Tag Archives: Republicans

July 14, 2012 · 3:01 pm

REPUBLICANS SPEAK WITH FORKED TONGUES RE: SMALL BUSINESSES, By Louise Annarino,July 14,2012

REPUBLICANS SPEAK WITH FORKED TONGUES RE: SMALL BUSINESSES, By Louise Annarino, July 14, 2012

 

My first small business was collecting newspapers and magazines from the garbage cans along the alley running beside our house when I was first old enough to pull a wagon. My Mother watched me and my brother as we trudged along pulling our load across the street to Mr. Schombarger’s junk yard. We placed the full wagon on the scale built into the roadway after the heavy trucks had cleared;then, climbed up the steps to the loading dock to watch the weight register on the huge scale above our heads. “Remember the numbers”, Mr. Schombarger would remind us. Next, we ran down the steps to empty the wagon’s contents into a bin provided by a worker, and pulled the empty wagon back onto the scale. “Okay, kids, come up and watch the numbers again”,said Mr. Schombarger, as he weighed the empty wagon. Subtracting the numbers gave us the weight we would be paid for our load. We were rich! Our business kept us in penny candy from Mrs. Rowe’s corner store every night, with an ice cream cone once a week, and if we saved our money, an occasional comic book. Whenever we needed more money we collected more paper. We were our own market.

 

I also ran errands for neighbors for ten cents (to Mr Van’s or Mrs. Rowe’s neighborhood groceries), for a quarter for a trip to the A&P uptown; cleaned woodwork and washed windows, a quarter; and helped with babies, free service. When I was 12 I began babysitting for $1 per child per night.

 

My brother had a paper route. Being a girl, I was not eligible for a route. He graciously offered me a chance to make some cash. If I delivered all his papers and made his route collections I got to keep 10% of his salary. I fell for the scam. I loved working, and getting around the sexist system firmly in place. Women still work the same jobs for less money. Some things never change. Ask Lily Ledbetter.

 

I once earned enough money to take my entire family to the New York World’s Fair for a full week by making fondant-rum candy shaped and decorated like small pieces of fruit. My father noticed my experiment, took the dish to his restaurant the next day and came home with 35 orders. Every day after school for months I made 30-50 dozen candies, placing 12 on each milk glass bowl lined with green Easter grass. Seeing the World’s Fair was a dream come true. Running a small business is in my blood. My dad and uncles had a small business for 38 years, The Center Cafe. It is daunting, calls for daring, and is plain hard work with long hours.They are our country’s economic lifeblood.

 

Everyone agrees small businesses are the engine driving America’s economy. Small firms of less than 500 employees make up 99.9% of America’s businesses. (see more at  http://www.smallbusinessnotes.com/small-business-resources/how-many-small-businesses-are-there.html). Of these, 96% have 50 or fewer employees.(see more at   http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/small_businesses.htm Only 3% of small businesses earn more than $250,000 per year. Approximately 70% of the wealthy don’t own a small business. Obviously, the wealthy 2-3% don’t want the amount they earn above 2% to lose overgenerous tax breaks. But they argue a different story.

 

Despite these facts, to president Obama’s announcement that he would ask Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts for incomes below $250,000, Mr. Romney replied this is an unacceptable and burdensome tax increase on small business,never mentioning the impact on his very large business income. Congressional Republicans expressed their opposition stating that many small business owners report their business income as personal income. But, as the president correctly points out the tax increases is only on the amount earned over $250,000; and, it affects 3% of small businesses. Under the president’s plan 98% of households and 97% of small businesses would receive a tax cut. (see more at New York Times (7/10/12)

 

The factual distortions of Republican leadership, including those of presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) and House Leader, Rep.John Boehner (R-OH) each of whom should know better, do not serve the country well.  If the tax cuts expire for earnings $250,000 and up, the deficit could be reduced by $700 billion over the next 10 years. (For more, see Extend Bush Tax).

 

Yesterday, the Senate Republicans blocked The Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act using the filibuster to keep a vote from even reaching the floor. The bill gave business tax credits up to $500,000 for boosting payroll,thus hiring more workers. It gave a 1 year extension a 100% rate under which businesses can claim bonus depreciation tax deductions on capital investments to install new equipment, open more manufacturing lines etc. (see more at (http://influencealley.nationaljournal.com/2012/07/senate-republicans-block-small.php). The bill was estimated to create  nearly 1 million jobs, 650,000 in small mom and pop operations by use of a cap. Next week, Republicans are expected to block a bill which would give tax breaks to firms returning overseas jobs to the U.S. and raise taxes on companies that off-shore. Certainly, Mr. Romeny can’t be happy about the impact such a law would have on his off-shore ventures.

 

The rational given by Republican for blocking the bill that it was overpolitical underscores the true reason for blocking a bill which would move forward the country’s economic recovery…to block President Obama’s re-election at the expense of small business growth and more jobs here in the U.S.  While decrying the lapse of tax credits to earnings above $250,000 because of their distorted claim of a negative effect on small business, while blocking bills in support of small business is the height of Republican hypocrisy. Using the filibuster to play political games is immoral bully-behavior and we must call them out for such irresponsible and destructive behavior towards this country and its people’s welfare. The president has the bully pulpit; but,the Republicans are simply bullies who attack each of us to get to him. (see more at http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/republicans-filibuster-small-business-bill-block-job-creation/6dlhw1l?from= ).

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 6, 2012 · 4:23 pm

WE DON'T DO THINGS BY HALF, By Louise Annarino, July 6, 2012

WE DON’T DO THINGS BY HALF, BY Louise Annarino, July 6, 2012

It is 7:35 AM. It is 75.3 degrees; humidiity 87%; heat index 80.2 degrees. We expect records to be broken a second day in a row, with high temperature of 100…or more. Who knows anymore? Yesterday, Columbus broke the record high temperature set in 1911. We are now accustomed to reading 100 degrees on our car and home thermometers, no matter what the official figures are. We trust it will be too hot to care if the weatherperson hits the mark or not. It will be hot. Too hot. That is all we know.

Yesterday, I spent almost 2 hours at the Columbus Zoo with my teenage nephew. The temperature was 100 degrees; heat index 110. We don’t do things by half. The heat has made our judgment faulty. We had left a WATER exhibit at COSI to see how the animals were faring at the zoo. We forgot we are human animals. We thought ,for once, the polar bears might be in the water instead of sleeping on the rocky outcropping in their display area. Only one was on display, sleeping on the rocks with water to swim in mere inches away. The water was too hot. We are saving polar bears from global warming’s melting polar ice by placing them near water too hot to swim in at the zoo. Nice save.

We walked slowly, from mister to mister, viewing animals much smarter than ourselves, curled motionless in shady nap spots while we walked the sun alive on the pavement beneath our feet. The heat has made us stupid. The misters lost moisture before the beads of water could touch our faces. It was too hot for water to last.  Consider that it is too hot for water to last, too hot for H2O to stay beaded together until our bodies can use it for sustenance or comfort. The WATER exhibit at COSI explains water’s use and effect, and the threat of its loss . We saw COSI’s message played in real time at the zoo. It is an uncomfortable reality that water is being superheated beyond our ability to access it for human use. The polar bears already know this.

We don’t do things by half. Would that we could. Then,we could survive. But, we are made stupid by the heat. Our judgment is faulty. We don’t do things by half, even when our survival depends upon it. There are some whose anger with our president’s willingness to do things by half ,which he can do no other way, clouds their judgment of his abilities, his motives and his wisdom. Their over-heated rhetoric only makes a successful economic recovery less assured. His first half may have pleased no one on the far right, nor on the far left. But, it is those of us in the middle half who understand his many accomplishments, with half a Congress in support, half in opposition:

– Cut payroll taxes for all Americans,putting $40 per paycheck back in the pocket of the typical Ohioan.

– In Ohio, the manufacturing sector aded more than 33,500 jobs in last 2 years, while President Obama works to end tax cuts for companies shipping jobs overseas and lower tax rates for companies which manufacture goods in America.

– Created over4.1 million privates sector jobs, 123,000 in Ohio over the last 2 years.

– Rescued the U.S. auto industry, protecting 848,000 Ohio jobs and over 1 million jobs nationwide. US auto industry is once again #1 in the world.

– Created or extended 18 tax cuts for small businesses – the drivers of economic growth.

– Strengthened medicare, saving 185,000 Ohioans an average $512 on prescription drugs.

– Expanded access to preventive care with no out-of-pocket costs to 2.1 million Ohioans, including 559,000 children and 797,000 women under age 65.

– Stopped insurance industry practice of denying coverage for pre-existing conditions for  643,000 Ohio children.

– Expanded health care coverage to 82,000 young adults by allowing them to stay on parents’ health care plans until age 26.

– Required Insurance companies who failed to spend at least 80%-85% of premiums collected on health care to return an average of $127 to 3.4 million Americans who paid for their own insurance. Over $1 billion dollars will be paid back nationwide.

– Reduced our dependence on foreign oil to lowest level in 16 years. Domestic oil production is at an 8 year high, natural gas at an all-time high, and renewable energy from wind and solar has more than doubled.

– Helped Ohio produce 9 times more electricity from wind in 2011 than in 2010.

– Signed VOW to Hire Heroes Act, providing tax breaks to businesses hiring returning veterans.

– Brought Iraq war to honorable end, and is working towards same goal in Afghanistan.

– Brought 2/3 of Al Qaeda’s leadership, and Osama Bin Laden to justice.

– Ended “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.

– Doubled funding for Pell Grants. Signed into law a tax credit up to $10,000 over 4 years to help middle class families afford tuition.

– Supported 12,500 teachers and school staff jobs in Ohio 2009-2010, reducing burden on local school districts.

The list of accomplishments made by doing things by half – with the support of half the Senate, half the House goes on and on. We are out of the hole and moving forward after years of digging the hole deeper under Republican leadership. We Americans don’t like doing things by half. But, when we must do so, it is good to have a president who knows how to do so effectively. Hopefully,  more progressive Democratic candidates will be elected to the US House and Senate more fully supporting President Obama during his second term. Don’t like doing things by half? Then, vote for Sherrod Brown for US Senate. Vote for the Democratic candidate in your congressional race. Vote for Barack Obama. Don’t let the heat of Republican attacks distort your ability to think straight and move the country forward.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

June 12, 2012 · 8:27 pm

DADDY

A break from global politics to family politics today. I was one of the fortunate kids with a good father. I often think of what he would say about the world today. It is really not so different from the one he first deciphered with me. He was a strong Republican;on the local Republican Central Committee. One of his best friends since childhood was Rep. John Ashbrook, a very conservative Republican. Another childhood friend he remained close to his entire life was the Chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party. This openness to diverse political thought worked just fine back in Dad’s day. Dad was a die-hard republican but he could listen to another point of view. He would make jokes about the other guy “talking like a guy with a paper hat”; but, he would later affirm the “guy might have something there”. He always told me to find a union job which would offer the greatest job security, protection, and best work environment. He was self-employed and could not imagine working for anyone else without a union. Today, his party is intent on destroying unions. Times have changed. I don’t know if dad would have changed to fit the party but I doubt it. He would have told his party it was “talking like a man with a paper hat”. I still don’t know the origins of that phrase,but I get its meaning.

It was understood and Dad imparted to me that all politicians, and all attorneys, are “crooks”; always have their hands out for a donation, or in your pocket for taxes. He told me whenever another’s behavior confused me to “follow the money” and all would be made clear. Still, politics was the core of the community and important stuff according to Dad. He suggested I attend both the Teenage Republicans and Teenage Democrats,both led by friends of his, to see how each party  operated. He encouraged me to visit Congressman Ashbrook when he held week-end office hours at the  Licking County court house and confront his support for Rhodesia even though it practiced apartheid. He knew his friend would deal with the concerns of a fledgling Democrat as equally important to the concerns of a Republican constituent.

In his later years, as he saw the benefit of Democrtically supported programs such as PELL grants, equal pay for women, voting rights, Title VII and Title IX, social security, medicare, disability benefits, unemployment compensation etc.his view of political theory mellowed. His view of politicians did not. He thought the crook Nixon deserved what he got, thought Reagan behaved wrongly and owed the nation an apology for the Iran-Contra Affair, thought Bill Clinton was a sleazy womanizer (most men in power are) but not deserving of  impeachment. By today’s standards he would be a liberal Republican and that description would absolutely enrage him. He prided himself on his conservatism, and voted for John Kennedy, even though “his old man made his money as a bootlegger”. He never asked anyone except the VA for anything. His first reaction to any liberal suggestion was opposition until we discussed it more fully and he could then see some value in the program or policy. Like most hard working small business owners, he had little spare time to research anything on his own, but was willing to learn and change when facts were brought to his attention. He was not an ideologue. He was man who believed most persons could make it on their own.

He also acknowledged some could not. Quietly, anonymously, he helped those people. Sometimes, he thought he could do it better than government. Most other times, he acknowledged government could do it better. He understood the benefits and limitations of government. He held government accountable. That is a true conservative.

We seldom agreed on political theory, and seldom disagreed in political practice. Most moderates are like that. They can see the good in both sides, and the bad in both sides. They want what works for the country. How I miss my dad, those old style Republicans, those moderate voices of reason who could laugh, live, love and work together with Democrats.

On this Fathers’ Day I hope you will recall your own father kindly, if he is no longer with you. And, if he is, let him know how much his wise counsel has meant to you. If we can’t find common ground with our own fathers, how can we hope to find common ground with anyone? There are those who will try to stop an approachment, who do not want Republicans and Democrats to find common ground with one another. Such Tea Party types like “a good fight” better than peacemaking. Ignore them. Have a happy  Fathers’ Day. I’ll be thinking of my conservative, Republican dad. I share my poem with you below:

DADDY

Louise Annarino

Fathers’ Day 2012

Those laughing eyes

and strong hands

which fashioned safety

from the strands

of life

which too often looked

like a cage

but was nothing more

than a ladder

one could climb

on his lap

where every problem

could be left

in his care

so all consuming

which too often felt

like loss of self

but was nothing more

than a cushion

against hard knocks

he absorbed

with his own body

to protect

his children with

a father’s love.

1 Comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , ,

June 1, 2012 · 2:19 pm

PIRATES AT THE HELM?

PIRATES AT THE HELM ?

Louise Annarino

June 1, 2012

 

As Fathers’ Day nears I have been thinking about the fathers of America and what they are thinking about our presidential candidates. Polls show that the largest group of Democratic candidate President Barack Obama’s supporters are women; the largest group of Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s, white men. Clearly, the patriarchal position of Republican policies and legislative agenda does not sit well with most women. Also, President Obama’s record abounds with efforts to empower and protect women and their children. Men who think they can offer platitudes to women are sadly mistaken, and will not gain women’s support by returning them to second-class citizenship.

 

But, it is the men who cause me to ponder. One would expect strong support for a president who is hands-on seeking out and destroying the enemies who attacked us on 9/11, who works hard to assure our military and veteran’s have our full support and gratitude; who repeatedly asks congress for approval and support to rebuild our bridges,  ports, roads, airports and infrastructure; and who seeks legislative reform to  bring home companies which have moved off-shore, rebuild our manufacturing platform, gives tax breaks to small business etc. to encourage economic growth. Since President Obama took office we have only moved forward with an on-going increase in productivity, job retention and creation, GNP, and a reduction in unemployment. They must understand that slow and steady growth which is sustainable over the long term is best for our economic stability as the world’s economic powerhouse. While currency values fall worldwide, the U.S. dollar remains strong.

 

And, it is the men who cause me to ponder when they seem unwilling to consider how President Obama explores changes which will transform how we educate their children. I realize rich men need not be concerned; they simply send their children to the best schools money can buy: low class size, highly paid and trained staff, broad extracurricular opportunities, readily available tutoring and support services. But even working men, whose children attend public schools in overcrowded classrooms, with poorly paid staff who must use their own money to enrich classroom activities, who must deal with those unruly and emotionally stressed children of poverty without anyone’s support; men who must pay for their children to play sports and engage in other extracurricular opportunities out of their unemployment checks who oppose this president. Why do such men, such fathers, oppose what is in their own best interest, and the interests of their wives and children?

 

Do they believe Mitt Romney, who as Governor of Massachusetts plunged that state to 47th. in the nation in jobs creation will do better as president? Do they really believe that a man who made his living by destroying the livings of men like them will protect them and their families? I am sure his equity firm made companies more profitable. He did so by eliminating union and non-union workers, reducing wages of workers who remained, stopping workers’ health care coverage. Once the company was profitable, however, his company withdrew those profits to repay the bank loans he had used to buy the company in the first place. Then, he used what profit remained to repay his investors and pay himself the fees to which he was entitled. Often, he had to sell off the equipment needed to continue production.

Finally, the company he tells you his equity firm made more profitable had to file bankruptcy. Since there were no longer assets, nor sufficient equipment to continue to create worth there was no means to pay retirement benefits to the workers who lost their jobs. The companies eventually closed. The bankruptcy court approved termination of retirement benefits for people who had worked their whole lives for the company.

 

This is how Mitt Romney became a self-described successful businessman and multi-millionaire. I don’t call that success; I call that legal piracy.  Like a pirate his money rests in off shore accounts one would need a map to discover. He’s not telling; not even disclosing his prior tax returns. Is this what makes him appealing to men? Do they all want to play pirate? Do they all think if they follow Romney they will become wealthy, too. Do they want a pirate at the helm of our Ship of State? At what cost to their women and children? At what cost to their country, and mine?

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

April 23, 2012 · 10:12 pm

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND POLITICAL DECISION-MAKING:THINK LIKE AN EAGLE

Unintended Consequences and Political Decision-Making: Think Like an Eagle

Louise Annarino

April 23, 2012

When I was 5 years old I dug a hole over my head in our backyard to get to China, which I had been told was on the opposite side of the earth.Being so deep, with the hole’s rim above my head, I could not see any part of our yard; so, I was unaware of her presence until my Mother hauled me out, covered in dirt. She was not happy.

While growing up in the post-war building boom, contractors would build plywood fences around construction sites to keep people out. They drilled large holes at various heights allowing the public to peer through and satisfy their curiosity about the on-going progress. I could not pass without looking into the hole. It seemed as if I were viewing the entire area through that small hole. It was not until the fence was removed the first time, and the project unveiled that I could see it in its unsuspected entirety. It amazed me how much had been hidden from view. After the first such unveiling, looking through small holes became very frustrating rather than illuminating. I was dissatisfied and often complained to the construction bosses to lower the fence so we could see over. They were not happy with me.

English Literature anthologies serve a purpose. They contain a selection of a variety of types of work from various writers. Longer works are not printed in their entirety. Just when I start enjoying a longer piece, it is “cut off”. Just when I began to appreciate a particular writer, it is off to another. I want to read a writer’s entire body of work, to know him well enough to discern his untitled voice. In high school, I spent hours on my own reading beyond class assignments. The insights I gained did not always serve me well. When tested on a particular writer my expanded knowledge often put my responses at odds with those sought by my instructor. Some instructors considered me a “thorn” in their sides.

As a young lawyer I soon learned that not every case should be appealed. One of the first female lawyers in Columbus told a story about appealing a murder conviction in which her client was given a life sentence. On appeal, he was given the death penalty. When deciding whether or not to appeal a case, many things are considered: possibility of success, impact upon client, unintended consequences, etc. Every lawyer knows that a  “bad” case can make “bad” law.

Lawyers learn to appeal only “good” cases. As a poverty lawyer in the 70’s I learned patience; the ability to wait for a specific case with a “good” set of facts to bring a class-action on a food-stamps,unemployment compensation,or AFDC issue to reduce the chance that the appellate decision would have negative unintended consequences for all benefit recipients. As an Assistant Attorney General at a state university in the 1980-90’s, I learned that an appeal on behalf of one state agency could have negative unintended consequences on another state agency. Taking legal action requires an attorney to anticipate and prepare for such unintended consequences. A good lawyer looks at the entire picture, not through a single peephole. A good lawyer recognizes he is often working down in a hole. A good lawyer also knows how to focus on details, and appreciate the tedious nature of research. A good lawyer, and a good president, must be able to focus on tedious details and be able see the larger picture in order to  avoid unintended consequences.

What are unintended consequences? Those things we cannot anticipate if we are down in a hole, unable to perceive the surrounding circumstances, as I was while digging to China. What we cannot anticipate when we view something through a small peephole, one piece at a time, rather than viewing it as a whole, as if looking through a plywood fence with built-in peepholes. Thinking we understand something even though we have only studied and learned a few things about it, a small portion of its reality, as when reading a compilation of literary selections. Reducing the chance an unintended consequence will have a negative impact requires breadth and depth analytical thinking, a process which takes time, patience, and humility.

Today’s multi-media, instant-communication, 24-7 feed, tweeting, social media, etc. are windows on the world; but, the windows are mere peep-holes. We dig holes for ourselves using apps, and spend so much time digging around we delude ourselves that we are accomplishing something. We can explore anything, and do. We feel enlightened, and we are. We gain confidence in our place in the world, and we should. But what we see and what we know is very limited, offering short-term insight which encourages short-term responses. Perhaps most importantly, we must understand that we do not have access to all we need to know, despite increased transparency. We are still operating in a hole, not a whole, learning only bits and pieces, looking though small openings onto the world around us.

Yet, we readily assess our president’s performance, and his administration’s policies as if we knew what he knows. As if we know all there is to know. As if we can see what he sees up ahead. We ignore the fact that the president of a nation has a bigger picture of what the world really looks like, than any perception available to us. It is time to step back and admit we on the ground are ill prepared to substitute our judgment for his. Instead, we must work together, sharing with him what we know as he attempts to do so with us.

President Obama won in 2008 with the widest margin of any Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson was elected. Such a large majority elected him not simply because of his message of hope to so many who had lost hope during 8 years of the Bush administration, but because he is able to see what so many of us cannot, beautifully articulated in his soaring speeches. He can see the forest for the trees.

We use words to describe President Obama such as “lofty” (Republican version:elitist), “soaring”(Republican version:pompous), “confident” (Republican version:cocky) to illustrate through our speech that he is somehow above us, able to see a broader and longer view than we can imagine from our limited range of vision. This does not mean we feel inferior. Rather, we feel elevated by our shared vision. We feel, finally, part of the whole in a way we had not before. He continually calls us to “join him”, “share with him”. He recognizes and reminds us we are a family, we are the “United” States of America; and, we are in this together (Republican version: he’s “not one of us”). Republican descriptions of President Obama could not be more wrong. Their insistence that President Obama is a divider is a symptom of their own failed vision of America, and of America’s future.

There are 3 types of thinkers: 1)Detailers who focus on the problem immediately before them in great detail, experts in their field. Detailers focus on the immediate concern, looking for near-term solutions. 2)Expansionists who see a problem as part of a larger whole. Expansionists focus on the broad implications of the immediate problem, looking for long-term solutions. 3)Eagles who are capable of seeing the whole picture as their minds soar long and broad across the horizon, and are able to dive down into the canopy of detail, even set down upon the earth.Eagles are the exceptional few who combine the thinking styles of both 1 and 2. President Obama is an eagle.

For example, in September 2011, President Obama was highly criticized for opposing a proposed EPA rule reducing smog causing chemicals. NYT.com/2011/09/03. The president rejected the proposed rule saying that it would impose too severe a burden on industry and local governments at a time of economic distress.

Such an attack,based on a peep-hole viewpoint, was premature.Shortly thereafter,in November, 2011 President Obama, who obviously knew in September that the November proposals were forthcoming, was praised for his “proposed fuel efficiency and global warming pollution standards for new cars and light trucks in model years 2017-25…(supported by)13 major automakers and the United Autoworkers…” http://ecowatch.org/2012/ fighting-for-air-groups-launch-campaign-to-support-u-s-epas-life-saving-standards.

Not long after this change, on April 18, 2012 the EPA “finalized the first-ever national standards to reduce mercury and other toxic air emissions – like arsenic, acid gas, and cyanide – from power plants, which are the largest sources of this pollution in the United States…This crucial step forward will bring enormous public health benefits. By substantially reducing emissions of toxic pollutants that lead to neurological damage, cancer, respiratory illnesses, and other serious health issues, these standards will benefit millions of people across the country, but especially children, older Americans, and other vulnerable populations. Cumulatively, the total health and economic benefits to society could reach $90 billion each year….The first comprehensive update in decades of regulations governing the oil and gas operations, the new rules require the drilling industry to capture air pollutants from well-completion work, including hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” pipelines, storage tanks and compressor stations.

“U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said the regulation is “an important step toward tapping future energy supplies without exposing American families and children to dangerous health threats in the air they breathe…In conjunction with the release of the rule, President Obama also issued a Presidential Memorandum which underscores the health benefits of the rule and directs EPA Administrator Jackson to use flexibilities built into the Clean Air Act where needed, and to work proactively with states, industry and other entities in a transparent manner to implement the rule in way that delivers the health benefits of the rule while addressing reliability concerns.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/12/21/protecting-american-families-and-environment-mercury-pollution

This example of how President Obama implemented his promised environmental policy is but one example of how a type 3 thinker strategizes long-term change while managing short-term problems.

It has been too easy to attack President Obama. Both the right and left continue to do so. Every interest group does so. Are we eager for immigration reform? Of course. Are we impatient for more and better jobs? Who would not be impatient?

But, we must realize that President Obama enacted these environmental protections, and each policy success, despite every possible obstruction by Republicans in Congress. Are our peepholes too small to see this? Are we busy standing in holes of our own making? Let’s look at the whole picture.

Republicans block every forward looking effort President Obama makes. Democratic bills seldom if ever make it out of Republican-controlled House committees. Senate Republicans use the filibuster to keep Democratic bills from even reaching the Senate floor for discussion. Republicans stress short-term solutions because it plays best upon our fears, and too few of us can see beyond the daily struggles of caring for ourselves and our families to pay attention to long-term solutions. They have tried to make life difficult for the middle class and the poor in order to reign in our hopes for the future, to limit our long-term American dreams, to convince us President Obama is a failure. They plant short-term thinking into talking points so we will analyze President Obama in short-term gains. They want President Obama to be a short-term president. They don’t want him to achieve long-term gains. They fear his depth and his breadth.Yet, none of their candidates is so capable as is President Obama.

Republican’s depiction of Mitt Romney as a businessman capable of changing America for the better is a farce. Mitt Romney’s record at Bain of eliminating workers benefits, shutting out workers’ business participation(eliminating unions), and eliminating jobs may offer a short-term solution for a few companies’ survival. But, Romney can’t see beyond his own very narrow, short-term interest. He has no foreign affairs experience,education,nor training.The reason he appears stiff and phony when stating he “understands” us or is “one of us” is because he does not and is not one of us. He is living the American Dream, but at our expense. He does not want to give up his dream to share ours. He even keeps his wealth off-shore!

The choice is clear to me in this election: vote for Romney’s short-sighted and ineffectual return to old failed policies; or vote for Obama’s far-sighted expansion of America’s future progress. It is critical that we pay close attention to the House and Senate races at the state and national level as well. We must elect Democratic candidates who will support President Obama’s policies, not those who prevent any discussion and deny Congress a vote on them.

And to those who continue to make short-sighted comments attacking President Obama I warn you to beware of unintended consequences. You could end up with the wrong man leading this country and find the dream of a broader and more forward thinking America is no longer an option.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

April 15, 2012 · 4:55 pm

MARRY UP GIRLS!

MARRY UP GIRLS!

Louise Annarino

April 15, 2012

 

In high school, every girl knew where to hang out to attract boys. Parents like mine made certain I was not among those girls. Such was the protective net flung over my head. It was a comfort. It allowed me time to seriously assess what my role in life would be without a man to influence my decisions; and what role men would have in that life. My focus was on education, career and independence. Motherhood and marriage seemed a given, and to be delayed until I could be self-sufficient. Only then, could I make the future secure for myself and some future family.

 

I deliberately wrote motherhood before marriage in the above sentence. Too many of those young women allowed to hang out with boys, became mothers first and married in haste after. A total loss of freedom and self-sufficiency, only one piece of the price they paid. The cost seemed too high then, and life has shown me it still is thus.

 

I had imagined university to be different. I expected it to be a community of scholars, where men and women were equals. It was not. Despite living in a coed dorm, rules differed for men and women. Women, but not men, were restricted to their floors after midnight, and had to be in dorm by that time. No late-night runs for pizza. Not even a chance to meet the pizza guy in the lobby to accept delivery. If a women left the dormitory in the evening, she had to write where she was going, with whom, a contact phone number, and expected time of return. The men were treated as adults; women were not.

 

I wrote a Declaration of Independence for the Women of Lincoln Tower. A group of us detached the sign-out books from the lobby counter, carried them outside and burned them in a bonfire for freedom. Today, we would be arrested. In the 60’s, we had a stern dressing-down from the Dean of Women and the Dean of Men.

 

It was unlikely that the books could be reordered and delivered before the year was out, so the sign-out system was suspended for the remainder of the year, and never reinstated. While all women students cheered this stand for our freedom, it did not truly reflect the underlying motivation of each woman.Too many were at university simply to find a well-educated husband who could support them. Too many had no interest in maintaining freedom through self-sufficiency. Too many were willing to sublimate their own identity as free women for the ease of being cared for by another.

 

As graduation approached these women panicked. “The best opportunity to find a rich husband is now! What will I do if I leave here and I am not engaged?” was an increasingly desperate question for them, and for their mothers, whose phone calls became more frequent. This was a new phenomenon to me. My Mother’s instructions were to get as much education as I could so I would never need to depend upon anyone; theirs was to find a rich husband so they would always have someone else to depend upon. This differing world view may explain a current quandary of mine.

 

That quandary is why any woman would vote for a Republican. But, I think I see how they could. They are the women I knew at university who believe a man will take care of them. Democratic women are those, like myself, who stand independently on their own feet, believe self-reliance brings true freedom, and form relationships with the men in their lives which are free and among equals. Perhaps, I cannot really know, Republican women are simply those women satisfied to be taken care of by a man. To each her own.

 

It is a free woman who decries anyone’s efforts to replace her decision-making with their own, be they a husband, bishop or a politician. It is a free woman who insists on joint discussion and decision making with her spouse, be their agreement or disagreement. Only when women are free to be themselves, are they free to love and free to share their lives with another. And all women Democratic or Republican seek freedom, even those who avoid expressing it in their relationships with the men in their lives. Even those who listened to their mothers and married up for financial security.

 

It is ironic that the very women willing to rely on men to take care of them, vote for men who say government has no, or very limited, role in taking care of the poor, the elderly, our health, our job security, our environment. Those men they trust to  care for them, cannot be trusted to care for us. They promise to end ObamaCare.They promise to close the Departments of Education, Environment, Labor, Health and Human Services. They get very confused over which agencies exist and whether they should be closed, but they know they must be gone! They oppose Affirmative Action, an effort to assure African-Americans, and all people of color can stand on their own, and be independent of white largesse oblige.

 

And these are good men. These are men who take care of their women and children, and believe they deserve respect and loyalty for so doing, for their largesse oblige. They fail to see what is right before their eyes: women and children and people of color who are their equals. By caring for them they deserve no special rank, nor praise. We are all equals, we men and women and children of every color and nationality. We are in this together. We care  for one another. We are our government. Our government is us. That is what it means to live in a democratic republic. Of course government will care for us, since we care for one another as equals entitled to the same opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

When we Democratic women challenge Republican men, Republican women will of course defend them upon whom the fortunes of their families rely. But, even Republican women now understand that such a paternalistic relationship can go and has gone, too far. Olympia Snowe(R) ME and Susan Collins (R)ME have supported President Obama’s efforts to assure insurance carriers provide women contraception coverage. “The women,” says Maria Cantwell, “are mad.” … you don’t feel this is an attack, you need to go home and talk to your wife and your daughters.”1 And Republican women are also speaking out, asking for support for their own contraceptive needs.2  We may be Democratic women. We may be Republican women. We are all sisters. It is time for women to take a second look at the men who would rule our lives. Ask Michelle Obama. She who is an equal among equals, one of us.

 

1. www.oregonlive.com › David Sarasohn › Columns

Apr 7, 2012 – “The women,” says Maria Cantwell, “are mad.” … you don’t feel this is an attack, you need to go home and talk to your wife and your daughters.”

 

2. http://julietjeske.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/on-birth-control-a-plea-to-republican-women/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under COMMENTARY, POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 3, 2012 · 4:46 pm

WANT PRIVACY OR PROTECTION?

 

WANT PRIVACY OR PROTECTION?

Louise Annarino

April 3, 2012

I hesitated over the original title of this piece – Want Privacy or Protection? Shoot a Police Officer. I worried some readers might not understand the ironic tone it is meant to impart to my words. The NSA and others may be trolling the internet for just such a word pattern. The following three stories jumped off the page and struck me down today and I believe the title is apt, if absolutely disgusting. But, the thought was so distasteful I could not use the words “Shoot a Police Officer” even though that seems to be where this analysis takes us. Writers should be fearless; but, also responsible.

1.U.S. Supreme Court rules  that jailers may perform invasive strip searches for even minor offenses. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Albert Florence, who faced strip searches in two county jails following his arrest on a warrant for an unpaid fine that he had, in reality, paid. “Florence, who is African-American, had been stopped several times before, and he carried a letter to the effect that the fine, for fleeing a traffic stop several years earlier, had been paid.” Nevertheless,officers handcuffed him and took him to jail. Mr. Florence had already passed through  metal detectors, submitted to  pat down searches, had his clothing searched, and showered with delousing agents at 2 jails. But Justice Kennedy insisted being in the jail population, for whatever reason, justified such an invasive search. Further, he stated that the court must defer to the judgement of corrections officers “unless the record contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to problems of jail security.”

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/11682964-418/supreme-court-strip-searches-ok.html

2.Indiana Governor Republican Mitch Daniels signed into law Senate Enrolled Act 1 which allows homeowners to shoot police officers entering their home. Proponents argue that the law is meant to keep police safe! But, “Democratic Rep. Linda Lawson, a former police captain, says the bill would create an ‘open season on law enforcement’.” http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/23/indiana-governor-signs-bill-allowing-citizens-to-use-deadly-force-against-police-officers-into-law/

3.The Georgia legislature passed bill criminalizing abortion after 20 weeks with no exception  for rape or incest. “Commonly referred to as the ‘fetal pain bill’ by Georgian Republicans and as the ‘women as livestock bill’ by everyone else, HB 954 garnered national attention this month when state Rep. Terry England (R-Auburn) compared pregnant women carrying stillborn fetuses to the cows and pigs on his farm. According to Rep. England and his warped thought process, if farmers have to ‘deliver calves, dead or alive,’ then a woman carrying a dead fetus, or one not expected to survive, should have to carry it to term.”  Following a firestorm  over this remark, the Act was amended to allow abortion in those situations considered “medically futile”, i.e. one in which a woman’s life or health is threatened. However,  mental or emotional health,including suicide,mental illness etc are specifically excluded. And, “In order for a pregnancy to be considered ‘medically futile,’ the fetus must be diagnosed with an irreversible chromosomal or congenital anomaly that is ‘incompatible with sustaining life after birth.’ The Georgia ‘fetal pain’ bill also stipulates that the abortion must be performed in such a way that the fetus emerges alive. If doctors perform the abortion differently, they face felony charges and up to 10 years in prison.      http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/314-18/10765-at-11th-hour-georgia-passes-qwomen-as-livestockq-bill

The above decisions are not occurring in a vacuum; they are, in fact, related. Each situation addresses our right to privacy, and our right to feel secure in our own homes and in our own skin. Each involves some form of government intrusion. It is ironic that these decisions are made and supported by Republicans legislators and judges who generally stand for a citizen’s right to privacy and protection from government intrusion. The very group which attacks ObamCare insurance requirements as intrusive, and unconstitutional.

1.In the early 70’s I was a social worker at The Ohio Reformatory For Women, a maximum security prison. I had been hired under a minority recruitment program to address racial issues within the prison, given my field of graduate study. I believe prison officials hired me to avoid hiring an African-American while getting credit for a minority hire. They had no intention of addressing racial issues. I was warned the approved Racial Justice Program I organized was not to be implemented even though it had been officially approved;the approval was for “show only”. Despite this warning, I conducted race relations training for corrections officers, taught a course in Black History at the school, ran racial mediation groups for Black and white inmates, emceed a Black Culture awareness group using local Black achievers once a week, set aside a Black media/book center within the library etc. I was fired 8 months later for “teaching these N*****s they are human beings”.

At Christmas time each social worker was handed a polaroid camera to take a single photo of each inmate which she could then mail home to her family. We were admonished to take a good shot because we were allotted one shot per inmate, no matter how bad that shot was. I warned the corrections officer overseeing the operation that I am a horrible photographer and he could be sure I would screw up at least one photo. “One shot, Annarino! That’s the rule,” he responded. I did fairly well until my camera slipped and I cut off the head of one woman. Let’s call her “Sally”. We looked at one another in horror. She had nothing to send home to her children, no Christmas gift. I explained to the officer, and I took a second shot. I placed the headless photo in the trash can. When the administrator arrived and asked the corrections officer how things went, he informed her I had taken an extra shot, which she demanded I return to her. I had already given the good shot to Sally. She was told she could have only one photo and must return the second shot. I searched the can, but could not find the bad shot, hoping it would be accepted in place of the good shot. Sally insisted she had only the second photo.

The corrections officer was told to take Sally into the bathroom to do a strip search. Sally begged me to do it instead, preferring a woman over a man. Other inmates indicated to me by “sign” that he was not one a woman should be alone with. I reluctantly agreed to do it. I was told to check mouth, throat, anus and vagina. Seriously? How could  a Polaroid hide there?

Once inside the bathroom, Sally went immediately raised and pressed her hands to a wall, feet spread and pulled back. Obviously, this was not her first time. I explained I had never done such a thing, and had no need to do it as I accepted her word.

Sally insisted, “You must do it. They will ask you, and if you say you didn’t they will send him in. Please don’t let him near me. You have to help me.”

“OK,” I replied, but you have to tell me how to do it.”

So, Sally instructed me in the proper way to  do a strip search. I did the pat down along her right and left flank, top to bottom and back up. Then the inside seams of her legs,the frontal cross and down then up. I used as light a touch as possible, apologizing every few seconds. Sally indicating it was OK, not to worry. I thought I was finished, but Sally then advised me I still had to do the internal search. She removed her dress and undergarments over my protests, insisting I had to finish it or “he” would. She opened her mouth so I could peer down her throat. I looked  for a Polaroid photo hiding inside her throat! This was absurd. Drugs? Maybe. Photo? Crazy. Sally then spread her legs so I could reach inside her vagina and anus.

“NO! If that useless photo is so important you would hide it in your vagina or anus, you can keep it! No one deserves this disgrace for a stupid photograph; not you, and not I.”

Outside the bathroom the administrator and corrections officer waited. I snarled at them, “It is done. There was no photo. Never do this to anyone on my caseload again.” I later told the inmates on my caseload to never get into a situation requiring a strip search! I would never do another one.

I know that prison security is always an issue, for protection of both the corrections officers and the inmates. Drugs, weapons, contraband of any kind pose a threat. But, and Justice Breyer would agree, corrections officers ought to have a reasonable suspicion someone may be hiding something which threatens security before conducting a strip search. Reasonableness should be a matter for court review. The 5 Justices, all Republican appointees, have abdicated their judicial oversight responsibility, failing to protect an innocent citizen, Mr. Florence, from jailhouse abuse. We can’t simply rely on the sound judgment of prison workers. Ask Sally.

2.When can a citizen shoot or kill a police officer for simply doing his job? Anytime according to Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), Indiana. The law he signed was passed in response to a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision. “According to the Evansville Courier Press, an Evansville resident fought a police officer who followed him into his house during a domestic dispute call. ‘The state Supreme Court found that officers sometimes enter homes without warrants for reasons protected by the law, such as pursuing suspects or preventing the destruction of evidence. In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment,’ the court said. ‘As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.”

In this case, the court acknowledged police sometimes enter a home unlawfully, recognizing those situations where warrantless entry is justified, but expecting that safety of both police and citizen is best served by reducing conflict levels when passions are raised. This is much different than the prior case, where a calm citizen, is in custody and control, within the confines of a jail – not in his own home. In the home setting,police officers are in the dark as to possible weapons and their location. They were responding to a volatile domestic violence situation, the threat to harm someone was the very  basis of their intervention. It was a fluid enterprise. In this case, the court did not abdicate its role. It reviewed the facts and found no police misconduct. It did its job. As did the police.

This was not satisfactory to the Indiana’s legislature, nor its governor. Although Gov. Daniels almost vetoed it because it could lead to killings of police and citizens. This law, like the Stand Your Ground laws in Florida and elsewhere are loopholes for citizens to kill citizens, and for citizens to kill police officers while claiming self-defense. Indeed, in Trayvon Martin’s murder, the killer has not been asked to plead anything, even self-defense. Merely asserting the law’s existence has been enough  to avoid Mr. Zimmerman’s arrest. There are many people out there who think no police officers have the right to enter homes or property, even if there is a warrant. There are people who believe police have no right to  enforce laws designed to preserve safety and security for all citizens, who believe their victims are not entitled to police protection, whose gun purchases or possession cannot be regulated because it takes away their right to bear arms. When did the rights of bullies become paramount? If this case winds it  way to the U.S. Supreme Court, how will it rule? I dread the thought. People have a right to be secure in their homes. Right? Privacy rights are sacred.

3.Republican Governor Mitch Daniels (see 2 above) blames President Obama for the debate over women’s right to  privacy, but admits his party’s response could have been better. In an interview with Reuters, he stated “Where I wish my teammates had done better and where they mishandled it (women’s preventive health care) is … I thought they should have played it as a huge intrusion on freedom,” Daniels told Reuters. Maybe he should talk to Governor Nathan Deal (R) from Georgia, before HB 954 is signed into law. It appears Georgia’s Republican legislators are happy to invade a woman’s privacy. Not so, Gov. Daniels meant health insurance coverage decisions are an intrusion; not health care itself.

While president Obama advocates for women’s right to make their own health care decisions and reminds us in a recent video supporting Planned Parenthood: “For you and for most Americans, protecting women’s health is a mission that stands above politics, and yet over the past year you’ve had to stand up to politicians who wanted to deny millions of women the care they rely on and inject themselves into decisions that are best made between a women and her doctor.” President Obama recognizes something Georgia Rep. Terry England (R) does not, when he reminds us “Let’s be clear here — women are not an interest group…The are mothers,daughters, sister and wives.” He recognizes woman’s right to privacy within her own skin.

Will the U.S. Supreme Court recognize a woman’s right to privacy? that is the basis of Roe v. Wade. A woman’s right is recognized until the fetus is capable of living outside the womb. That time-line is being shortened by neonatal technology. This is why the Georgia law and laws in other states limiting what is considered a legal abortion, require a method resulting in a live birth. Such language is not included to protect women or fetal health and safety, but a political maneuver to challenge Roe v Wade. It is not a medical consideration, but a political one.

If Republicans really believe in privacy rights, how can they not believe in a women’s right to  make a legal medical decision with her doctor; not, with the legislature, nor with the police. Will miscarriages now be subject to court review in Georgia? Will doctors who cannot abort a fetus and maintain its survival be criminally charged?  The law says they  will. Will courts who hear challenges to such laws trust women and their doctors as easily as Justice Kennedy trusts jailers?

2 Comments

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 21, 2012 · 8:33 pm

FEAR OF DEATH: The Politics of Fear and Loathing

FEAR OF DEATH: the Politics of Fear and Loathing
Louise Annarino
March 21, 2012

Few among us do not fear death. So much so, that most of us refuse to discuss it, nor even think about it. My 2d. grade Catholic catechism instructed me that God made me to show His goodness and to make me happy with Him in heaven. This told me 2 things: life was good, and heaven was good. But, I knew I had to die to get to heaven. I knew I was made to live, then to die, then to live again. Does it make dying any easier to contemplate I shall live again, or still, after I die? Not really. This is merely a theory, a tenet of faith, after all. Who really knows?

One thing I do know; death is not pretty. I have sat near the bedsides of my dying parents and friends. Their physical and emotional suffering, physical deterioration, sense of helplessness, utter dependence on others, and questioning why any of it is necessary is heartbreaking. I struggled to be faithfully present for them, to keep a smile on my face, to offer a gentle touch of personal care, to remain hopeful. I felt terror that I might have to stare death in the face, that my grief might overwhelm the loving relationship we shared, that I could cause physical or emotional pain. And I felt guilt.

I felt guilt that I would continue to live, that I enjoyed my free time, and that I planned for my future. Most of all, I felt guilt because I was relieved I was not the one who was dying. That is the secret we all keep to ourselves. We keep quiet about death because we rationalize that if we avoid thinking or talking about it, it will not happen; not to us. We act as though we are immortal, totally in charge of our world and our lives. We fear death. We have given it a power of its own. In reality, it belongs to us. It became ours the moment we were born. When we run from death we are running from ourselves.

What if an entire culture were facing death? First, we must answer the question, “What is death?” A simple answer might be : the end of life; or, perhaps, a transition from one life or energy form to another. What we really fear is the disintegration of self, the inability to be who we are at our core. The death of our body does not frighten us so much as the death of our soul-personality-inner being. Our essence, the “I” we feel at our deepest level, is immortal, never-ending, never-changing. Truly, we are made in the image of God, for these attributes are those we normally assign to God. We are god-like, on the way to becoming one with God. What we fear is the loss of our personhood, our individuality, the name we call ourselves, our personal power to be us. So even the thought of going to heaven to be one with God is a very scary proposition. We want to maintain our identity, our uniqueness, our control. We don’t even want to give it up to be one with God.

So, if a culture were facing disintegration; if it had to constantly adjust to the attempted merger with identities unlike itself, who might threaten its uniqueness and control…would it be afraid? Would it want to avoid any change to its identity? Would it want to persist in its uniqueness? Would it fear the “other”, no matter how good or god-like the other is? Would it be too afraid to talk about its fear? Would it be angry whenever someone else brought up related subjects. Would it fear a loss of control? Would it fear a disintegration of self ? Can a culture die? What happens when it does?

When I listen to the tea party, Republican leaders, and Republican presidential candidates attack President Obama I hear the fear of death; the death of an ideology, a political party. When I see what appears to be a Sanford,Florida police cover-up of the murder of Travyon Martin; and, when I listen to the phone tapes of his killer, witnesses etc. I hear the fear of death, the death of racial superiority. When I listen to Joe Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona discuss his need to control immigrants, I hear the fear of death; the death of white “good ole’ boy” culture that is “as American as motherhood and apple pie”. When I hear Rick Santorum denounce science and man-made climate change, I hear the fear of death; the death of religious domination of thought. When I tabulate the efforts to deny women access to birth control, reproductive freedom, and abortion rights I see the fear of death; the death of control by men over women. When I hear Governors such as Wisconsin’s Walker and Ohio’s Kasich attack labor unions, regulation of Wall Street and corporations, I hear the fear of death; the death of moneyed interests’ absolute control of wealth. When I hear FOX News and other media sources ignore facts, twist facts, create facts and outright lie I hear the fear of death; the death of media control of information.

What if we admit we will die? What if we admit our “culture” will die? I submit that once we accept death we can get on with living. But so long as we continue to live in denial we must live in fear. I am not afraid of dying. Either I will transition, or I won’t; but, I can do nothing to stop the system. It is an evolutionary scheme I am part of by reason of my birth. And, I am just ornery enough to believe my personality is immortal. I will go on and on and on. I have just as much confidence in my country, my nation, my American culture. It is a culture prepared for change, ready to evolve, eager to accept the “Other”. America is a country which transforms itself into something ever-new. It is this alchemy of spirit which makes us a strong nation. We take the base metal of so many different ethnicities, religions, and ideologies and turn them into gold. This does not make me afraid; it makes me hopeful. It makes me proud. President Obama, despite what the fearful “birthers” would have us believe, is the quintessential American.

Christian liberals marvel at the fear expressed by fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, and fundamentalist Jews. One thing all religions have in common is a story to resolve our fear of death. Perhaps, resolving the fear of death will allow us to enjoy an America where a civil conversation is possible, and we don’t need to lie to one another or ourselves. Now that would be heaven on earth.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , ,

March 16, 2012 · 2:29 pm

FOR WANT OF A NAIL: CHILDREN'S NURSERY RHYME

 

FOR WANT OF A NAIL: CHILDREN’S NURSERY RHYME

Louise Annarino

March 16, 2012

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

-“Confesio Amantis” – John Gower- 1390

-Benjamin Franklin – Poor Richard’s Almanac

 

“During World War II, this verse was framed and hung on the wall of the Anglo-American Supply Headquarters in London, England.” http://www.rhymes.org.uk/index.htm

Pick up your hammers and drive the message home that we cannot allow a misdirected effort to reduce deficit allowing the United States of America’s middle class, the glue that holds together any democracy, to be lost “for want of a nail”. David Cameron, Prime Minister of Great Britain,who recently paid a state visit to the United States,and President Barack Obama probably did not recite together the nursery rhyme “For Want of a Nail” during their talks; although it has long history on both sides of the pond. Many Americans and Brits seem to have forgotten it, and are failing to heed its wisdom. Vice-President Joe Biden’s speech to UAW workers in Toledo indicates that the Obama Administration has not forgotten the rhyme’s wisdom, and has the strength of conviction to supply the nails to keep the country working.

There are those who cry President Obama does too much; he’s a socialist! There are those who say he does too little; he’s in bed with Wall Street!  I would remind each side of another nursery rhyme, “Goldilocks and the Three Bears”. President Obama is helping our economy, our energy development, our environment, our health care protections, our food-water-air safety, immigration reform, women’s rights, LGBT rights, voting rights etc. “just right”. Would the president like to see less obstruction and more cooperation  from House and Senate Republicans for even better outcomes? Of course. But, the Republicans have indicated since the election, even before President Obama was sworn into office and daily since, that their primary goal is a failed presidency; thus, the country’s failure. Republicans continue to withhold the nails needed to build the country and ensure its economic security. Holding back the nails males it difficult for the president to rebuild America. The fact that he has accomplished so much despite such obstruction is because as Joe Biden put it, the president is “tough as nails”.

We must elect those who agree we cannot suffer the U.S.’s failure “for want of a nail” to the House and the Senate. Support the Obama-Biden ticket.  Support Democrats willing to hammer some nails alongside Joe Biden and Barack Obama. Elect Democrats who are tough as nails.

Help get out the vote. Help others to obtain the I.D. they will need to vote, get them registered to vote, then provide transportation to the polls. BE the hammer! BE the nail!

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 17, 2012 · 6:14 pm

HISTORY LESSON; Small Government or No Government?

HISTORY LESSON: SMALL GOVERNMENT, NO GOVERNMENT ?

Louise Annarino

2-17-2012

 

Republican and Libertarian 2012 presidential candidates have followed two themes: small government, or no government. In support of these complimentary positions they rewrite American history, even Mr. History Gingrich who should know better does so.

 

Colonial Americans did not dump tea in Boston Harbor because they opposed taxes; but, because they were unrepresented in the British Parliament. Initially, they did not want  to end government but to participate in it. The corruption and despotism of British monarch George III, the arrogance and disdain of the British Parliament toward colonial interests, and the overriding desire to refill a depleted British treasury following the Seven Years War on the backs of colonists stirred the minds and hearts of the American colonists who began to see themselves as simply “Americans”. They declared their independence from Britain and immediately started designing a government very like the one they overthrew, with some interesting twists learned from native American political structures.

 

For example, the British Parliament has two chambers: the House of Lords (aristocracy), and House of Commons (everyone else). One of the hottest arguments after the revolution was between those who wanted to call George Washington “King-Your Majesty-Your Highness” and those who wanted to avoid all things aristocratic and call him “Mr. President”. Mr. Washington insisted on the latter, and shunned all signs of royalty. Americans chose a bi-furcated legislative body, the Senate and The House of Representatives. Their response to despotism and the threat of autocratic rule was a “separation of powers” between the Executive,Legislative and Judicial Branches of government. “We the People, By the People, and For the People” was born.

 

Initially, they favored a “confederation” of quite independent states based on the Native American “confederation of tribes” model; but, soon recognized the need for a strong federal government, affirmed early on by The U.S. Supreme Court. The failure to directly address the slavery issue and women’s right to vote, despite Abigail Adams’ warning to her husband John to “mind the ladies”, remained a stain on self-government and equal rights for all citizens; and, eventually led to a civil war.

 

I have been watching Ken Burns’ THE CIVIL WAR. It is appalling that after such horrific suffering caused by secessionists and slave owners with the support of Southerners, including West Point graduates, among them Robert E. Lee, who abandoned their oaths to support the United States of America and called it “honorable”, that our current batch of presidential candidates would also suggest secession, states rights, and the honor of the American people as appropriate policy within the Republican Party. The Republican Party, The Grand Old Party (GOP) which gave us Abraham Lincoln as its first presidential candidate. It is shameful;how far the Republican Party has fallen.

 

We must not accept a discussion of secession to be considered a legitimate possibility. To attack President Obama as unpatriotic while behaving so unpatriotically themselves is the height of hypocrisy. They use the threat of secession as a means of attacking a strong federal government; just as it was used to instigate a civil war 200 years ago. Why would they risk such division among our citizens? The same reason they did then…money and power. Racist code talk, outright racist comments, and outright lies about President Obama’s policies and leadership should have been laid to rest 200 years ago.

 

Those, who argue a strong and active federal ( Paul,Perry,Gingrich,Romney et al) or state government (Governors Kasich R-OH and Walker R-WI) takes away our liberty are wrong. If by “government” one means government led by a despot this is true. But WE are the government. WE pass legislation, make rules, interpret laws through those WE elect to represent us in those endeavors while we go about earning a daily living. WE are not despots. WE are not deprivers of our own liberty. WE decide what government does;despite the fact George W. Bush “the Decider” alleged otherwise. The Government is not something apart from ourselves; it is US. When Republican candidates attack government, they attack US. WE are “we the people”. Why attack our governments? Because WE are all that stands in the way of those 1% “aristocrats” who want to make money at our expense. Have we forgotten the our history?

 

In the meantime, they distract us and delude us into thinking our governments, federal-state-local are attacking us. We are under attack, but not by government. Discover and support your own self-interest…your government.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , ,