What's Mitt Afraid Of?

It’s been almost two years since the MSJC ruled in favor of same sex marriages. Contrary to the religious right’s apocalyptic fears the sun still rises, the tides still flow, and there have been no reports of locust infestation. In February of 2004, our governor warned that, “… the acceptance of same sex marriages threatens all marriages.”

I can’t speak for Mitt, but my marriage is doing just fine. I suppose it could be different in the Romney household. Perhaps the governor caught his wife TiVo-ing
“The L Word,” or maybe he has blown the kids’ trust funds on Diesel Jeans and midnight showings of “But I’m A Cheerleader.”

Quantum physics has proven that particles from a common origin are linked indefinitely. Change a parameter of one particle and its “sibling” is similarly affected. They appear to communicate instantly, across infinite distances with no known understandable method of data transference.

This must also be Mitt Romney’s definition of marriage. How else to explain his contention that a lesbian couple in Amherst or a gay union in Truro can so drastically affect his life?

Could it be that Mitt is just another middle-aged conservative homophobe, or is it bigger than that? Remember if he does decide to run for a national office the red states seem to prefer angry white men. Slyly, Romney claims no prejudice towards the gay life style; instead he affirms the historical sanctity of marriage between one woman and one man.

Of course he’s not alone, local conservatives like Howie Carr and Barbara Anderson also have their knickers in a twist. However since they have both been divorced and remarried their sudden dedication to piety seems somewhat self serving.

The fact is, half of all marriages end prematurely, and 60% of married people walk down the aisle more than once. If Conservative’s really wanted to save marriage, they should propose an amendment that outlaws divorce, promiscuity and drinking.

Mitt’s life is so threatened by same-sex marriages; that he is spearheading an effort to add an anti-gay amendment to the state constitution. This would be the only amendment ever added to our constitution that restricts individual rights and discriminates against an entire class of people.

He first tried to jam a bill through the legislature, but our elected officials proved too savvy. Three times the anti-gay bill came to the floor and three times it was defeated.

Dismissing first the Supreme Court Justices, and then our elected representatives, Romney has now requested the issue be put on the ballot for a vote in 2006. Much like Caligula seated at the Roman Coliseum, he hopes to excite the crowd with a taste of blood and then let them be responsible for a life or death decision.

Replacing facts with fiction, and playing to conservative paranoia, it is the governor’s hope he can incite an emotional response to a legal decision. Conservatives have already been charged with fraudulently handling the signature gathering process and many worry more Nixonian tricks will tip the scales towards disaster.

If this amendment succeeds what is to become of the previously wed same-sex couples and their children? Are the families going to be legally dissolved? Will their parental rights be limited or non-existent? How will the children feel when they are told that their parents’ love cannot constitute a legal marriage or family?

Small wonder many oppose this vote and fear its outcome. I, however, believe this vote will provide Massachusetts with its finest hour since Bunker Hill. When 60, 70, 80%, of the voting public recognize and reject this amendment for the bile it represents, our state will again prove to be this country’s democratic leader.

Mitt Romney may chuckle when other conservatives refer to us as the home of the KKK. He may gain favor with the national Republican Party by lobbying to rip apart families and deny individual rights, but in Massachusetts his wickedness will not win out.
I finally understand why Mitt believes this issue threatens his marriage. When his wife gets beyond his smile, his hair, and his wardrobe to see him for the monster he truly is, she’s bound to leave.

Anti-Choice's Slippery Slope, (published 12/22/05)

With George Bush’s nomination to yet another Supreme Court seat the abortion debate is again on everyone’s mind. The closest thing to a judicial litmus test, Democrats fear too conservative a Justice will strip away the rights women have fought so hard to obtain.

The dirty little secret that no Republican candidate will voice is that they fear it too. Behind closed doors, and away from their conservative base, Republicans freely admit conservative anti-choice rulings by the Supreme Court would galvanize the Democratic Party like never before.

Spurred into action, Democrats would take back Congress and the Whitehouse, pushing forward a pro-choice amendment to the Constitution which would end judiciary decision making, and remove the Republicans’ greatest political wedge issue. Much like major drug companies who would rather treat ailments than lose their income stream by curing them, Republican’s realize they need the abortion issue to feed their polarizing, demagogic campaigns.

Even neo-conservative vermin like Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove admit that nothing would unite the factors of the Democratic Party faster than an over zealous conservative court. Polls consistently show American voters are in favor of a woman’s choice. In fact less than 20% of Americans are in favor of banning all abortions.

Although the vast majority of Americans oppose a theocratic desire to strip away the rights of women, the fanatical minority is dogmatic. They maintain that abortion is infanticide.

It matters not that throughout history every major culture and religion has distinguished between a fetus and a baby. There is no negative reference to abortion in the Bible, though clearly it was a practice of the time. The Talmud specifically differentiates between the loss of a child and a miscarriage. Surprisingly the entire controversy regarding abortion is a relatively recent phenomenon, less than 150 years old.

Rather than frame their argument intellectually, sighting historical facts and legal precedent, Conservatives choose voodoo biology. They defend their anti-choice position by arbitrarily claiming life begins at conception. As usual their defense causes more problems than it remedies.

It is estimated American women annually suffer 800,000, spontaneous abortions, better known as miscarriages. This number is much larger if you include terminations experienced before women even know they are pregnant. While this is both a personal tragedy and a tremendous loss are we know to consider it a death? Will a medical examiner be brought in to an already emotional scene and conduct an investigation? Does each miscarriage now require a death certificate and funeral?
Many couples try repeatedly for children, suffering through multiple miscarriages. If doctors determine future pregnancies to be at higher than normal risks are the parents killing babies in an attempt to achieve a successful birth?

What are the new liabilities for clinicians? With In Vitro pregnancies multiple eggs are fertilized outside the body and then implanted with the hopes of one or two surviving, is the anticipated termination of the fertilized eggs that don’t survive now to be considered premeditated murder? What about the eggs that are fertilized ever so briefly before expiring, is this now another case for the local police?

Will bartenders and sales clerks suffer the same penalties for unknowingly selling cigarettes and alcohol to pregnant women that they now suffer when selling to minors? Will women need to carry a “non-pregnant” I.D.?

Our Social Service Sector of government is woefully over burdened trying to protect children that are actually at risk, are they now in charge of the unborn too? Will people be dropping a dime if they know of a pregnant woman drinking, smoking, or eating red meat? Are pregnant women to be locked up and monitored in the interest of fetus rights?

Some experts claim stress is a leading cause of miscarriages. Will pregnant woman now be forced to leave the work force? If they chose not to are they civilly or criminally liable?

Remember how excited Attorney General Ashcroft was after 9/11, with his TIPs program. He wanted to recruit postal workers, deliverymen, bus drivers, etc., to spy on US citizens in hopes of thwarting terrorism. I believe he would be as giddy as a school girl over the prospect of pregnancy police.

As soon as it is determined that fetuses are human beings with human rights you know lawyers will get involved. If there is a way to exploit this for money our legal system will find it. Suddenly there will be a phalanx of advocates for the unborn, filing law suits for all kinds of reasons. Instead of chasing ambulances they will now be chasing EPT kits.

You may think this is silly, but we live in a society where attorneys sue fast food restaurants for serving coffee that’s too hot and win six figure settlements.

Conservatives will say my concerns are unrealistic and baseless. The simple solution, they say, is to apply their definition of life only to abortion. It is their fascination with simplicity I find the most unnerving. Simple solutions led Conservatives to invade a country with no exit strategy, to advocate for Social Security privatization, and to cut taxes while compounding horrific deficits.

Any change of a societal paradigm requires deep thought with particular concern about current and future consequences. We must think beyond ourselves, unfortunately Conservatives are challenged to think beyond lunch.

The Buck Stops There, (published 11/17/05)

The White House has just issued a press release celebrating the news of a stronger than expected economy growing at 3.8%. They further stated inflation is no factor if “food and energy prices are not included.”

While this is certainly good news for all Americans who don’t eat, drive, or heat their homes, I still have my doubts. You see, unlike Will Rogers, I know more than what I read in the newspapers.

I know that since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, the Republican Party has systematically reduced the government’s ability to monitor and regulate Corporate America. For the past 25 years Republicans have been telling us that the markets and big business can take care of themselves. It seems to me big business has been taking care of itself with little regard for anything else.

I know that in 1980, CEO’s made about 42 times their employee’s average salary. Today that has risen more than twelve fold, compensating CEO’s at a mind-numbing rate of 531 times average employee earnings.

I know that when Katrina hit the Gulf, people of America showed the highest level of compassion with donations, self-sacrifice, and concern. The major oils companies took advantage of the situation by raising prices and gouging the nation.

I know they claim these prices were cost-driven, but recent earnings reports show otherwise. ExxonMobil reported a $9.9 billion profit for the last quarter. This is more than any company in the history of America has ever earned. It is estimated that ExxonMobil will earn more this year than Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Merck, McDonald’s and General Motors combined. Yet, Republicans still support tax breaks and exploration incentives for the big oil companies.

I know the major pharmaceutical companies have inflated U.S. drug prices so aggressively that elderly citizens are forced to shop internationally or on the internet. Big drug companies claim these prices are needed to support future research and development, but the facts don’t support that argument.

I know countries without “pro-profit administrations” keep drug prices in line. This is because they realize big drug companies pay more for direct marketing and advertising than they do for R&D. In the past, pharmaceutical companies believed superior products drove profits, now their profits are driven by slick advertisements. Even with this knowledge Republicans continue to support legislation favoring the drug companies’ stranglehold on our seniors.

I know since 1980, interest rates have dropped precipitously. This has allowed the wealthy to leverage real estate, margin brokerage accounts, and borrow for business expansion. During the same 25 years the interest rate that most affects middle and low income individuals, short term debt like Visa and Master Card, has remained within an astronomical range of 18-22%.

I know this seems both morally and ethically repugnant, and in fact may break predatory lending laws, but the financial services industry is the single largest contributor to the Republican Party. That’s the reason Bush tried so hard to privatize social security. By releasing the funds into individual accounts the potential for fees generated by money managers, stockbrokers, and banks would have been staggering. Conservative estimates suggest hundreds of millions of dollars.

I know many Republicans rail against illegal aliens but do little, once again acting in the best interest of big business. Nothing weakens the United Workers Unions more than a ready source of cheap, illegal labor. Contrary to their rhetoric Republicans maintain a porous border because the resulting labor pool benefits Wal-Mart, UGA, and scores of other companies.

I know for the companies that can’t import enough cheap labor Republicans advocate job exportation. By out sourcing work to the sweatshops and boiler-rooms of third world countries, corporate America taps a work force still shackled with 18th century draconian working conditions, while paying just five cents on the dollar.

I know when the Republican Party started advocating voodoo economics, declaring we could all live in a country where everyone was rich, what they really meant was a country where the rich got richer. To that end they have succeeded.

I know the disparity between the wealthy and the poor in this country is the highest it’s been since before the Great Depression. Five percent of Americans control sixty percent of the wealth. Under our current Republican president the number of Americans below the poverty level has grown every year, it now stands at 36 million.

I know the Republican’s pro business agenda has hurt Americans in many ways, but economic complacency is about to end. With real estate values falling and interest rates on the rise, equity that the middle class has been using for survival will soon disappear. Corporate mismanagement, boardroom greed, and lack of government oversight will result in a number of pension failures. Retirees will be forced to sell their homes, move in with relatives and become burdens to society for the rest of their golden years.

I know when this happens Republicans will sound the alarm, and rally the troops. They will blame the war, they will blame the weather, they will blame the Fed, they will even try to blame Clinton, and his fellow Democrats.

I know where the blame lies … and so do you.

Why I Am Proud To Be A Massachusetts Liberal, (published 10/24/05)

When I last went to print, I expected my comments and views to bring about the usual right-wing reaction, but the controversy generated had little to do with my text. Surprisingly, the greatest response was not for my political views, but for my desire to be known as a liberal. Friends, on both the right and left wanted to know why I would choose such a toxic nomenclature.

I am reminded of an old tenet from Philosophy 101: Self-definition is easiest when we choose to define what we are not. With this in mind I decided to check out the standard bearers of the conservative right.

William Bennett, education secretary for Ronald Reagan and staunch conservative recently opined on his syndicated radio show that, “…if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.” I knew ethnic cleansing existed. I just didn’t know it was a plank in the Republican Party.

Pat Robertson, former candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and TV host of the “700 Club” doesn’t want to wipe out an entire race. He wants the government to murder selectively. He has suggested the United States should “take out” Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

It seems Mr. Chavez controls a great deal of oil and has not fallen in line with U.S. policy. It matters not to the reverend that Chavez was legally elected by the country that he leads or that Congress has designated assassination to be a crime of terrorism. Mr. Roberts speaks with God and evidently the religious right’s direct line to God supersedes the law.

Rush Limbaugh didn’t hear about any of this because he is legally deaf. Many doctors believe this to be a self-imposed malady directly associated with his heroin addiction. To be fair Rush’s illegal drug of choice is OxyContin, but that’s considered a rich man’s heroin.

Successfully out of rehab Rush is back on the air. I wonder if he has any remorse for the dittoheads that were robbed, beaten or murdered in order to provide him his drug supply.

Ann Coulter may not be a heroin addict, but she must be dropping acid before penning her best sellers. In her book “Treason”, she actually tries to make the case that freedom of speech is anti-American, going so far as to label Democrats traitors.

I wonder how many Democrats have been killed or horrifically wounded in Iraq. Do you think Ann would have the courage to look at any of these soldiers, or their parents face to face and call them traitors because of their political beliefs? Ms. Coulter has always reminded me of a lava lamp I had in my dorm room at BU…pretty to look at but not very bright.

It might not be fair to totally judge conservatives by their mouthpieces. Let’s take a quick look at their political leaders.

Tom DeLay, the third most powerful Republican in Washington, has just been indicted for felonious misuse of campaign funds. Of course he claims innocence, blaming a political witch hunt by the district attorney, a Democrat. The only problem is he wasn’t indicted by the D.A., he was indicted by a grand jury.

Normally the second most powerful Republican, Karl Rove, would be mounting a spirited defense for the house majority leader, but he has his own troubles and is also awaiting an indictment.

This leads us to the president himself. If you have been paying attention, you know what a disappointment he has been. I suggest in the future, before we elect a president to act as commander-in-chief and control our nuclear arsenal, we ascertain that he can in fact pronounce the word “nuclear”.

The conclusion is obvious. These demagogues who drive the conservative agenda are consumed by hypocrisy and hubris. Why would I embrace the “liberal” moniker? Simple, I’ve seen the alternative.

Lack Of Presidential Leadership To Blame (published 9/27/05)

I believe it was FDR who said, “The ideal of government is not only to respond to today’s crisis but to anticipate and thwart tomorrow’s” By this measure the Bush administration has once again failed miserably.

First it was Iraq. While the merit of the invasion continues to be debated, even the staunchest hawk must admit that this administrations inability to plan, prepare and strategize for the eventual occupation and subsequent exit of Iraq has cost this country thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

Now we have Katrina, the greatest natural disaster in U.S. history. I’m not blaming the president for the weather, (although if God were as firmly aligned with Republican policy, as Bush claims, I believe the storm would have stayed at sea).

I’m not blaming the president for the blunders of FEMA. When it’s all said and done there will be plenty of blame on both sides of the aisle for the ill-conceived crisis response.

The blame that falls squarely on Bush’s shoulders and only Bush’s shoulders is for the lock of presidential leadership that allowed this catastrophe to occur in the first place.

For years it has been known that the levee system in New Orleans would not withstand the fury of a level 4 or 5 hurricane. For years the Army Corps of Engineers has reported that $70-80 million was needed to secure the levees for storms of that intensity. For years the Bush administration has refused to fund the project.

It was more important for George W. Bush to provide tax cuts than it was to provide safety. We can only wonder what other infrastructure projects have been denied because of this president’s desire to reduce the tax responsibility of wealthy Americans.

For the past six years Bush has consistently reduced revenues and crippled the government by giving tax breaks to his wealthy friends. He has even directed the IRS, on two occasions, to provide additional tax rebates, claiming the government had more money than it needed.

Rather than choose what was best for this country and direct those funds to needed projects like the levee system in New Orleans, Bush chose what was best for his political party and tried buying votes for a few hundred dollars each.

While the talking heads on a.m. radio rejoiced at the return of “their” money, many Democrats worried that the loss of critical funding was not only short-sighted but a dangerous decision. Sadly their concerns have proven correct.

Republicans now are out en masse, requesting that we recognize the human suffering left by hurricane Katrina and refrain from politicizing the event. Strange how Republicans didn’t mind politicizing Vietnam when they thought it provided them an advantage over John Kerry’s presidential run. They also didn’t object to politicizing the war in Iraq when they declared a premature victory.

In this case there is no need to politicize Bush’s record. The facts speak for themselves.

We are now compiling the largest deficits in U.S. history. There is a repeated undercurrent from Iraq that we are running this war on the cheap. Reports show soldiers in battle without the proper armor for themselves or their vehicles.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld continues to deny Pentagon requests for the resources they need to win the war, and some would argue the war itself has been perpetuated by his administration’s belief it should be fought economically.

To add to this, the cost of Katrina is now being estimated in hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. While extreme can never be controlled, this was a crisis which easily could have been avoided had we taken the proper precautions. At least it would have been easy for a competent leader.