Throw the bums out...but leave my ass alone

Throw the bums out...but leave my ass alone!

When reading social media posts it seems a lot of people agree that the current people in congress need to be tossed out of office on their rears. As a whole, most Americans agree we need to replace them with new, younger politicians that are… well…just new.

And while the idea of electing new representatives is appealing it does have its downside. We seem to forget that “new” translates to “inexperienced” when it comes to holding national offices. When it comes to the people that represent our community most of us prefer someone that knows what they’re doing. And that’s the reason why “throwing the bums out” or “draining the swamp” will never happen.

While we all agree that members of Congress from almost any other part of the country need to go, we don’t think our local politicians need to suffer the same fate. The reason that we, those of us that share a community, have a problem voting out the people is obvious. The candidate that we elected and sent to congress to represent us, our local politicians, you know… the ones that are working for our communities and doing a good job… well we want to leave them in office.

Because, no matter how evil, corrupt, incompetent or just plain unqualified all the members in the House of Representatives, the Senate or the White House are collectively, we usually think that, individually, our local politicians are doing just fine. Local politicians are the ones we get to meet at the local supermarket or the town hall. They are the ones that return our calls and stand at the local train or bus station greeting us in the morning on the way to work.

They are the ones that fight for the funds our community businesses or local schools need to improve… or just keep functioning. All those other members in congress, those guys that we don’t know, who never do anything for us, they’re the ones that need to go.

Every election year we all cry out “Let’s throw the bums out!” We want to clean house and get rid of the politicians that populate the “swamp.” Yet, despite the national resolve to replace those politicians that have held office to the point where they are national celebrities; politicians that are hated by voters everywhere, the truth is, even though Americans across the nation hate them, the people that actually vote for them, the people whose votes put them in office are the ones that count on them.

Any politician with the experience, clout and ability to deliver the things that a community, city or state depends on is almost always going to be re-elected. When it comes to judging any politician we, as a people, are better suited to do that on a local level.

Mitch McConnell is one of the most reviled politicians In the Senate. If everyone in America could vote he wouldn’t just be kicked out of office he would be stripped of his citizenship and deported to a country as far from America as possible.

The problem is that the only people who get to vote when he’s running for office live in Kentucky. As long as he services the needs of the voters in Kentucky he’s not going anywhere. That scenario is played out all over the country in every election.

We all want to see fresh faces with new ideas but when it comes to the face that represents our community we feel comfortable with the face we know and are familiar with. We prefer a representative that already knows how to do the job rather than one who is learning as he goes.Once elected, a politician has to really screw-up before most people will vote them out of office.

Sure, Washington may be a swamp, but “we the people” are the ones that keep restocking it with the same political parasites and predators that feed off all Americans.

We will never be able to throw their bums out as long as we continue to leave our own ass alone.

Killing the Masses

Killing the Masses

My beautiful niece, NicHole, and a friend were debating the epidemic of mass shootings currently plaguing our country. Her friend insisted that other counties (Canada) had plenty of mass shootings; it wasn't just an American problem.

She disputed that claim and suggested he check out the facts. That seemed like a great idea. Taking it upon myself I decided do a little research and check them out myself. So I Googled "Mass shootings in Canada," our closest neighbor.

The commonly accepted definition of a Mass Shooting is defined as one where at least four people are shot or killed, not including the gunman. Some agencies that track this sort of tragedy have since reduced the number of victims required to qualify an event as a "Mass shooting" to three. I decided to go with four victims just to narrow the number. Seriously, almost any given weekend in America will result in three people being killed by gunfire routinely.

I came across this list on Wikipedia that listed around forty massacres that have occurred in Canada. Now 40+ mass killings is nothing to be proud of. But the fact is that the first incident listed happened in 1689 as part of King William's war and the next incident happened five decades later in the same war. The next incident happened 5 decades later in the same war suggests that these crimes don’t happen often. At least they didn’t.

Other incidents were spread out over years, decades and almost centuries apart. At one point, between 1885 and 1967 none were recorded. By comparison, the cover of this week’s Time magazine features a list of 253 mass shootings that have occurred in America in the first half of this year alone.

The interesting and sad thing about the statistics from Canada is that, of the 40+ incidents listed, 14 of them, almost a third of the total, have happened since 2014.

I took the difference in population into consideration so I also looked up comparable violence in countries as large or larger than American in population and/or power.

I looked at China and Russia for a start. Both are global powers with a major role in the way they contribute to our sense of security. They have far less incidents of mass killings instigated by individuals against people. Those incidents that they have experienced were actually acts of the governments against the people.

These links will give you a start if you want to examine such events for yourself. I could post more links but you are free to search for the stats for yourself and interpret them as you wish. There are other sites that break down the figures in ways that will argue that the U.S. is far from the leader in the deaths by such attacks. Just remember, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Canada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_China

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Russia

These links serve as statistical evidence that the increase in the violence that humans wreak upon each other is a worldwide phenomenon; one that extends across all borders. Such tragedies are accelerating at a rate that suggests madness is taking hold.

While America is clearly leading the way when it comes to incidents of mass killings, people across the planet are more inclined to use violence to express their frustration and anger. They are losing control of their lives while living in a world that is beyond their control. People are feeling more helpless and hopeless. The world is leaving most of us without any promise of a future.

Take away hope and most people will fill that void with hate. People in such a state want to kill.

What can we do to stop the violence?

It has been suggested that to get a handle on controlling these events we need to pay attention to our kids; that we all need to think first before we act. We need to hold people accountable for the things they say and do. We need to bring back morals and values. Maybe so, but I think it goes beyond such simple solutions.

Personally, I don't believe in concepts such as "morals" or "values." when it comes to deciding whether a person holds or lacks them in a way that they can be identified as a good or bad person. When it comes to identifying someone as a possible threat, it's just too complicated.

Many people believe gambling or drinking are immoral. They believe in "family values," as long as it's the type of family they approve of. They are quick to judge other families, gay couples who adopt children, bi-racial couples or people who live together without the bonds of holy matrimony, as having lesser values; or none at all.

I will leave it to others to determine the state of morality of those different than them. I do, however, believe that accountability and responsibility are concepts that can be equally applied to everyone regardless of their personal values or morals.

We have become the sort of society where we need to blame others rather than accept blame; qwhere we seek vengeance rather than justice. We want everyone to win a trophy just for playing and deny the winner their right to declare victory over all. We need to remember that we are all different as individuals, but we are all the same as human beings.

When it comes to re-enforcing such things as morals, values, accountability and responsibility, we can't look to others... teachers, lawyers, judges or politicians to do what is necessary to impose them on us. It can only be done if each one of us begins by looking in the mirror and pointing the finger at the person looking back.

It's not a matter of bringing such attributes as accountability, responsibility, morality and unity back... it's a matter of learning to accept them as our duty as individuals and apply them as a people.

When we want to stop killing, the killings will stop.

Country, County and Choice

Country, County and Choice 

          I don’t “believe” in abortion. I don’t “approve” of abortion. I think it’s a sad and tragic decision whenever a woman is faced with an unfortunate and unplanned pregnancy that demands such a choice be made. Not all pregnancies are the result of irresponsible, reckless or wanton behavior. There times when forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term will only result in the destruction of both her life and the life the child. But what I think doesn’t matter.

          The only person who has the right to make that decision… whether to terminate a pregnancy or not… is the woman whose body and life will be affected by it. The Supreme Court ruling in Roe vs. Wade that recognized the right of a woman to undergo a safe and legal abortion has been the law of the land for almost half a century. It took a back alley practice out of the hands of butchers and gave it to the legitimate doctors that were willing to help women take control of their lives and bodies; often at the risk of their own lives and careers.

          For decades, opponents of abortion have fought tooth and nail to take away the rights of women when it comes to abortion. Using both legal and lethal means, Right wing conservatives, highly religious groups and extreme zealots have been trying to deny women anywhere in our country the fundamental right that Roe vs. Wade recognized. They want to prohibit women from accessing safe and legal abortions despite polls that say the majority of Americans believe in a woman’s right to choose.

          States are passing ever more restrictive laws that are designed to deny women access to abortion services regardless of the reasons. Even in cases where the pregnancy is the result of a rape or incest or where the health of the mother is threatened. Most of these laws have been struck down as unconstitutional by courts. Sadly, that doesn’t stop states, usually states that are controlled by the Republican Party, from trying.

          If the leak of the draft opinion is correct it seems that the SCOTUS is about to reverse Roe vs Wade and hand the anti-abortion movement their wish. But it just might be a case of being "careful what you wish for" for abortion opponents.

          It brings to mind another attempt to prohibit the American people from exercising a right that everyone was granted but did not necessarily indulge. A small but very motivated group of zealots managed to get the members of congress to pass a constitutional amendment banning the sale and consumption of alcohol across the nation. Despite the fact that about two thirds of Americans did not approve of prohibition, the proponents of the issue used tactics that targeted individual members of congress. They organized in local ways that threatened the jobs of national politicians.

          Their actions and threats to evict from office any member of congress that opposed them resulted in the capitulation of enough politicians that they voted for the 18^th amendment; not because they cared about the issue, but they cared about keeping their jobs.

          By the time the congress got around to repealing prohibition 15 years later, by a measure that matched the numbers of Americans that wanted it repealed, about 75%, the damage to our nation was done. Organized crime syndicates were born and the violence and carnage that became the trademark of such criminal enterprises became a part of our history that still exists today. Once alcohol became legal again, the syndicates simply moved on to such enterprises such as drugs, prostitution and gambling.

          Despite the repeal, the results of the vote to repeal prohibition did not mean that alcohol was available everywhere in the US. In many states and counties, the sale and, in some cases, the consumption of alcohol remained illegal. These places are often referred to as “Dry” states or counties. There are 33 states that allow cities, towns and counties to pass local laws and ordinances that control or outright ban alcohol. There are 17 states that deny cities and towns the right to prevent the sale and distribution of alcohol.

          The opponents of abortion rights are trying similar tactics in their fight to ban abortion nationwide. They are using the courts and flooding them with legal challenges. They are targeting politicians in districts where voters are largely Pro-life and using a single issue to force politicians to agree or lose their job. They want to force the entire nation to bend to their will.

          Prohibition was based on a small group’s moral standards. While it succeeded for a short time, the damage it did to our country far exceeded the benefits.  In the end it came down to where, instead of trying to impose the will of a minority upon the entire nation, it became the responsibility of individual cities towns and counties to decide for themselves whether they wanted to ban or allow alcohol in their lives.

          And therein lays the solution to a woman’s right to have an abortion.

Trying to deny the rights of a specific group of people, women, with laws that are based on moral or religious standards that have no legal basis goes against everything that this nation is based on. The will of the majority does not over-rule the rights of the individual.  The concept of individual rights and liberties are the bedrock that the Constitution was designed to protect.

           I have a huge problem with any religious or political group feeling they have some moral or divine imperative that compels them to make a decision that impacts an entire nation. Deciding to have an abortion is an immensely personal one. However, insisting that every community accommodates that choice is unreasonable.  If the majority of people don’t want to allow abortions in their city or town, then let the voters make the decision to ban it there.

           The right to have an abortion is one that every woman was promised by Roe vs. Wade. But that doesn’t mean that every municipality has to allow such clinics to function within the boundaries of their community. Like the sale of alcohol, communities should be allowed to deny the licensing and or establishment of a business that the citizens, the voters, don’t approve of. And no matter how you feel about abortion, a place that provides such a service is a business.

          People that comprise a community can’t deny women their right to have an abortion. Yet, the people in any city, town or county, by a formal vote, should have the right to permit or deny any business that does not comport with their community standards. No matter how much revenue such businesses bring in, these businesses will never be welcome.

          However, there will be those communities that recognize that such businesses mean money by way of taxes and fees that feed their coffers.

          The concept of what is moral does not relate to what is legal. There are a lot of people who think that gambling is immoral. There are a lot of places where it is both legal and encouraged. If you don’t want to gamble no one can force you to wager your money. But, frankly, if someone wants to gamble, it’s none of your business.

          The Roe vs. Wade ruling guarantees an individual woman the right to have an abortion, but it doesn’t force individual communities to accommodate her in accessing those services. It is a matter of country vs. county. While it is a right granted to every woman in our nation that does not mean that every town in our country has to provide access to such a business.

          What a woman does with her body, with her life, is no-one’s business. Yet, that doesn’t mean everyone has to do business with her. Many communities will not allow abortion services to do business in their jurisdiction. There are just as many places where the citizens will recognize the right and take advantage of the taxes and revenue that these businesses provide.

          You may think it is wrong, but that doesn’t make you right.

The Case for Kasich

The Case for Kasich

Michael Cannata

          The last presidential election was about as ugly a political spectacle as this country has ever experienced in my lifetime. Trump won by exploiting the sense of anger and disgust many people in America harbored for politicians in general. He also appealed to some deep seated hate felt by many white Americans towards minorities in general and immigrants in particular.

          He attacked not just immigrants, women, and the disabled with a constant barrage of insults and invective. He disparaged the personal character and political accomplishments of his opponents. His behavior and the response by his debate foes was tantamount to the over-the-top-displays of screaming and shouting by guests straight out of a Jerry Springer show; with his followers playing the part of the rabid audience with equal enthusiasm.

          It was as vicious a political bloodletting America has ever witnessed. Trump painted a picture of an America that was nearly apocalyptic. He wasn't a politician, but he was a skilled TV performer. Trump played to his audience with deft and dark skill. He played to the deepest fears and strongest hate of his base. He insulted the other candidates the way his supporters wished they could do. Like his supporters, Trump had no political experience to offer. Just a claim to his position as an outsider who was going to, "drain the swamp," if given the chance. He promised them a "great big beautiful wall" that would stem the flow of murderous, evil, drug dealing criminals into our country.

          However, out of the fray, there emerged one guy who seemed unruffled and unperturbed by Trump's attacks. John Kasich, the Governor of Ohio, impressed me with his ability to express his ideas and policies with carefully considered and thoughtful answers to the questions he faced during the debates. He showed me that he could look at an issue from both sides and was willing to support the best solution from a partisan rather than a party centered point of view.

          He was easily the only guy who acted the way one would expect of a legitimate candidate. He came across as Presidential.

          In my humble opinion, even though he lost in the last election, this is the guy who could be the only hope in 2020 for the GOP to hold on to the White House. Kasich has distanced himself from Trump and has established his role as a serious critic of Trump. He has proven that he isn't afraid to buck the party line. In other words, he isn't afraid to point out that the Emperor hasn't any clothes.

          I supported, Bernie Sanders, during the last presidential election. I had watched him over his entire career. I admired him as a man and as an independent politician of over 30 years. He had a reputation as someone who could work with both sides. I decided to vote for only the second time in my 65 years because I finally found a candidate that I could honestly support. But we all know how that turned out. The democratic party backed the candidate that the party wanted. They never seemed to consider what the people wanted. 

          John Kasich seems to possess the same skills that attracted me to Sanders. Kasich appears to be a man that can work with both parties when it comes to reaching solutions that are best for the country, not just the party. His experience as a governor gives him the sort of experience that best suits a potential president.

          By all accounts, John Kasich's terms as Governor of Ohio were a resounding success. Quoting from the official Ohio Governor's website, He closed "an $8 billion budget shortfall without a tax increase, reducing taxes by $5 billion" and "Ohio jobs have grown by over 557,600." "The Buckeye state is in a stronger position than it was when Kasich took office."

          John Kasich has all the political pedigree, resume, experience and support that we could ask of any viable presidential candidate. When it comes to my political leanings I have always considered myself an independent moderate. I believe that we should always vote for the best candidate regardless of their party affiliation.

          John Kasich is a guy I could get behind. Right now, the democratic field of candidates is so crowded that it's impossible to see who is worth supporting. Sadly, when it comes to the republicans, there is Trump, Pence and maybe the carpetbagger, Romney. Voting for any of them is unthinkable.

          I am hoping that John Kasich will once again challenge Trump for the nomination. I would give him serious consideration. I don't care if the next president is a republican or a democrat. I just want him or her to be competent and capable. Someone who believes in America. We don't need someone who can make America great again; America has always been great. We need someone who can keep us great. 

           John Kasich has the potential to be that man if we give him a chance. Who knows, maybe he'll be the guy who gets me to vote for the third time.