A Truth Tsar

I’ve told my share of lies, more when I was a child than now. But when I did,  it became increasingly offensive to me, like an odor about myself, just as embarrassing to me, as it would be to anyone around me. I don't tell lies today, well, maybe an occassional fib now and then.  But the problem is that I’m not the only one who does it. Lying is almost common these days. It’s a stink in our society that is as prevalent today as honor and truth-telling were to our ancestors.

I do try to be truthful (I promise), in my blog, in my conversations, in my correspondence; even in my fiction, I try to write from the heart as my Freshman English instructor suggested all those years ago.

But if you think about it honestly you’ll realize we are surrounded by lies on a regular basis: lies, exaggerations, untruths. It makes me wonder: is it an attribute of human nature or is it merely a very bad habit that we’ve allowed ourselves to sink into and don’t really think much about it anymore?

I used to think that people lied because of money. After all, many lies are for money: the scams across the Internet are manipulating the elderly and the unaware for money. Preparing our annual tax returns, 75% of the population will try to use tax dodges, any scheme at all in order not to pay their fair share.

Commercials are filled with lies – why? To sell more product.

What about the law? Lies, lies and more lies, not just by witnesses, but by attorneys in order to win their cases (and their fee). The Law is filled with tricks which allow the guilty to go free (most recently the story of the ill-fitting glove and O. J. Simpson).

Job applications – are we always perfectly honest about our attributes or do we exaggerate our experience in the work force, our education, sometimes even lying about our age and birth circumstances, just to get a job?

The Press (both electronic media and print) - how they’ve been allowed to make lying a legitimate exercise and create the news that is not news, or de-emphasize reals news so that it can be found as an after-thought on TV or on page D9 in the newspapers. This is our fourth estate – we own the air-ways and yet we allow one or two major conglomorates control our media as though we lived in a third world country. Money is the cause of this as well. Powerful interests depend on prominent spots on tv and in print. I don't want to imply there are not great and fearless journalists out there -- there are.  I'm just saying, there is a trend to manipulate the  news to one's own advantage.

Politics - may be the greatest arena for lying and here is where my earlier theory flounders. Politics is rampant with lies. But many politicians are rich, filthy rich, even. So why do they lie?

In politics, it’s not just money, it’s power. But money is power, is it not? In the case of the rich guys in politics, it must be different; they’re not seeking money because they’ve already got lots of it. They’re seeking power, but if they have money, they already have a certain amount of power. Whatever it is they are seeking, they will lie to get it.

Lying has become acceptable. Just as lack of responsibility has become a way of life. If you do harm to someone, a public apology (usually only after the harm is discovered) is all it takes to be forgiven. What happened to responsibility? Retribution? Atonement? They are unnecessary because the liar has already been forgiven as the result of a wimpy statement of apology which in my opinion, is meaningless. A public apology in this world is merely a way to get back in the game after a suspension.

I don’t know what the remedy is. Maybe what we need is a “Truth Tsar.” (I've become my own) -- someone to take the place of all the fact-checkers out there that only check the facts for their chosen party, thus allowing only the "facts" that suit them.  .

The In-Elegant Campaign

Pants on Fire!

Well, I have to take back some of the nice things I said about Ryan.

His speech during the Republican Convention on Wednesday, was filled with so much hyperbole – not only over his marathon, but about the timing of the GM closure (it took place during the Bush administration, not Obama’s). He claims Obama cut Medicare by over $700 bln when, as I understand it, the Obama Health Care Program doesn’t actually “cut” funds, but reduces growth in an effort to keep the Program solvent. And, though he failed to mention it, his own budget plan appears to use the same method of savings.

That wasn’t the only lie, there were others. Why tell the truth when no one seems to care whether you lie or not? Everyone knows Obama didn’t strike the work requirement to Welfare assistance, but the Republican campaign persists in this flagrant un-truth with no embarrassment or apology. Why be bothered with the facts? A certain Republican pollster boldly declared the campaign is not going to be concerned about fact-checkers anyway.

So much for my ignorant assumptions. I still like to think there should be an outrage to these continuous miss-statements of fact, but people just sit back, shake their heads and say, “that’s politics!”

It should not be, though. We’ve become inured to the lie and to those who perpetuate it. And that’s the fault of the electorate. By our inaction, we not only allow it, we encourage it.

The In-Elegant Campaign

Pants on Fire!

I am neither a Democrat nor Republican. But, you know, I don’t like Romney. He’s not just evasive, he’s either lying or instructing those whose job it is to represent his ideas, to lie. I’d one-hundred times rather have Ron Paul as the Republican nominee than Mr. Romney.

Ron Paul, for all his fustiness, is a “straight from the shoulders” kind of guy. If you don’t like what he says, “lump-it!” Remember back during some of the Republican Primary debates. Ron Paul said Obama was doing as good as anyone could do during the crises in Libya, Syria and Egypt? He even said that President Kennedy was masterful in his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis way back in the early sixties.

Anathema!

Who of the Republican Party today has the courage to say these kinds of things to their own constituents? Paul is my kind of politician. I wish there were others I could include here, but sadly . . .

Well, yes, there is another Paul, a Mr. Paul Ryan, who has recently appeared on the scene. Unfortunately, Mr. Ryan has allowed his ideals, energy and zeal in the House to become twisted into a chinese pretzel in order to please the devious Romney campaign.  He’s the one with the ideas and the guts to present them in Congress.  He’s the one with the budget plan, remember, the one who is on record as having voted for perhaps unpopular bills during his tenure and as a result is taking his knocks for those votes.  Romney, on the other hand, lurks in the shadows, ducking those pesky reporters, refusing to answer direct questions, wearing the same stoney non-smile, and leaving his henchmen to attack reporters with statements like, “. . . this is a holy place to the Polish people. . .” you ass-holes. My, my.

But back to Ryan. Why in the world has he hitched his wagon to Romney in the first place? In a few short years he would have been able to run on his own and not be tied to the babbling, in-articulate pablum we hear from the campaign. What, really, have they said?  What positions have they taken? What policy do they want to enforce?  The answer is, first beat Obama and then we’ll let you know. Is this the kind of paternalistic presidency we want for our nation?  "Don't ask questions, just do as I say?"

Ryan has made a huge mistake in his career I think.  He should have stayed out of this race;  he should have continued to do the work in Congress he was doing representing his own (albeit ultra-conservative) agenda.  His budget plan may not be a viable one, but it sure as heck was more viable before it was massaged by the campaign.  I certainly don't agree with him on women's issues.  But, like Ron Paul, he is talking about issues, and not just voicing vague and fluffy platitudes. He has presented his ideas to the House for everyone to see and critisize. He has done more than just obstruct.  I really hate to see him tied to Romney -- no matter how great his appearance at the convention may be.  I had thought he was his own man and now, his belongs to Romney, the elusive shadow behind the curtain.  

Don’t you see what’s wrong with us as a nation? No one wants to put himself on the line, because he may lose his seat by doing so. Ryan had guts. I admire him for doing something and sticking with it. I admire him for taking chances, like Ron Paul, and letting the mop flop where it may.

I do not admire Romney whose bid for the Presidency out-weighs any sense of honor or duty not to (not only) pander to the people, but to allow himself to continue with the lies. Lies that everyone knows are lies such as Obama’s willingness to “gut the welfare program” – this one, ad infinitum. 

I can’t wait for Ryan to defect. And if he does, remember: this is where you heard it first! And if he does, maybe someone will have the good sense to draft my guy. Tampa still lies ahead. Why not dream big?  

Fareed Zakaria

Fareed Zakaria has been caught in an episode of plagiarism.  I am very saddened by this story and disappointed beyond words. Still, I hope that he is reinstated and allowed to continue his posts as Editor-at-Large for Time Magazine and host to GPS, a regular Sunday morning international news show on CNN.  

However;

I believe that apologies in a situation such as this, are meaningless,  because they occur only when one is caught; his apology is based in fear of losing what must have taken years to establish:  his professional credentials.  Being fired,  even temporarily, is not only embarrassing, but creatively and financially devastating.  Still it was the right thing to do, as I'm sure Fareed will agree.

The suspension is not just necessary but crucial,  because plagiarism should be anathema to any journalist of his stature with the academic background he posseses (a Phd from Harvard plus a long-standing academic association with Yale University).  But, I will miss the weekly international round-up of difficult to reach guests that few TV personalities are able to gather around them for in-depth conversations. There is no where else that you can get the kind of global coverage we see every week on GPS (except, of course, the incomparable Charlie Rose at his table on PBS).  For that reason, I am saddened.  I agree with the suspension, but I still feel he is the best on the air and will hope that CNN reinstates him in the next month or so, as TIME promises to do.

Perhaps, this is what comes from success, competition and deadlines.  But success is, as we all know, fleeting. Perhaps this is an opportunity for you, Fareed, to re-boot and re-think what you've achieved.  Be ambitious.  Be competitive.  But be also vigilant.  I am an admirer and this is my advice.   

Where are the Leaders?

  Re: Sikh Temple Killings in Wisconsin:
“Michelle and I were deeply saddened to learn of the shooting that tragically took so many lives in Wisconsin. At this difficult time, the people of Oak Creek must know that the American people have them in our thoughts and prayers, and our hearts go out to the families and friends of those who were killed and wounded.”

-President Barack Obama, Sunday August 5, 2012

“Our hearts are with the victims, their families and the entire Oak Creek Sikh community. We join Americans everywhere in mourning those who lost their lives and in prayer for healing in the difficult days ahead.”

-Presidential hopeful and former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, Sunday, August 5, 2012.

Yes.  Of course.  My deepest sympathies go out to the victims, the friends and families of the victims, as well. 

But, what else Mr. President? What else, Governor Romney?

Would either of you like to make a statement about how we've all had enough?  Enough gun violence, enough intolerance. There was a 9mm semi-automatic handgun used in this shooting, legally purchased according to news sources.

You are two very powerful men, but you are afraid to make a statement that could change the laws of the land and saves innocent lives.

We don’t need this kind of leadership. We need someone who’s not afraid to stand up and speak to the American people, someone who has the guts to “lead.”  No more pandering to the gun lobby. No more passing the buck.

Where are the leaders?

Mass Murder in Colorado

(My deepest sympathy to the survivors of this tragedy and the families of all the victims.  This post is directed to the rest of us, who if we can organize and form a citizens' group of sorts, might prevent another such incident).

Nevertheless, here we are again! And do you think that after another massacre caused by lax gun laws and ammo purchased through the Internet, there will be any reform on gun control?

Not unless we act. The gun lobby is now the “sugar daddy” of the U.S. Congress, supplying them with perks and supporting campaigns for re-election. We therefore pay (with our taxes) for a weak, flaccid congress which is terrified of the gun lobby,  doesn't  make waves and continues to allow mayhem across the nation dating back at least as far as the Columbine massacre thirteen years ago.

President Clinton signed a Federal Assault Weapon ban in 1994 which was allowed to expire in 2004 under the Bush administration. As a result, every weapon purchased by this confused young man,  who has admitted to perpetrating the murders at the movie theatre in Aurora, CO on July 20, and every round of ammo in his possession, was apparently legal and purchased over a period of several months from gun stores and the Internet.

Do we never learn? Why do we need semi-automatic rifle fire and high capacity gun clips which most gaming authorities do not allow?  We obviously don't need them to hunt or to protect our homes.  Let’s think about this a moment:

Have you read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

                            Text of Amendment:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment, the bible of the powerful NRA, states that we have a right to bear arms to protect our country. That’s about it. Everything else is open for interpretation.  “. . .a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…”  meaning that we can go to war as a citizen soldier  in order to protect our homes and our land. That’s my interpretation of it.

But, we no longer have a militia; we have a standing army.  So in literal terms, we don't have to take up arms to defend ourselves  -- at least not from foreign marauders.  The Court's interpretation in 2008 (DC vs Heller) held that the Second Amendment protected an individual's right to possess a firearm without any connection to a militia and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as protecting hearth and home.  I can live with that.

What it does not do is allow us personal ownership of the types of weapons now available, the likes of which were never remotely imagined when the second amendment was conceived.  It does not grant us the right to take down an eager young audience waiting for a much publicized fantasy thriller nor does it give us the right to shoot an unarmed teenager coming home from a visit with his girlfriend in Florida, nor does it say that we can blow away a U.S. Congresswoman almost killing her simply because she made herself publicly available to constituents in a Safeway parking lot.

And here, I must refute the most profoundly stupid statement I've ever heard, recently  made by one U.S. Congressman who speculates that had there been more people from the audience armed that night, there might have been fewer deaths.  Seriously?  With the type of protective gear this guy was wearing covering him from head to toe?   Can you imagine the scene had some of the audience been armed? -- in a panic and shooting randomely in the dark, hitting not the perpetrator but -- each other?  Please!

Movies are a part of Americana and we should not stop going to movies. We should not be held hostage to fear.   And as some have maintained, we must keep in sight the miracle that more were not killed.  I agree.  But when will it stop? Where can we be safe from gun-toting mal-contents and screwed up grad students?  Increasingly, we're allowing guns to rules our lives.
To quote myself from my blog regarding the Tucson shooting in January of 2011:

"We not only encourage incivility on the cable news shows, we reward networks who air blood-curdling TV dramas and movies of such considerable violence, that even I, a grown woman, have to walk out of the theatre in disgust and nausea. Guns are wielded on every channel -- try flicking across the networks one evening during prime time and you will witness a gun -- being discharged against someone or being used as a threat against someone -- guns on TV are as common as tasteless advertisements."

I don't condone doing away with guns but I propose regulating the ownership and use of them.  Ask the incredibly effective Aurora Police Department, whose performance early Friday morning was flawless.  Ask their Chief, the no nonsense Dan Oates, whether he thinks the current gun laws are reasonable.  Ask any active police officer. 

It is long past time to act. We need to do something about the loose gun laws, before another preventable incident such as this takes place. Think people! Neither the Congress nor the NRA owns us. We can fire Congress and replace them with real patriots who will do the will of the people. We are the people. Let us do something.

Please see my blog of January, 2011 regarding the shootings at Tucson, AZ:

http://sue-mcghee.blogspot.com/2011/01/guns-violence-and-nine-year-olds.html

The Supreme Court Ruling

When the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold the “Affordable Care Act” last Thursday, I was, to say the least, taken by surprise. This court has the reputation of being the most conservative since WWII and I, along with many others, was shocked. I think we were prepared for a 5-4 decision in the other direction, with (Chief) Justice Roberts leading the dissent.

Justice Roberts, however, is a very smart man. He is only 57 years old which is between 20 and 30 years younger than most of his colleagues. He knows he will likely have another 30 years to serve barring unforeseen illnesses or any of those unpredictable life situations we all face. He also understands the reputation the Court has incurred with its 2000 Bush v. Gore ruling along with the infamous Citizens United decision in January, 2011. To add one more flagrant partisan ruling to his legacy would not only jeopardize his reputation as Chief Justice, but would hinder progress to further the Court’s conservative agenda. By voting with the liberals, he has provided us with the judicial restraint he promised during his own confirmation hearings.

That he confounded the dissenting judges is evident and uplifting. The scoop is that  Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito were not only surprised but miffed that their leader could defect.  It is said that Justice Kennedy, who has created his own list of surprise rulings, tried for a full month to convince Justice Roberts to re-join the conservatives, to no avail.  I maintain that rulings by any of them should not become predictable. That is why I’ve so admired Justice Kennedy who seemed to be the lone maverick on the Court until now.

Whether the mandate is a tax or a penalty and whether it is an action or non-action that Congress has or has not any authority over through Commerce, I simply don't know.  And since the ruling, it appears that these concepts have been revised and re-revised. 

However, even more significant to me in his individual opinion, was Justice Roberts' statement that “. . . the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.”  Doesn’t this point to limited authority by the Courts, whose judges are appointed -- , not elected as is the President and the Congress? (And for a term of life!)  I like this man.

Perhaps I can live with the idea of Justice Roberts leading this court for the next 30 years, after all. I would prefer term limits for all three branches of the government, but in the meantime, we appear to have a Chief Justice with a streak of stubbornness and an extremely savvy political  awareness.