Ain't No Liberty at this "University"

by Pa Rock
Educator

Not every university is the same. Some are private and very good - like many of the Ivy League schools of the northeast, and some are public and also very good - like many schools in the state university systems. A true university is a refuge for those wanting to explore and increase the accumulated knowledge of the world. Real universities tolerate divergent points of view. Unfortunately, there are also some truly bad schools also posing as universities, schools with no tolerance of divergent points of view and whose sole function is to push religious dogma and fight the acquisition of knowledge at every turn.

Liberty University (sic) of Virginia is a grand example of the latter. It is a private school founded by the late televangelist and hate-monger, Jerry Falwell. Liberty prides itself on not encumbering its students with genuine knowledge about the real world, and produces graduates who don't believe in evolution, or apparently, even the two-party system.

The school is little more than a pit of religious fundamentalism. It is the place where John McCain actually lost the 2008 Presidential race when he showed up there a couple of years earlier to lick Falwell's boots as he tried to worm his way back into the good graces of his party's reprobate wing. Many of the kinder and gentler Republicans were aghast at his hypocrisy, and went on to vote for Obama.

Liberty University (sic) allowed a crack in its know-nothing shell last October, one month before the election, when it inexplicably granted a small group of students the right to start a Democratic Club. Apparently that was a move that their fat cat fascist funders could not abide, because last week the university (sic) pulled the plug on its fledgling attempt to accommodate some bipartisanship on campus.

Last Friday Mark Hine, the Vice President of Student Affairs at the pseudo hole of higher learning, sent an email to the Democratic Club president, Brian Diaz. The email, which young Diaz said came "out of the blue" decreed that the club must stop using the university's (sic) name, holding meetings on campus, or advertising events. Violations of that edict could lead to expulsion.

The university (sic) official said yesterday that it could not sanction an official club that supported Democratic candidates - apparently on moral grounds. But, he added for clarification, "We are in no way attempting to stifle free speech."

So far there is no confirmation to the rumors that students who refuse to recant their Democratic tendencies will be burned at the stake - but this story is still evolving!

Say What?

by Pa Rock
Citizen Journalist

Life is fairly predictable, world events are generally predictable, and American politics are completely predictable - or so I thought - until today. We all know that Democrats cater to the poor and the unions, and Republicans wrap themselves in the flag, hold a cross in one hand and an automatic weapon in the other, and take care of the rich while trying to convince the rednecks that the GOP is the only path to national salvation.

Nothing changes in American politics - ever! Well, sometimes one of the parties will come up with a rock star candidate - Raygun or Obama for example, but basically the same arguments drag on for generations with one party running things for a few years and then the public opinion pendulum swings back and the other party gets to have the power for awhile. It is so predictable, and progress seems to take forever.

That is why I was so shocked when I heard the news tonight. It was like I had an enormous mind fart and woke up on another planet. I blame the rotten Bush economy. It has shaken the bedrock of the established American political landscape and left things topsy-turvey.

I am getting ready to talk about the AIG bailout and the recent discovery that their executives - like those at Merrill Lynch (Bank of America) - got their bonuses at taxpayer expense even though they had proved themselves to be incompetent during the last year. I haven't written about AIG because to do so would have been pointless. The milk has been spilt and there has been little else in the news for the past few days. My two-cents worth would not have added anything significant to the brew.

But the story just keeps getting better and better, and now I can't help myself!

AIG was apparently able to pay the bonuses because of a legislative sleight-of-hand committed by Sen. Christopher Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut and the son of a disgraced Connecticut Democratic Senator from another era. Dodd, when cornered, admitted that he had secretly taken a provision out of legislation that would have blocked the bonuses. He said that treasury officials had asked him to do it for the good of the country. And Dodd, btw, has received more cash from AIG that any other member of the U.S. Senate. (Look for lots more on that story in coming days.)

So, between Senator Dodd and Obama's Treasury Department, there were Democratic fingerprints all over the AIG bonuses. There was no way that the Republicans could lose on this issue - unless they were mortally stupid. But lose they did.

First of all, the Democrats got the jump on the issue with the President going on TV and railing about the awfulness of what had happened. His indignation was loud and it was righteous. Then, before Republicans could get their bearings, Congressional Democrats started thundering about how awful it all was. The Democrats in Congress came up with a plan to put a 90% tax on the bonuses, effectively returning the money to the U.S. Treasury.

The Republicans wanted to be indignant, too, because that's where the public was on the issue. But the Democrats had outflanked them. They knew that Republicans typically rally around the rich, and everyone knows how much Republicans hate taxes on the rich.

The House of Representatives voted on the 90% tax on the bonuses today. Democrats overwhelmingly voted for the measure (98%), but the Republicans inexplicably voted against it 87-85. What the hell were they thinking?

With today's vote in the House, the Republican party consigned itself to ignominy for the next decade. They could have easily blamed this sordid affair on the Democrats (with a fair amount of justification), but instead they chose to give up the moral high ground to protect a few rich slimeballs and a principle that isn't in sync with the country's views or needs.

The Republicans seem to be intent on committing political suicide. Democrats would be well served to sit on their hands, keep quiet, and let it happen.

The Fine Art of Buying Influence

by Pa Rock
Citizen Journalist

Recently while digging through records of political donations, I found a very interesting document at www.opensecrets.org that identifies the 100 biggest political donors of the past twenty years. Most are corporations or labor organizations, and also included are a couple of special interest groups. Although the information on the list confirmed my basic belief that big business is generally pro-Republican and labor is normally pro-Democratic, it was still fascinating to see it writ large.

The number one donor over the past twenty years was AT&T. I grew up in the sixties when Ma Bell was recognized by many as Public Enemy #1. Congress broke that evil monopoly up several decades ago, but...she's coming back! I used to have my cellular service with Cingular and was pleased with that arrangement. Then Cingular was swallowed by Southwestern Bell, which in turn was swallowed by AT&T - and after all of that swallowing, service wound up in the crapper! Ma Bell has given over forty million dollars to political candidates during the past twenty years - 44% of that went to Democrats and 55% went to Republicans. Do you suppose that she wants anything in return for all of that campaign cash?

On the other side of the fence, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees - a union of government workers - gave almost the same amount of money over the same time period with 98% of it going to Democrats and 1% to Republicans.

My insurance carrier (all right, HMO!), Blue Cross-Blue Shield, has felt the need to use my premiums and those of other suckers for over $14 million in political donations over the past two decades. Thirty-eight percent of it went to Democrats and 61% was lavished on Republicans - and my rates just went up! Bastards!

Exxon Mobil, those fine folks who tried to turn Alaska into one big oil slick, and got off without paying nearly what they should have for causing an ecological disaster, donated a hefty $10 million to political candidates over the last twenty years. Eighty-six percent of that went to Republicans. Color me surprised!

Groups representing medical providers and pharmaceuticals leaned heavily Republican, as did the auto and oil industries. Groups focusing on the people who actually do the work that make the corporations rich tended to be strongly Democratic. Corporations, while basically Republican, were more likely to hedge their bets and give some of their donations to Democrats. Conversely, labor unions and groups representing workers that normally lean Democratic, tended to be more purist in their ideologies and were far less likely to share their donations with Republicans.

Surprisingly, the strongest Republican donor was Amway which donated over $8 million and gave 99% of it to the GOP!

Special interest groups split along ideological lines: Emily's list, a strongly feminist organization, gave $20 million - with 99% of it going to Democrats. The eternally angry National Rifle Association, on the other hand, gave $17 million, with 82% of that going to Republican candidates. (While the NRA collects donations and membership dues from individuals, it is funded in large part by gun manufacturers who monetarily benefit from the defeat of any gun control measures.)

Calvin Coolidge, the man who was at the helm while America sailed at top speed toward the Great Depression, prophetically declared that "The business of America is business." Apparently the business of business and labor is politics!

Macy Politics

by Pa Rock
Campaign Contributor

I read somewhere that Macy is a fairly uncommon surname and was probably attached to less than 5,000 families in the United States. Several of those are in the Missouri Ozarks, with most, if not all, being relatives of mine. I have always been told that I was the "black sheep" because of my Democratic political leanings, but I am finally beginning to figure out that, aside from my Ozark cousins, most Macys are Democrats - at least the ones who donate to campaigns.

The first crack in the family fallacy appeared over the recent holidays when my Dad (of all people!) fessed up that his mother was a Democrat. He said that she and his father would catch a ride to the polls with the neighbors, where she would vote straight Democratic and her husband would vote straight Republican. (They must have enjoyed just getting out of the house for awhile!)

Working on the assumption that I may have grown up under a misconception, I recently checked the Federal Elections Commission stats for the name Macy. The results of that query were quite interesting - at least to me.

There were 34 political donors with the last name of Macy in 2008, and they made a total of 49 donations for a total of $37,448. Nine of the 34 donors gave to Republican candidates or committees to the tune of $6,850. Twenty-three donated a total of 29,378 to Democratic candidates or committees. Three individuals donated $1,200 to Political Action Committees (PACs).

Of the Republican donations, $200 was given to the Republican National Committee, $1,250 was given to Congressional candidates, $500 to Thompson, $1950 to Guiliani, and $2,950 to McCain.

The Democratic donations totaled $750 to the Democratic National Committee, $8,300 to Congressional candidates, $903 to Edwards, $2,300 to Richardson, $4,615 to Clinton, and $12,530 to Obama.

So not only am I within the political mainstream of Macys nationally, at least the ones who put their money where their heart is, but I was even in the winning wing of the winning party during the most recent national election. The Macy family is apparently much smarter than I was led to believe!

Suddenly I feel much less mavericky!

Piss Off, Joe!

by Pa Rock
Citizen Journalist

Senator Joseph Lieberman, a once prominent Democrat who rose to the heights of being Al Gore's running mate in 2000, has been on a downward spiral since he became a cheerleader for the Oil War in Iraq way back in 2003. His ardent support of that ill-conceived and misguided military misadventure resulted in him losing the Democratic primary election in Connecticut in 2006.

In order to save his Senate seat, Lieberman ran as an independent and managed to defeat the Democratic and Republican candidates. He came back to an evenly split Senate as an independent and caucused with the Democrats, allowing them to keep the chairmanship of all of the Senate committees, and in return allowing Lieberman to remain chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. It was a classic marriage of convenience: the Democrats needed Lieberman to stay in control, and Lieberman needed the Democrats to remain relevant.

But then came the 2008 Presidential election. For months Joe Lieberman has served as John McCain's right hand man, joining him in public appearances, coaching him on Middle East fine points - like the differences between Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims, and probably checking the water temperature in the bathtub before McCain got in.

Not only was Joe not supporting the Democratic ticket, he was actively campaigning against them! That should be it - marriage over! But for some inexplicable reason, Harry Reid seems to be hesitating about taking Lieberman's Homeland Security chairmanship away from him. The Democrats have a solid majority now and no longer have to pander to two-faced Joe. The man who should have been elected Vice President as a Democrat in 2000, has now turned his back on all of those who worked so hard to get him elected. It's time to return the favor!

Harry Reid needs to call the clown into his office and fire his butt, and if he doesn't do it, the Democratic caucus in the Senate needs to do it for him. Let the old fart roam off into the wilderness and live with the Republicans. Even that is better than he deserves!

Brave New World

by Pa Rock
Citizen Journalist

The old saying goes that if you give typewriters to a room full of monkeys, eventually they will write a great novel. It isn't too much of a stretch beyond that to imagine that if you give a room full of politicians some time to themselves, eventually they will come up with a good idea. In fact, that may have just happened in the state of Indiana.

There are three candidates running for Congress in Indiana's 9th Congressional District: Baron Hill, the incumbent Democrat, Mike Sodrel, the Republican challenger who used to hold the seat, and Eric Schansberg, the Libertarian. As the campaign heads into the final weeks, an idea has suddenly been put forth by the district's Republican party chairman that all of the candidates be hooked up to lie detectors during an upcoming debate. His justification is that "while this format may unusual, I feel strongly that voters need to be able to make a clear decision without all the usual spin."

The Republican and Libertarian candidates have agreed, and the Democrat is thinking it over. The university sponsoring the debate is resisting this interference with their program, apparently seeing this last minute disruption of plans as being political in nature. Yes, it undoubtedly is political in nature, but that doesn't prevent it from being a good idea.

This political tactic out of Indiana represents a great use of technology! Maybe we should look at filtering the comments of every politician in America through a lie detector. When the President decides to have a news conference, hook that sucker up! When the crap starts flying at a city council meeting, check the lie detector needles and find out who is being honest and who isn't. Talk about truth in advertising! Citizens would be able to make truly informed decisions based on access to the real facts. There is no telling where a society armed with the truth might take our nation!

This truth thing might become so popular that it would spread beyond politics. How about car salesmen being hooked to lie detectors? Wouldn't it be so much easier to buy a car knowing what it was actually worth and not having to play the game in order to make the purchase? And how about television evangelists? Lie detectors would probably put those begging maggots out of business in a matter of weeks!

And then there is always Bill O'Reilly, but we may have to wait on the next generation of lie detectors to tackle a liar of that magnitude!

Obama '08

by Pa Rock
Opinionator

First, let me clear the air on the question of my political leanings: I am a Democrat, a proud, totally-tilted-left, and, not ashamed to wear the label, liberal Democrat! I wasn't born into the party. My mother and father were Republicans, and I suspect that all of their forebears were also, probably as far back as Lincoln. My eighty-three-year-old father still likes to rail on unions as being "the ruination of America," and any positive mention of FDR will also send him into a sputtering tirade.

So, with this fine conservative background, where did I begin to stray? Easy answer: Nixon. Yes, Richard Nixon made me a Democrat. (Opening China to the West, lowering the national speed limit to fifty-five, and causing Rocky Macy to make a sharp left turn in his political life were undoubtedly Tricky Dick's top three achievements - meeting Elvis and giving Okinawa back to Japan were numbers four and five.) Okay, it wasn't only Nixon. Attending college in the sixties had a major impact on my political thinking as well, whether I admit to inhaling or not!

While I am very comfortable identifying with the Democratic Party, I will split my ticket on those rare occasions when I know that the other party has the better candidate. Thankfully, those situations are rare. All things being equal, I stand comfortably with the Party that historically, at least since FDR, has been focused on those in society who haven't been invited to the table for their slice of the American pie.

So why am I supporting Obama when Hillary clearly seems to stampeding the Party? Is my reluctance to tumble into the landslide some "anti-woman" thing? I really don't think of myself as being sexist, though my age and gender might lead some to speculate otherwise. I was one of the participants in this year's third annual MS Magazine Cruise, and I made it from Tampa to Belize to Guatemala to Mexico and back to Tampa without being thrown overboard or being forced to walk the plank, and I managed to take in most of their workshops along the way. America could definitely benefit from a leader whose perspective and values are something other than those of a morally stymied, white, male frat boy.

No, it isn't that Hillary is a woman, she is just not the woman to lead our nation out of the Bush morass. She very likely could win the Presidency, but she is such a lightening rod that every greed head and fundamentalist goober in the country would turn out to vote, and a lot of good Democratic congressional candidates would be defeated - in a year that should see a massive Democratic majority in both national houses and many state legislatures. What a shame to let the country submit itself to eight more years of gridlock, when it is clearly time to pull ourselves out of the muck and move on.

The true picture of Hillary developed at last week's debate in Philadelphia when she was asked about releasing her correspondence with Bill while she was First Lady. Instead of a definitive "yes" or "no," she equivocated grandly, trying to serve up some mishmash that said it couldn't be done because the National Archives works too slowly. Never mind that Bill had written a letter to them asking that those records not be released until 2012. George, Bill, Bill, Shrub, Shrub, and now Hillary, Hillary. What goes around comes around - and it just keeps coming! (Is anyone naive enough to rule out Jeb, Jeb, Chelsea, Chelsea, and then maybe Jenna, Jenna?) I am so tired of the Bush's and the Clinton's and their endless drama! And don't even get me started on Hillary's shameless milking of the health care lobby! It's long past time for national health care. Hillary can be most effective in bringing that about by getting out of the way!

So why Obama? He talks about ideas, as outlined chapter and verse in THE AUDACITY OF HOPE. He recognizes problems and puts forth challenges, rather than the feel-good pabulum that has been our national staple for years. He is new enough to the political scene that his soul is still his own, and not the personal property the lobbyists and corporate scumbags who regard government as their personal property and operate unchecked and unencumbered by conscience or the will of the people. Barack Obama is not only a fresh face, he is also a new voice with the potential to make bold moves and actually lead instead of being led. He is an eloquent visionary whose coattails will bring congressional majorities large enough to actually govern. Obama is the leader who truly has the potential to take us beyond the self-serving politics that have been the norm since Reagan.

Most importantly, Barack Obama is the only top tier candidate in either party who is younger than me - and I know that I am too damned old to be President!

"Vote early and vote often." -- Al Capone