Half Measures:

The "Nuclear Option" is far from nuclear. It's more like a hand grenade.

While it is true that judicial nominees and other routine nominations by the President no longer face the threat of a filibuster, Republicans can still block legislation. Ted Cruz can still shut down the government. Obstructionist Republicans can and in all likelihood will continue to nullify the results of our most recent national elections.

Far from draconian, the nuclear option is more like an intervention for an alcoholic in which the beer is taken from the fridge but the Kentucky Bourbon stays in the cabinet.

Why was any part of the filibuster - a Senate tradition that is not even mentioned in the Constitution - left standing? Why not go all the way and eliminate the filibuster altogether?

Is the American political class that frightened by the prospect of actual Democracy?

Republicans may cry about the majority's abuse of power, but it was none less than James Madison who first warned us about requiring more than a majority of Senators for cloture. Madison wrote, "the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority." (Federalist Papers Number 58, published 1788). You would think that Republicans, a party that prides itself on constitutional originalism, would appreciate the thoughts of the man who wrote most of the Constitution.

If Democrats did not want to truly "go nuclear", could they have at least made it somewhat of a challenge for the minority party to impose its will on the American people? Ted Cruz at least had the stamina to physically stand and speak as he read Green Eggs and Ham in the well of the World's Greatest Deliberative Body.

Why do Democrats insist on taking half measures instead of finishing the job?

The ultimate example of Democrats going half way is the Affordable Care Act; aka, Obamacare. Progressives wanted a single payer system that would have provided a basic level of coverage for all Americans. All Congress had to do was remove the words "over 65" from the Medicare law to create a solution that would have been simple, effective, and complete. Instead, Democrats compromised with Republicans to create an unnecessarily complicated system that still allows insurance companies to maximize profits by lying to customers and committing fraud.

We can no longer afford half measures.

Unlike Democrats, the Republican party does not do anything half way. The Republican definition of bipartisanship is that Democrats have accepted the Republican demands. A Republican nuclear option, which is almost sure to follow if Republicans gain control of the Senate, will almost certainly follow their scorched earth policy. Changes in the filibuster, tepid though they may be, make the already important 2014 elections even more critical.

Harry Reid has taken a small step towards restoring functionality to a truly dysfunctional Senate.

We must finish this intervention in 2014.

Return to BobSeay.com

The Shutdown and American Anti-Intellectualism

© 2013 Bob Seay

The Republican shutdown is simply the next logical step in the march of American anti-intellectualism. This anti-intellectualism is our single greatest long-term national security threat.

Don’t get me wrong: if the Republican shutdown continues, millions of families will be hurt, some permanently. State and local economies stand to lose millions of dollars from repressed economic activity, lost tourism dollars, and other consequences. These are real injuries to real people. They cannot be dismissed as temporary inconveniences.

But the Republican shutdown is a symptom of a larger problem. It is the spot on the skin, the pervasive cough, the lump beneath the breast. The actual cancer – American Anti-intellectualism – goes much deeper and is much more deadly.

American anti-intellectualism may be defined as a cultural suspicion and resentment of intelligent people. We may not like to admit it, but Americans have historically liked people like Sarah Palin more than they like nerdy geeks like Barak Obama. This is not a uniquely American trait – fundamentalist Muslim societies, for example, suffer from similar anti-intellectual tendencies – but it is a defining American characteristic that has become all too prominent. This trait is especially strong among American Conservatives. It’s a false egalitarianism which, as Isaac Asimov said, “is nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.”

People like Ted Cruz believe that if you don't like a fact - if some inconvenient truth gets in the way of your argument - then you simply ignore it. Lies and inaccuracies are validated by the number of times they are repeated, not by any research or comparisons with actual facts. Misinformation that could be refuted with nothing more than a Google search is accepted as truth.

Anti-intellectualism gives the same weight to the opinions of the uninformed and the untruthful as it does to actual fact. We are under no intellectual obligation to give credence to those who argue that the earth is only six or seven thousand years old, yet our corporate media outlets give such people a seat on panels with credible scientists, implying (if not saying outright) that both views have scientific merit.

Anti-intellectualism allows members of Congress who barely understand the interaction between baking soda and vinegar to overrule studies about the effects of human activity on climate change.

Most recently, anti-intellectualism has allowed a small minority of political ideologues to ignore the Constitution and shut down the government. They contend that they are justified in doing so. In this, just as in matters of science, math, and virtually any other fact-based discipline, they are wrong. Yet our media insists that both sides have a point. We are expected to act as if this is a reasonable argument that is being made by reasonable people.

It isn’t – and they are not.

Holding the American people hostage over healthcare is just the beginning. These ignorant ideologues will not stop until they have forced each of us to live within their narrow view of what America is supposed to be, according to their religious beliefs, their interpretations of history, and their negligible understanding of the real world.

This is how the Tea Party came into power. By encouraging and relying upon ignorance and fear.

Return to BobSeay.com

An Apology From a Progressive Living in a Red State

© 2013 Bob Seay

An Apology From a Progressive Living in a Red State

On behalf of all Progressives, Liberals, and Democrats who live in Red States or Congressional Districts with Republican representatives, I would like to offer an extremely humble and sincere apology to the rest of America. Our Republican Congressmen voted against relief for Sandy victims. Yet they now have the nerve to ask for help for the victims of Colorado's flooding. Don't get me wrong -- things are bad in the flooded areas. Flood victims will need a lot of help as they rebuild. Our Congressmen are right to ask for aid; they are doing their job and trying to take care of their constituents.

Their job, however, also includes representing the will of the people who elected them to office -- and the majority of Coloradans are not the kind of people who would turn their back on fellow Americans who need help. The majority of Coloradans, I have to believe, would have voted to help the victims of Hurricane Sandy.

I should probably explain that while Colorado, where I live, is considered a "progressive" state, geographically, most of the state is Red. Thus through the Magic Math of the U.S. House, we sent more Republicans to Congress than Dems (2 Dem Senators, 4 Reps in the House, 3 Dems in the House). Thus, Republicans have a "majority" even when they don't represent a majority of Colorado's or, for that matter America's, population. Conservatives are overrepresented in the U.S. Congress and have been since 2008. They use the cry of "The U.S. is a Republic!" (which it is) as an excuse to subvert Democracy and the will of the majority of Americans.

I would like to take special note of my own Congressional Representative, Cory Gardner. Congressman Gardner voted "No" for Sandy aid on January 15, 2013 . However, less than 2 weeks earlier (Jan. 4, 2013), he had voted "Yes" on a bill to pay Sandy insurance claims.

Gardner was for it before he was against it. This kind of duplicity shows two important things about Gardner's character and the nature of the Tea Party mindset. First, it shows that he understands basic American virtues like "help your neighbor." Unfortunately, it also shows that he is willing to sacrifice those principles when it is politically expedient to do so. Gardner assumed that the people of CO-4 would want to help the people who were hurt by Sandy. And most of us would; there are good people in CO-4. However, as soon as partisan political pressure was applied, he threw those people and those principles under the bus.

In other words, Gardner -- like the rest of the Tea Party caucus -- is a gutless hypocrite. Not a leader. Not a humanitarian. Not anything. Just another politician who puts party ahead of people. Just like Lamborn, Coffman, and the rest of the Colorado Republican delegation. They are an embarrassment to our state.

This is a typical Tea Party hypocrisy. Cut food stamps, but give me my farm subsidy (a number of Colorado farmers receive money for NOT growing crops). Kill Obamacare, but keep your hands off my Social Security. Kill subsidies for solar and wind, but grant tax credits to oil companies.

And yet the voters of CO4 support this man, this party, and this hypocrisy. At what point will people simply say, "Enough is enough"?

Despite the actions of our Congressional delegation, please know that the people of Colorado and similar states are compassionate people who believe in helping others. We sincerely apologize for the lack of those traits in our Congressional delegation.

Return to BobSeay.com

If a minimum wage job can’t meet the minimum requirements for life in a society, then it really can’t be called “minimum wage”, can it?

© 2013 Bob Seay

One of the insidious effects of our slave wage economy is that it has turned all of us into slavers. Just like capital punishment turns all of us into murderers, but I digress…

I will not eat fast food today. Or tomorrow. In fact, I am making the commitment that henceforth, whenever possible, I will only support businesses that pay their workers a living wage.

I say “whenever possible” because, sadly, slave wages are so prevalent in America that will be times when I may not have an option.

You can hardly call them “minimum wages” when they don’t meet the minimum requirements for living. In Colorado, it takes 88 hours of minimum wage wages just to pay the rent on the average apartment (See Wages and Rent). That would be fine if the people making minimum wage and specifically the people working in the fast food industry were a bunch of high school kids who live with their parents. The shrinkage of the American economy means that older workers are stuck in what used to be entry level jobs. “Only 16 percent of fast food industry jobs now go to teens, down from 25 percent a decade ago…. More than 42 percent of restaurant and fast-food employees over the age of 25 have at least some college education, including 753,000 with a bachelor’s degree or higher” ( Facts About Fast Food )

Meanwhile, the average CEO is paid (I refuse to say “earns”) 273 times what the average worker makes (see CEO Compensation Gap ). In 1960, that ratio was 20:1. Welcome to the Ayn Rand economy of the Right Wing Republicans.

Someone who works full time should not live in poverty, especially in a system that produces this much wealth. Minimum wage workers shouldn't expect to get rich. But they should be able to expect that a minimum wage job should meet their minimum needs.

The Right Wingers love to talk about rewarding job creators. Guess what? Ray Kroc – the guy who for all practical purposes created McDonald’s – died in 1984, way back when CEOs only earned 30 times what their average employee was paid. The only thing that the current CEO and other leaders of McDonald's and most other corporations have created has been a self-serving compensation system.

This problem will continue until we have laws that link CEO compensation with worker wages.

If a minimum wage job can’t meet the minimum requirements for life in a society, then it really can’t be called “minimum wage”, can it?

No Argument Here

One of my saddest days was when I realized that beliefs, once set, do not change. In fact, the work of Jonathan Haidt and others indicates exactly the opposite: Beliefs tend to become stronger in the face of contradictory evidence, even when that evidence is seemingly irrefutable to less biased observers. This explains why people deny the effects of climate change even as they are experiencing severe draught, unprecedented wildfires, and extreme weather. It is also why Texans cling to a pre-Copernican, Texiocentric view of the universe.

“Houston, we have a problem.”

Conversely, one of the most affirming moments of my life was when I realized that I am not the only one who agrees with me. For me, it is easy to forget that I am not alone. I live in an extremely conservative part of Colorado. But even if I did not live on a blue island in a red sea, the non-stop drone of the Right Wing rant is everywhere. My online relationships have allowed me to break through some of that and come up for air. The reality is that I - we - are not alone.

The majority of Americans – including 97% of scientists in one Washington Post poll – know that climate change is real, despite what my Congressman and his corporate sponsors would have me to believe. I am not the only person who believes that health care is a basic human right, not a privilege reserved only for those who can afford the premiums. Most Americans believe that compromise and bipartisanship are good things, even as the Tea Party behaves more and more like an abusive, drunken husband in an increasingly dysfunctional marriage.

At one time, I argued with these people. I presented logical, cogent arguments to support my beliefs. In return, I was called a “libtard” in replies that were almost verbatim copies of the Limbaugh/Beck/WorldNetDaily rant of the day. I miss civil discourse, but I grieve over the loss of creativity in conversations.

I still write comments on my Congressman’s Facebook page, but I have long since given up on changing anyone’s mind. It is difficult to persuade someone once they have made an emotional investment in a position. If they have a financial investment, then persuasion becomes nearly impossible. You can absolutely forget it if they have been somehow persuaded that their very soul is at stake.

Instead of trying to persuade people who think compromise is a sin, we need to reach out to the majority of Americans who actually agree with us and convince them to put their beliefs into action. The 2012 election had the highest voter turnout in almost 100 years, yet only 57.5% of voting age Americans participated. Republicans know their chances for victory shrink as the number of voters goes up. They also know they can’t win on policy and must resort to strategies that eliminate as many voters as possible. This is why states like North Carolina, Texas, Florida, and others are creating barriers to voting. For these people, participatory democracy is not a goal. Democracy is the enemy.

While most of us would never think of keeping grandma from voting, we would also probably never think of working to oppose a law that would do just that. Meanwhile, state legislatures are imposing what amounts to poll taxes and literacy tests. They justify the power of their shrinking powerbase by saying that this is a republic, not a democracy. That may be, but Jefferson, Madison, et al., did not intend to create a fascist oligarchy in which corporations are people and entire populations are reduced to fiefdoms.

It would be morally wrong for us to be complicit in their disenfranchisement of voters. It is irresponsible to behave as if we have been disenfranchised when the only thing preventing us from voting is our apathy.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "The man who does not vote has no advantage over the man who cannot vote."

Return to BobSeay.com

The Right Wing's Borrowed Morality

© 2013 Bob Seay

It’s easy to be moral when someone else pays the price.

Across the country, Republicans are ending access to women's health care, trying to prevent same-sex marriage, requiring schools to teach Creationism, and enforcing other Right Wing policies. It’s easy to see why. These “traditional values” give the appearance of morality without any actual sacrifice on their part. No one is telling them they can't marry. If they need an abortion or contraception, they just write a check. Just as 98% of Americans are footing the bill for Right Wing tax cuts to millionaires, the rest of us are paying the price for the worthless piety of the Christian Taliban.

It’s funny how that morality changes when it comes with a price. The morality of feeding the hungry – something which, unlike same-sex marriage, Jesus actually talked about – might require millionaires to pay an additional 4 cents on each hoarded dollar. The morality of healing the sick also costs money and must be stopped. The Biblical admonition that “the laborer is worthy of his wages” is disregarded in discussions about a wage that actually meets the needs of a worker and a family.

I actually heard a Conservative radio commentator say, “Capitalism isn’t just a good plan, it’s God’s plan.” Right. Because Jesus always put money ahead of people.

It’s easy to go to war when it’s not your kid you’re sending into battle. It’s easy to run up debt when you expect someone else to pay the bill. And it is way too easy to be moral when someone else is dying for your sins.

Return to BobSeay.com

I Am Not Trayvon Martin

© 2013 Bob Seay

Originally published on Facebook, July 14 at 7:55am ·

I am not Trayvon Martin.

I keep seeing people say, "I am Trayvon Martin." I understand the sentiment. If that is you, then I respect that.

I am not Trayvon Martin. I am a middle-aged, middle class, overweight white guy. I am also a teacher, and in 20 years of teaching, I have seen plenty of Trayvon Martins. More accurately, I have seen plenty of young men who fit the caricatured image that is being portrayed of this kid in the media, Left and Right. Fox News and MSNBC. I'm guessing that neither portrayal - saint or thug - is accurate. People are more complex than that.

None of the Trayvon Martins that I know deserve to die. They may arouse suspicion, but your paranoia is not their crime. If they do commit a crime, they deserve to have a trial. Trayvon Martin's jury consisted of one person. That is not how we are supposed to do things in America. Unfortunately, that is our reality.

Here's my point: You don't have to be Trayvon Martin to know this is wrong. You don't have to be black, or young, or a "troubled student" or a pot smoker to know this was murder. And you don't have to be the parent of Trayvon Martin to know this was a gross miscarriage of justice.

Let me be more blunt: This type of injustice will continue until enough guys like me - guys who are not Trayvon Martin - have had enough of it and finally say "No more."

You don't have to be Trayvon Martin.
You just have to be human. Return to BobSeay.com