Life as Usual

photo by Tom the federal worker

Tom the federal worker got the call from his boss just minutes before time to leave for work on Thursday morning. Of course, he was already dressed and ready to go by 6 a.m., since we had read online the evening before that a debt limit bill was close to passing, that a vote on the continuing resolution to fund the government under sequestration would also pass, and that federal employees would be expected to be at work the following day. Tom spent the entire day, he said, trying to catch up with a project that had been put on hold, that required public meetings to be rescheduled. I spent the morning preparing a bed for some loropetalum bushes Tom was planning to transplant as a screen along our property line behind the newly-built wood rack. The soil was a little compacted there, and Tom had dug up the area the day before; I broke up the clods of dirt with a shovel, turned over the soil to fluff it up, pulled out the grass, and added compost. We planted the bushes that evening after Tom got home from work.

And so we're back to our usual routine.

One of my Facebook friends referred to these two weeks as "paid vacation" for federal employees. It's often difficult to judge tone accurately in FB posts, even with emoticons, but the response, following as it did a comment from another friend who expressed sympathy for those who had gone without pay for two weeks (and longer, as paychecks won't be on schedule for a while), struck me as flippant--similar to the unsympathetic attitude folks often have about public school teachers and summer break. Teachers may not get paid well, but at least they get the summer off, these people often say when teacher compensation comes up in conversation. Of course, as most of us know, especially those of us who have been teachers, the hours are very long, as one inevitably takes the work home, and many weeks of the summer months are spent preparing for the following school year.

In retrospect, now that the shutdown is over, and Tom and other federal workers are on the job once again, getting back pay, the two-week duration seems almost like vacation--but it certainly didn't feel like vacation at the time. Our vacations are often long-planned events, in which we save up money to get the hell out of Dodge. During these past two weeks, we couldn't go far, as Tom had to be ready to return to work as soon as Congress and the President could clinch a deal. And how about those federal employees  living from paycheck to paycheck on salaries near the bottom of the federal payroll? Did worrying about imminent bills feel like a vacation to them? Many were also concerned about work piling up, important duties not being performed. And since no one knew, really, when the shutdown would be over, anxiety about those bills and commitments remained high throughout the ordeal.

The sequester, which many Americans probably don't think about at all, further fuels the anxieties of federal workers. As The New York Times explains, the sequester:

emerged from the refusal of House Republicans to raise the debt ceiling in 2011 without significant deficit reduction. In response, the two parties agreed to the Budget Control Act, which cut domestic spending over the next 10 years by about $1 trillion. Democrats refused to agree to more cuts without additional revenue from taxes, and Republicans refused to agree to tax increases.

Instead, Congress set up a committee to find further deficit reduction. To push the committee to reach a deal, negotiators established a fallback mechanism meant to be so onerous it would never happen: $1.2 trillion in across-the-board, automatic cuts to both military and domestic programs, set to begin this year. (Jonathan Weisman,"Answers to Questions on Capitol's Top Topic," The New York Times  21 February 2013.)

So the sequester sets up this 10-year, 1.2 trillion, across-the-board, indiscriminate schedule of cuts, $85 billion which was to be put into effect this year. As the Times article points out, the cuts can't be targeted toward particular ineffective or redundant programs: all programs suffer. This deal was supposed to be so catastrophic that Congress would be forced to agree on a budget.....but that hasn't happened yet. Republicans want even more cuts, and Democrats want to raise taxes on those who can afford it (those who came out of the economic crisis with even more of the American pie). With the Budget Control Act, Republicans got catastrophic cuts with the sequester, the Democrats, not so much. Thus, we have the Continuing Resolution of the sequestration, under which the government is currently funded. That is what was up for a vote by the end of September; that's what shut the government down first--the Republicans' wanting to tack onto the CR outrageous policy demands: defunding (essentially, getting rid of) the Affordable Care Act (aka, ObamaCare), privatizing Medicare, approving Keystone XL, preserving all the Bush tax cuts while slashing funding for food stamps, among others. The vote on the CR ran into the deadline on the debt limit, which, if defaulted, would have been even more catastrophic than a shutdown.

Thus, the view that Republicans were holding the country hostage to radical demands from the far-right is not an exaggeration.

The sequester has already impacted federal programs. People have lost their jobs; others have faced furloughs (before the shutdown) and reduced pay. This is what federal workers also had in the back of their minds as the country went into shutdown mode. (For an objective look at the effects of sequestration, you can go to the website of the Pew Charitable Trusts and search "impact of sequester.") Tom the federal worker had a meeting with his colleagues and bosses in the summer to discuss how the cuts under sequestration would affect jobs in his particular branch of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The conclusion: uncertain, not good. Advice: keep your eyes open for other jobs in the near future. This is happening all throughout the federal government, and people are worrying about their livelihoods. These worries were there before the shutdown and were exacerbated by the shutdown.

Another shutdown looms as the next deadline for voting on the CR approaches in January. Radical Republicans will still probably use the lives of federal workers and their families (and those of millions of Americans who benefit from federal programs) and the economic stability of our country as bargaining chips in their demands.

Yes, life has returned to what counts for normal these days.

On the 16th Day (NOT "home watching Netflix or whatever")

morning run

Yes, Tom the federal worker has been home these 16 days of shutdown of the United States, but except for our usual internet-accessed film viewing through Roku in the evenings (saw 56 Up last night on POV; League of Denial on PBS earlier in the week), he has not been vegging, as Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL) imagines federal workers doing all day while they've been locked out of the work that pays the bills. Tom has continued chopping and splitting the wood from the downed water oaks, and the newly built wood rack is filling up. I spent yesterday cleaning up the mess of having two water oaks expire on our lawn, picking up all the limbs not big enough for firewood and stacking them on a pile for burning (which is legal to do in this small Louisiana town as long as the fire is out by night), raking all the dead leaves and spreading them as mulch around our little citrus grove, and then mowing the yard. The lawn mower gas tank that Tom ordered was delivered, and Tom repaired the lawn mower for me. He also sharpened the blades. And he expanded the wood rack. It was a busy day.

Today has been much the same.

Tom has also begun training this week for the Rock and Roll marathon in New Orleans, scheduled for February 2, 2014. When he is working and being paid by the government, he runs in the evenings, with longer runs on weekends. But since he has been home on weekdays during the shutdown, he often runs in the mornings. I accompanied him on my bicycle this morning for a four-mile run. Although rain is forecast for this afternoon and later in the week, it was a beautiful clear morning, with a light breeze. Fall-blooming flowers brightened the edges of The Tammany Trace.

I especially love the fall-blooming mist flowers and the dainty asters forming delicate, lacy sprays. The south portion of our property is full of fall-flowering plants: dog fennel, mist flower, asters, goldenrod, clematis (probably an exotic).  Before we bought the property, the area was kept less weedy by the presence of azaleas. We allowed the previous owners to remove many azaleas after we bought the lot, and, unfortunately, the man who did the work for them created deep, compacted ruts in muddy soil, making the area impossible to mow with an ordinary lawn mower. Last year, I cut down all the weedy growth twice with a swing blade, but this year, I didn't, and the area is almost impenetrable. It wouldn't be so bad except that exotic mimosa is also growing freely among the native plants. In very early spring we marked with pink flagging all the native plants and azaleas that we wanted to keep, with plans to clear the area, but we were too busy with other projects. I imagine that we could keep many of the fall-flowering plants--even the dog fennel, which Tom doesn't like much--to create a soft weedy edge to the lot, but it will take a lot of work and planning to do so--maybe during the next government shutdown--which seems as likely to happen as this one has.

Dog fennel and goldenrod on the edge of the south lot

The day is not over as I'm typing this, and while a debt ceiling deal seems to be in the works, the votes aren't in. But the government shutdown isn't the only threat to paychecks of federal workers. Sequestration has already negatively impacted federal jobs and will continue to do so. All the brou-ha-ha and crocodile tears of some Republicans over national monuments being closed was laughable to anyone who has been keeping up with the effects of sequestration.  It's just so much theater for people whose jobs and livelihood aren't affected.

Meanwhile, here in southeast Louisiana, Tom is still waiting for that call (on his personal phone since he had to turn in his work phone before leaving the office October 1st) directing him back to work. We sure are getting a lot of chores done.

limbs too small for the wood rack go up in smoke

the wood rack complete, with two stacks full

How many more government shutdowns do we need to get this wood split?

On the 13th day of the Shutdown of our Country

Tom splitting wood

 Although his work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is piling up as Republicans refuse to fund our country to pay its bills as long as their extreme policy demands aren't met, Tom managed to get quite a bit of work done here at home. He made some headway into the huge chore of sawing up and then splitting the wood of the two water oaks downed on the south side of our property, and he started stacking split wood in the wood rack that he built yesterday. My job was to gather up wood in a wheelbarrow and tote it to the wood stack, where Tom could then stack the wood. He's the professional woodstacker; I just loaned my muscles for the grunt work.

After a few days of cool weather, warm weather had returned, with highs in the upper 80s. 

Tom's wood rack

One of the disappointments of the weekend was the cancellation of Wildthings, an event that thousands of people look forward to every fall; it takes place on the grounds of the Bayou Lacombe Centre, the headquarters of the Southeast Louisiana National Wildlife Refuges. Last year about 5,000 people attended, many of them children. The event includes a wildlife art contest, with participants from nearby schools, vendors, lots of activities for children, music, food, and opportunities for people to explore Bayou Lacombe on canoes that launch into the bayou from the Centre's grounds. Many people at the headquarters worked very hard for months to make this year's event the best ever: only the event was cancelled, as so many such events are being cancelled around the country.

We heard from our son that his research at a flagship university in Texas has also been affected by the shutdown. His grant is funded by a company that has a contract with the Air Force; he received a work stop-order on his research until this year's budget is approved by Congress. He cannot order any supplies with the designated grant money. Such halts on research are happening all over the country. James Fallows has been sharing readers' reports on just such issues: See "Weekend Shutdown Reader: Lest We Forget," and "Sunday Shutdown Reader: Harold Varmus on Self-Destruction in the Sciences," among others.

Hard work, however, helps keep us emotionally and mentally balanced here on our one acre of land in the middle of a small town in southeast Louisiana. I just worry about the many people even more vulnerable than we are to the vicissitudes of irresponsible, radical politics.

By late morning, Tom has almost filled the first tier of the wood rack. (I should add here that he didn't split all this wood in one day.)

By afternoon, the first tier of the wood rack is almost full.

By early evening, I've hauled cut wood from the front of the lot to the wood stack, and the second tier is beginning to fill.

But there was still time to play.

Final note: As James Fallows writes: "And the situation could have been solved at any point if John Boehner had only brought a budget measure for a vote in the House. "

On the 10th Day of the Takeover of our Country by the Minority Party

Today the sun is obscured behind a damp, gray sky. Tom made coffee and biscuits, and we sat on the patio talking about the events that have led to his being home on a weekday. When the local school bus passed, Tom said, "It's weird to hear the school bus," as he is always long gone to work with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service by then, always arriving at his office by 7 a.m.. He began to notice other sounds of the weekday morning that he is usually not home to hear, such as the strange "Close Encounters" chime of a business or school ringing through the woods [I've yet to identify the source]. Yesterday, on the 9th day of the takeover, he began the process of repairing our lawn mower, which had sprung a leak in the fuel tank; he ordered a replacement fuel tank, and began the work of repairing the grass deflector on the side of the mower. He measured the chimney so that he could calculate the amount of steel lining we would need for the wood stove, which he also ordered. He planted bok choy seeds in the garden, hoed some weeds, and in the evening, went for a six-mile run. Today he plans to continue chopping wood and begin building a wood rack.

Meanwhile, I will continue the fall clean-up of the garden areas that I began yesterday, trying to keep at some emotional distance my increasing dismay over how the Republican party has brought our country to a halt. This is no longer just a "government shutdown" to me; it's a hostile takeover, a hijacking of the democratic process and an attack on a million American families whose breadwinners work for the federal government. Republicans are trying to put the blame on President Obama, but since they've been playing this card since at least 2011 and planning this takeover for months, only the politically naive, ideologically blinkered, or easily bamboozled  are convinced. In 2012, President Obama won re-election with a majority of the American vote. Not able to win the presidency at the polls, even with intense gerrymandering, Republicans have resorted to holding the whole country hostage to their policy demands. First, they wanted to get rid of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a., ObamaCare); now they're talking about cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Remember the sequestration (which we are still under)? The cuts brought on by sequestration were already affecting the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service; we weren't sure whether or not Tom's job would continue beyond next year. The takeover and total shutdown of the government on October 1st just adds more to that insecurity.

Need a review of the sequestration? Links below.  I have a yard to clean up.

• February 20, 2013: "The Sequester: Absolutely Everything You Could Possible Need to Know, in One FAQ," by Dylan Matthews, at Wonkblog, The Washington Post.

• February 21, 2013: Answers to Questions on Capital's Top Topic," Jonathan Weisman, The New York Times.

• February 28, 2013: "A Graphic Guide to the Sequester," Christie Thompson, ProPublica.

• May 7, 2013: "Everything We Know About What's Happened Under Sequestration," Theodoric Meyer, ProPublica.

Tom surveys his fall vegetable garden on his 10th day off work

Too Much to Ask?

Is it too much to ask that we be spared the salacious details of General David Petraeus's extramarital affair? The man has served his country and has resigned as CIA Director. I do not want to know the name of the other party involved in the affair. I do not want details about how Holly Petraeus, General Petraeus's wife, is coping with her husband's infidelity. Can we move on and let the Petraeus family heal in private? How about dealing with climate change, instead? Or the economy?

Update:
Well, of course, it was too much to ask. I've done my share of reading about the details:
"Petraeus Quits; Evidence of Affair was Found by FBI," Michael D. Shear, in The New York Times, 9 November 2012.

"Petraeus Resigns Over Affair with Biographer," Fred Kaplan, in Slate, 9 November 2012.

Another Death in the "War on Terror"

I am going to vote for Barack Obama for president in November, and I have good reasons to do so. The Democratic ticket more closely represents my ideals, though it isn't perfect. I believe in gay rights; I believe in a woman's right to choose her own birth control and to have low-cost, easy access to methods that prevent pregnancy in the first place. I believe that the wealth gap is widening in our country, that corporations and the rich have too much power. I really think we should have universal healthcare and that the government should be able to negotiate lower drug prices. I believe in a public education that helps its citizens to become critical thinkers. I believe in the separation of church and state. The Republican Party, as it exists today, supports policies that are inimical to  these ideas, and it's largely responsible, through following the rhetorical instructions of people such as Newt Gingrich, in creating the toxic public rhetoric that drives our politics today. In addition, under the presidency of Barack Obama, Republicans have been pig-headedly obstructive in these times of economic crises, putting politics before the good of the country.

That being said, one of my really big disappointments in the Obama administration is its inability to shut down Guantanamo Bay and its continuing many of the war policies of the Bush administration. And I despise the fact that the DOJ hadn't the balls to go after those who approved administration-sanctioned torture in its "war on terror." (How's that working? Has terror disappeared from the face of the earth?) Unfortunately, voting Republican would not create a change here, either. Mitt Romney is being advised by some of the same neo-cons who got us in the war in Iraq with their lies and unbelievable naiveté about how long the war would last, how much the war would cost, and how little the war would impact the very people we were supposed to be liberating. 

My disappointment is magnified by stories such as that of Adnan Latif, who was finally successful this past week in his many attempts to commit suicide in that national disgrace of a prison, Guantanamo Bay. 

Congress, of course, is greatly at fault, too, in abdicating its responsibility to declare war and in allowing the executive branch to accrue more power. And so are we responsible, too, in our silence, in our eager readiness to follow that presidential advice years ago to "go shopping" rather than to deal with the harsh realities of our nation's actions.

Adnan Latif is finally returning home after ten years. . . . in a coffin. I doubt his death has aided the "war on terror." Do you?

Laughter Better than Tears?

I try not to get all wobbly when people say crazy, mean, and stupid things, you know, the "man in the street" comments that make one wonder about the morality and intelligence of one's fellow travelers. But when elected officials (or leaders of groups of people) make crazy, mean or stupid comments, I wonder not only about the morality and intelligence of the official who is supposed to make important decisions, sometimes national decisions, for us, but I also wonder about the majority of voters who put him or her in power.  Are they complicit? hateful? stupid? clueless? uninformed? or gobsmacked that their representative, so clever and eloquent during the campaign, has turned out to be such a prick?

Political rhetoric has always had a mean streak, but it seems particularly vitriolic these days. Joe Wilson's (R-SC) screaming "you lie" during President Obama's 2009 address to Congress seemed to me to presage the vaguely (and sometimes overtly) racist comments aimed at our first black president. Some would deny that Wilson's outburst was racist, but many of us in the South heard the unexpressed "boy" hovering at the end of that accusation, a ghost of Old Dixie that has materialized more substantially in the past four years. Underneath such comments is the ancient fear of the black uprising and a resentment of the "uppity" black. To keep people in their place, you have to convince yourself that they are inferior; when they prove to be equal or superior--morally, socially, intellectually--well, that's a challenge to a lot of people. No one shouted "you lie" in that august chamber when President Bush pushed the more obvious lies of weapons of mass destruction and yellowcake uranium. No, his lies were met with silence, approbation, and submission. You decide what the difference in response means.

But in keeping with my resolve to laugh at the follies of our elected officials, in the hope that laughter will prove more efficacious than tears, I offer here for derisive laughter a comment by Haley Barbour, former Republican governor of Mississippi, who actually hoped to be president of this country.

Barbour offered a brief assessment of the Republican National Convention. 'While I would love for [Chris] Christie to put a hot poker to Obama’s butt,' said Barbour of the RNC keynote speaker, 'I thought he did what he was supposed to do.' [source: Sheelah Kolhatkar, "Exclusive: How Karl Rove's Super PAC Plays the Senate," Bloomberg BusinessWeek, 04 September 2012]

Whew! close call! Aren't you [cue relieved laughter] glad this person isn't making national decisions now? Can you imagine [guffaw] what the brutality of that image says about the illustrious former governor of Mississippi? Oh, [wiping eyes] but the sexual innuendo and the implied delight in the forced submissiveness of our president isn't racist at all....oh....no.... Of course, comments such as this play well to a certain demographic. Isn't that hilarious?
 

A Missing Month and the Comfort of Philosophy

I abandoned the post here at 6 Generations as summer heated up, environmentally and politically, and as I became engrossed with family matters: visits with our college-aged children, trips out of state, a birthday party for my 80-year-old father, and preparations for enduring a hurricane. August included a ride back from Atlanta on Amtrak, on which I pondered the sad difference between public transportation in countries I have visited overseas and public transportation in our country. That disappointing difference, however, has not weakened my resolve to take public transportation more often.  One personal promise I made to myself during August was not to allow politics to make me crazy or despairing. Though I feel strongly that the best choice for the presidential election is the Democratic choice, I refuse to let vitriolic polarization poison my daily attempts at maintaining some portion of happiness in my own life. I try to remember the words of my favorite Stoic philosopher, Seneca:

But there is no point in banishing the causes of private sorrow, for sometimes we are gripped by a hatred of the human race. When you consider how rare is simplicity and how unknown is innocence, how you scarcely ever find loyalty except when it is expedient, what a host of successful crimes you come across, and all the things equally hateful that men gain and lose through lust, and how ambition is now so far from setting limits to itself that it acquires a lustre of viciousness -- all this drives the mind into a darkness whose shadows overwhelm it, as though those virtues were overturned which it is not possible to hope for and not useful to possess. We must therefore school ourselves to regard all commonly held vices as not hateful but ridiculous, and we should imitate Democritus rather than Heraclitus. For whenever these went out in public, the latter used to weep and the former to laugh; the latter thought all our activities sorrows, the former, follies. So we should make light of all things and endure them with tolerance: it is more civilized to make fun of life than to bewail it. Bear in mind too that he deserves better of the human race as well as who laughs at it than he who grieves over it; since the one allows it a fair prospect of hope, while the other stupidly laments over things he cannot hope will be put right. [from "On Tranquility of Mind"]

Maintaining that balance can be quite tricky, especially in this crazy season of political conventions, presidential aspirations, and pernicious propaganda, but recent weather here in Louisiana helped put things in perspective. While Clint Eastwood was talking to an empty chair in Tampa, we were hunkered down in the darkness as Hurricane Isaac slowly dumped rain that flooded our rivers and creeks, inundating whole neighborhoods. Fortunately, our house is on high ground--comparatively, that is--and we were without electricity only 49 hours. Our only access to news was a battery-powered radio, with which I kept up-to-date on the rising waters and evacuations and somewhat informed of the outside world through National Public Radio.

I'll continue to read my favorite political bloggers and be engaged in the political process, but I'll bear in mind that my daily happiness is determined by me, not a pundit, preacher, prophet, or political leader. As Seneca says:

Whatever is best for a human being lies outside human control: it can be neither given nor taken away. The world you see, nature's greatest and most glorious creation, and the human mind which gazes and wonders at it, and is the most splendid part of it, these are our everlasting possessions and will remain with us as long as we ourselves remain. [from "Consolation to Helvia"]

Briefly....

So glad this guy's not going to be President: "Gingrich Walks out During Interview with Student Reporter," in Slate. I mean, really, petulance doesn't wear well in a leader. Imagine four years of stunts like this.

But here are the people who disagree with me: The Atlantic's video of the day. Bully for them.

As Kevin Drum says, not much of anything new was added to the George W. Bush and the National Guard story in Joe Hagen's article in the  May edition of the Texas Monthly , but, distilled, it does deliver some cautionary reminders:

• The rich, powerful, politically-connected are not like you and me, and don't forget it. If drafted, their children don't go to war, and they don't have to flee to Canada to avoid deploying. While someone less fortunate serves and dies in their place or lives the rest of his life in a foreign country, they get safe assignments and (finally) grow up to be President.
• Career politicians (often, and selectively, perhaps) look out for other politicians, even those in the competing party. This is how they bargain; this is how they accrue power.
• Powerfully rich and influential people can destroy lives or hinder the aspirations of others more admirable: Walter V. Robinson, Boston Globe reporter: "...the only [2004 presidential] candidate who ended up with a serious credibility problem about his military service was John Kerry, who had absolutely nothing to hide or be ashamed of."

Useful reminders.

Unlimited Detention of American Citizens

I am not an admirer of Rand Paul, but I think he has done the right thing in voting against the provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that allows  "the U.S. military to pick up and detain, without charges or trial, anyone suspected of terrorism, including American citizens, and to restrict transfers of prisoners out of Guantanamo Bay." Unfortunately, the amendment didn't pass. Read Dahlia Lithwick's article for a fuller discussion of possible consequences.


Once again, I am reminded of the importance of diversity and independence of thought in our governing leaders. Just because one disagrees with others on one issue doesn't mean there is no room for agreement on other issues. I think this is important to keep in mind when we are tempted to demonize those who don't agree with us. Our world views intersect in more ways than we might imagine.


Here is the roll call of the votes: U. S. Senate Roll Call Votes, 112th Congress, 1st session; on Amdt. # 1107  to S. 1867


h/t to Dahlia  Lithwick and to Steve Benen.

The Stupid, Stupid Scapegoating of Public Employees

So...evidently Mitt Romney has in this evening's debate of Republican presidential candidates claimed that he would "link pay of public employees to that of private-sector workers." However, as the writers at Think Progress point out, such a claim would actually require RAISING the pay of public employees. According to an article in the Washington Post, Saturday, November 5:

The federal government reported Friday that on average, its employees are underpaid by 26.3 percent compared with similar non-federal jobs, a 'pay gap' that increased by about 2 percentage points over last year while federal salary rates were frozen.

Got that, Mitt Romney, and all the other Republican talkingpoint-bots who like to scapegoat public employees? 

It's all just a diversion tactic--to get people to focus on what's NOT important and to forget what IS: the increasing income gap in this country, the over-weaning power of corporations, and unemployment.

Sick of Politics

In mid-September, my husband and I left for a two-week vacation, with Nova Scotia as our end destination. It was a great trip, in which we saw fossils of ancient trees in the cliffs near Joggins and the Bay of Fundy, watched humpback whales and porpoises up close, drove foggy roads along the Bay of Fundy, hiked in the rain, and viewed the land that my original Acadian ancestor farmed. What would my life be like now, I wondered, if the British hadn't ethnically cleansed the Annapolis Valley and the shores of the Bay of Fundy of French Acadians? What if Abraham Dugas' grandsons had remained instead of finding refuge in the swamps of Louisiana and then, later, the marshes of Anahuac and the Old and Lost Rivers of southeast Texas (where "Dugas" became "Dugat")? What would it be like to be Canadian now instead of American?

During our trip, I tried to stay away from the internet and the nastiness of our political discourse, but then one morning, a Canadian asked us at breakfast a question about our politics, and soon other people at the bed and breakfast were voicing their opinions, especially an ex-patriate from West Texas who had married a Canadian. Our hosts, however, were visibly silent; they were trying to sell their bed and breakfast so that they could spend their winters in Florida and their summers in Nova Scotia, untroubled by testy customers who wanted better views.

I was sick of politics. I just wanted a better view, not from my window but from my heart, a better view of humanity. History was not the place to find it, however. Abraham Dugas had never been compensated for the land confiscated to build a fort at what was then known as Annapolis Royal; his grandchildren were deprived of their cattle, the farmland they had improved, and their homes were burned; his descendants were transported to British colonies where many had to beg and where their daughters were taken away to work in the big houses of Protestants, where their language and their Catholicism were scorned.

Just the politics of kings: the strong taking from the weak. But how is that different from today?

It was the greediness of Wall Street--of banks and CEOs of corporations and financiers and politicians-- that brought our economy and the economy of the world to the brink of disaster, yet corporations continue to profit while laying off workers, politicians continue to cut deals, the banks are bigger, the CEOs who led those bloated financial institutions are not in jail but making more money than ever. So that's not the smoke of burning homes in the distance or of people loaded into ships with only the belongings they can carry, but, really, how different is it?

Mitt Romney can run for the highest office in the land of a democratic republic and tell voters that foreclosures should just be allowed to run their course. So what that people lost their jobs because Wall Street sold toxic derivatives and over-leveraged. So what that those people now can't keep up with their mortgages while looking for other jobs. Let those with money buy up those homes at rock-bottom prices and rent them out.  In other words, let the rich make more money off the losses and grief of the working and middle class. That's Romney's message to the people.

Or how about making federal employees scape goats for the economy? Mitt Romney, whom it is estimated to be worth up to $250 million, shows up at a steel fabrication plant, dressed in jeans and a plaid work shirt,  and tells the workers that government employees are "making a lot more money than we are." I'm married to a government employee, and, with a Ph.d., he still makes less as a government employee than he did working for a private non-profit and less (counting inflation) than he did working for a corporation over ten years ago. I bet you he makes less than some of those working in the steel fabrication plant.

Who does Mitt Romney think he's fooling? This is a man who made his fortune buying sinking corporations, laying off the workers, and re-selling what remained. And he's likely to be the Republican nominee for President of the United States.

What a joke. On us. The middle-class, the working class.

 Our houses are burning, our wealth confiscated, our voices silenced in a sea of political bullshit.

Low Information Voters and Republican Strategy

Some of the most distressing descriptions of American citizens I've read lately have been detailed by two retired Congressional staffers, one a 28-year veteran of the Republican party and the other who worked for a moderate Democrat. These are not people on the fringes of the right or left. And now that they have retired, they feel free to write what they really believe, what they have actually experienced and observed. This is what Mike Lofgren, who served 28 years as a Congressional staffer and "16 years as a professional staff member on the Republican side of both the House and Senate Budget Committees," writes :

There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters' confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that "they are all crooks," and that "government is no good," further leading them to think, "a plague on both your houses" and "the parties are like two kids in a school yard." This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s - a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn ("Government is the problem," declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).

Lofgren goes on to describe how "the long-term Republican strategy of undermining confidence in our democratic institutions has reaped electoral dividends." People who think government doesn't work decide that their vote doesn't count, too. And so they stay home while the far-right minority, "whipped into a lather by three hours daily of Rush Limbaugh or Fox News" increases its clout in elections. This strategy of weakening trust in government institutions to create citizen malaise goes hand in hand with another Republican strategy, that of disenfranchising voters who are more likely to vote Democratic:

Ever since Republicans captured the majority in a number of state legislatures last November, they have systematically attempted to make it more difficult to vote: by onerous voter ID requirements (in Wisconsin, Republicans have legislated photo IDs while simultaneously shutting Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in Democratic constituencies while at the same time lengthening the hours of operation of DMV offices in GOP constituencies)**; by narrowing registration periods; and by residency requirements that may disenfranchise university students.

Lofgren says that other folks are very upfront about these strategies:

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption [the more recent Republican strategy to filibuster every confirmation and routine procedural motion] .... By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.

 So what Republicans cannot succeed in doing by rigorous debate of the issues and communication of those issues to constituents, they plan to win by subterfuge and destruction of democratic institutions. Again, this is not some leftie talking; this is a guy who witnessed Republican strategy for years from the bullpen and who mourns the demise of Republican virtue (if virtue exists in politics). He is no supporter of President Obama, he says, but he wanted Obama to succeed in the worst economic crisis the country has faced in years because he wanted his country to succeed. The Republicans--those leading now--want the country to fail so that Obama will fail. The country fails, millions of Americans suffer--but they will blame the current president. Why? Because they are low information voters who have no idea how government works.

The second negative description of American citizens comes from a Congressional staffer who worked for years for a moderate Democrat. This staffer wrote in response to James Fallows' post about Mike Lofgren's essay.

The mainstream media absolutely fails to understand how little attention average Americans really pay to what goes on in all forms of government. During our 2008 race, our pollster taught me (hard to believe it took me 24 years to learn this) that the average voter spends only 5 minutes thinking about for whom to vote for Congress. All the millions of dollars of TV ads, all the thousands of robo-calls and door-knocks, and it all comes down to having a message that will stick in the voters' minds during the 5 minutes before they walk into the voting booth.

 Although the pollster mentioned above is referring to Congressional races, I grimaced a little when I read how inattentive voters are in making their choices. While I understand my own ideals and how those ideals have affected my voting record in national elections and state level elections, I have been less attentive to local elections. Yet that's where many politicians get their start, in their being elected to the school board or to mayor. From the city level, they may go to the state level and then the national level--though, more often than not these days, the already-rich jump directly to representing us at the state and national level.

If anything should convince those disaffected voters to get out to vote, this should: there are people hoping that you won't vote so that their ability to whip up the anger and fear of the fringe will have a stronger impact. And that's not good for our country...or for ordinary Americans.

**I have read that the push in Wisconsin to close Department of Motor Vehicles offices has been tabled. A spokesman said that there was no intention to shut down offices in Democratic constituencies, but a Democratic spokesman said that a look at which offices were planned to be shut down counters that claim. However, a recent Wisconsin Department of Motor Vehicles memo came to light in which employees were directed to provide material when people ask for the free ID but that they should not readily provide information if not asked. So it's pretty clear what the intent is.

More on the Wisconsin voter ID conflict: This guy evidently should have used his personal e-mail to send out his message, but....."Wisconsin Employee Fired for E-mail Defying Voter ID Policy," posted on TPM. More at the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel: "State Employee Fired After Telling Co-Workers about Photo ID Policy," 8 Sept. 2011.

Antidotes for Angst and Despair

For days, weeks even, I have been thinking of trying to address as honestly and straightforwardly as I can why I usually support liberal causes over conservative causes and why I have become increasingly cynical about politics and the possibilities of change in the way we are governed.  I envisioned a series of such exploratory posts, and yesterday I wrote the first one, addressing my changing perspective on religion. And then I lost the entire post because I was using the updated Blogger interface, which evidently doesn't save drafts automatically as the older interface does. Or perhaps the loss of the post was due to some error of my own. Whatever the cause,  nothing I could do resulted in my being able to retrieve the lost essay. So I surrendered to the capriciousness of technology and took a walk instead. Later I recorded some details of that walk with photos and a post that turned out quite differently than I had originally intended.

I have found, however, that experiencing--and recalling--details of the natural world helps me maintain perspective when confronted with political landscapes where alliances are constantly shifting, where people say what they don't believe, don't believe what they say, say they believe what facts and figures can't support, or massage facts and figures to conclude what they wish from them, or just make up stuff and hope that saying it over and over will convince people of its veracity. (Unfortunately, research shows that this last strategy works.)

So a day when I get online and read that even a career Republican Congressional staffer thinks that the Republican party is now "full of lunatics" or that "the average voter spends only 5 minutes thinking about for whom to vote for Congress," I know that's a day I need to leave despair at the keyboard and get outside.

A camera can be distracting if I am constantly snapping photos so that the initial experience is distanced and delayed to later viewing. But having a camera in hand can also help me to focus on sights I might otherwise overlook: the mushroom covered in tiny brown fibers that look like furry hair, the fly with red eyes perched on an autumn-blooming flower, the photography-worthy gate to one's neighbor's yard, slender green limbs heavy with purple beauty berry, a dragonfly posing patiently on a blue-black salvia bloom. Just small moments of awe and beauty can help restore my equilibrium.

However, I'm afraid that all my antidotes to angst and despair--immersing myself in the natural world, gardening, crafting things, writing--have limited efficacy and must be administered frequently. The next news cycle requires another dose.

 For an enlarged view of the dragonfly I photographed today on my patio, click on the photo.

Signs of the Times

• The rich hire protection from the economically-depressed masses: "These Guys will Stop you from Killing your Boss," Josh Harkinson, Mother Jones, July/August 2011 issue.
  
  
  
• Is poverty being criminalized?: "Turning Poverty into an American Crime," Barbara Ehrenreich, The Nation (originally posted on TomDispatch.com), 9 August 2011.
  
  
  
• Why is there such hatred of the poor as the poor get poorer and the richer get richer?: "Nebraska AG Jon Bruning Compares Welfare Recipients to Scavenging Raccoons," Benji Sarlin, Talking Points Memo, 9 August 2011.
  
  
  
• What is happening to the middle-class in America?": "Can the Middle Class be Saved?," Don Peck, The Atlantic, September 2011 issue. 
 
• The unemployed need not apply: "The Help-Wanted Sign comes with a Frustrating Asterisk," Catherine Rampell, The New York Times, 25 July 2011.

• London burns in riots "led by gangs of young people and organized in part via BlackBerry instant messaging." The riots began in economically-depressed neighborhoods and have spread to other cities: "London Burning: A Foreign Policy Slide Show"; also "Why London Exploded Last Night," Michael Goldfarb, Salon, 9 August 2011.
  
  
• Social media used by criminals to create flash mobs to cover for crimes: "For Flash Mobsters, Crowd Size a Tempting Cover," Eric Tucker and Thomas Watkins for Associated Press, Salon,  9 August 2011.
  
  
  
• Voluntary citizen clean-up crews in London use Twitter to organize after rioting: "Londoners Turn to Technology to Stop the Looting,", Adam Clark Estes, The Atlantic Wire, 9 August 2011.
  
  
  
  
• governmental coverups--Severity of radiation exposure downplayed by Japanese government: "Japan Held Nuclear Data, Leaving Evacuees in Peril," Norimitsu Onishi and Martin Fackler, The New York Times, 8 August 2011.
  
  
  
• regulation coverups--Is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the U.S. doing its job?: "Whistleblowers Say Nuclear Regulatory Commission is Losing Its Bite," John Sullivan and Cameron Hickey, ProPublica,  27 July 2011.
  
  
  
  
  just a few.....

Outrage Fatigue

Reading the news online these days gives me outrage fatigue. Today I got out of bed at 4 a.m. because I couldn't sleep. Now, four hours later, I'm exhausted and would like to stay in bed all day to recover. Here is my day's quota of outrage:

• First up, a list of banking crises and bailouts in Paul Krugman's and Robin Wells' article in The New York Review of Books has me wondering why we can't learn from our mistake of not regulating the banking industry (and larger financial industry) more vigorously: The Busts Keep Getting Bigger. Why?". Clearly, some people have been getting very, very rich through insufficiently regulated speculation and trading, but millions of Americans have suffered because of the greed of a few:

  what we have experienced is, in a very real sense, the triumph of Wall Street and the decline of America...[T]the vast sums of money channeled through Wall Street did not improve America’s productive capacity by “efficiently allocating capital to its best use.” Instead, it diminished the country’s productivity by directing capital on the basis of financial chicanery, outrageous compensation packages, and bubble-infected stock price valuations....And what has happened in the aftermath of the 2008–2009 crisis is still worse: all the evidence suggests that the United States is on track to spending the better part of a decade experiencing high unemployment and sub-par growth blighting millions of lives—particularly the old, the young, and the economically vulnerable.

• Next up, an article about how a law to protect pregnant women from domestic violence is being used to criminalize women who have miscarriages: Ed Pilkington's "Outcry in America as Pregnant Women Who Lose Babies Face Murder Charges," The Guardian, 24 June 2011. Women whose addictions may or may not have caused them to abort are being arrested and charged with murder. And this is in a country where abortion is still--theoretically, at least--legal. Now, I believe in a woman's right to have a legal, safe, medically-arranged abortion, a right that is becoming increasingly difficult to attain in states that are throwing up more and more legal barriers. Personally, I don't think abortion is the right way to practice birth control; I would prefer that women and teenagers have cheap and easy access to birth control. However, the same folks who would refuse abortions to women who seek them (or women who require them for medical reasons) also fight to prevent easy access to birth control. I believe that women have the right to make their own decisions about reproduction, and I'm not really sympathetic to the idea that a bunch of cells can have "rights" from the moment of conception. Yet that seems to be where our current anti-abortion groups are leading us--to a place where women's bodies become their prisons, their fetuses--at whatever stage--their jailors. It's difficult for me not to see misogyny in how this law is being pursued:

  At least 38 of the 50 states across America have introduced foetal homicide laws that were intended to protect pregnant women and their unborn children from violent attacks by third parties – usually abusive male partners – but are increasingly being turned by renegade prosecutors against the women themselves.
  
  South Carolina was one of the first states to introduce such a foetal homicide law. National Advocates for Pregnant Women has found only one case of a South Carolina man who assaulted a pregnant woman having been charged under its terms, and his conviction was eventually overturned. Yet the group estimates there have been up to 300 women arrested for their actions during pregnancy. (my emphasis)

  Once again, we have a law whose consequences folks just weren't far-sighted enough to imagine.

• Even David Brooks is calling out the Republicans for obstinancy: "The Mother of All No-Brainers," The New York Times, 4 July 2011. Brooks describes the fanatic movement that has taken over the Republican party as unwilling to compromise, "no matter how sweet the terms," as lacking "moral decency," as deniers of facts (refusing to believe scholars and impartial experts), and as unfit to govern. This is DAVID BROOKS, not some lefty. What I don't get is why so many citizens are influenced by these same fanatics. And I found Michael Lind's article "The Three Fundamentalisms of the American Right" useful, too, in understanding my own outrage at today's conservatism--because today's conservatism isn't the conservatism that I grew up with: it's fundamentalism, not Burkean conservatism. And just as I grew more and more outraged as the Southern Baptist Church, the church in which I was born and reared, became more and more fundamentalist, I have become more and more outraged as conservatism has become fundamentalist. And that makes sense. For, as Lind points out, one cannot have a civil discussion with people who think they are always right--and therefore Good--and anyone who disagrees with them is always wrong--and therefore Evil:

  The rise of triple fundamentalism [Protestant fundamentalism, constitutional fundamentalism, and market fundamentalism] on the American right creates a crisis of political discourse in the United States. Back when conservatism was orthodox and traditional, rather than fundamentalist and counter-revolutionary, conservatives could engage in friendly debates with liberals, and minds on both sides could now and then be changed. But if your sect alone understands the True Religion and the True Constitution and the Laws of the Market, then there is no point in debate. All those who disagree with you are heretics, to be defeated, whether or not they are converted.

Enough outrage for the day. It's mid-morning; I can still salvage the day.

Protecting the Rich and Powerful

This morning, I read on Salon's website an article titled "The Rich Aren't Like You and Me," by Michael Winship. Winship describes how the rich are getting richer and richer and the poor, poorer and poorer. CEO pay and compensation continues to grow while workers' salaries stagnate. Of 438 companies analyzed:

[a]t 158 of the companies, more was paid to those in charge than was shelled out for outside audit fees. And 32 of them paid more in top salaries than they paid in corporate income taxes. The pay of 2591 executives was up 13.9 percent in 2010. Total, before taxes: $14.3 billion, almost equal to the GDP of Tajikistan, population: more than seven million.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (See also, here) was passed in 2010, in response to the financial crisis, but interested parties have been chipping away at its regulatory power. One of the requirements of the Dodd-Frank would have made transparent the difference between CEO compensation and worker compensation of publicly traded companies: "The Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly traded companies to disclose the median annual total compensation of all employees of the company, the annual total compensation of the CEO, and the ratio comparing those two numbers."

Some folks, however, think that gathering this information is just "too burdensome" for companies and that the money spent gathering that information would best be spent on hiring workers. (Really, how difficult would it be for a company to publish that information in its annual report?) So Rep. Nan Hayworth (R-NY) has sponsored a bill--which has passed in the Committee on Financial Services--to do away with this "burdensome" requirement. Companies, of course, have a vested interest in not making this kind of information easily available to the public--and their own workers. Nan Hayworth also has a vested interest. As Michael Winship points out, Nan Hayworth's official biography

cites 'reducing regulatory burdens on businesses' as one of her top priorities. Among her leading 2010 campaign contributors: leveraged buyout specialists Vestar Capital Partners, distressed debt investors Elliott Management and financial services giant Credit Suisse. Not to mention the anti-taxation Club for Growth.

Businesses, of course, are making profits once again in our stressed economy; workers, however, are not seeing their pay rise accordingly.

So I was curious to see who co-sponsored this bill to lift such a "burdensome" requirement, as outlined in H.R. 1062: Burdensome Data Collection Relief Act. Here are the names: Judy Biggert (R-IL), Francisco Canseco (R-TX), Bob Dold (R-IL), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Michael Grimm (R-NY), Peter King (R-NY), Bill Posey (R-FL).

As Peter Whoriskey reports in his article in the Washington Post, "Business Group: Public Companies Shouldn't have to Compare CEO and Worker Pay":

The committee vote was largely along partisan lines: Twenty-nine Republicans and four Democrats supported repeal; 21 Democrats opposed it.

As income disparity grows in this country, it's interesting to see just who forms alliances to hide that disparity and to protect the rich.

And so it goes.

Additional information:
members of the Committee on Financial Services

Register opposition or support: popvox

Giving Credit Where Credit is Due

The Awl has an interesting post on how Michele Bachman's supporters will use negative criticism to inflame her base--those nasty lefty bloggers, you know--much as Sarah Palin has used negative criticism to make the case that her critics are mean and unfair. But what really caught my attention was the discussion of how local Minnesotans who have been following Bachman's career and catching her out on lies and craziness don't get the credit for their work. Instead, big-name writers such as Matt Taibbi, of Rolling Stone, grab information from those local sites and often don't credit the source. Shame on Rolling Stone! A second criticism of writers of large media publications  is the tendency to condescend to folks who live in those towns from which Bachman and Palin hail: Stillwater, Minnesota; Wasilla, Alaska. It's easy to jet into a place, sniff out some local color, and draw quick conclusions that don't stand up in the light of real analysis--or conclusions that, while not untrue, are simplistic. This is another reason folks hate the media.

Anyway, giving credit where credit is due:  Karl Bremer of Stillwater, Minnesota, has been following Michele Bachman's career from a front-row seat. So check out his blog: Ripple in Stillwater. Also, check out these other sources that did not receive credit for information used by Matt Taibbi in writing for Rolling Stone: Minneapolis City Pages and The Dump Bachman Blog.

Politics Vs. Substantive Discussion of Issues

"... [R]elentless emphasis on the cynical game of politics threatens public life itself, by implying day after day that the political sphere is nothing more than an arena in which ambitious politicians struggle for dominance, rather than a structure in which citizens can deal with worrisome collective problems." --James Fallows, in "Why Americans Hate the Media," Atlantic Magazine,  February 1996.

I am re-reading this article from The Atlantic's archives. Fifteen years later, it seems to me that the media focus is even more on politics rather than on substance, substance such as how our country should deal with the very real problems of unemployment, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and now Libya and maybe even Yemen), the financial crisis, and climate change.  Republicans have just about abandoned any real attempt to create jobs for the millions of unemployed Americans, and they are threatening to blow up our country economically by holding the debt limit hostage to their budget-cutting demands, despite contrary advice from economists within their own party. I'm beginning to think that Republicans are willing to sacrifice American livelihoods to win the presidency--They just rejected a suggestion to cut payroll taxes, a move that would stimulate the economy and a tax cut they very much favored in the past. It's all about politics. All about how a poor economy will hurt President Obama's prospects--and the Democrats'--in 2012. And the media focuses on the politics--on how not embracing Paul Ryan's budget plan will affect Republican nominees' chance at the presidency, not on how adopting Ryan's plan will affect ordinary Americans. It's not about us, the people, and how these policies will affect our everyday lives.

Update (Thursday, 23 June, 2011):
The point that James Fallows makes in the quote I've excerpted above has been demonstrated once again in the discussion of climate change. Al Gore has published a very well-written, insightful article in Rolling Stone on climate change. Does the media then discuss climate change, the overwhelming evidence of climate change, the tremendous push-back from vested interests, the consequences of climate change, the ways to confront climate change? No, of course not. Because Al Gore included some criticism of President Obama in his article, the media immediately focuses on politics: Al Gore vs. Barack Obama--as if the whole issue boils down to a boxing match.

Yet Gore's criticism of Obama is muted and is only a small piece of the long article. Once again, the media turns a serious topic into political entertainment.

It's disheartening.

Read the article: "Climate of Denial," Al Gore, Rolling Stone, 22 June 2011.

Typically, television media frames  Gore's discussion of climate change as a political spat, "Gore vs. Obama." On Hardball, Chris Matthews begins his show using that very frame, though he does give a little push back in the lead-in, as do Joan Walsh and Eric Bates: "Drop the Gore vs. Obama Script," Joan Walsh, Salon, 22 June 2011.

Gotcha!

Ever since Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin what newspapers she read to keep informed, Palin has complained that the "lame-stream" media is always trying to trip up politicians with such "gotcha" questions. For my part, Couric's question seemed quite straight-forward. How difficult could it be to name a newspaper or journal or two? Surely Palin read The Weekly Standard, the conservative magazine founded by one of her most ardent supporters at the time, William Kristol. Maybe she occasionally read Foreign Affairs or Foreign Policy? I mean, she was the running mate of a man who wanted to lead the most powerful country in the nation.  Were he to become president, she would be, as they say,  a heart-beat away from the presidency. Or, really, how difficult would it be to pucker one's lips to say The New York Times or Washington Post? She could have started locally, with the Anchorage Daily News or the Wasilla Frontiersman. I mean, she was governor of Alaska then, and it would make sense to us voters that she kept up with state news and politics. In short, there was nothing "gotcha" in that question that Sarah Palin herself didn't provide in her answer.

Ever since the Couric interview, Palin has again and again accused the media of focusing on "gotcha" questions. Certainly, there are people and organizations who long for and aggressively look for that "gotcha" moment. The group following Congressman Anthony Weiner's Tweets is an example. Andrew Breitbart is an example.  Writers for The Enquirer may be further examples. But these aren't--usually, I guess I should add here--providers of news for mainstream and authoritative news organizations.

Now Dan Amira, with New York magazine, has put together a slide show of Palin's complaints about these "gotcha" questions--all of which seem quite legitimate questions to me posed to people who were or are running for the highest offices in the land.

Judge for yourself: "A History of Sarah Palin Complaining about 'Gotcha' Questions," Dan Amira, New York Magazine, News and Features, 8 June 2011.