Divided Government, Partisanship and Glidlock, But Otherwise "We're Number One!"

As amazing as it may sound to those who follow politics, many people in our country don't really understand the role the US Supreme Court plays. They see the fight between president Obama and Congress about nominating a new justice as another political game. Many of my students when asked how does the high court affect their lives couldn't come up with specific cases that determined the conditions and direction of our country. A few mentioned the Roe v. Wade case and then a couple others remembered the decisions about "Obama care" and same-sex marriage.

It's the same view the general public has that things will work out, more or less regardless who's on the Supreme Court, and to similar extend in Congress. Oh, yeah, there's partisanship and some hot-button issues, but most of us have picked a team (like in sports), and we hope for the best while we expect to be disappointed by the way our political system works.

I hope this issue of getting the 9th justice on the supreme court is an educational opportunity in many ways. For starters, it highlights the principle of division of power, checks and balances. Or, how the US model separates the executive (president) from the legislature (Congress) in contrast to most western countries where the executive (usually a prime minister) control the majority of seats in the legislature (parliament). 

On this topic, I wish the media asked the presidential candidates the following question, "How do you expect to do all the things you say you will do when we have a divided government, and in all probability--judging from the last many years--Congress will not go along with your plans?"   

As for the supreme court, the president gets to nominate, and eventually gets someone he chose confirmed. The Senate cannot reject or delay forever. I can see why the Democrats might have opposed a G W Bush nomination in 2008 a few months before the election, but conservative presidents choose conservative judges, like liberals choose their kind. The times of "mainstream" or truly independent candidates for the supreme court are over. The two parties are far apart, primarily because the Republican party has left the mainstream.

Also, an appointment to the high court with its eventual effect on our society is part of a president's legacy. The stakes are high, especially in a politically, and I dare say culturally, divided country. That's why presidents now look to nominate someone in their late 40s or early 50s so they can stay on the court for 30 years!  Funny, thing, I asked my students if they could imagine themselves age 50 and they almost fell off their seats. They got the point though that the next ..supreme will be on the high court making decisions affecting their lives until they reach age 50!

Heck, that's a good enough reason to register and vote!

"The Problem We All Live With" Some Thoughts on Martin Luther King Day, 2014

Norman Rockwell's "The Problem We All Live With"

On the occasion of the MLK day, I've read and heard several speeches of the slain civil rights leader and, of course, most of us today wonder why American society was so opposed to equal rights, or more specifically to blacks having equal treatment under the law and equal opportunity like anybody else.

It's conservatism! Being conservative is a disposition--an attitude towards change and something new. Conservatives exist in all political parties. This was particularly true in the 1950s and 1960s in the Democratic party. Many of the opponents to the Civil Rights acts, most from the old South, left the party and joined became Dixiecrat Republicans. President Lyndon Johnson said that the South would be lost for his party after he signed the CRA. It's been certainly true, but a couple states like Virginia and North Carolina may be trending the other way now.

There's a difference in disposition between conservatives and liberal-progressives. I think we have a better imagination and we are more confident over all. Why is imagination necessary? To evaluate abstract scenarios, to imagine change, whereas a conservative prefers the "tried and true," tradition, familiarity and can't imagine a different world. Blacks having same rights as whites? Oh, goodness, traditional society would collapse, a way of live (which included either slavery or later discrimination and separation of the races) of the old was preferable to a new order.

PBS's documentary, Slavery By Another Name, is a must-watch *

Confidence? Well, sameness is comforting. Confirmation bias, solidarity of thought and action is soothing to a conservative.  We all have this trait to some extent. We like to see our choices, thoughts, beliefs, customs, etc, confirmed; it validates our life...   Yet, some of us are willing to accept correction; we're open to revision, and seek the truth even if it's uncomfortable. Confidence doesn't mean stubbornness of a closed mind, but it means that the new, the different doesn't necessarily make us uncomfortable. And we can image a world with all races, creeds, and sexual orientation.

Isn't the same approach and the also the difference between the conservatives and liberals when it comes to same-sex marriage? My heterosexual makeup isn't threatened by homosexuality. My heterosexual marriage or relationship isn't threatened by homosexual unions or marriages. The right to marry a person of your choosing is having equal opportunity and treatment under the law. End of story (for a liberal).

Speaking the Tongue of the Natives

MLK was a great leader and even a better orator and thus motivated lots of people to meaningful action for civil rights. He spoke like a preacher, which, for me, isn't my favorite elocution. I don't want to be preached at. I don't want to be told that a certain action is good because it has the blessings of a god, or the God.  However, MLK spoke the language of religion in a deeply religious land, whereas both sides had used religious language to justify their positions.

But, many people on both sides were practicing confirmation bias--using the Bible to justify their positions. Guess what? The Bible has a little for every one. Am I glad that MLK's Bible quoting and religious messaging worked to help bring about change? Certainly! Because, this was a much-needed change. 

However, it should be noted that the Bible condones slavery! [source]  I would expect a messiah to preach against the evils of slavery, but Jesus didn't. The Gospels in the New Testament don't advocate for a slave-free world. On the contrary. Women's status? Subservient. We're talking about divine morality here. The word of God, good then, good today, and unalterable in the future!

Anyway, we have a long way to go despite our advances, many of which have been forcefully opposed by conservatives of all types. We're still very primitive in how act, think, and often treat each other. 


 * This PBS documentary examines the conditions of servitude that existed until the second part of the 20th century in the US. It's definitely worth a watch.

Shame to the US Senate for Failing to Pass Sensible Gun Control Legislation. Let's hope They Stop the Gay Apocalypse, at Least!

 Ah, Freedom! Which one makes more sense?

In case you didn't figure it out, it's a wedding picture!

Which is more important item for freedom in the US? A gun or a vehicle? It's the latter for it allows freedom of mobility, access to jobs and opportunities, etc. Yet, we have to be tested as operators, we have to obey lots of laws and regulations, need to register, inspect, and insure our vehicle. But, do you want a gun, sure go ahead. Wait, are you crazy? Are you a criminal? No? OK, then, we'll trust your word, here's a semi-automatic weapon that fires 30 big caliber rounds in few seconds. Enjoy hunting or whatever you intend to do with this and the rest of the arsenal you're amassing. 

How Some Prostitutes Give a Bad Name to the Profession

Today the US Senate showed how our elected officials can go against the wishes of a big majority of the American people. Reasonable gun control, including background checks amendments didn't pass. Cornyn's (R-Dumbf@ckistan) amendment was the highest vote-getter, 57. This amendment would weaken gun control by requiring states with stricter laws to accept the licenses from states where anyone could get a gun.  Oh, wanna bet that these clowns take the opposite position when it comes to same-sex marriage?  Yeah, gays/lesbians are a bigger threat to society and their marriage would be like ..Hitler invading Poland if the Fed forced the states to recognize such marriages.

Systemic Problem

 The US political system was an experiment in government at a time when they weren't any liberal democracies. So the founders improvised, compromised, got a few things right, and some things very wrong.

One of the problems was to disperse power into three branches, but even within the legislative branch they created 2 chambers. These plus the president must pass identical bills before we have law. Unlike in other advanced democracies, our executive (the prez) doesn't control the legislature. So every president who runs on an agenda on the national level must get Congress to agree; and the members of Congress are elected from localities. Furthermore, Senate rules give a small minority the ability to kill legislation through the filibuster. 

I think it's time to use the so-called "nuclear option" and declare this rule unconstitutional so we can get things done more efficiently. The constitution provides for super majorities in the Senate for various decisions, like impeaching the president. Regular legislation should get the chance for an up or down vote. It was OK when only 3% of the bills were filibustered in the past. The minority could reject a few really objectionable bills. But, when nothing moves because of this obstruction tactic in the last decade, then there's something seriously wrong with this system.

The best way to fix some of our problems would be a couple constitutional amendments, but this is not very likely. The other way would be citizen engagement and mobilization. Let's see why a people's majority is so arrogantly ignored by some elected representatives. 

Change often comes because the people demand it. Let's prove that we do have a representative democracy, a system that works for the benefit of the people. Otherwise let's call it what it is and stay home. It's not enough to have myths, and slogans. We have to talk the talk and walk the walk!