The Depths of My Ignorance

May-20, 2012, Yangjiang, China

The girl could not have been more than two. Her feet, uncalloused and pudgy in the way children’s feet are, dangled loosely, one pressing slightly on her father’s belly, seemingly in an attempt to step up to gain a better, higher, view. Her fingers, also dimpled and pudgy, were intertwined in her father’s hair, one wrapped around each side of his neck.  She had curly hair which reminded me in color and texture of my son’s before his first substantial hair cut when his splendid curls disappeared, never to return.  The little girl wore a pink sundress over pink stretchy pants. What is it about a toddler’s feet that just make you want to reach out for a tickle and an easy giggle? This little girl in her manner and movement brought me deliciously back to that time when my own children were that age.

The father wasn’t particularly noticeable in any extraordinary way, except for the black beard which appeared neither trimmed nor untrimmed. The beard seemed to grow on its own in an even way which covered his lower face with precision. Even in my 50’s, I still often wish I could get mine to grow like that. Vanity never sleeps, I guess. The father was hustling his family, his wife, daughter and himself, through O’Hare, a lovely family really, just getting from here to there in the crush of thousands of others all moving with luggage and purpose in every possible direction.

The mother followed closely behind the father and child, exchanging some conversation with the father. They stopped for a moment not far where I waited in line to get my boarding pass, mother, father, and child, extraordinary in no special way, except they were Muslim, and the woman wore an abaya and niqāb which covered her head except for small slits for her eyes as well as her medium frame all the way down so that only a short glimpse of red pant leg and tips of tan shoes was visible when she was walking.

Muslims believe that Mohammed was a messenger of God and that he was the last law bearer in a series of prophets and through him God’s truths were revealed.  There are several passages in the Muslim holy book, which is believed by the devout to be the word of God delivered through the messenger, which refer to the required coverage of the female form to protect from raising sexual desire in men.

What is most often called a burqa is a specific sort of covering, but there are different types of clothing that a devout Muslim woman would wear. The burqa is the covering seen in the most conservative societies, and is full coverage head to toe, where both the eyes and often even the hands are kept from public view.  A different type of clothing, the abaya, often referred to incorrectly as a burqa, also provides full body covering. This is then combined with a niqāb, which is the veil which covers all but the eyes.  By choice, some Muslim women were a hijab head covering which exposes the face but covers the hair, the ears, and usually in combination with other clothing the neck. The hijab extends to what most often are loose fitting clothes designed to shroud any female features.  Women who wear this combination sort of appear to be wearing lose fitting pajamas with a tightly drawn head scarf. I saw several women wearing the hijab, walking with their families in the Hong Kong Airport, laughing and talking with their kids and spouses. Dour these people were not and the thought passed through me that I really don’t know much about the lives of Muslims.

The commitment to this attire certainly attests to the devout nature of the women wearing it. I think the same when I see Hasidic women in my community dressed in long skirts, industrial strength hose, and hair covered in a wig, which is then often covered over with a hat.  Orthodox Jews also believe that the female form is a dangerous preoccupation of men. As do fundamentalist Christians. Pat Robertson, the 700 Club TV preacher, who in his reading of the bible is such an easy mark it almost seems unfair to bring it up, has a history of saying outrageous things about the subservient posture of women. 

But I do not write this to bash any religion or practice, all of which rise from deep wells of faith and form a foundation of morality for the believers. The last time I touched the subject of religion I was stunned by the vitriol of those that do not believe and it occurred to me that non-believing is in a lot of cases a dogma on its own merits. Often times there is little tolerance or acceptance of believers. I thought at the time how their narrow-mindedness was not all that different from the believers they so fervently despise for what they believe is their narrow-mindedness.

For me the larger challenge to religious faith is more scientific than theological.  As a child I always loved the visits to the Adler Planetarium in Chicago. There we would be told of the millions, perhaps billions, of galaxies of which our little planet is part of just one. I think it may have been there where they explained the size and scope of just our universe that seeds of doubt may have been placed.   I was a good little catholic boy then, but the fact that the vastness of all creation exists, for me at least raised doubts as I got older about the dogma of my youth.

Years later I remember sitting in the Hayden Planetarium in New York watching a Christmas show with my kids, all the time thinking about what to me at least is the absurdity of the idea that the world’s three great religions all rose from an area covering thousands of square miles in the portion of the Earth referred to as the Middle East, vast in terms of the space on earth, but microscopic in the space of our planet and our universe let alone the known and unknown galaxies. We are led to believe that In God’s infinite wisdom the prophets and ancestors of these three theologies were all plopped down in almost the same place, nose to nose so they could argue with and pester each other till the end of time. If only the Buddha was born in Oman, instead of India the origins would be complete.

So, even though prayer in some odd but compelling way still informs my daily life, I am not a believer per se. Even my attachment to prayer as a spiritual support is sometimes shaken when I see baseball players and other athletes give all praise to God for the win or the great play. I know it is modesty-- all praise to and all that—but it just aggravates me. God in his or her wisdom allowed you or helped you to win that important game, while he or she allowed the plane to go down in Indonesia. Really? The extent of human narcissism is limitless.

The vast nature of the cosmos is just one limitation to my faith, and as I remarked to a friend a couple of weeks ago, of the big three religions Judaism seems to me at least the most logical. Jews at least are still waiting for their Messiah. It just cannot be that the savior arrived 2,000 years ago, and the messenger followed a few hundred years later, and this is what we have gleaned from their time on earth: A world filled with too much hunger, too much war, and too much hatred, mostly and especially between those of varying and hard scarred religious belief. While I recognize the doctrine of free will that places the responsibility for man’s failure at humanity’s feet, largely absolving God,  it still seems to me that we have done precious little with the admonition to love your brother as yourself and turn the other cheek. 

This is especially so when one comes to understand that though neither considers him the messiah, both Jews and Muslims acknowledge the existence of Jesus. Beyond the total lack of commitment to the most humane portions of religious dogma, analysis of what God chooses to engage in (A baseball  game?) or leave alone (Genocide in Congo?) is problematic to put it mildly to any rational belief I might have in an almighty power active in our lives. And yet out of my own uncertainty, the comfort it provides, and the lessons of my youth, and despite my rational and what I think are well-reasoned reservations, I still pray all the time. Odd…

So, back to our family at O’hare. There they were. We see Muslims in our communities more often these days, but just as I am isolated from the Hassidim which form a major part of the town in which I live I am even more lacking in interaction with the Muslims in our midst. Though I’ve never seen a woman wearing abaya and niqāb working in a retail store, I have been struck by the numbers I see popping up in the rather large shopping complex which abuts our community wearing the hijab.  Immigration from South and Central America, as well as from across Asia and Africa with their large populations of Hindus and Muslims, is where America now draws its fresh blood and vibrancy.

What got me to thinking though is how that little girl could ever be comfortable in that tiny box of containment, the clothes of her family’s orthodoxy. In conservative societies girls are expected to wear the abaya before they reach puberty, but I wondered how this family would handle that, especially since they were already somewhat liberal in permitting their daughter to appear barefoot which in some societies would not be permitted.  I wondered how the parents and their devout faith would influence that girl to hide her light, not only to cover her body as though its mere existence was somehow vile and unclean, but also to accept the subservient role to men’s needs and desires that the wearing of the garments implies.

The three great religions, all patriarchal, are built on the premise that woman are impure temptations to men. The entire point of view is from that of the men in the church. Male Catholic leaders decide what role women will have in the church, and at least for now they may be lay leaders, but not spiritual leaders. It all seems so archaic to me. But then again the immodesty of many secular youth does not appeal to me either. Maybe I’m just too old and cranky to figure any of this out. But with all of that how will they do it?  How will the parents of that little girl pull it off? I remember reading some time ago, a novel by the wonderful mystery writer Faye Kellerman who often writes about orthodox Jewish characters. In this particular novel she wrote of a young boy who wanted to escape the confines of his orthodox community.  Hasidic and Orthodox Jews are often organized into tight knit communities and the children do not attend public school, but Muslims with few exceptions are assimilated in our communities.  It would seem logical to me at least, that just as Kellerman’s character almost every child might face that desire.  With the strings of community and faith many will not act on it. I wondered what this little girl who reminded of nothing so much as my own kids at that age, I wondered what road she would take. I said a prayer for her and went to board my plane.

The Truth About Job Creation

With all the talk about relative job growth or losses under Bush and Obama I started wondering what the historical record was. One thing that sparked my curiosity was the record in the first six months of each Presidency. Reagan, Clinton and Bush ’43 all enacted major economic legislation including substantive changes in tax policy in their first year, but none accomplished their legislative goals until summer meaning that their tax policies whatever they were would have barely affected their first six month’s job performance. Based on the impossibility that those tax adjustments could have any effect on the economy I thought might be interesting to view the job creation record of each president starting with their 7^th month, basically charging the first six to the pervious guy, and then following through to the first six months of the following presidency.

For example, in the first six months of the Truman presidency, which began in April 1945 after the death of FDR, the United States shed 2.8 million jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2.0 million jobs were lost in September ’45 alone. Six days after the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan surrendered. One month later, In September, 2.0 million were furloughed. However, the economy created 611,000 jobs in the three months that followed and postwar recovery was underway. In total the economy added 8.4 million jobs and the GDP grew 61% during the Truman Presidency.

In a period well before ideological extremism Eisenhower succeeded Truman. In the first six months the economy added just 350,000 jobs and for the full two terms it added just 3.5 million jobs. GDP growth slowed to just 39% for Eisenhower’s two term. After the dynamism of the Post-World War II jobs machine under Truman, the “Eisenhower Economy” merely hummed. Eisenhower, a technocrat more than an ideological force maintained the forward momentum of social programs established under FDR and Truman, had two lackadaisical terms, left the country hungry for younger, more dynamic, leadership and paved the way for Kennedy.

The GDP grew 13% in Kennedy’s three years in office. In the critical first six months of his administration the US economy created 234,000 jobs, a little less than 40,000 a month, but through the balance of his presidency it added about 100,000 per month bringing the country back to the dynamism of the Truman years, pretty much what he was hired to do. Job creation was solid under Kennedy, but not what would be unleashed under Johnson. The Kennedy Tax Cuts, which were relatively aggressive for their time and enacted before protecting the narrowest sliver of the electorate was a Republican obsession were actually approved by Congress in 1964, after his assassination.

Johnson in a little more than one term created almost 12 million jobs. The GDP grew 37% in the same period. Part of this legacy may be the so called 1964 “Kennedy’ Tax Cuts. But with all the pointing back to Reagan and Clinton as guideposts for the future, perhaps the Johnson administration and the Great Society programs enacted under him, not to mention the dynamic forces set free by progressive civil rights legislation are more instructive.

Poverty, in 1964 when Johnson declared a War on Poverty, had declined to 19% from just over 22% at the end of 1959, leaving one in five Americans on the economic fringes. In a burst of bureaucratic creativity and legislative action not seen since the depression, and perhaps never to be seen again, Johnson created the Job Corps, Head Start, the Vista Program which encouraged young people to engage and work in underserved communities, and a host of other programs. Medicare and Medicaid were enacted under revisions to the Social Security Act in 1965.

In addition to 12 million jobs created and 37% GDP growth in a little more than a five year period, the dramatic effect on Poverty was stunning. By 1973 Poverty rates had fallen to 11%. Though the population of the country grew from 1960 to 1970 by 20 million people, by the beginning of 1973, 17 million fewer Americans were living in poverty. Primarily because of Medicare, poverty among the elderly has fallen from 28.5% in 1964 to around 11% today. While it can be argued that the 1964 “Kennedy” tax cuts created a positive economic environment for Johnson’s grand experimentation, the mixed bag of results in succeeding years from Reagan (tax decreases; spectacular job growth), to Clinton (tax increases; spectacular job growth) to Bush (tax decreases; the shittiest economy in 100 years) seem to indicate that other motivations take a part in dynamic job creation.

Whatever tax policies are enacted, the Johnson and Clinton years make a case for policies designed to lift all boats. After nearly two decades of hostility to programs which benefited the poor, under Clinton poverty dropped from about 15% to about 11%. While Republicans point endlessly to the hot-check economy of the Reagan years for job growth, Clintons job growth numbers when taxes were higher are as good, and Johnson’s, especially considering the size of the population at the time, are stunning.

Following is a basic primer of economic statistics for each President since Truman. Take special note of ole Jimmy Carter’s stats. Better per year job and GDP growth than either Reagan or Clinton, and unlike Reagan he did not run up the national debt like a madman. A good way to F*** with your repub freinds I think is to ask them who had higher GDP growth? Carter or the sainted Reagan. Same with job creation per year.

Bush has the worst record since Hoover. He is worse by far in this analysis than any other President. Since the economic calamity came at the very end of his second term he has no one to blame but himself. Obama’s record is not good at all, but the deep hole of the 3.8 million jobs lost in the first six months of his presidency cannot be overstated, especially since these job losses were on the heels of 3.6 million jobs lost in 2008. In the Reagan recession-- which took place after Tax cuts were enacted by the way—2.8 Million jobs were lost in a 17 month period. Even as World War II wound down the losses were not as deep. 3.4 million jobs were lost from March to September of 1945, but in the following 18 months the economy regained more than 5.0 million jobs.

While an argument can be made that since Obama enacted substantive economic legislation in his first months in office the job performance should be all his, I think most reasonabale people can understand the effort to hang the entire mess around his neck is purely partisan. That being said, the following analysis also indicates that leadership matters. While I believe it is wildly unfair to judge the president from the vantage point of these past three years, I would still say that history will judge. When it comes to economic performance Obama has a long way to go. Going back to the point on poverty reductions under Johnson and Clinton and the corresponding growth in GDP and job creation, when was the last time you heard the president say something or suggest improvements in progams which serve the poor?

I am aware that some of the numbers presented are at some variance to articles and information I have seen posted elsewhere. I have for example seem Reagan’s job creation numbers touted as twenty million even though that is not what the BLS says. Job growth refers to Non-Farm employment in BLS nomenclature.

Truman

GDP Growth  61%                     
Average Annual GDP Growth 6.4%
Total Job Growth during Presidential Term 8.4 Mil
Ave Annual Job Growth 970,000

Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President) 358,000

Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term 10,953,000
Average Growth Per Month 129,000
Census Year 1940
US Population  142 Mil 
Job Growth as % Of Population 0.09%                       

Eisenhower
GDP Growth  39%                       
Average Annual GDP Growth  4.9%
Total Job Growth during Presidential Term 3.6 Mil
Ave Annual Job Growth 447,000
Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President) 234,000
Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term 3,455,000
Average Growth Per Month 36,000
Census Year  1950
US Population 151 Mil 
Job Growth as % Of Population 0.02       

Kennedy

GDP Growth 13%                       
Average Annual GDP Growth 4.3%
Total Job Growth during Presidential Term 3.5 Mil
Ave Annual Job Growth 1,219,000                                                                                                                            
Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President)  861,000
Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term 4,112,000
Average Growth Per Month 117,000
Census Year 1960
US Population  179 Mil 
Job Growth as % Of Population 0.07       

Johnson
GDP Growth  37%                       
Average Annual GDP Growth  7.4%
Total Job Growth during Presidential Term  11.9 Mil
Ave Annual Job Growth  2,377,000
Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President) 1,391,000
Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term 12,547,000
Average Growth Per Month 246,000
Census Year 1960
US Population  179 Mil 
Job Growth as % Of Population  0.14       

Nixon

GDP Growth  34%                       
Average Annual GDP Growth 5.7%
Total Job Growth during Presidential Term 9.4 Mil
Ave Annual Job Growth  1,682,000
Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President)   Minus 1,337,000
Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term 6,661,000
Average Growth Per Month  99,418
Census Year 1970
US Population 203 Mil 
Job Growth as % Of Population 0.05       

Carter

GDP Growth 37%                       

Average Annual GDP Growth  9.3%

Total Job Growth during Presidential Term  10.5 Mil
Ave Annual Job Growth 2,622,000
Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President)  546,000
Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term 8,994,000
Average Growth Per Month 187,375
Census Year 1980
US Population     226 Mil 
Job Growth as % Of Population   0.08       

Reagan

GDP Growth   63%                       
Average Annual GDP Growth  7.9%
Total Job Growth during Presidential Term 15.9 Mil
Ave Annual Job Growth   1,992,000
Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President) 1,120,000
Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term  16,509,000
Average Growth Per Month 171,969
Census Year 1980
US Population 226 Mil 
Job Growth as % Of Population 0.08       

Bush 41

GDP Growth 16%                       
Average Annual GDP Growth  4.0%
Total Job Growth during Presidential Term  2.5 Mil
Ave Annual Job Growth  636,000
Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President) 1,248,000
Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term 2,673,000
Average Growth Per Month 55,688
Census Year 1990
US Population 249 Mil 
Job Growth as % Of Population  0.02       

Clinton

GDP Growth 49%                       

Average Annual GDP Growth  6.1%
Total Job Growth during Presidential Term 23.1 Mil

Ave Annual Job Growth 2,883,000                                                                                                    

Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President) Minus 434,000

Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term 21,383,000
Average Growth Per Month   223,000                                                                                                   
Census Year  1990
US Population 249 Mil
Job Growth as % Of Population 0.09%                                                                                               

Bush 43

GDP Growth  16%      
Average Annual GDP Growth 2%
Total Job Growth during Presidential Term 2.1 Mil
Ave Annual Job Growth  43,750
Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President) Minus 3,876,000
Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term Minus 1,544,000
Average Growth Per Month Minus 16,083
Census Year  2000
US Population 281 Mil 
Job Growth as % Of Population Minus 0.01

Obama 

GDP Growth    8.3%                       

Average Annual GDP Growth 2.8%
Total Job Growth during Presidential Term Minus 1.4 Mil
Ave Annual Job Growth  Minus 427,692
Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President)                                        
Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term 2,486,000
Average Growth Per Month  73,118
Census Year 2010
US Population 308 Mil 
Job Growth as % Of Population Minus 0.02

Adam Yauch, RIP

I guess I was a little old for them, so I always liked the idea of Beasties Boys more than the actual music. Adam Yauch, MCA, died today after a long bout with cancer.

Despite their public persona the Beastie Boys have long been active in political events. Yauch, in particular was deeply interested in Buddhism and the Free Tibet Movement. I love the complexity of this guy, a walking talking crazy party one moment, and the next he was thinking deeply and talking about the cause of religious freedom and non-violence. He was a deep thinker and a clown. I like to think deeply about stuff. I wish I had more of the clown in me. In my mind the courage to do each is about the same. So In my book Yauch is a pretty brave guy. He was a rapper, a director who directed several of the videos, an activist in many ways, and a Buddhist. Following is from a PBS interview in 1997 from a show called Dreams of Tibet. Safe travels, Adam…

q: There seems to be a ground swell of interest happening around Tibet. Why is there so much interest in Tibet?

yauch:  I think it goes to a lot of different levels but the two main ways that I look at it is that on the one hand, we're able to help the Tibetans to gain their freedom--in a sense we're obligated to do that in a sense since we have the ability to help the Tibetans. But I think the really significant part of it for us for the western world is we have a lot to gain from the Tibetans--there are certain lessons that are within Tibetan culture. I mean understandings of compassion and of nonviolence that are things that we really lack in our society.

Also, the contrast is so huge between the compassion and nonviolence that's coming from the Tibetans and the unimaginably brutal oppression that's coming from the Chinese, the forced abortions and forced sterilization and the torture of monks and nuns ... for just trying to practice their own religion.

q:  Tell me about your concerts and what you hope to achieve....

a:  I feel like I've gained a huge amount from being exposed to Tibetan culture. From being in Tibet and being around Tibetans I feel like I've learned so much more about what brings a person happiness, about what actually brings myself happiness.

I think there are a lot of misconceptions in society in general about what actually brings happiness, we're caught up in all these ideas that having a lot of money or having somebody beautiful to have sex with or having some cool objects, having a cool car, cool stereo or whatever is gonna make us happy. And those things actually don't bring us happiness. I've learned a tremendous amount about how compassion or altruism actually brings a person happiness and I think that's a lot of what's trying to be put forward through the concerts and it seems like the optimum way to put those ideas forward is through helping the Tibetans gain their freedom because those values are so inherent within Tibetan culture.

q:  Tell me -- how do you effect change?

a:  I think every person has the ability to effect change. I think we're often led to believe that it's just celebrities have some ability to effect change but I think that what's important for us to realize is that everyone of us affects the world constantly through our actions, through our every smallest action, through our every thought, our every word, the way that we interact with other people we're constantly affecting the world.

q:  What are you trying to do for Tibet in in the music and the concerts you give?

a:  We're trying to just raise awareness/with the concerts, what we're really trying to do is create more of a forum for the Tibetans themselves to be able to speak, I know that like if I turn on the TV and I just see some movie star or rock star talking about some cause a lot of times I get really turned off to it so I guess the idea is -- creating some kind of forum where the -- the Tibetans themselves can speak and Tibetan culture can be there itself.

I bet there are a lot of Tibetans walking around at the concerts, there were hundreds of Tibetans walking around with petitions to be signed and there was monastery tent there and we did our best to come as close to having Tibetan culture exist naturally in a giant rock concert

q:  What impact do you think the concerts and films can have?

a:  I think concerts and films and and CD and things like that can bring the stuff into the mainstream. .... I think the films and CDs and what not, can really have an effect because I think that our government and our corporations are definitely affected by public perception. And so the more that we can raise this awareness, the more chance there is that our corporations and government will be forced to act in the interest of humanity.

q:  And what is going to on? I mean what do you see happening?

a:  I think the main focus in America is is basically greed. I think that that's the number motivator in our society and it goes to all levels, it goes to our government and our corporations and us as individuals and I think we have to recognize our own involvement as individuals in that greed that we're the ones that go out and and buy all these things that empower the corporations.

q:  What does Tibet have to offer us in America, in the West?

a:  Well some people have described it this way -- while the West has been outwardly modernizing ourselves, while we've been building better machines and cameras and faster trains and planes and faster telephones and computers, while we've been outwardly modernizing ourselves for the last few hundred years the Tibetans have isolated themselves from the rest of the world and have been inwardly modernizing themselves.

They've been spending the last thousand years learning about mind and what actually brings a person happiness and what brings a person unhappiness. What creates jealousy and what creates hatred and what actually creates true lasting happiness. So in a sense it seems like it's no accident that when we've come to this point where our technology has put the world on the edge of destruction. We've stockpiled so many nuclear weapons and dumping nuclear waste and creating materials that don't biodegrade and on and on. And just as we've put the earth on the edge of destruction here-- Tibetan culture has been forced to infiltrate into the rest of the world and expose itself in order for itself to survive. And, it almost seems like no accident-- that this has happened at that time, that they're, as Bob Thurman calls it, their inner modernity has been forced to be exposed to our out modernity .

q:  What is your dream scenario for the impact that your concerts and music and CD can have?

a:  I would hope that the concerts and the CD and the films that are coming out would help Tibet to gain their freedom. But on the other side of it, I'm really hoping that some of those values are going to infiltrate into American culture and in particular into youth culture uh because obviously that's the future of what this world is going to be come and what human it is going to become.

q:  And do you think that things like popular culture, like movies and concerts can ultimately have some effect on things like government policy?

a:  I think that movies and CDs-- they affect the way people think. I know they've radically affected the way I think. And so they definitely will have some effect on the world and in turn that will affect our government because I really don't think that Clinton wants to be remembered as a president that could have done something to benefit the people in Tibet. That could have helped with human rights and just didn't do that for reasons of greed or having America be a powerful country at the expense of other people. I don't think that Clinton that wants to be remembered that way. And so I think that the more that awareness is raised, that more that Clinton is gonna really go out of his way to make sure that Tibetan culture is preserved.

q:  Why is there an urgency suddenly about Tibet's predicament and dilemma?

a:  The thing with the Tibet cause is that there is very little time left with it because of the rate of the population transfer that the Chinese are pushing for right now and the sterilization and forced abortions that are going on with the women. And the religious oppression. There is very little time left that Tibetan culture will actually survive. Probably a few more years if a radical change doesn't come about. So I think that's part of what the uproar is that people are really coming together on this issue.

q:  Do you have a feeling the government has sort of abandoned this issue?

a:  I think it's scary that that our elected officials aren't operating under the principles of human rights, under the principles that this government and this country was founded on. I think that that if anyone should be holding those principles dear to their heart and and as the most important values there are then it should be our elected officials and the idea that our country is being run by a bunch of selfish egomaniacs is pretty terrifying.

q:  What's your hope for a kid who comes to a concert that you're putting on for Tibet?

a:  I guess the best way for me to put that answer is more in terms of my own experience. I was traveling in the Himalayas and I met some Tibetan people and then I began to really learn about a lot of much deeper ideas about mind and what actually brings a person happiness and the patterns of thinking the traps that we get ourselves into through our different lines of thinking. And so what I hope is that somebody might come to one of these concerts and run across some of that same information that I did-- that benefited me. And that they would also gain something from that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny997LNZ9zw

Romney, The Coward

The Washington Post reports: “ Richard Grenell, the openly gay spokesman recently hired to sharpen the foreign policy message of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, has resigned in the wake of a full-court press by anti-gay conservatives.”

Romney is a Coward. This is no doubt that this is the kind of President he would be-- Running scared from the right wing gay bashing base of the Republican Party. In response to the resignation of Richard Grenell, an openly gay Republican and former aide to John Bolton (no friend of the left), hired to advise the campaign and be a spokesman on foreign policy issues the campaign's manager Matt Rhoades said: “We are disappointed that Ric decided to resign from the campaign for his own personal reasons. We wanted him to stay because he had superior qualifications for the position he was hired to fill.”

"His own personal reasons" apparently revolved around attacks from the right having everything to do with Grenell being gay and nothing to do with foreign policy, his area of expertise. The controversy resulted in the campaign keeping Grenell out of circulation during the recent partisan dustup over the Bin Laden raid.

Anyone that believes that Grenell left of “his own” free will-- Especially those interested in purchasing a fine bridge I know about in Brooklyn-- may contact me through my FB page.

Time and again Romney has passed opportunities to stand up to the most extreme elements of this party. Time and again when given the opportunity to show that he intended to be the President of the entire country—Not just the 40% which votes Republican-- Romney has chosen to represent the narrow interests of a provincial, hateful, xenophobic, homophobic, male-centric horde.

When the rabble booed the gay soldier in the debates, Romney was silent. When Cain suggested those Americans that were angry about the excesses on Wall Street and the calamity that ensued as a result of their stunning greed and unprincipled malfeasance were just “jealous”, Romney was silent. When they cheered 200-plus executions in Texas at the debates, Romney was silent. I guess in Republicans circles it is not even possible to take a principled stand in support of the death penalty. We must also love the act of murder by the state while also hating the executed. Oh sure, some of those executions were questionable, but on the right that is a small price to pay for the unfettered justice of the mob.

When Rush ran off on his women hating diatribe Romney spoke. He “bravely” said those weren’t “the words I would have chosen”. When a Ron Paul supporter shouted out at another debate that a person without health insurance should be “allowed to die”, Romney didn’t really hear what was said. Apparently he has not heard since then. On that subject he has also been silent. For reasons that are yet to be clear Paul and Romney have had some sort of armistice going.

Romney seems resolved to run an unprincipled campaign pandering to every right wing fantasy and every perceived bundle of hate that political leaders of the GOP have cultivated going back to Nixon’s Southern Strategy and Bush’s Willie Horton campaign. While the left complains bitterly of a country gone to big finance the right nurses it’s wounds. Government is big and excessive when it helps the lazy shiftless poor. When Lobbyists ply their trade in the name of moneyed interests that is democracy in action, whole other ball game. The real problem, actually the real enemies are minorities, immigrants, the poor, and of course gays. Grand Old party no more, now the GOP is just the aggrieved party.

Ok, so be it.

But then don’t ask me to believe that bullshit about how you really care about the poor and the middle class because once these massive tax cuts kick in “all boats will be lifted”. Two problems: 1) It didn’t work under Bush whose record of job growth even with massive government spending and unprecedented tax breaks flowing grandly to the 1% had historically low job growth. 2) It’s pretty clear that you don’t give a shit about anyone except your narrow and frightened electorate and the huge money donors who fund your campaigns allowing you to propagandize to your poor, uneducated, and largely Southern electorate that their enemies are not centralized capital which lives so well off them, but those Others who live in their midst, poor and hungry just like them. As we know when that fails you can always kick a gay man out the door.