysler recently paid back with interest a $7.6 billion bail-out loan from the U.S. and Canadian governments. And GM, also a bail-out recipient, announced recently that thousands of jobs would return for plants near Detroit and throughout the nation. That means that President Obama was wise in saving the auto industry--and thousands of good jobs for Americans--while Republican candidate Mitt Romney lacked vision in opposing the bail-out. Romney's op-ed piece was headlined something to the respects that the government should let Detroit and the car industry go bankrupt. Romney was horribly wrong and America would have been worse off right now under his early judgment.) There is a difference, I believe, between a bail-out for a high good-jobs industry or business which makes tangible products that Americans can use and a bail-out for Wall Street financiers who speculate over fears and fantasy and provide no real products of use. I remember a TV commercial many years ago where a company was joyful about producing reports by way of their copy center. I thought at the time, if American companies only produce paperwork and reports and not steel, shirts, toys, and cars, I can't imagine the companies flourishing or the nation prospering.


3. Concretely plans for the end of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That means getting ground troops out of backward Third World countries with religiously conservative cultures. Let the social media networks play the role of freedom fighters, as citizens of those kind of countries will be able to see for themselves what the rest of the world has and what they don't. The Navy SEALs' action in finding Osama bin Laden shows how a small-scale mission can be surgically successful without putting platoons of the young people on foot or vehicle patrol--the so-called kid next door--into ridiculous and costly daily danger. Also, ending the wars is the best first real step in cutting a budget deficit. Less tanks and wars where soldiers are killed. Instead, more soldiers and advocates in peacekeeping, humanitarian, and educational missions that also make our soldiers more respected and safer around the world.

Those are the three campaign stands that I think will lead to victory for a presidential candidate in 2012. President Obama certainly has the edge for the victory, as he has stated his feelings before about everything from Medicare to the wars. Making it happen even before it is a campaign promise would assure victory.

Time for Mubarak to leave...

Hosni Mubarak, the dictator of Egypt, is also a thug. He needs to be removed from office and quickly if the democratic movement in Egypt is going to avoid further violence.

Anderson Cooper of CNN noted that with the anti-Mubarak protestors, the demonstrations were peaceful. When the pro-Mubarak people (or thugs and goon squads) showed up today, the violence began. It also included pro-Mubarak groups harassing and threatening western mediapeople, including Cooper and his crew which were attacked and hit.

It has always been hoped that a country in the Middle East would become the model for democracy. Before it's too late, before protestors are radicalized by the violence, this is the opportunity for democracy. But Mubarak has to go. If President Obama can't move the dictator to leave, then he should at least stop the foreign aid funding and say that it will start again only when a democratic government is in place. We should use whatever leverage we have to be on the side of freedom and rights.

In the meantime, the protestors for democracy and human rights need to avoid being slaughtered, like the scenes from Tiananmen Square in China. I can't imagine that Mubarak will ever be able to safely show his face in public again after playing the violence card in order to hold on as a tyrant. As all dictators, he's quite delusional that he has "served" his country in preventing freedom and rights, in censoring the media, in ruling with an iron fist. After this, if he continues to control the country when he really should be going to trial, he will be known as a thug. He was known as that before, by many of the Egyptian people. But now the world will know. That's a sorry legacy, but probably typical for autocrats.

Let the dominoes continue to fall...

It has been interesting and exciting to see the spread of protests for democracy and human rights in Middle East countries. First with the revolt in Tunisia that sent the dictator fleeing to Saudi Arabia, the scatter of incidents of protest throughout the dictator-controlled countries of North Africa and the Middle East, and now with the mass demonstrations in Egypt.

My thoughts pretty much can be summed up in the sentence, "Good riddance to all dictators."

It also could be said that it is never wise for American leaders to hold hands with world dictators.

It is also interesting for dictators to realize that they can't control people or media technology forever. Technology can give an edge or at least even the playing field, as Martin Luther must have realized when he used the fairly-new technology from the mid-1400s called the printing press to get his message out and to rally support for what would become the Reformation of the early 1500s. In Tunisia, WikiLeaks provided information about governmental corruption and brutality and then cell phones and the Internet including Facebook and Twitter allowed people to communicate, network, and organize a resistance. The same technology and process can be used time and time again against the choke-hold of dictators and to free the masses.

Beyond that, it has been interesting to see many of the places in Cairo where I visited in 2002. Even then, I wondered why the millions of poor people there as well as the educated and intellectuals who were afraid to speak freely didn't throw Mubarak out. Mubarak lasted longer than I thought. He lasted way too long, as being iron-fistedly in control for 30 years.

Some Americans may look at leaders like Mubarak and others as being moderate and ones we can work with, so that apparently means it is okay for them to abuse their people. I don't think that way. I see nothing good about the rule of dictators. They are still dictators. They still use the authority and power of the state against others, often unfairly, often unjustly.

The pyschology of being a dictator must be an interesting study. Mubarak and others must actually think that they are doing the good of the people in holding their nations together, keeping them from slipping into chaos, keeping them out of the hands of religious zealots. Certainly, chaos and anarchy would be bad. Somalia is an example of that. Certainly, theocracies are bad where religious law rules over political law. Iran is an example of that. But why would an autocrat, a dictator who has jailed people for conducting sociology surveys or for speaking their minds, think that the people would love them? The people, who have to live under them, hate dictators. Mubarak and maybe even U.S. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, seemingly slow to embrace a people's movement when it also means dislodging a leader ally, don't seem to get it that the people, after 30 years of torment, don't want Mubarak's conciliations now or any part of his ideas for suddenly moving into more democratic governing. They want him out of there. The right side of history is with the demonstrators and those who support democracy. Mubarak will be fortunate if he leaves before they put him on trial. But for now, Mubarak must be living in some great delusional myth that he, as a dictator, was the best thing for his nation.

As the flood tactics in Tiananmen Square in China worked only until the Communist leaders brutally ordered military force and civilian murder, the flood tactics in Tunisia and Egypt, so far not becoming the target of violence from the military, are working.

Let the dominoes continue to fall.

Presidential advisers mystify me...

I must admit that sometimes I am mystified by presidential advisers.

Like today, I saw two economic advisers from the Obama Administration on TV and they were both saying that Obama made a good deal when he compromised on the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Then they said that they didn't like that particular part of the deal, but that it would be easier in two years, right after the 2012 election, to get rid of the tax cuts for wealthy. Why? Because they said it would then be clear that it didn't help the economy. So, then it would be an easy cut.

Hmmmm. Now, I am no economic wizard, but doesn't that imply that in order for the tax cuts for the wealthy to be seen as unsuccessful, then also it means that the economy (or the employment rate) doesn't improve? Do they think the economy and employment rate won't improve in two years? Wow! I hope not. Because that means none of their ideas (or the least the few that they have) were successful and so they haven't worked. Wow, I sure hope this economy improves in two years.

But wouldn't it also be true that if the economy improves, the proponents of the tax cuts for the wealthy could point to it as one of the reasons for economic improvement and thus make the case even more than now that those tax cuts need to be kept in place? And then that would mean an extension of the extension of the tax cuts of the wealthy.

Wouldn't it be just better to eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthy now, which should reduce the national debt, and then to work like a busy FDR to improve the economy...and then show that the tax cuts for the wealthy weren't needed?

The Obama advisers mystify me. But maybe they have to say something and put as much of a happy face on it as possible, considering that they made such a goofy mistake.

The difference between conservative and liberal environments...

I can tell that Americans live in a conservative environment socially and politically, thanks to politicians and media, based upon the issues that are framed as provocative or controversial.

In liberal environments, social and political issues tend to lack a provocative nature because freedom, width, breadth, and diversity allow for a lot. If it is done, it is tolerated, it is accepted, it is part of the fabric of the society, its controversy is diminished, if not erased. In conservative environments, on the other hand, provocative and controversial issues are widespread because they are far beyond the norm, the allowed, the legal, the narrowness.

Since about every feature or concept can usually be framed to accommodate the conservative mind or the liberal mind, it then rests on who's doing the framing. Usually those are the people in power, which includes generations-old senators and rich media personalities.

So, for example, the American media might refer to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks as an anarchist because he believes in the transparency of government, even if it means publishing governmental secrets, while the same media wouldn't use the same word to describe Rand Paul, the senator from Kentucky who ran on the platform of opposing government.

It is like with the silliness about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the U.S. military. What a non-issue, if the environment were Sweden, Norway, France, Canada. But, of course, in the conservative environment of America, it is agonized over, debated endlessly, and senate committees waste time on its focus. Gay soldiers are already in the U.S. military and always have been. The recent survey of soldiers noted that most wouldn't have a problem with the repeal of the policy, which is discriminatory. Most straight soldiers probably are insulted by the idea that they couldn't handle it. The percentage of support for repeal is way greater than when President Truman ordered the end to military segregation of white and black soldiers.

Nonetheless, a stern Marine commander, who has higher percentage figures from his military branch to support the continued discrimination, tells a senate committee that the change would impact cohesiveness. Of course, there are no one polls to see how many bigots are in the Marines or other branches of the service and how that might affect cohesiveness. No, leave the bigots in there because we need them to fight. Apparently, most U.S. soldiers must have adjusted and adapted to the fact that some of their buddies are likely ignorant bigots and/or otherwise insecure about sexuality. Thus, the cohessive issue isn't about mind-set, especially if the mind-set, such as prejudice, comes from within a conservative culture.

About every political or social issue, from God to book-banning, also could be framed narrowly or widely depending upon whether the environment is conservative or liberal. The conservatives see it narrowly and thus any views beyond the status quo are seen as provocative and controversial. Liberals see it broadly. They see no need for stress and they accept the range.

People in other countries where liberalism isn't seen as horrifying must look at America and sometimes shake their heads in wonder. Of course, at least America has Iran, Iraq, and other also conservative societies beat...At least, thank goodness for that.

Changing the dynamics of world secrecy...

I like the idea of the WikiLeaks website changing the dynamics of world secrecy. I hope it continues to provide transparency concerning governments.

In the past, all that journalists had to praise for opening governmental secrets on a national level was the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and we all felt good when some 20- or 30-year-old secret, usually shameful, finally came to light about what the government, including its agencies such as the FBI and CIA, had done. Now, with WikiLeaks, that has changed. The release of secrets is pretty immediate. No decades to wait. No lingering darkness to accommodate the cobwebs of history.

While the government, through many presidents, tends to whine about national security being breached, I haven't seen much evidence that past revelations have done harm. There are people who say the release of documents endangers lives. Well, where is the evidence of that? It is a big claim, easy to inflate. But where is the proof?

It has been entertaining to watch the American TV networks handle the WikiLeaks story. Their reporters will say that WikiLeaks did the leaking--it's their fault--and then will go ahead and tell everyone listening about what was leaked. If the TV networks don't like the process of the leak, why don't they refrain from providing the information about what was leaked in the first place? U.S. journalists can blame WikiLeaks and then have their cake and eat it, too. The news is then reported. U.S. journalists also would probably have reported everything that WikiLeaks provided if they'd been first to have the source. That's how the profession works.

The New York Times printed the leaked history of the Vietnam War called the Pentagon Papers, despite the Nixon Administration's attempt at prior restraint. The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue, with a verdict that favored the New York Times. Then Woodward and Bernstein used a source of leaks known as Deep Throat who happened to turn out to be the second highest official in the FBI. Though the Washington Post editors demanded that additional sources be found for verification of what Deep Throat said, the source was still a crucial part of the Watergate scandal story. Without him, who knows if the Watergate scandal story would have ever seen the light of day.

Julian Assange, the Australian founder of WikiLeaks, is currently entangled in a scandal relating to alleged sex crimes in Sweden. He says it is a smear campaign. Regardless of whether that aspect of the WikiLeaks story is true or fabricated, one man surely doesn't keep the website going. Nor does it mean that the mission of the website isn't worthy of support. The website is currently under attack by hackers, probably from governments around the world and likely from even the U.S. government. This is one time when I don't want nationalism to trump globalism. I want nationalism to bring forth better and more open government. If WikiLeaks helps in that regard, that's good.

So, calm down, government. Don't have a cow, Attorney General Holder. Take a breath, Republican and Democratic senators. And then go about the business of making government something we citizens can have respect for and pride in for being good, open, smart, wise, competent, honorable, and an example of the integrity we want and expect.

Common ground sounds like dirt to me...

Some random thoughts on the mid-term election:

1). If I hear President Obama say one more time that he will try to find common ground with the Republicans, I am going to reach down, grab a handful of ground, and throw it at the moon.

2). It was particularly depressing to see Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, senatorial candidate Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, and Congressman Alan Grayson of Florida lose in the election. If any of them want to challenge Obama from the left in 2012 (if Obama continues to compromise on important issues), I sure would be willing to join their campaigns.

3). A new third party from the left is definitely needed. It could be called the Progressive Party.

4). While only one percent of the Progressive slate of Democrats lost in the mid-term election, apparently 47 percent of the Blue Dog Democrats lost. Good riddance to the Blue Dogs, as they even gave dogs a bad name.

5). A friend recently noted in an e-mail that we really should be identifying the selfish jerks, who are against government and taxes that help to provide services, with the term "anarchists." I agree. The anarchists were in full-force this election.

6). Speaking of that, Rand Paul, the anarchist (Tea Party candidate) who won the senatorial seat in Kentucky, had campaigned on "taking America back" and more specifically "taking back the government." Well, it will be an interesting time seeing how he does that and where he takes it back to. If he gets his way, then it would probably be the 1930s, before FDR. Or maybe the 1850s, before the Civil War.

7). According to filmmaker (and Progressive) Michael Moore, if Obama doesn't return to respecting the concerns of his base (the liberals, young people, minorities, etc.), a "Naderesque challenge" is bound to emerge from the left. I agree. The one poke in the eye to Moore that I would mention, however, is that I remember a moment on a Bill Mauer show when Moore made a fool of himself on his knees begging for Ralph Nader to not enter the presidential race in 2004. What Nader was trying to do was build some kind of third party, which takes time (though apparently the Tea Party did prove it could be done faster). A third party from the left is essential now, for the same reasons of influence that the Tea Party will have on the Republican Party.

Easy answer why Obama has problems from progressive side...

Question: Why is President Obama having trouble in keeping his liberal base enthusiastic?
Answer: Because Obama's rhetoric hasn't matched the action.

It would almost be laughable, if it weren't sad, that now Obama is scrambling to encourage the liberal base to stay with him. But there is also a whiff of contempt and snottiness that those White House people seem to have for the progressive base that got them there in the first place. When Vice President Biden tells the left to "stop whning" or when press secretary Robert Gibbs refers to the left in insulting ways, then you can't help but wonder if they really want to represent the progressive view. Maybe it is just too hard to stand tough with progressive ideas and action. Maybe it is just politically easier to compromise with Blue Dogs and Republicans.

Obama and the White House people remind me a bit of "Eddie," the character from the old TV series "Leave It To Beaver." Eddie was always so proper and polite when he was in the presence of the Cleaver parents in that show. In articulation, he was the model young man. But the Cleaver parents were never fooled. They knew the reality that Eddie's actions, often bad-boy, didn't match his words.

Oh, that's President Obama's problem. He is the best speaker, with speeches, that I have ever heard in the current times of America. Martin Luther King Jr. was another eloquent speaker. Of course, King would have never bartered with the South in order to find some common compromise that, in effect, would have resulted in poor-quality law and bad social conditions. He wouldn't have traded for integrated drugstore counters in exchange for allowing segregated drinking fountains. King's words led the way to his actions. Unfortunately, Obama's speeches don't translate well into the action. His rhetoric doesn't seem to match the action, perhaps because the reality of politics won't allow it or perhaps because he doesn't committedly fight for it. As much as like Obama's speeches, I almost dread hearing them now. Am I hearing the ring of truth or the disguise of politics?

Now Obama needs the progressive base...again. Wow, imagine that. What visionary couldn't have seen that need? Only a fool who did care or who took his support for granted would have been so out-of-touch.

There are some good changes (that I can believe in) going on right now. Lawrence Summers, the economic adviser, is leaving the administration. Good riddance. Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, is leaving the administration to run for mayor of Chicago. Good riddance, and good luck to poor Chicago. Those are some changes that might lead to hope for progressive change and improvements.

However, when Obama's rhetoric truly matches the action, then he won't have any problem gaining the support of progressives. It is just too bad that a lot of progress and good candidates, like Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, may well be in danger because the Obama administration chose weak and inadequate compromise over strong principles that could have achieved both progressive action and strong support.

Thank goodness--One war down...

President Obama announced the end of U.S. combat troops in Iraq today. Thank goodness!

Bush, Cheney, and company were dishonest leaders who put young American soldiers in a quagmire. Shame on them...forever...for their recklessness.

Meringue on a cowpie...

Alan Simpson, former U.S. senator from Wyoming, made the news today for more goof-ball comments--this time about Social Security. President Obama made the mistake of putting Simpson on a national taskforce committee. Another goofy effort to compromise an important issue into diddly-squat.

What really irritates me is Simpson's typical Republican view about Social Security. Simpson, with his undeserved Senate retirement, should keep his hands off my (and every other workers') Social Security, especially if his conservative ideas are for cutting it or raising the retirement age. How about proposing a raise in the Social Security payroll cap of just 2 percent (or even more) on those who have very high incomes (like Simpson)?

Many years ago, in my Medicine Bow Post newspaper in Wyoming, I noted that Alan Simpson's folksy baloney was like meringue on a cowpie. Looks like Simpson is still meringuing and haranguing.

Update on Prop. C vote and other comments...

Update of the news: By 71 percent, Missouri voters supported Proposition C, the measure that opposed mandatory health care insurance. The national TV news downplayed the vote by saying that it didn't matter since federal law trumps state law. But the newspeople missed what the vote really meant: That a majority of voters, from the right as well as from the left, dislike the idea of mandatory health insurance with its costs in a reform measure that offers little change. The right dislikes anything that's Obama. The left dislikes the farce of watered-down health care with insurance companies still in control. That's what it meant. Legislators who continue to dilute measures because they think they will make more people happy by going to the center need to understand what that does to the enthusiasm and support factor.

Concerning the 9.5 percent unemployment nationwide, a conservative commentator on an ABC news show said, "Democrats are at an ideological deadend on jobs." He may have been referring to the Obama Administration which morphed into the Clinton Administration. But he sure wasn't referring to the FDR Administration during the Great Depression which had plenty of creative ideas for job growth. The difference is in leadership and vision.

There he goes again. Ben Nelson the asterisk, who is the Democratic U.S. senator from Nebraska but tends to vote with the Republicans on everything when he's not diluting Democratic measures, was the only Democrat in the Senate to vote against Elena Kagan as the U.S. Supreme Court nominee. Kagan was approved for the position and has become the fourth woman to ever serve on the U.S. Supreme Court (the others being Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor).

Voting for the proposition that opposes mandated insurance...

Here's something you won't hear often...I am joining the Republicans in voting on August 3 for a Missouri proposition that opposes the mandating of people to buy health care insurance. (Of course, a lot of Progressives are also voting for it, so I am not alone with just the Republicans.)

The Republicans are voting for Proposition C because they throw fits about socialism and Obama-Care. However, I am voting for it because the centrists in government failed to provide a public option program in the health care reform measure, so the insurance industry continues to control health care in this nation. No public option, well, then to hell with mandates and padding the pockets of the insurance industry.

On one flyer that I received in the mail, the first argument that the opponents to Prop. C made was this: "By law, Missouri's hospitals must provide medical care in their emergency departments to anyone who is uninsured--even if they can afford health insurance. Hospitals must cover the cost of that care by charging more to patients who do have insurance...So, should Missourians who already pay for health care also have to pay for those who choose not to pay?"

Oh, boy! I really do hate mythical arguments that imply we all have to equally pay for a health care system that stinks and is set-up for the benefit of the middleman called the insurance company. If we all need to pay for health care, then why don't we just pay it directly to our local hospitals in order to keep our hospitals within the community and then, by doing so, we should be guaranteed that if we get sick we can go there and get free treatment. Why do we need to pay our money to insurance companies so they can make profits, spend on ad campaigns, and spend on lobbyists in Washington, D.C.?

The second argument from the pro-mandate group was this: "It is projected that $50 million a year will be directed away from Missouri. That loss will cause the greatest damage to community hospitals in Missouri's small cities and rural areas...perhaps the one your family relies on in times of need."

Well, I am not a fan of blackmail, either. If the government really cares about the health care of all of its citizens, then it won't penalize a state for refusing to force its people into institutionalized-thievery costs in the first place.

I don't even like being forced to buy car insurance when I almost never have had an accident. Oh, well, because I might someday. I might get caught in a flood one day too, but I can't afford insurance for that in the meantime. Nor a host of other insurance coverage for potential problems in life. When did car insurance become the mandated rule in some states, and how about repealing that? Because we are ALL forced to buy car insurance in Missouri, I sure haven't seen my costs decrease. So, the theory of come one, come all, and we'll all be better off, just isn't the reality.

And it is not about cost, it is about real quality. For instance, I greatly support having monthly amounts for Social Security taken from my paychecks, even if I never live to age 65 to get my share. I support it because I know others who need it are getting it and because it makes our society better.

I was more than willing to join the health care reform cause when I thought that the United States would be getting a geniunely good system, like those used in Canada and Europe. But with no public option or no universal health care, I don't intend to support reform that's not reform.

Sherrod provides a chance for wise counsel...

A few comments about media comments and political events...

The recent editing of the Shirley Sherrod video, out of context, by the reckless conservative blogger, the firing of her at USDA, the apology and job offer to her from USDA, and the call to her from President Obama was a distracting moment of political drama. It would have been even more disappointing and disturbing, however, if Sherrod hadn't fought back, also using the media, to make her case and shed some light.

Some media people have said, in essence, that the Obama Administration probably wishes to get beyond that story and put Shirley Sherrod in the past for political expediency.

Wow, that's the wrong attitude to have. I hope President Obama is wise enough to realize the opportunities that sometimes fall awkwardly into his grasp. The greater presidents have to be the ones who care more about issues and life in America than political expediency and media news cycles.

President Obama needs to seek counsel about real-world matters from people like Sherrod. He shouldn't run from her. Instead, he should see that she has greater gifts to give to him than just going away. She has an amazing personal narrative. She is older and from the South. She is also articulate, concerned, and looks to me like a pretty nice person. Obama should embrace the real-world people he meets along the journey of his presidency and seek their advice and counsel often, networking with them, as it will do him and the nation far better service than the political hacks around him who, of late, have managed him badly.

Also, I hadn't heard much about the biased history of the USDA until the Sherrod story happened. That means that the media, particularly always the TV media, need to do a better job in covering issues rather than following scandal-driven or entertainment-driven headlines. We need to see more about how the USDA improves its conduct and those kinds of issue stories, and far, far, far less coverage of actress Lindsay Lohan, Kate plus eight, and Mel Gibson. Intregity in media is often about quality.

Two other comments:

In the story about Alvin Greene, the candidate in South Carolina, I have heard from news reports that Greene had to pay $10,000 in order to file to run for the U.S. Senate. Well, why is that so? That sounds like a poll tax to me, to keep poor people from getting on a ballot. So what if there are more names on a ballot. That's democracy. I think someone should challenge that kind of fee in court. (And frankly, I'd like to see incumbent Senator Jim DeMint in South Carolina lose to anyone.)

It was interesting to see, from a segment on the Rachel Maddow Show, that in 1947, one year before President Harry Truman integrated the military, a survey of officers and enlisted men showed only 7 percent supported the idea of integration. Nonetheless, Truman stepped up courageously to the issue and did the right thing, in ordering integration of the military despite its unpopularity. Obama should find a lesson from Truman's actions as well concerning the modern issue of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that punishes gay soldiers for speech any time, rather than solely for inappropriate behavior during military duty. It never should be difficult to do the right thing. But even if it is, America deserves the greater good, and presidential legacies are made by vision, courage, and leadership.

Obama had the progressives and independents when he was liberal in his campaign...

O.K., genius mainstream media, explain this to me.

You say that President Obama is caught in a choice, as his approval rating drops. He needs to keep his progressive base, which has been unhappy lately, and he needs to keep his independent voters, who supported him in the election but are losing faith in him now. You say that Obama has to choose to go left to the progressives or go center and right to the independents.

Well, isn't that interesting, because when Obama was at his liberal most, in his campaign and for his election, he attained both progressives and independents as voters. He attained victory then.

Now that Obama has become a president leaning to the center, he is losing his progressives and the independents. Doesn't that suggest that going to the center has been a mistake regarding both groups? If he had their support before, in more liberal days (when he was anti-war, pro-public option for health care, and tough on Wall Street), but not now, in more milquetoast days (when he adds troops to the Afghanistan War, sacrifices the public option, and accepts weak financial reform), which days should he try to reconstruct and revive in order to keep his support and win re-election?

Of course, I believe Obama's sliding downfall, in the polls and in the hearts and minds, is because, when he became president, he surrounded himself with dreary, corporate, centrist Clinton administration people. He must not have had a network of Obama thinkers, though that seems unlikely to me. Instead, he selected Clinton people who are centrist do-nothings, like Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers. He added Hillary Clinton and turns to Bill Clinton, the great sell-out (NAFTA, GATT, Don't-Ask Don't Tell policy, and deregulation of corporations), for advice. He even selected a Clinton adviser, Elena Kagan, as U.S. Supreme Court nominee and her view remains a mystery. Then there's the Clinton guy Rahm Emmanuel who has become the Dick Cheney from the Bush administration for this administration, as the power and mouth behind the throne. It has all amounted to an Obama that couldn't find his own voice and didn't have his own people--despite David Axelrod--to keep him on the progressive track. He defined himself into Bill Clinton when we really needed, expected, and hoped for a Franklin D. Roosevelt. He has listened to his Clinton advisers and they have chipped away at his brand, taking him down, not as quickly as the Titanic but like in a slow, moderate drip. If the Democrats stay the course of another Clinton administration, they will be politically doomed.

In the meantime, no one should say that Obama and his liberal policies didn't work, because he never used liberal policies. He's had centrist, moderate, weakened, watered-down, compromised policies. And if he doesn't get off that road, there's no way he will retrieve the progressives and the independents that he successfully attained during his campaign. He doesn't see it, his Clinton advisers certainly aren't going to tell him, and the genius mainstream media apparently isn't going to offer much more than wrongheaded chatter.

More tepid legislation to the rescue?...

The problem with the Obama administration is its propensity for settlement for tepid, half-assed legislation.

The health care reform measure was like that, failing to offer anything very real in reform such as a public option. I have heard no one anywhere remark about how wonderful the health care coverage in America is, because the real quality of that reform was hacked away and the insurance companies still rule the day.

The same now is true of the financial reform measure. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin refused to support it because he knows that it will do nothing to avert another economic meltdown. He also knows, as do all honest experts, that the legislation does more for the banks and Wall Street than it does for consumers or the nation. In other words, it's a placebo at best and a fraud at worst, with a nice name on it. The Obama administration again sweats bullets to get something passed with the new majority number of 60 votes, now with the help of the two Republican women from Maine and the Republican centerfold guy with the truck from Massachusetts.

Then the Obama administration expects the disappointed progressive wing of his party to praise his efforts and say, "Wow, that's really great that you were able to pass 'tepid half-assed legislation.' Wow, it is far better than nothing at all." Settlement, settlement, settlement. Crumby, tepid, half-assed. Placebo, fraud, crap.

My recommendation to Obama: Don't do it if you can't make it great (and real).