Can House Right-Wingers Be As Irrational As They Seem?

Why do Tea Partiers and other GOP right-wingers work so hard to alienate their less dense, less obtuse fellow citizens?

                Why do Tea Partiers and other GOP right-wingers fail to grasp that in a democracy the majority rules?

                And what makes Tea Partiers and their fellow travelers so stubborn, so dedicated to the perverse and counter-productive policy against raising taxes?

                They can be assured that the majority of U.S. citizens approve the plan the President has put forward for averting nasty problems raised by the so-called Fiscal Cliff.  It seems the citizenry backs him even though he has even modified his plan to suit republican preferences.

                Mr. Obama has tried to be fair. He has been upfront. He has been logical, consistent, and diplomatic. He knows that most of the nation does not want him to yield on the points he ran on in the election and that Americans don’t want the right-wingers to have their way.

                And yet the stubborn, selfish Johnny- one-notes in the GOP keep defying the President and the majority of Americans.

                Listen up right wingers.  America knows you are the bad guys.

                The President himself provided insight into why the rightists oppose him. He said:

                “I’m often reminded when I speak to the Republican leadership that the majority of their caucus membership comes from districts that I lost. And so sometimes they may not see an incentive in cooperating with me, in part because they’re more concerned about challenges from a tea party candidate, or challenges from the right, and cooperating with me may make them vulnerable. I recognize that.

                “But goodness….If there’s one thing we should have after this week [in which the slaughter of the innocent children in Connecticut took place] it should be a sense of perspective about what’s important…Right now what the country needs is for us to compromise, get a deficit reduction deal in place; make sure middle class taxes don’t go up….”

                Though Mr. Obama’s words have most fair-minded people nodding in agreement, the House no-compromise Republicans dismiss them.

                So on the first day of winter, a gray, wind-whipped day in our neighborhood, the House right-wingers have presented the nation with a bleak outlook. The President’s rational plan is still opposed by irrational Republicans.

 The President—we sincerely hope—will stand fast. Consequently the universal tax increase and drastic cuts in government programs will take effect at the turn of the New Year. Many of us will see thousands drained from their incomes.

The Republicans will have engineered exactly what they’ve been arguing against—a tax hike. They will have infuriated the nation and proved again there is such a thing as a tyranny of the minority. Obduracy and disregard for the common good will have prevailed.

It seems likely, though, that when the constituents of the hard-headed right-wingers feel the sting of new taxes they’ll howl.

But wait. You know no politicians would be dumb enough to outrage their constituents—do you think?

                                                                                                ---Gus Gribbin

 

               

Move over Grover the Pres is in the driver’s seat

                After years, Grover Norquist, the chubby-faced GOP kingmaker with the pseudo beard, is watching his formidable clout weaken. In the face of a determined President, his loyalists are beginning to ignore their oath of fealty, the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

What’s more, one or Mr. Norquist’s staunchest soldiers, Senator Jim DeMint, a Tea Party icon, has deserted. The South Carolina Senator announced on December 6 that he is abandoning his Senate seat to assume the presidency of the conservative Heritage Foundation, an assisted living facility for feeble GOP ideas.

Also ,South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, Georgia Sen. Saxby Chamblis, Arizona Senator John McCain, Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn and New York Rep. Peter King and Virginia Rep. Scott Rigell have inched away from Mr. Norquist’s no-tax-hike demand.

Plus, Lesley Stahl noted on 60 Minutes (Dec. 9, 2012) that several newly elected GOP Representatives have refused to take the Norquist pledge.

                These developments cheer many U.S. citizens who have deplored the stubborn. Counter -productive and corrosive power of Norquist and his Tea Party cohorts.

                The catalyst for change among the GOPers is the so-called Fiscal Cliff, the law that blends universal tax raises and spending cuts in an attempt to reduce the federal budget. The law takes effect on January 1 unless substitute legislation can be passed.

President Obama has been wonderfully stubborn in demanding that, to avoid the toxic mixture of tax raises and spending cuts, he wants a law that raises taxes on those who make more than $250,000 a year. He would leave the tax rate as it is for those earning below that amount. He also says he is prepared to make significant cuts in spending. Many polls have indicated that a large majority of Americans like the President’s idea.

                But as the world knows, Republican House members who cherish Norquist’s no- tax-raise philosophy as an article of faith refuse to go along with the President’s plan. This despite the widespread belief that the President’s plan is workable and fair.

                Most Americans want the Republicans to yield. And if they do, their yielding may tip off a decline of the Republican Right wing’s passionately wrong-headed and unpatriotic no-compromise approach to legislation.

David Brooks, the New York Times’ famed conservative columnist, noted early this month (Dec. 4; Op Ed page) that the GOP Right is “stuck in a miserable position.”

Mr. Brooks points out that the majority of Americans have said they will blame Republicans if there is no deal to avoid the Fiscal Cliff. The business community desperately wants the issue to be resolved and is tending to blame the Republicans for failure to compromise. Mr. Brooks predicts, “The national security types and defense contractors who hate the prospect of sequestration—the tax hike, spending cut law—will turn against them.”

Mr. Brooks adds that the Republicans will have to give in on the tax-hike for the wealthy. Otherwise Republicans will be taxing the middle class to “serve the rich—shafting Sam’s Club to benefit the country club.”

In a December 6 article, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr.  pointed out that “…elections are 2x4s and many conservatives seem to realize the need to understand what just hit them.”

What hit them is the fact many citizens long for Norquist and his no-tax henchmen and Tea Party acolytes to shut up and go away. There’s now hope that might happen

                                                                                                ---Gus Gribbin

                    

 

An Odd Theft and an Odder Mystery

                The thieves stealthily trucked ladders, an electricity generator and circular power saw into the Sierra Nevada’s Volcanic Tableland and carved, battered, and stole precious images carved into the area’s rugged cliffs some 3,500 years ago.

The event occurred on Halloween.  The Los Angeles Times first reported the event on November 14, and television and eastern papers later carried spot accounts. 

The media told when, where, and how the heist took place. There may be little hope of finding who did the deed, and no one has yet asked why they might have done it.

 What was the motive for what archeologist Greg Haverstock of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management called, “the worst act of vandalism ever seen” on the Bureau’s 750,000-acre parkland?

 Pondering the answer is interesting.

                After all, the pillagers went to absurd lengths; this was hardly a Halloween prank.  Clearly this was vandalism. But the evidence indicates it was much more than that.

Videos of the site show the thieves made clean careful cuts in removing four petroglyphs that occupied a spot 15 feet above ground. The pillagers botched one of the images, fruitlessly slicing into three sides. They managed to extract a sixth carving then apparently broke it. They left it near the site’s visitors’ parking lot. A dozen other images were defaced perhaps out of frustration, spite, or just for fun.

The theft outraged BLM officials, and grieved Paiute-Shoshone tribe members who regard the images as sacred. They treat the rock-carving site as a sort of church and bring their young there to learn of and venerate the tribe’s past and its traditions. The pillaging was to them equivalent to defacing Jerusalem’s Wailing Wall or the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Bernadette Lovato, BLM Office Manager at the site, said informing tribal leaders of the theft “was the toughest telephone call I ever had to make.  Their culture and spiritual beliefs had been horribly violated.”

So why would the thieves go to such lengths? It’s estimated that the images might fetch between $500 and $1,000. That could be enough to temp down–and- out druggies or otherwise desperate people.  But would they market images?

The carved- out slabs of stone are bulky and hard to transport, They’re not likely to show well at the local art fair.  Importantly, reputable art dealers would probably know these images are stolen –bad news for the would-be seller.

Another possibility: the thieves were hired cop the images.

It’s well known that eccentric, greedy, and unscrupulous art connoisseurs will go to any lengths to obtain objects they covet.  Such art collectors are known to hoard art even though they can’t display or sell acquired works that are too famous or are being actively sought.  One example: In 1939 after the deaths of archeologist Howard Carter, precious bracelets and other objects stolen from King Tut’s tomb were found in his house. It was Carter who discovered the tomb.

Art crime is big time. It involves heists by mobsters, art dealers, small time hoods, and bungling amateurs. The FBI estimates that art-related crimes amount to some $6 billion a year. The agency has 14 special agents working to solve such crimes and operates the National Stolen Art File

It could take a while to find the culprits in the petroglyphs thefts.  It’s not even clear the thefts are being investigated. Neither the FBI nor the Bureau of Land Management has responded to requests for information about the status of the case,

Someday though, those images which were patiently, tediously, and lovingly carved with the most primitive tools might turn up. They could be tossed on the side of the road, or thrown  in a dump site, or  charmingly mounted in the home of deceased art lover .

It’s even possible that whoever arranged or did the theft will have a change of heart and leave the rock carvings at the spot where they were taken.

 I agree. That’s not likely.

                                                                                                                --Gus Gribbin

A Thanksgiving Wish

                “Wait, Glimpse, slow down. What’s the rush? Where you going?”

                “To the family Thanksgiving celebration.”

                “Good, huh?”

                “Wonderful!”

                “Wonderful?”

                “Yes, wonderful.

“And part of the wonder is that my family and so many others have so much to give thanks for while suffering multitudes have so little. I wish it were not so and that they could share our blessings.”

“I can agree to that, Glimpse. Still…”

“I know. And I wish you and everyone a HAPPY, HAPPY THANKSGIVING too.”

                                                                                                 -----Gus Gribbin 

               

About the "FIscal Cliff" and Fairness

                “Well hi, Glimpse. Where have you been? What have you been up to?”

                “Been around. Coping.”

                “Coping?”

                “Coping with Hurricane Sandy.  Coping with suspense about the election.  Coping with suspense about the so-called ‘Fiscal Cliff. You know. The impending barrage of tax hikes and Federal spending cuts that threaten to sabotage the economy.’”

                “! Since your man won the presidency and you get to watch the rest of us writhe in pain, I thought you’d be gloating,

                “No gloating.  Actually I feel sad—not for Mitt Romney, but for his followers. Some Republicans seem genuinely worried—convinced the nation under President Obama is skidding into perdition and political decline.”

                “Yeah.  Well those GOPers are pretty much right. You’ve got states approving gay marriage and medical marijuana. You’ve got a bunch running the government who think giving people food stamps is great, that creating more and more government dependents and destroying their incentive is good. I could go on and on. Whatever happened to the United States of America I loved?”

                “For one thing, the ‘nation you loved’ is likely a myth. Although we sometimes tend to agree, each of us has a peculiar notion of what the nation was, and is, and should be. The haunting question is how can our myths, ideas, visions, and conclusions be so utterly different.”

                “I’ve heard tell that’s because Liberals are descendants of a fallen race. Your morals became corrupted way back when.  Maybe that’s harsh. Anyway, I suppose you have some fuzzy sociological-psychological explanation for the differences.”

                “Right. And if the explanation seems fuzzy that means you’ve got to look harder.

“The ideas of psychologist Jonathan Haidt seem right to me.  He authored a remarkable book called “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.”  He argues that people don’t come to their moral conclusions and political positions so much through reasoning as through intuitive, emotional leanings. His fascinating experiments help demonstrate his points.”

                “Oh, for heaven’s sake!”

                “Listen a second. Haidt declares there are a six basic notions or concerns we share as humans: care, authority, sanctity, loyalty, fairness, and liberty. We care about other people, animals, plants etc. We see need for authority. We believe some things are special and sacred. We prize loyalty to family, friends, groups and the like. We want to be free. And we want fairness.

                “Because of the way we’re wired and our life experiences—or nurturing—left- leaning people and right-leaning people differ on the emotional stress they put on these various concerns. For example, Lefties feel deeply about care—the compassionate side of life. Lack of compassion and empathy shocks Liberals to their toes. Not so much for Righties. They care also, but feel deeply about being dutiful, say, or respecting authority, and respecting “sacred” things. Remember how President Obama stirred outrage for not wearing a flag pin in his button hole? And how about the fight over the ‘sanctity of marriage between a man and woman?’

                “But consider fairness. It’s big in conversations about avoiding the Fiscal Cliff.  Liberals equate fairness with equality. Everyone “deserves a fair share.”  That’s vital to Lefties.

“Conservatives think of fairness as ‘proportionality,’ meaning people should get what they deserve. They should reap what they sew. Everyone likes proportionality, but it’s a fundamental tenant of existence for many, if not most, Conservatives. That’s where the notion that taxes punish success comes from—a thought that makes some Liberals’ jaws drop.”

“What you don’t seem to understand Glimpse, is that my view—our view—of fairness is right. Can’t you see—equality —that fair share stuff—it’s like… it’s like socialism!”

“No. I can’t see that. What I can see is that Lefties and Righties have to try and appreciate the others’ overriding and basic emotional leanings. It’s not a matter of right versus wrong. Understanding leads to empathy. Empathy leads to compromise and change.

“In a TIME commentary (10/22/12), Dr. Haidt concluded:

‘So this is where we area as a nation…..We all agree that the other side is to blame and that tax policy can be used to restore basic fairness. We just can’t agree on what fairness means.’

“The fact is we must adjust our feelings and compromise. However  it’s like that old joke:

“How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb? One. But the light bulb has to want to change.

“What we hope is that fear of heading over the dreaded cliff is enough to cause majorities among the left and right in Congress to appreciate the other side’s core feelings and decide to change. And compromise.”

                                                                                                                       ---Gus Gribbin

 

Could Uninformed Undecideds Sway the Election?

“Where are you headed GLIMPSE?”

“Where you can’t find me.”

“Ha. Funny. You’ll have to run faster. Say, aren’t you going to tell what you think about the second presidential campaign debate? Aren’t you going to comment?

“Sure I am.  Like most democrats I know and have seen interviewed, I think Mr. Obama was most impressive.  I’m relieved that the intense, articulate, and spunky President I have learned to appreciate is back from his slump, and loved it when Candy Crowley corrected Mr. Romney—or ‘Mittens’ as New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd calls him.

“You remember. Mr. Romney challenged Mr. Obama’s truthfulness when the President said after the September 11 Libya embassy attack, that the following day he identified it as a terrorist operation.  Ms. Crowley told Mr. Romney the President was correct. People clapped, and Mitt looked stunned.  Her name probably won’t be listed among the ‘qualified’ in the would-be-president’s ‘binder full of women’ should he be elected.”

“Come on! You’ve got to admit Romney did okay. He was aggressive.”

“Aggressive is your word.  ’Bullying’ is mine.  However I’m certain you consider Mr. Romney the winner. ”

“You got that right.”

“A fascinating thing about the debate is that the Gallup organization found such apparently informed ‘undecideds.’ Undecided voters typically are perceived as “low information” voters.

Reuters news service reporter Daniel Trotter notes that undecideds, who make up 6 percent of the electorate, have been the subject of pundits’ scorn for their indecision.

“ He quotes comedian Bill Maher as saying, ‘This year at the debates we should skip that thing where the undecided dial in their reaction to every little moment and instead hook up the dial to their foreheads to see if there is an measurable brain activity.’

“Trotter bases his reportage on polls Reuters co-sponsored during the campaign. The information he came up with is enlightening.  

“Most of us have encountered people like a former colleague who was simply indecisive.   At a restaurant she would ask over and over what others were ordering then  bury herself in the menu and make humming sounds until  her friends made suggestions and coaxed her to order.

“Neil Newhouse, a Romney pollster, told Trotter 56 percent of the undecided are women. He calls them “Walmart moms.”  The polls show the group is mostly made up of white females without a college education who earn less than $25,000 yearly.

“As you might suspect they struggle to get by and care little about the national budget.  On polls asking questions about the presidential candidates, national issues, and intention to vote the undecided commonly answered’ don’t know,’ or ‘refuse to answer.’ They were twice as likely as other voters to answer ‘unsure’ when queried about personal views on same-sex marriage, health care, immigration, and the national budget.

“Yet 75 percent of these voters who admit knowing little about national affairs believe the country is ‘on the wrong track.’ And when asked which candidate was more eloquent, likeable, or presidential they mostly answered ‘neither.’

“Mr. Trotter quoted Helen Krueger, 54, of Grants Pass, Oregon. The mother of seven voted for John McCain in 2008. She said she normally knows who she is goings to vote for but this time is different.  She said she needed to do ‘more research.’ She claimed the President has done a ‘lousy job’ and she indicated she thought Mr. Romney wants to tax the ‘medium class and low class’ and let the rich get away without paying taxes.”

“For once you’re right Glimpse. That is an enlightening portrait.”

“Yeah. And the scary thing is some predict that in a tight election the undecided may sway the election one way or the other. Let’s hope that prediction’s wrong.”

“Finally you’ve given an opinion I can agree with.”    

                                                                                      ---Gus Gribbin

               

Debate? How? There Was Just One Debater

      “Hey Glimpse!  I’ve got a question.”

                “And that is?”

                “Did you see that first Presidential Debate?”

                “Yeah. I saw it.”

                “Wow. Your guy might as well have stayed home. Old Romney came out swinging. Full of pep.  Full of facts and figures. He cut your guy down to size. But the President probably didn’t even feel it. Man, he was in a coma. Bet you’re worried now aren’t you? But hey, it’s a free country. You can switch sides and back Romney. I won’t tell another living soul.

“But really what did you think of the debate?”

                “No question, Mr. Romney dominated that affair.  My guy, as you call him, made me think he might not want a second term. If that were true, I can understand it. The country is almost as divided as it was during the Civil War, and it’s not likely to get easier for him if he wins.”

                “You’re really worried aren’t you?”

                “Sure. I want to see Mr. Obama reelected, and, at this point, it seems he might lose. I’m as sad as I am worried. He let his followers down.”

                “Well take heart, friend. If Romney’s elected, the country will be better off. By next year this time, you’ll see jobs coming back big time. Romney will get rid of Obamacare, he’ll stop throwing money at people who don’t want to work and take responsibility for their lives. He’ll bring the age of coddling freeloaders to an end. It’ll be like old times. We’ll show the world America still has some muscle and can’t be pushed around.”

                “If so, we’ll see the volume of pain and suffering in this country rise, the gap between rich and poor will increase, there will be fewer restraints on Big Business.  Our world won’t end, but it will be turned around if Romney wins.”

                “It’s about time!”

                “I know there’s absolutely no point of arguing about this. The truth is, though, that neither your vision of what will happen nor mine is accurate.  Would-be presidents can achieve just a fraction of the things they promise to do they’ll do if elected. And many of the things we blame or praise Presidents for are things they couldn’t do much about anyway. If for instance there were obvious solutions to the slow economy, Mideast peace, and the rest, it’s certain they would have been adopted.  Presidents don’t have as much control as we impute to them.”

                “Okay. If that’s so, what difference does it make who you vote for?”

                “For me it’s this. I think I have a fair idea where Obama stands. He’s not ideological. He’s a pragmatist—a centrist. True, his campaign has said some nasty things and bent the truth—what you’d call lying--but I trust him. Romney’s done the same truth bending.

                " I’m biased, so I think Romney’s dishonesty is worse. That aside,  I could never vote for him. I don’t know who he is. Months ago he was a “severe conservative.” Months ago, he was going to get rid of Obamacare on his first day in office. Now he sounds like a “moderate” and now he supports much of Obamacare. The contradictions go o and on. Who is he?

“In the debate Romney came on in a rush. He spouted facts and figures. He declared everything President Obama has done is wrong. To me, he seemed frenzied and acted like a man who will say whatever will grab him a few votes.

“I’d rather vote for a smart, dedicated politician who doesn’t really relish the presidency than for a politician who will say—and possibly do—anything to win the prize.  After all, a few of our greatest Presidents practically hated the job. George Washington is one. Abraham Lincoln another. And they did magnificently.”

“I’ve got to tell you Glimpse—you’re full of it.”

“That’s what you always say. But look—you indicated you want what’s best for the country. We both want that. Let’s just hope we get that wish.”

“Yeah. Okay. One more thing though Glimpse. I saw an Obama-Biden sign in your garage. Are you really going to put that on your lawn?”

“You betcha.  But I’ll tell you, if Romney wins, I’ll still lend you my hedge trimmer when you need it.”

“It’s a deal.”

                                                                                                ---Gus Gribbin