There was a shooting tonight at MIT where a campus police officer was killed so this is likely related.

However it may also be connected to the events on Monday.

Coverage at all the major networks, I’m not going to speculate what I don’t know about.

Kate Upton has a an uncle in Kalamazoo, but if Democrats have their way, she won’t have an uncle in Congress come 2014. Fred Upton is the Chair of the powerful House Commerce Committee and last year, was held to just 54%, his lowest showing since he was first elected in 1986 at 33 (he carried populous Kalamazoo County by just 8 votes out of 117,000 cast). The tally was noteworthy because while his opponent ran an impressive campaign, he was not taken seriously by national Democrats. Beating Upton in ’14 swill not be easy. His chairmanship makes him well-armed money wise, and there was still an 11% spread between he and his opponent. But some Democrats would like to target him again, though others are more keen to wait until 2016, when Upton will have reached his limit at Commerce and turnout will be stronger in a Presidential cycle.

Upton is among the non-obvious, second tier of Republican incumbents that Democrats may come charging hard at as the campaigns proceed. But who may be some of the other targets?

We know about top tier targets. Gary Miller, Mike Coffman, Rodney Davis, and Steve Southerland either sit in swing districts or won races that were viewed as as flukes. They are already at the top of Democratic hit lists. So is Michelle Bachmann, who scraped by Jim Graves with under 51% in a year when Bachmann was probably saved by the top of the ticket (Graves has already launched a second bid). Add Jackie Walorski,and Daniel Webster, as rematches following narrow scrapes are apparent. But Democrats have 17 seats to make up if they hope to achieve the majority, which means they will have to convert races where the dynamics look decent into contests that are nip’n'tuck. And by the way, they also have to win them.

Let’s look at which races may develop late.

For Democrats, Upton’s southern Michigan colleague might bear more fruit. Since winning an election in 2006 (interrupted by a loss in ’08), Tim Walberg has consistently underperformed. He beat an under-funded organic farmer just 50-46% in ’06, and last year, despite the removal of Democratic Jackson County (Battle Creek), gave up 46% to another Democrat on zero radar screens. Romney won just 51% even in this rural district, and a semi-credible Democrat may make Walberg sweat harder.

In Grand Rapids, Justin Amash has made no secret of his desire to run for Carl Levin’s Senate seat. Senate Democrats would love it. Their colleagues on the House may not. Their view is that Amash will be easier to beat. If not, they have to hope the new Republican nominee is of similar mold of Amash, but even there, the stars would have to align right. Romney took 53%.

With questionable mental state-of-mind and a seat handed to him amid bizarre circumstances, Democrats would seem to have all the ammunition to take on Kerry Bentivolio in Michigan-11 except for, well, a candidate. Bentivolio, a reindeer farmer, once said he may be Santa Clause, and was fired from his job as a teacher for saying his one single goal was to make his students “cry at least once.” This is another very tough district. Obama won it with 50% in 2008 but took just 47% in ’12. Still, it is not that conservative and the local GOP has not been quiet about wanting to oust Bentivolio in a primary. But he’s thwarted their attempts to do so once before: in a primary for the special election. There will be some developments next year, it’s just a matter of which side they’ll be positive for.

A lesser surprise would be David Joyce. Were this an open seat, Joyce the race would truly be a tossup, but the fact that he will have been an incumbent for two years gives him a fairly big edge. The Democrats have one candidate Michael Wager. His resume in Cleveland area politics is not skimpy. He worked for Cleveland Congressmen Charles Vanick and Mary Rose Oakar, served as Finance Chair for Sherrod Brown, and has Lou Stokes as a law-partner. But he is not well known and Joyce is not particularly ideological. Ohio is a bellwether and this is one place where national issues come into play. It may be the NRA vs. the full kick-in of Obamacare. And Obama ran bdehind Obama here by 3%.

Lee Terry is a question mark. The eight-term Nebraska Republican found that objects in the rearview mirror were closer than they appeared, as his race against John Ewing was exceedingly close. Ewing has already decided to seek re-election as the Douglas County Treasurer and most Democrats know that Presidential year turnout is far more favorable than off years. But they shutter about letting Terry off the hook even if it’s for one cycle.

Then there are three sophomores Democrats thought wouldn’t be in Congress today. In ’12,GOP frosh, Sean Duffy, Joe Heck& Scott Tipton each faced “strong”challengers that had goods odds of wresting seats away, but who ultimately fizzled. The trio will still see grade “a” foes but the size of each incumbents margins make Democrats task more daunting.

Tipton and Duffy both scored unexpected high 12% wins,which make the task of even big-name Democrats difficult. But issues and personalities may mean tough races. Heck’s 7% win(with just 50%) came amid high turnout,but against foe who was slammed by local media for refusing to take positions on issues that were already law.

Heck faces a fairly big name in ’14, Erin Bilbray-Kohn, whose father represented NV-1 for eight years. But he left office in 1994, and the state has grown exponentially since then, meaning hundreds of thousands may never have heard of the Bilbray name. And mid-term turnout will help Heck more than the Democrats.

Tipton already has a trio of high ranking Democrats exploring a challenge to him, but a virtual McCain/Obama tie in 2008 blossomed to a 53% Romney showing in ’12. With Duffy, Democrats are not sure what went wrong. State Senator Pat Kreiltlaw’s loss was no surprise but Duffy’s 56% was. Duffy has had a history of making poorly thought out statements, but Obama took just 48%, down 5% from 2008.

In New York, Chris Collins was not thought to have run the better race in NY-27, but just barely edged Kathy Hochul. Presidential turnout probably put Collins through, and many think Hochul deserves a second chance. But it’s not clear she wants to and at this point, Collins hasn’t done anything to alienate voters in what is by far the most Republican district in New York (Romney 55%).

A number of columnists have mentioned eastern Pennsylvania as possible takeovers and Democrats will likely try. But I am skeptical about how vulnerable Pat Meehan and Mike Fitzpatrick really are. Obama carried both PA-7 and PA-8 in 2008, but lost them both narrowly in ’12 (Romney’s win in Fitzpatrick’s district was the smallest in the nation).

Both have positioned themselves as moderates. Both have been among the few Rs to back gun control, but this is soccer-mom territory. But first they need candidates. Democrats would love to recruit Joe Sestak to take on Meehan, but if he run for anything (which isn’t a given), it is more likely to be the opens Governor’s chair. Democrats have landed a candidate to challenge Fitzpatrick, and at first glimpse, he seems to be in the mold of Pat Murphy, a Marine who unseated Fitzpatrick in 2006 before having the favor returned in ’10. But Bucks likes their candidate

The Minnesota remap shifted Minnesota-2 about two points left, and Minnesota-3 just under two percent right. The result was that Obama carried both, but by the skin of his teeth. That leaves uncertain security to John Kline and Eric Paulsen. Most local Democrats say the only Democrat who could unseat Paulsen is State Senator Terri Bonoff, but since she lost the DFL nomination in 2008 (as Paulsen was seeking his first term), she has made very few overtures about running.

Kline already has one declared opponent, businesswoman Sona Mehring and DC Democrats seem to be rallying around her, for she would bring significant personal resources to the race. But ex-State Senator Mike Obermueller, who held Kline to 54% last year, is talking up the race again, and he may have the edge at the DFL Convention. The eventual Democratic nominee will be aided by the expected re-elections of Mark Dayton and Al Franken, but Obama and Klobuchar were performing strongly last cycle. The party may have better odds in 2016, when Kline could retire, as his tenure as Education Workforce Chair is term limited).

There are a few other long shots. Democrats swill take aim at Iowa’s Tom Latham but he has long shown an ability to thrive in tough districts (and a highly touted opponent has already exited the race). In Ohio, ex-Congressman Bob Gibbs. But while Canton is in the district, virtually everything else is rural (i.e, anti-Democratic), and Boccieri may yet be proceeded to seek a statewide post. In Virginia, Democrats have long talked about ousting Randy Forbes but he may be in line to chair Armed Services (Texan Mac Thornberry is next in line but has already tried for the position twice). And Democrats may still gun for Dave Reichert, whom redistricting greatly aided, yet still represents an area that Obama eked out a win. But Reichert, who never exceeded 53% in his first four runs, took 60% last year. While his foe was underfunded, he may not be out of the woods yet.

In closing, the playing field for both parties typically expands at the beginning of a cycle prior to shrinking as some races lose their fizzle pre-Election Day. Not all of these races will be there come that point. But it’s a sure bet at least some will. We’ll just have to wait to see which.

We don’t know of course if such life would be intelligent but then given the events of the week I’m not sure there is that much down here.

Best wishes for a quick recovery to one of my favorite people.

Paul Ryan’s austerity budget proclaims that there is “conclusive empirical evidence” that high levels of federal debt cuts off growth. He is citing the work of Reinhart and Rogoff, who published a paper in 2010 called, “Growth in a Time of Debt,” which purported to show that economic growth decreased drastically once a country’s debt to gdp ratio crossed over 90%. Economists like Paul Krugman initially called foul, arguing that the caution should be reversed: that slow growth caused debt to balloon. But Rogoff/Reinhart pushed forward, conceding that while causation may go in both ways, countries should still pursue austerity (recent evidence suggests their causation is bunk).

But a crucial blow has been struck to that assumption by Thomas Herndon, Michael Ash and Robert Pollin in their new paper. Synopsis: Herndon et al find that the GDP growth rate for countries carrying a public debt to GDP ratio of over 90 percent is 2.2 percent, not the -0.1 percent found by R/R (which is a huge difference). The reason: “We replicate RR and find that coding errors, selective exclusion of available data, and unconventional weighting of summary.”

Essentially, Reinhart and Rogoff first, failed to include some countries in their analysis through a routine Excel error. Incredulous readers can see a screenshot here. Second, they used an incredibly strange weighing mechanism that essentially discarded years of solid growth in the UK because of one year of poor growth in New Zealand. Third, they just flat-out exclude three time periods (Australia (1946-1950), New Zealand (1946-1949), and Canada (1946-1950)) where countries had solid growth and high debt to gdp ratios. Plug in the (distorted) numbers, and voila! empirical “proof” that the E.U. and U.S. should pursue harsh austerity.

Business Insider is now reporting that the paper failed to go through proper channels, and was not peer reviewed. This leads to questions that have been raised already about empirical economics (especially given how many universities have abandoned economic history and other relevant disciplines). Krugman has been harping (most recent post here) on the fact that most people just accepted the results without question because it confirmed the conventional wisdom (remember Galbraith’s warning about the “conventional wisdom”?).

The real refutation of Reinhart/Rogoff isn’t Herndon et al. It’s what Europe is going through right now – and no amount of Excel errors will change the high unemployment rates. Well, unless you believe Jack Welch…

All told, this doesn’t change much. Reinhart/Rogoff will continue to argue that high debt correlates to low growth, which is true, but the correlation is the reverse of what the asusterity Cassandra’s declare. We need to cut deficits, but only once the crisis has passed.

Coverage is understandably sketchy at this point but video on CNN and Fox show a large fire. For some reason MSNBC has pretty much ignored the story in favor of replaying their regular schedule.

Live coverage here from the Dallas newspaper

By Scott Crass

Amid a string of national losses, the national Republican Party has been openly pondering for years how to broaden it’s outreach. To appeal to more people, to seem more inclusive and not so rigid and, you know, start winning elections. Here’s a solution. Return to the qualities of Smylie and Love.

Sounds like a hallmark card, doesn’t it? But there were actually two such Republican Chief executives way back when whose names were such and who governed with such qualities. They would be Robert Smylie and John Love.

The pair were long-time Governors of Idaho and Colorado in the 1950′s and 60′s, states where the Republican lean was notable, but not super-imposing. Each man was close to Richard Nixon and both won three terms. Their tenures overlapped slightly. But it was partly because of fondness by Nixon that he had other things in mind for the pair, which is one reason Love didn’t finish his third term. More important, both were extreme moderates who governed as such. And as a result, Smiley and Love thrived. It was a bygone era in national and Republican politics, but one where the my way or the highway approach was somewhat docile, even amid ideological factions that didn’t always get along.

Now I’m not suggesting that conservatives play along to get along simply to start winning. I’m the first to believe that if you have certain principles or are even guided in a certain direction, then by-golly you should fight for it. But an angry demeanor is another thing. So is rhetoric. And when some merge the action with words and find the other side not willing to give an inch, that’s paralysis from which no one benefits.Which means it wouldn’t hurt to be Smiley. And love. Get my drift” Let’s have a look.

Bob Smylie (1914-2004)
Smylie was the only person to win a third consecutive term as the “Gem State’s” Chief Executive (Cecil Andrus was elected to four non-consecutive terms). Indeed, by staying in office 12 years, he had doubled the length of service of any of his predecessors. Smylie was a proud moderate who received prominent mention as a possible VP nominee (Oregon’s Mark Hatfield was of similar pedigree). He narrowly survived the Democratic year of 1958 (as a Republican incumbent in neighboring Wyoming was being upset), and won his third term with 55% four years later.

In office, Smylie’s championed a minimum wage increase, the highway construction program and the institution of a five day work week for state employees. He increased spending on health services and higher education and created the Department of Commerce. He and his wife were big supporters of the arts.

But it was the establishment of the Idaho State Parks and Recreations Department that would be his creme-dela-creme, in exchange for the state being given the rights to what is now the Harriman State Park. The result was that Smylie would be surprised in 1998 with a dedication of the department with his name. But Smylie strongly advocated a three percent sales tax to help finance the state’s school system, which after it’s implementation lead many to remark that Idaho’s now had a”three legged stool: income, property, and sales taxes.” And for Smylie, that had consequences.

Smylie lost renomination for a fourth term in the 1966 Republican primary by 18 percentage points, and to his dying day, credited the sales tax for his loss. The irony was that was only part of it, as schisms within the party were starting to emerge. The year was 1966 and the man who beat Smylie was a conservative State Senator named Don Samuelson, who would go on to win the general election.

If Smylie/Samuelson was an early test of the stainless steel/country club Republicans vs. true believers. Smylie had the support of a number of businessmen, while John Birch members backed Smylie. Many conservatives held resentment toward Smylie for what they feel was lukewarm support he had given Barry Goldwater two years earlier (Goldwater’s loss in Idaho was just 5,000 votes, his closest in the nation). Smylie through his role as National Governor’s Association head also was involved with an effort to oust a pro-Goldwater chair.

The acrimony between Smylie and Samuelson is noteworthy, as Smylie had mentored him in politics. It was he who had convinced Samuelson to seek elective office in 1960. But in his challenge to Smylie, largely on the tax issue, he refused to say that he was actually against it, though he had voted that way in the legislature. Only that it was now up to the voters. He instead hit Smylie on the growth of the budgets. To rub salt in the wound, after Samuelson ousted him, President Nixon sought to console Smylie by naming him to the Advisrsy commission on Intergovernmental Relations but Samuelson refused to sign off.

Had Smylie lived to fight the general election, he may have won. Smylie had vowed in his concession that his loss would not deter his strong advocacy for the tax, which was going to the voters alongside the general election. It was approved. When he lost, he was the longest Governor currently serving. Phil Batt, one of his successors who himself was more establishment as opposed to hard-charging, said Smylie was “what you would call a moderate.” The Democratic Minority Leader in the Senate at the dedication of the building in Smiley’s name said, “once or twice in a lifetime, we have the opportunity to honor somewhat who has impacted every citizen.” He called Smylie “a giant and said this recognition is past due.”

Smylie took one more run at public office, for the Senate seat being vacated by Len Jordan. He finished fourth in the primary. Smylie resumed practicing law and took an active role at Idaho State University. He died in 2004 at the age of 89.

John Love (1916-2002)

Love’s Governorship initially came to be not by partisan warfare but regional. There’s often animosity between urban vs. rural but in 1962, it was the O.K. Corral. That said, it seemed highly unlikely that a man whose only prior involvement in politics was a losing bid for El Paso County GOP Chair would ascend to the Governorship, but that’s exactly what happened.

Love, a lawyer and veteran who put his way through law school, first stunned the Speaker of the State House in the GOP primary. But that was only half the battle. He also had to get past incumbent Governor Steven McNichols. But while McNichol’s effectiveness was not questioned even by his opponents, Coloradans may have felt that he was leading them to far, to fast. Voters were hungry for change and Love ousted him.

Love was such a novice that he collaborated with Democrats on making the state budget even larger. But it was his “Sell Colorado” campaign that truly gained the most exposure, and much of his focus was on the now legendary tourism and ski industry, but also Hewlett/Packard and Kodak.

Love’s most ambitious agenda involved a bid to make Colorado the site of the 1976 U.S. Olympics. But in doing so, he tangled with environmentalists and voters through cold water on the idea by prohibiting the use of state money. But Love’s record on environmental issues was fairly strong.

It may not be an exaggeration to call Love a Founding Father of smart growth, for he was a champion of land use management. Love signed the Colorado Air and Water Pollution Act which, according to Colorado.gov, put “important air and water pollution” laws into affect. And he increased funding for both public and university education.

And Love signed the first legislation in the nation liberalizing abortion. While it did not make it available on demand, (that would’ve been quite radical well before Roe vs. Wade), it did relax many restrictions that, until that time, made obtaining one impossible. Upon doing so, Love said the law “extends (abortion) beyond the possible death of the woman or her serious physical injury to include mental impairment of a serious and permanent nature when verified by a psychiatrist. It also extends to cases in which it is likely that the child would have a grave and permanent physical deformity or mental retardation. Finally it extends to certain cases of rape and incest.”

Love also put his seal on a bill downgrading making marijuana possession to a misdemeanor, as many liberals had advocated.

Love didn’t abandon the party fold on fiscal issues. A champion of tax cuts, he pushed through a massive package just 16 days after taking office, skill that, for a political novice, surely would make consummate dealmakers like LBJ gain notice. The early success would amount to criticism in later years however when Love pushed through a series of smaller tax increases.

By the middle of his third term, Love was appointed by Nixon to head the Director of the Office of Energy. But Love was not a man of controversy and, sensing the storm hovering over the cloud of Watergate, he resigned after just five months. He died in 2002 at 85.

Just before the 2000 Republican National Convention, William Schneider authored a column, “Conservatism With A Happy Face.”
He had written about how that convention would lack an “imposing podium from which speakers hurl thunderbolts at the opposition.” Speaking of Bush and Cheney, he spoke of a “kinder, gentler conservatism. As opposed to a harsh, confrontational conservatism.” That may not have worked out exactly as planned. But I’d like to think that, for both parties, it’s something to shoot for. It worked pretty well for Smylie and Love.

Those of us who follow politics no that throwing up the red flag when it comes to issues one feels strongly about is not successful for public policy. But neither is alienating everyone who has even the slightest bit of disagreement, particularly when public opinion is not always on your side. Broad coalitions is what it’s all about. It worked pretty well for Smylie and Love. That is the key to success.

In reality, this was not unexpected given the realities.

The use of boulders built a natural time limit into our wet and wild fun. After about an hour of head first sliding, a mild concussion or broken toe signaled it was time to close down our front yard water park for the day. Usually, there was a fair amount of unsympathetic scowling directed towards the child who had been unable to avoid the rocks. His minor head wound and audible cries were a clear indicator someone’s mom was going to make us shut the whole operation down.

I remember older kids, wiser kids, kids with slip-and-slide histories, trying to muffle their cries after slamming into a granite obstacle. These were brave sliders, willing to suppress their pain for the sake of their comrades. Unfortunately, there was always someone’s kid brother or sister ready to fall on their face and ruin the whole thing.

Little kids really have only one trump card when it comes to playing with older kids. It’s a rather simple, but powerful move. If the game turns sour or the older kids get a bit too bossy, Tim’s little sister Kelly is going to start crying, go home, and tell mom. If crying Kelly reaches mom, our play day is over. Even if no one has done anything, when the youngest child goes home crying, all the neighborhood kids suffer.

Soon the recall roll call begins. Kelly would proudly tromp back across the street and clearly articulate her victory, “Tim, Mom wants you to come home right now!” In the distance, an echo of confirmation, “Tim it’s time to come home and get ready for bed!”

As I watched my dejected friend Tim trail his little sitter across the street towards an early bedtime, I became keenly aware of the unforeseen complexities of living in community. No matter how much power we big kids thought we had, it only took one dedicated, crying little sister to crush our empire.

I grew up on 32nd street in south Auburn, Washington. There were many summers when the neighborhood kids gathered together to play prolonged games of Kick the Can, Capture the Flag, Ghost in the Graveyard, and Keep Tim’s Little Sister Happy So We Can Keep Playing. Although there was plenty of drama, for the most part we were able to piece together hours upon hours of summer fun.

Sure there were the usual battles such as determining teams, back yard and front yard boundaries, visible flag length, and the great debate of whether or not there are indeed no touch backs. Although some rules were a bit more fluid, for the most part we found a way towards consensus that was rooted in our common desire to have fun.

Even at a very early age, we understood that some games are far more fun with more people. Capture the Flag with two people is a laborious sprint. . . Capture the Flag with 20 kids is a two hour battle of strategic intensity mixed with moments of pure unexpected delight. Like the time everyone forgot about Wayne’s little sister because she was just sitting there playing in the sandpit. Next thing you know, Shelly is booking full speed around the corner with a wide smile on her face and a victor’s flag in her hand. Thirty minutes of disinterested play leading to one stealth moment of shear Capture the Flag brilliance. From sandpit spectator to celebrated hero. These are the stories of childhood summer glory.

It seems we may have lost our ability, or even our desire, to play together anymore. Instead of uniting as flesh and blood in the front yard of our best friend’s house, we encapsulate our interaction in tweets, updates, and emails. Instead of working towards the central goal of playing together for the sake of fun, we fracture ourselves off into endlessly segmented groups; unable to unite on anything other than our discontent with ourselves and others.

Even so, there is still something in me that wants to waste an hour or two, playing with my friends and neighbors. . . at least until we are eventually called home, one kid at a time.

Read Doug at www.fairlyspiritual.org
Tweet Doug @fairlyspiritual
Hear Doug at www.kgnw.com weekdays from 4-6 pm on “Live from Seattle”

I was driving home today when I had the misfortune to listen to a few minutes of Alex Jones.

For those who don’t know Alex he is a far right whack job who thinks that everything that happens is a government conspiracy. Everything from 9/11 to the Boston Marathon attack is not real to him but a big secret government (or guvmint) conspiracy to trick us and turn the world over to the secret cabals that plot our doom (and no I am not exaggerating).

During this brief segment he talked about how the Boston attacks were a “false flag” operation (IE a scam by the government) and he attacked those who called him nuts for saying so.

As an analogy he said that if he was sitting in a boat and saw a car drive off of a bridge that it would not be crazy for him to assume the car was going to crash into the water.

True enough

But Alex, what you do is not to say that the car is going to crash in the river. What you do is say that a secret government agent rappelled down from a black helicopter to slash the brake lines in order to give the government the power to regulate speed limits.

In other words you are, in my humble opinion crazy as a loon.

There is no big government conspiracy, there are no secret black helicopters, there is no secret cabal eating babies wrapped in gold foil (yes he said that too).

And for you to take events like Newtown and Boston and 9/11 to use as part of your twisted agenda is beyond disgusting (in my opinion).

And if you want to label me part of the conspiracy, I’d be proud to join it because it comprises the 99.9% of us who are not deluded.

Senator Frank Church

Historic Tidbit: After it became clear that Frank Church would not be his party’s presidential nominee in 1976, he began actively campaigning for the number two spot. When Carter ultimately picked Mondale, he told reporters that he had known he wouldn’t be the pick because lightening had just stricken his Bethesda, Maryland home. And lightening, he said, “never strikes twice.”

Did you hear about the man who asked Billy Joel if he could play the piano with him at a concert? Joel stunned everyone in attendance by saying yes. How about the high school student who asked Kate Upton to the prom? She too said she’d check her schedule. When one contemplates the idea of electing a Democrats to a federal office from Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming, the struggle they face may illicit a similar theme. A mentality of, you’d have to get really lucky or something. But it wasn’t always like that. In fact, once upon a time, the Democratic Party in these three states, while not dominant, was quite competitive. In fact, three men — Frank Church, Frank Moss, and Gale McGee held U.S. Senate seats in these states for more than a couple of years.

Church, Moss, and McGee gave their respective states one Democratic Senator from the mid 1950′s through their defeats in the mid-70′s, and the latter two were basically as surprised as everyone else by their losses on Election Night in ’76. Church’s loss four years later was less unexpected. As recently as 1960, the Republican bent of the states was barely more than a lean. Kennedy hit 45% in Utah and Wyoming and hit 46% in Idaho.

For a time, Wyoming may have actually been the most Democratic friendly states and Idaho was perhaps the most Republican. There, Goldwater was just 5,000 votes behind LBJ in ’64, making it the closest of the 44 states he lost. Conversely, he took just 46% in Utah and 43% in Wyoming. But by 1968, the Democratic flirtation was over. Humphrey was eviscerated in all three states and no Democrat has exceeded 40% in any of the three states since. A more typical ceiling is the low 30s, which in some cases doesn’t even happen. In Utah, Republican presidential candidates have exceeded 70% five times since 1972.

Even after these losses, locally, Democrats had no problem holding their own. For a time anyway. Though Senate seats would prove elusive in Idaho and Utah (John Evans almost won back Church’s seat for his party in 1986), both states elected two Democratic members of Congress simultaneously as recently as the 90′s.

Oddly enough, it’s Wyoming that’s had the longest federal drought, as the last Democrat to win a federal race was Teno Roncalio in 1976. When he retired two years later, he was succeeded by Dick Cheney. But the state came so very close on two separate occasions to changing that. In 1988, incumbentMalcolm Wallop, who was 20 points ahead in the summer, came within 1,300 votes of being upset by a populist saloon owner named John Vinich. And Barbara Cubin survived her 2006 re-election bid, conducted with much clumsiness by about 1,000 votes. She wisely retired two years later and while her opponent, Gary Trauner tried again, he fell way short to a new Republican nominee without flaws in a state that was giving McCain a big margin.

Statewide can be different, but barely. And lately, rare. Neither Idaho or Wyoming had a Republican Governor from 1970 through 1994. Utah had two Democratic chiefs from 1964 through ’84. Wyoming elected another Democrat, Dave Freudenthal in 2002 who revealed voters saying they had no problem with him, but were not about to elect a Democrat federally. But even that has proven to be the exception rather than the rule. Idaho has not been governed by a Democrat since 1994 and Utah, ten years before that. Moreover, not only does the GOP control every statewide office in those states, but it’s control of the legislature in each chamber well exceeds a 2/3 super-majority.

One Democrat, Jim Matheson, has managed to hold his House seat since 2000, including last year by the narrowest of margins (768 votes), but the Matheson name is holy in Utah (his father Scott was one of the Democratic Governors I cited). Republicans have tried to redistrict him out of office so ferociously over two separate decades that he is well known even well outside his Salt Lake City base.

Much of the appeal of Church, Moss, and McGee was their youth and outsider status, which enabled all to oust GOP incumbents who assumed they were in the same mistakenly secure position. McGee was a history professor (he taught Alan Simpson) who had never sought public office, though he had been an aide to legendary Wyoming Governor O’Mahoney. But he had the good fortune of making his run in 1958, which proved to be Eisenhower’s six year itch. He defeated an incumbent Republican Frank Barrett by 2,000 votes and would win two more elections fairly comfortably. McGee’s footnote in history was standing on a chair begging his delegation for four votes to put Kennedy over the top at the 1960 convention.

Moss had sought office before (Utah’s Governorship) but didn’t get it. He was Salt Lake County Attorney and also had the good fortune to put his name up in ’58. But he was even more fortunate to have been around amid the division of McCarthyism. Two-term incumbent Art Watkins chaired the committee that ultimately decided to censure McCarthy, which brought an angry third party challenge from ex-Utah Governor Bracken Lee. The result was that Moss squeaked into the seat with 39%. But Moss didn’t need any luck in holding the seat for two subsequent elections.

But Church at 32 was the biggest Cinderella Story. Like Moss, he had made a sole attempt at office once before and lost (the Idaho Legislature), and his run for the Senate in 1956 was initially thought to be a similarly uphill quest. But Church won the job. He beat Herman Welker, an incumbent who was so closely identified with Joe McCarthy that he was called “Little Joe from Idaho” (curiously, both were dead less than a year later). And with the win came a sporadic rise that involved Church winning three more terms. No Democratic Senator from Idaho even won a second.

The three Democrats from Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming thrived by staying with their party on social issues (the Equal Rights Amendment), but at the same time, giving a local flavor to their service. The trio would stay with their roots by hewing closely to their states local needs. All opposed gun control and championed water issues. They worked closely together and usually had a powerful ally in their interior neighbor, Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana.

Church and Moss sponsored the first legislation to expand Medicare to provide hospice. It didn’t pass in their times but did become law in 1982. Moss and McGee were close friends. Abandoning their party on high-profile issues was rare, but far from harmful, because on at least some occasions, their constituents and home-state GOP colleagues took similar stands. Moss’s colleague for most of his tenure was Wallace Bennett, whose son Robert would later hold his father’s seat for three terms. Bennett backed the Civil Rights Act. McGee’s service overlapped for a brief time with
Milward Simpson, the father of Al. He had opposed the Civil Rights Act (on the grounds that he had signed a measure into law as Wyoming’s Governor, but did back the Voting Rights Act. None of these Republicans voted for many elements of the “Great Society,” but voters even in these let government do less states didn’t seem particularly concerned.

Moss as the chair of the Commerce Committee’s Consumer Safety Program was the second prime on a bill with Washington’s Warren Magnuson to regulate warranty enforcement, which also played a role in the establishment of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Along with Magnuson, he was responsible for cigarette warning labels, and sponsored the Poison Prevention and Toy Safety Act. Locally, he immersed himself in water and environmental issues.

McGee backed his party on social issues but took more of a middle ground on Vietnam. The National Committee on Food Marketing was his, as was a seat on Appropriations. Locally, he opposed federal strip mining and clear cutting, important here. But McGee’s crown jewel was the Postal Service Restoration Act, which demanded equality for customers across the nation. Republicans used his chairmanship of the Postal and Civil Service Subcommittee to make an issue out of postal service satisfaction. And even while championing local issues, McGee didn’t hesitate to go against the majority of Wyomingites when he felt they were in the national interest. During the oil embargo, McGee ignored Wyoming pleas not to lower the speed limit to 55.

Wallop’s campaign skills did not set the world on fire but he was out and about while McGee stayed in Washington. Regulation was an issue. Tom Larson, who authored the History of Wyoming, credits the National Taxpayers Union for effectively branding McGee the “taxpayers best friend” for championing benefit increases for federal workers. Another note was the dimished impact of labor, as the The Washington Post noted the race brought brought unions and right-to-work in direct battle with each other.” Wallop was also seen as an environmental moderate from a previous campaign for Governor. On Election Day, Ford was winning the state big and Wallop took 55%. It was a storyline that has played out many times in interior west many times since then, including four years later with Church in Idaho.

In the Senate, Church became one of the most important 20th Century figures on foreign policy. His speech making ability was remarkable and his early and aggressive outspokenness against Vietnam led LBJ to call him Frank “Sunday School Church.” Church had tangled with LBJ once before in his first months in the Senate, and the Majority Leader retaliated by keeping him out of his circle for six months. But soon, all was well and the pair grew close. Church-Cooper was a bi-partisan amendment designed to cut off funds for operations in Cambodia and Laos. The Church Committee investigated covert operations by the CIA and FBI during the war. In time, he became Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee and in 1976, decided to throw his hat into the wide open field for President. But primary season was already in the middle and while Church won like-minded states (his own, Montana, Nebraska, and Oregon), Carter was too far ahead to catch. Church then made a public pitch for the number two slot but it went to Mondale.

As impressive as the trio’s survival was, even their talent could not last in perpetuity. Moss fell to Utah’s Orrin Hatch, who portrayed himself as a fresh face and latched on strongly to Ronald Reagan. He noted that US News&World Report had identified Moss as among the Senator’s least likely to lose. Moss’s son Brian tried to unseat Hatch in 1988 but by then, the Senator was so entrenched that he prevailed with 2/3 of the vote. McGee lost by a nearly identical margin to Malcolm Wallop. This set the stage for successful “New Right” challenges that brought name even bigger names and allowed the GOP to take control of the Senate in 1980. One of those casualties was Church.
Church had the kitchen sink thrown at him, yet remarkably, came darned close to winning.

The battle begin as early as January 1979 as Church was one of five Senators targeted by the National Conservative Political Action Committee, which also successfully took aim at Birch Bayh and George McGovern (Tom Eagleton narrowly survived and Alan Cranston’s race wasn’t even close). It was called the “Sagebrush Rebellion.” Church was ardently pro-choice and shepherded the Panama Canal Treaty which was heavily opposed by Idahoans. But Church tried to maintain his appeal by opposing gun control and supporting local water rights, both of critical importance to Idahoans.

Symms was an apple farmer who was serving his 4th term in the House. His ad urged voters to “take a bite out of government.” Symms had some personal vulnerabilities which may have kept the vote close. In the end, the margin between the two was just 50-49%, as Symms prevailed by 4,000 votes among 233,000 cast.

In any other year, Church would’ve held his seat. But one of Church’s son’s said “once Reagan hit 70% (he actually took 66%), his odds of survival were too long. Having realized that fellow liberals Bayh, McGovern, Gaylord Nelson and Warren Magnuson, to name a few, had also gone down, Church remarked that he would at least be going out in “good company.”

It’s not that any one issue doomed the Senators but conservatives were more vocal in framing the battles as ideological and one of more government versus less. In the years since, Democrats have seen openings, only to be stymied by the times. All involved land to some degree, as the federal government owns large proportions in the respective states. Suspicion of the federal government runs deep here which gun control undoubtedly contributes to. Others issues are case-by-case.

In Wyoming, the increase in federal grazing fees led some to declare an initiation of a “War on the West,” which would hurt Democrats even when years that became more favorable to Democrats nationally. In Idaho, monuments were an issue. As for Utah, the Almanac of American Politics theorizes that the growing influence of the Mormon church, big families and a feeling that a “1950′s” lifestyle is still possible may doom a bigger government culture. Guns also no doubt plays a role.

At several recent Democratic National Conventions, Bethune Church, the late Senator’s wife, announces her state’s delegate choices during the roll call that determines the Presidential nominees. Before announcing the total, she ended one with “we will come back.” It’s hard to imagine that happening any time soon.

Unlike the mid 20th century, the GOP lean of Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming is clearly super-imposing. Should Democrats give up? No. That’s not what democracy is about. But they may have to wait. A long, long time. Or hope that lightening strikes. For it may take a Todd Akin like scandal to send votes their way and even that would lack a guarantee. Beyond that, they could get comfortable with a good Smokey Robinson set. Cause winning is “gonna take a miracle.”

Let me be alone first…
unencumbered by the demands of the crowd,
or the systems, or the groups, or the other than expectations.

Let me be alone, left alone…
detached from the strings and pulleys, pried loose from the rebar,
the mooring, the foundations and expectations of others.

Let me be isolated…
unable to connect or belong,
unable to find acceptance or understanding,
unable to satisfy anyone’s expectations,
including my own.

Let me disappear…
deep in the belly of the beast, at the bottom of the endless ocean,
swallowed, consumed and lost in the implausible tale,
without expectations.

Then I will wait…
I will wait in the void, in the chasm, beyond the grid.
I will wait for you to come and find me.
I will wait expectantly.

And when you find me…
I will know that I am found.

Read Doug at www.fairlyspiritual.org
Tweet Doug at @fairlyspiritual
Hear Doug at www.kgnw.com weekdays from 4-6 pm on “Live from Seattle”
Avoid Doug by doing nothing.

Boston is a tough city. It has had to be tough to survive this long. It is one of the few cities in America more than 300 years old and has witnessed calamities, natural and man-made, numerous times over its history. Some of them brought embarrassment and shame. Others brought hope and even revolution. But one catastrophe and the courageous response to it from one man seems especially notable today.

I’m speaking of the small pox outbreak in 1721. One of the greatest and surest killers of the 17th and 18th centuries was the infamous small pox. It nearly wiped out the native inhabitants of the Americas, and it continued to wreck havoc on the European and African populations in the New World. Edward Jenner is generally credited with developing the first smallpox vaccine in 1796. But doctors had experimented with variolation long before that, especially in the Ottoman Empire. The prospect of artificially introducing a form of the virus, for purposes of generating immunity, was deeply controversial to say the least. But some of the African slaves in Boston in the early 1700s had been inoculated by this process, and no less than Cotton Mather took note that some preventable mechanism was at least theoretically available.

Enter Dr. Zabdiel Boylston. Son of an English physician, Zabdiel Boylston grew up in Boston and became one of New England’s most famous surgeons of all. He had already pioneered surgical treatment of breast cancer and gall bladder disease. In 1721, Boston faced a small pox outbreak, which led to panic and despair in the city. At Mather’s urging Dr. Boylston developed a plan to introduce inoculation into the city, which would minimize the outbreak and save countless lives. But few among Boston’s elite medical community agreed, with many expressing violent objection to this untried method. Mobs appeared at his home and he was accused of fomenting mass murder. Some even accused him of interfering with God’s will – that smallpox was the workings of God and had already been used to clear out the land of “heathens” for the new Puritan colony (which had, by 1721, become more defined by Yankee commercialism than religious fervor).

But Dr. Boylston persisted. He applied the inoculation first to his son, and then to two slaves. And then he expanded his experiment to hundreds more. The results were remarkable. Of the larger Boston population untouched by Boylston’s radical experiment, 14% died. Of the 600 men, women and children Boylston inoculated, only 2% died. Despite threats to his life from mobs and from the virus itself, Dr. Boylston bravely persisted and helped usher in a revolution in medical treatment.

His nephew, Ward Nicholas Boylston, would garner more undiluted praise in the city. As a highly successful merchant, the younger Boylston became a philanthropist and major benefactor of Harvard University, and supporter of another of Zabdiel’s nephews – John Adams. Boylston Hall at Harvard would be named for Ward Nicholas Boylston, as would the street that hosts the finish line for the Boston Marathon.

When you hear commentators discuss the horrific bombings and the heroic response to them on Boylston Street, think of the uncle of the man for whom the street was named. A city that has produced more than its share of commercial barons and progressive philanthropists and activists, Boston was as prepared for this disaster as any other. With similar courage, the first responders of the Boston Marathon did what old Dr. Zabdiel Boylston did in 1721 – risked life, limb and reputation to serve his community and humanity.

Hope and courage trumped fear then. It will today as well.

This copyrighted cartoon is licensed to run on TMV. Unauthorized, unlicensed use of this cartoon is strictly prohibited.

CNN coverage here

Local Boston coverage here

President Obama urges prayers for Boston and promises we will find whoever did this and punish them. Can’t really expect him to say much more at this point.

Death toll still officially at two though I sadly expect that number to rise. 100 wounded, many seriously. Earlier reports of a suspect under guard have been denied by Boston PD though it does sound like they do have some video of potential suspects (which is not shocking given the number of cameras in the area, especially on a day like this)

Press conference by officials in Boston, not a lot of new information but it does seem to confirm the terror attack as well as injuries and fatalities.

Also confirmed that there was an incident at the JFK library though it is not clear they incidents are related.

We seem to be heading into the “repeat the same stuff because we don’t have any new news” phase but we will keep you updated.

Reports now indicate two devices were found and detonated.

Boston police have reportedly done a controlled explosion on a 3rd device. This would confirm this is a terror attack. Again I see it as more likely to emerge as a domestic attack rather than foreign given the specifics of the attack but time will tell.

No official confirmation that these blasts were caused by bombs but it looks increasingly likely. It now looks like the two explosions were about a block apart. In addition had it been a gas line or an electrical explosion you would have expected fire. Had it been a steam explosion you would not expect the fireball.

However it is still possible that this was an accident but a increasingly unlikely possibility.

Secret Service tightening security at the White House.

Boston police department now confirming 2 dead, other reports say 3.

Security tightened in New York and Washington DC

More reports coming in that Boston police radio is indicating another device at the hotel where the other explosions occurred, again not officilly confirmed but certainly ominous.

For those jumping to the conclusion that this was Islamic terror attack remember that today is both Patriots Day in MA and income tax day, so if there is a terror angle look domestic.

UPDATE: Reports to several media sources now say 3 people have died, though no official confirmation from authorities.

Short video clip of explosion on Vine

Breaking news out of Boston about at least two explosions at the finish line of the Boston Marathon.

Word still coming in but it appears that a number of people have been hurt and unconfirmed reports say some people may have been killed.

Although the mind obviously goes to terrorism there is no word that anyone has claimed responsibility and accidents still do happen (I know terrorism is more likely but we shouldn’t jump to conclusions).

Coverage at all the major news sites and of course we will continue to update as things become clearer.

Writing a novel, Mr. B.?

If only, Selig. Doing my taxes. Or starting them anyway. They are so, so, so…

Crazy? Irritating? Unfair?

All that, Selig. No time now to complain about them, though. Gotta run. Places to go. People to see. Derivatives to churn out.

You know, Mr. B., maybe we don’t really need taxes. I have an idea that might let us abolish them altogether.

Abolish taxes? Really?

Yes, sir. The other day I was speaking with one of the company’s bond traders…

Always an educational experience, Selig. Continue, please.

Well, sir, he mentioned how the Fed is buying $45 billion a month in long-term Treasury bonds.

That’s right, Selig.

And that comes out to $540 billion a year.

I don’t have my calculator with me, but that sounds right. Carry on.

Then on the radio, Mr. B., I heard that the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, this fiscal year was projecting the national government’s deficit would be $845 billion. Which means that this year one part of the government, The Fed, would be buying 64 percent of the debt issued by another part of the government, the Treasury, with both using the same collateral — the full faith and credit of the United States.

You see a problem here, Selig?

Of course not, sir. Who could possibly think such a thing? It got me thinking, though. If The Fed is already borrowing 64 percent of new debt issued by The Treasury to fund the deficit, why not borrow it all? Then there wouldn’t be all those arguments in Washington about how deficits are endangering the economy because there would always be a willing buyer for this debt.

Not a bad idea, Selig. But what has this got to do with taxes?

Well, Mr. B., if one part of government spending — the part funded by deficits — was all funded by The Fed’s buying bonds from the Treasury, why not have The Treasury issue bonds to cover the part of government spending now paid for with taxes? Then we could do away with income taxes altogether.

Great Reagan’s ghost! You’re right, Selig! Then all the extra spending possible because Americans would no longer be paying taxes would generate the biggest boom since sub-prime mortgage lending. I’m seeing Dow 50,000 here. But wait. Wouldn’t this notion play havoc with the country’s credit rating?

It probably would, Mr. B. In fact it might give the United States a credit rating a notch or two lower than the Bank of Cyprus. But so what? Low credit ratings may scare off private lenders, or make them demand higher interest on their loans. But when S&P lowered the credit rating of the U.S. from triple-A to AA+, borrowing of this country’s debt actually increased and at lower rates, too, because the main buyer is The Fed, and it doesn’t care about the country’s credit rating, doesn’t demand higher interest rates either, because in essence it is lending to itself.

I’m feeling a little dizzy here, Selig. No more deficit worries. No more income taxes. Surely this would have to catch up with the government somewhere down the road.

Not necessarily, sir. You know my wife reads her Bible regularly.

I do know that, Selig. I hope your good woman is well and she still prays for me.

She is well, sir, and she prays for you nightly. Fervently. As if our economic survival depended on your good will.

A prudent woman as well as a religious one. Good combination. But why do you mention her now, Selig?

Because when I told her my idea, she referred me to Leviticus in the Bible where it speaks about debt forgiveness every few years, and declaring a Jubilee celebration when one occurs.

So, Selig? So?

So, sir, every few years government leaders and Fed policy makers could go on a retreat together, and come back declaring a Jubilee on all outstanding government debt held by the Federal Reserve. Then the worrisome debt built up by deficits would disappear, income taxes would never have to come around again, and we could start the whole borrow-from-ouselves-to-pay-for-everything cycle all over again. And because this would be sanctioned by God, and no one in Washington would dare admit being a non-believer, there would be no objections.

Selig, I’ll admit I am impressed. Very impressed. I thought all the cleaning chemicals you’ve been inhaling in order to keep this washroom sparkling had probably damaged your brain. Now I see they have actually enhanced its operation. I’m even thinking we hold meetings of the company’s Ethic Committee down here in the future, have them do some washroom inhales, better to ensure we’re compliant with all government regulations.

I’ll work on the seating arrangements, sir.

Do that.  Ha ha ha ha. Forgive me for tittering, Selig. But won’t people be surprised when they hear that this country’s new economic policies were devised by a man whose main job is unplugging toilets at Goldman Sachs?

Actually, Mr. B., I don’t think many people would find that surprising in the least.   

(Michael Silverstein’s new comic novel, Murder At Bernstein’s, about a financial news billionaire who wants to get elected Mayor of Philadelphia, is now available on Amazon.)

by Peter W. Johnson, Guest Voice

There are two aspects of American Culture which I honestly cannot wait to see go the way of the dinosaurs—the Tea Party, and, “Reality” shows. But since the Tea Party is condemned or extolled about a million times a day, in a plethora of different article and web posts, this particular post will focus on what we so unabashedly call, Reality Shows instead.

Among the most offensive of these that come to mind are, The Jerry Springer Show, The Bachelor, and The Biggest loser. These shows are not without interesting content or completely devoid of redeeming social value. But their value is infused with cheap sexuality and judgmental social attitudes—and all too often—plain misleading information.

To tell the truth, I have seldom watched an episode of The Jerry Springer Show—which might be more specifically called a “Talk reality show,”—for more than a few minutes, and yet, I feel that I can criticize it in ways that I believe are completely valid and pertinent. I usually encounter it around 2:00 AM during late night bouts of insomnia and, at those times, even a few minutes sufficiently reveals its sensationalistic qualities and its downright cruelty!—aspects that are integral parts of its appeal. Episodes usually feature the suffering and resentments of what might be called “white trash” kinds of people who are willing to say outrageous things and engage in vicious fights with a fickle lover, or with a rival for his or her, affections. But even if crude and uneducated, like many other human beings, they do not deserve the public airing of their most hurtful emotions. The Jeers and taunts from a studio audience with a “get a load of them!” kind of mind set, effectively assaults numerous jilted lovers and those with different sexual orientations with malicious volleys of boos, laughter and claps, apparently designed to strip participants—on stage and off—of the last vestiges of human dignity and compassion. It is all calculated to boost ratings and win the loyalty of a television audience which loves to hear derisive comments aimed at these unfortunate people who are angry, hurting, and willing to come to blows just to receive some measure of personally desired justice. I know that this is not really delivered with a condemning and judgmental “religious” attitude, but none-the-less, I get the opposite and disconcerting feeling that what I am witnessing is not too far removed from the boos and cheers issuing from the Coliseum, as ancient Romans delighted in watching trouble making Christians be attacked by lions—or forced to fight each other to death—all in the name of entertainment! So, I must very quickly exercise my freedom to change the channel and escape this unfolding travesty that amuses so many young and apparently, insensitive people.

Shows like The Bachelor, or any others of the romance centered competitions, are likewise, not lacking in human interest, but, unfortunately they ARE lacking in depth! A virtual harem of young self centered female contestants vies for the affections of a hunky bachelor, in a way that says, “Look at me! I’m grabbing my moment of fame.” It may be unfair to call them Narcissistic just because they enjoy occupying center stage and being the center of attention, but, one can’t help but wonder why so many young, beautiful and often intelligent women need a television competition to find love? Where their prized bachelor is concerned, the whole thing must scream “buyer beware!” as loud as possible while he attempts to pick a compatible partner. And, is it just me, or is it any real wonder that almost none of these televised romances actually manage to survive once the game is over and actual reality must be faced? Besides, what woman can honestly sell herself and all her beautiful qualities while making out under a literal spotlight surrounded by cameras and lenses?

Last but not least, there is The Biggest loser—on the surface an interesting and heartwarming show about heroic obese people who prevail against their own obesity through sheer force of will. The only problem is that the way they are being coached is rarely recommended as a tried and true approach by personal fitness trainers and health experts of today; Every trainer I have ever met recommends losing weight slowly and, not punishing oneself with constant feelings of being deprived. But instead, contestants are tortured with grueling physical tasks and arduous boot camp drills that showcase their virtue and determination to win through noble suffering!

Since I personally have a weight problem which only grows more difficult to manage with age, I understand how a boot camp mentality can lead to impressive temporary results. But, all too often the victory slowly fades after a few years—I personally succeeded in losing more than 70 pounds over the course of two years by relentlessly pushing myself with intense workouts. However, even though I often burned more than 1000 calories during each visit to my gym (at least according to the computerized calorie counters) I eventually became stuck on an inescapable plateau while slowly and inexorably my feelings of frustration and depression returned—effectively erasing any permanent progress.

To the credit of contestants on The Biggest loser, they do know what they’re getting into when they sign their contracts, and, they are brave enough to undertake the competition as a last resort and a last chance to salvage their health. However, I often feel that viewers are more impressed by seeing “fat people” who regain the right to be qualifying members of the human race through their raw effort and sacrifice, and, as atonement for their morbid obesity and supposed personal lack of moderation and discipline. Why else should they have to endure the pubic embarrassment of being weighed like prize cattle at the end of each episode—the fatty folds of their midriffs often being clearly visible to millions of television viewers? And, why would we delight in seeing them flip huge tractor tires like their own personal versions of Sisyphus in Hell or, in watching them dangle from pull up bars as long as they can possibly endure? Sometimes they are even emotionally manipulated by being exposed to bags of jelly donuts, or tempting banana splits. This is all the better to attract viewers and make large amounts of money—effectively exploiting the struggles of noble fat people, and, milking those struggles for all they are worth!

There is a common thread and a similar theme present in all of these, “Reality Shows”—the idea of just what it takes for us to cultivate physical beauty and/or social popularity in a world that dotes on these qualities like Prada obsesses over her shoes or like Vera Wang relies on the human sacrifice of her concentration camp like models who more closely resemble “freaks” in a circus sideshow.

If one reads between the lines, one can make out the shape of the biggest losers of all—those of us who have been embarrassed, intimidated, and bullied in a culture that rewards popularity and perfection with a fanatic zeal. No wonder so many of our children resort to suicide while our most emotionally fragile peers become caught in the tentacles of anorexia, and, we become steadily, more and more crude and cruel—all the while pretending that we truly know how to become caring, empathic human beings. We are still lacking the virtues needed to be loving and compassionate members of the human race while merely seeking personal success and transient social status. Unfortunately, this is also the true reality show, that we all must face and survive in every day!

God is beat, rhythm, and song.  He motivates the tune, conducts the band, and sets the pace.  His theme swirls creation, makes the disconnected parts one.  Those who have voice are called to sing!  Those who have being are called to move with the melody.

We are hardwired with the dance.  I remember when my youngest son Samuel was one year old.  The dance was already in him.  On lonely days, long days, mournful days, I would come home tired, stiff-souled.

But then I’d see my Sam, God’s little messenger.  Music often seemed in order.  I’d turn on a sweet song and raise the volume to get Sam’s attention.  I’d prop him up on his still somewhat reluctant feet and lean him against the couch.  Without command, instruction, or prodding, as the music began, Samuel moved.  His toddler body rhythmically swayed and wiggled to the beat.  There has always been a dance within my Sam, something deposited at the foundations of the world before concrete covered Eden’s most familiar paths.

When Samuel embraced the beat I often called my wife from the kitchen.  “Jennifer, come look.”  As she turned the corner she caught a sacred site.  Her little boy, the last to suckle, swaying to a tune he cannot name.  I’d catch my wife’s subtle joy.  Her contentment said it all.  “What we are doing is good and right.  All this labor, concern, and care; it frees the dance, makes it possible.”

Theologians have a habit of stagnation.  We gaze at the rushing river and try to capture its majesty.  Unable to slow the waters, we try to divert the stream into a manageable reservoir.  In our attempt to encapsulate the message, we kill the flow.  Our theology turns rushing waters into drainage ponds.

God moves through creation, through us.  Yet so many of us are standing still.  We are caught in diverted waters, mud puddles, and mirky swamps of endless redundancy.  The muck and mire covers our soul while the reeds slowly overtake what was once fresh water.

When I see my little boy dance, I am convinced that God has a song worthy of such pure movement.  Unfortunately, many of us experience lives of twisted motion.  We have stumbling legs, flailing arms, and an awkward tempo.  We cling to fleeting songs and misguided tunes.  Some of us don’t dance at all.  We sit on the sidelines idle and afraid, waiting for the song to end.

God is more than sermon, more than message, more than doctrine.  He is life in motion.  From beginning to end His glory moves the earth and stirs humanity.  The question remains, are we willing to follow God’s tune?  Some of us have forgotten the music; we have stood still so long the dance seems a myth or dream.  We have become living statues, immovable monuments to futility.

Yet I hear a song that flows from the heart of God.  It is a worthy tune!  It calls to the deeper core, bypasses my intellectual striving, and demands a response.  When I yield to this music, my awkward self subsides, and the flowing peace of God remains.  God moves and I am moved.  For I have been created to dance.

Read Doug at www.fairlyspiritual.org
tweet Doug at @fairlyspiritual
Hear Doug weekdays 4-6 pm (pst) on “Live from Seattle” at www.kgnw.com

As we spend yet another weekend anxiously watching events unfold on the Korean peninsula and we express both our concern and support for our troops presently serving in South Korea, a ceremony at the White House on Thursday reminds us of the service and sacrifices of our military on that same peninsula more than 60 years ago.

For on Thursday, President Obama posthumously awarded our nation’s highest military decoration for valor in combat, the Medal of Honor, to Army chaplain, Capt. Emil J. Kapaun.

The story of Father Kapaun’s courage, selflessness and compassion that earned him such high honor is probably best expressed by the words of the commander-in-chief during the ceremony: “This is the battle we honor today. An American soldier who didn’t fire a gun, but who wielded the mightiest weapon of all, the love for his brothers, so pure, that he was willing to die so they might live.”

Only six other chaplains have been awarded the Medal of Honor.

Chaplain (Capt.) Emil J. Kapaun was just 35 years old when he died in a prisoner of war camp during the Korean War. His remains were never recovered.

Kapaun was ordained a priest in 1940, and served under the Roman Catholic Diocese of Wichita in Pilsen, Kan. In 1944, he began serving as an Army chaplain. In 1993, Kapaun was named a “Servant of God” by the Vatican, and is currently a candidate for sainthood.

Here are the remarks made by the President during the ceremony in the East Room of the White House where he presented the medal to Kapaun’s nephew, Ray Kapaun, as reported by David Vergun of the Army News Service.

“When commanders ordered an evacuation, he chose to stay and tend to their wounds,” Obama said. “When the enemy broke through and there was combat hand to hand, he carried on, comforting the injured and the dying, offering them some measure of peace before they left this Earth. When enemy forces bore down, it seemed like the end.

“Father Kapaun spotted a wounded Chinese officer. He pleaded with [him] and convinced him to call out to his fellow Chinese,” the president continued. “The shooting stopped, and they negotiated a safe surrender, saving those American lives.

“Then as Father Kapaun was being led away, he saw another American, wounded, unable to walk, lying in a ditch, defenseless,” Obama added. “An enemy soldier was standing over him, rifle aimed at his head ready to shoot. Father Kapaun pushed the enemy soldier aside. And then as the enemy soldier watched, stunned, Father Kapaun carried that wounded American away.

“This is the battle we honor today,” the president continued. “An American soldier who didn’t fire a gun, but who wielded the mightiest weapon of all, the love for his brothers, so pure, that he was willing to die so they might live.

“He carried that wounded soldier for four miles on the death march and when Father Kapaun grew tired, he’d help the wounded Soldier hop on one leg,” the president added. “When other prisoners stumbled, he picked them up. When they wanted to quit, knowing stragglers would be shot, he begged them to keep walking.”

The president then went on to describe how Kapaun cared for the soldiers right up until the time of his death.

Obama then presented the Medal of Honor to Ray Kapaun, Father Kapaun’s nephew.

Kapaun’s Medal of Honor nomination reads: “for conspicuous acts of gallantry and intrepidity, at the risk of life, above and beyond the call of duty, Nov. 1-2, 1950, during the Korean War.”

In a follow-up post we will read in more detail about the heroic and compassionate actions by Father Kapaun during the Korean War and during his captivity by the Chinese.

Today, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel inducted Father Kapaun into the Pentagon’s Hall of Heroes.

In his remarks, Hagel described Kapaun as one of the unheralded heroes of the Korean conflict, noting the courageous Catholic chaplain had sacrificed everything so that others could live.

“In a day when real heroes are hard to find, at a time when America is searching for a center of gravity, it’s particularly important that we grab a hold of people like Father Kapaun and not just acknowledge those acts of heroism and gallantry in what he did as a clergyman but the composite, who he was and what he was about,” Hagel said at the Pentagon ceremony.

Accounts from survivors credit him for their ability to endure horrific camp conditions including severe cold, disease and starvation.

Kapaun would himself die as a prisoner, but not before serving as a leader to thousands of men captured along with him.

“I know of no finer example to point to,” said Hagel, as he inducted Kapaun, who hailed from Pilsen, Kan., into the Pentagon’s Hall of Heroes.

Kapaun “just didn’t appear in the Korean War. Something shaped him,” the secretary added, as reported by Nick Simeone of the American Forces Press Service.

Photos: White House and DOD

The following is a screen shot of that tweet, along with my response. I am not posting this as a pro-gun or anti-gun rant. I just give it as an example of what is so terribly wrong with our current political dialogue. The fact that an elected official would present themselves this way is just plain stunning. I plead with Senator McConnell and others to contend for a better dialogue. Unless I’ve just been pranked and this tweet was actually written by someone who does not care about the “one nation, under God” reality of our Republic.

The state of our dialogue.

Here, the two “towers of power” raised cheers during the 1964 Democratic state convention. Photo Credit: Seattle Times.

Historic Tidbit: One day, as Scoop Jackson was campaigning for President, the floor caved in. Jackson quipped that he was “standing on one of the planks of the Republican platform.”

By Scott Crass

In the Senate, many states have had colleagues that have served together for decades. In fact, in a chamber where 75 is considered young, it’s almost assured. But perhaps the most wondrous pair, and the couple that delivered the best of good government, were two Washingtonians. From the other Washington that is.

“Maggie and Scoop” (Warren Magnuson and Henry Jackson) were Senate colleagues for 28 years, longer than all but five delegation mates. Their longevity was such that their service in Congress overlapped with all five, though one pair, Iowa’s
Grassley and Harkin, were in the House during Magnuson’s Senate days. Others included Thurmond/Hollings of South Carolina (36 years), Eastland/Stennis of Mississippi(32 years) and McClellan/Fulbright of Arkansas, who clocked in at 30.

A Seattle Times article, “The Twin Towers of Power,” said the duo’s “names seem inseparable, as familiar and comfortable together as other famous pairs of the 1960′s, like Huntley and Brinkley, or even Batman and Robin.” “But their durability exceeded both. Combined, they had nearly 87 years in Congress. But to paraphrase the poem, “What about the Dash,” it’s not the dates that matter, it’s what they did with it. And for “Maggie and Scoop,” friend and foe alike (the latter of which there were few) could come up with a single word: indelible.

Nationally, the National Institute of Health, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Lands for Parks and Recreation Act, and other laws that today are simple household terms, were all acts that either Magnuson, Jackson, or in some cases both (the National Health Services Corps) were not just Founding Fathers of, but the dominant creators. Regionally, their footprints on dams, facilities, and land has had a lasting effect on the economy.

Both pushed The National Health Services Corps, which allowed military doctors to fulfill a requirement in poor or rural areas. And when Hanford was threatened with cutbacks many times, the delegation’s heft not only left it untouched, but usually increased production.

Magnuson and Jackson’s partnership was so productive in part because of their friendship. Their similarities were many, but often, they complimented each other, even on personal qualities. Scoop would often ask Dr. Art Bergen, a prominent doctor and advisor, if he could “get Maggie to lose some weight? Magnuson would always say “when Scoop asks me to do something, I do it.” Both were bachelors until the 1960′s (though Magnuson had been married 30 years earlier), and as such, were prominent on the social circuit. Maggie was a man about town who embraced the nightlife. Jackson would often be seen out as well but, as a non-smoker and seldom drinker, would “hold a cup of wine at parties to not feel awkward. Maggie bemoaned the headlines, Scoop ran for President twice. And while Maggie was notorious for fluffing up names and phrases (he once called LBJ’s advisor Joe Califano “Joe Cauliflower”). Jackson, though not a compelling speaker, presented a statesmanlike stature.

There roots and practices were similar. Both were Scandinavian and poor. Both were retail politicians. Neither were publicity seekers, both loathe to wear their many accomplishments on their sleeves. Each had been their respective county prosecutors in the mid-30′s (Jackson Snohomish County, Magnuson in King).They were longtime powerhouses. Maggie chaired the Commerce Committee and later, Appropriations, while Jackson held the gavel at Interior, with a high ranking post on Armed Services. It was on those panels that the duo made their marks and their legacies – for themselves and for Washington. And for a still relatively young state, it was transformative, the likes of which no other state will see any time soon.

Warren Magnuson (1905-1989)

For those who consider LBJ the best-known wheeler&dealer, Magnuson must be considered a respectable second. And he liked it that way. It was he who spoke of “show horses and workhorses. Workhorses usually return,” he added. “The show horses run into trouble.” The AP upon his death noted that Magnuson “built a reputation as a potent yet genial wheeler-dealer who preferred to remain little-known, except by the voters back home who called him ”Maggie.’”

But shunning the limelight himself didn’t mean Magnuson wasn’t content to surround himself with public figures. While today, such antagonism exists between Presidents and appropriators that strong relationsips might be unheard of today. But Magnuson thrived on it. Known to set aside poker nights, he’d often play with both FDR and Truman. Kennedy came to Seattle for Magnuson’s 25th anniversary in office, and LBJ hosted a wedding reception at the White House.

Magnuson’s early tenure was tied to FDR. He won a House seat on his coattails in 1936 and made it to the Senate as he was winning his 4th term. But from then on, his record was his own. And it was a big one.

Washington’s Secretary of State Legacy History Makers Project lists a number of Magnuson’s accomplishment. The Commerce portion reads like a what’s what of consumer protection laws, and the appropriations encompass most of what modern day Washington is known for.

For those who have utilized the NIH, Magnuson is your Senator. If you or a family member have had to utilize the world-renowned cancer institute in Seattle, Magnuson made that happen. If you fly on Northwest Airlines, Magnuson helped make Seattle prominent. For the Safe Drinking Water Act, Fair Credit Advertising Act, Door to Door Sales Act, country of orgin labeling, food ingredient labeling, think Magnuson. For those who see or heed anti-smoking labels, Magnuson. Laws making sleep ware flame resistant, regulation of automobile safety, manufactures warranty enforcements, and safety standards for children’s toys. Those are just some laws Magnuson is credited with steering to passage.

His commitment to resources was also high. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act” (Stevens being another legendary Northwest Appropriator, Ted Stevens), governs fisheries. JFK joked Magnuson “sends messages to the rostrum, and when he is asked, ‘What is it?’ he replies, ‘It’s nothing important.’ And Grand Coulee Dam is built.” Development of the Columbia River Dams were part of Magnuson’s legacy, and a Magnuson biography says that in his first ten yeas of the Senate, 8 dams on the river were subsidized. Ditto with the development of the Hanford Facility. He used his influence to save the B-52 but, as one who was near told it,”Maggie never blew his horn.”

In terms of dollars, Magnuson was able to lure two World Fairs to Washington State, put in money for the tourist friendly Pike’s Peak, hatcheries, and in his last year in office, pushed through $1.2 billion in emergency disaster relief following the eruption of Mt. St. Helen’s. The Lower Snake (River) Conservation Program is his, as is the Puget Sound Nalal Shipyard.

In some cases, Magnuson gave Washingtonians more than they wanted. Federal funds for various Seattle transit projects were rejected by Seattle voters.

Beyond that, his advocacy for protecting Puget Sound was so strong that Governor Dixie Ray Lee, a fellow Democrat but one whose lifelong advocacy was for atomic energy, called Magnuson a “dictator” and once told an aide that he wasn’t “Jesus Christ.” Magnuson had slipped a prohibition on drilling in the sound on an Appropriations measure.

By Magnuson’s last term, he had secured the Appropriations gavel. Walter Mondale said he divided the loot “50-50. Half went to Washington State and half went to everyone else.” He was only half joking. It was said that one of every six dollars went to Washington State. That was not unlike the legacy of more nationally known chairs who succeeded him, Robert Byrd and Ted Stevens. Yet he also described himself as a taxpayers friend.

All of this activity would seem to get under someone’s skin, but Mike Mansfield said Magnuson didn’t “have an enemy on either side of the aisle,” a fact reflected by the fact that colleagues elected him President Pro-Tem in 1978. For years, that also seemed to be the case at home. His campaigns were effortless and he was usually assured of getting in the mid 60′s. But by 1980, things had changed. Diabetes gave Magnuson a slower gait and his hearing wasn’t great. His refusal to debate was more fodder for Republicans. But in perhaps the most cleaver ad all time, he said “so I don’t walk as fast as I used to. The meeting can’t start until I get there anyway.”

In almost any other year, it may’ve been enough. But 1980 was Reagan’s year, and it helped Attorney General Slade Gorton unseat Magnuson 54-46%. One half of the Maggie-Scoop legacy was gone. Magnuson died in 1989.

But the other half was alive and continued to thrive and the love affair between Scoop Jackson and Evergreen State voters never diminished. Columbia Valley Authority

Henry “Scoop” Jackson (1912-1983)

Jackson may’ve been the original “New Democrat” before Bill Clinton made it cool. He advocated a muscular defense that previous Democratic Presidents had championed. His first campaign slogan for Congress, “Vote for a Man Who Has the Courage of his Convictions” may have governed his entire career.

Jackson’s election to the House at 28 made him it’s youngest member (upon his death, only he, Claude Pepper of Florida and Mississippi’s Jamie Whitten were in the chamber when FDR gave his Pearl Harbor speech). His first Senate win in 1952 actually countered a nationwide Republican sweep, but his opponent was a low-thought of incumbent who brought Joseph McCarthy to Seattle to stump for him. But he’d never have to rely on his opponents weaknesses again. His six re-elections were routinely won by more than 2/3 of the vote, and in 1970, it exceeded 80%.

For Jackson, being a hawk was nothing new. He advocated for major increases on atomic weaponry at the start of the “Cold War, concerned about a “Communist menace” but also with an eye on jobs at Hanford. He was critical of the Eisenhower administration for not spending more on defense. After Sputnik, he accused them of underestimating the Russians. Jackson was suspicious to the end of the Soviet Union. He would back the SALT Treaty only with modifications, but refused to support the second. He endorsed Nixon’s China policy. Like Magnuson, Jackson sponsored landmark legislation too. Jackson-Vanick prohibited “Most Favored Nation” status to nations that discriminate.

Jackson’s impact on domestic affairs was not limited. His Interior sub-committee chairmanship gave him a major role in shepherding Alaska and Hawaii to statehood. He was an ardent advocate Indian reservations. His sponsorship of the National Environmental Policy Act led to the creation of the EPA, which Nixon established by Executive Order.

But it was Jackson’s support of Washington based Boeing’s super-sonic transport, which ultimately failed, that would earn him the moniker, “the Senator from Boeing,” a nick-name actually given to him by local Democrats who organized a challenge to him in the 1958 Senate primary over his advocacy of a military buildup. Jackson had been a supporter of keeping the company in Seattle since his House days, when it had previously come under attack. Boeing meant jobs and Jackson was a staunch defender.

While Magnuson was a consummate deal-maker among his colleagues, Jackson had a gift for weaving together elusive solutions that would ultimately make for sound public policy. The Federal Lands for Parks and Recreation Act and the ABM (anti-ballistic missile system) would seem to have nothing in common, but one is actually a by-product of the other. The Parks legislation actually resulted from dismay by Seattle residents over Jackson’s proposal to house an ABM facility at an area of Fort Lawton, a military base in the Puget Sound Many residents opposed it and wanted to see the site used for a park. Jackson convinced officials to move ABM (by then faltering within his Senate colleagues) to a lightly populated area, and make the left-over military space part of a park. For the nation, the icing on the cake was that the Act would make funds available for many cities to o the same.

His efforts were similar on Hanford. He backed a Columbia Valley Authority which would mirror the TVA. He backed a dual-purpose nuclear reactor at Hanford and passed the Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980.

Jackson was on JFK’s short-list for VP in 1960, with Bobby Kennedy even telling the Washington State delegation that he was his own first choice, but that balance issues might ultimately force JFK to go elsewhere. Remarkably, Richard Nixon reportedly asked him to be Secretary of Defense. Jackson sought the White House twice, in 1972 and ’76, and one of his failings on the Presidential front was Vietnam, where he was to the right of every major Democratic candidate.

In a column about Jackson years later, Bergen compared campaigning for him “in Madison, Wisconsin in in 1972″ to “campaigning for Benjamin Netanyahu in present day Cairo.” Jackson was dependably pro-Civil Rights (though anti-busing) and pro-labor, even opposing Boeing’s quest to become a “Right to Work”company. He boasted of enormous support from the Jewish community for his support of Israel and Soviet Jewery, and of Native-Americans. But Bergen also noted impediments.

In ’72, his campaign collapsed following Florida, an early primary state. He had expectations that ’76 would be different.

Jackson had a superb campaign organization and led the pack in both money raised and personal contributions. He excelled at one-on-one campaigning. But that was no longer practical. Bergen called “adjusting his words to fit a sound bite was an alien concept,” also noting his failure “to claim credit for measures he was largely responsible for.” And his decision to skip Iowa and New Hampshire was a mistake Jackson was far from the last to make. Post-Watergate, voters were looking for a fresh face, and while Jackson did win Massachusetts in New York, Carter finished him off in Pennsylvania. The experience he would’ve provided would’ve been stellar.

Jackson returned to the Senate and was literally active until the last moment. In September 1983, having just won a seventh 6 year term, he was giving a press conference following the Soviet shooting down of a plane that killed 250. An hour later, an aortic aneurism killed him.

For all his power, Jackson’s biggest give to Evergreeners was just being a regular guy. Dr. Abe Bergman describes his “shock” when during a routine visit to the other Washington, they received a note at their hotel saying Jackson wanted to meet them for lunch in the Senate dining room. He later learned that Jackson was a constituent guy. That’s what he did. Bergman, who later became an advisor,says Jackson”did not meet every voter in Washington State, but he sure made the attempt.” On a personal level, he notes concern that Jackson often displayed for staff members and their families.

And while the Democratic Party of today may not be in sync with Jackson’s philosophy, a prominent, albeit vanishing breed, are proud to call themselves “Scoop Jackson Democrats.” Three decades after Jackson’s death, it’s a term that still endures.

The Legacy
Maggie and Scoop are no longer with us but arguably, two like-minded individuals have moved into their seats. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell have represented the “Evergreen State” together for more than a decade (like Magnuson and Jackson, they came to the chamber eight years apart, and with each being 42 upon taking office, only a few years older than both Maggie and Scoop, they have the prospect of serving just as long. Murray is likely the next Chairman of Appropriations (though Barbara Mikulski at 80 is not likely to leave any time soon), while Cantwell, like Jackson, concentrates more on Resources issues. Whatever the case, both have great role-models. And the state will be forever grateful.

Jersey Boys is what might happen if a tepid episode of VH1’s Behind the Music was turned into a musical. The main purpose of the plot is to relay the significant events that led to the formation, successes, and failures of the Four Seasons and the eventual solo career of Frankie Valli. Like any good band documentary, there are many interesting plot points about the serendipitous events and masterful decisions that accompanied the formation of a music phenomena.

Personally, I found the relationship between songwriter/producer Bob Gaudio and Frankie Valli to be the most interesting aspect of the story. Bod Gaudio’s progression from the writer of the one hit wonder, “(Who Wears) Short Shorts” to a hit making genius is a rather fascinating story; particularly in light of his commitment to partner his song writing talents with the angelic voice of Frankie Valli.

There are other interesting developments in the musical, but for the most part they are in the category of the generic band story rise to fame narrative. To break up the monotony of a band biopic presentation, the story is told from the four different perspectives of the original Four Season’s band members. Although there are differences in their take on events, it is not an extreme contrast. One narrative clearly takes over the stage and is pitched by the four leads.

To be clear, Jersey Boys is excellent at doing what it does! The performers are powerful singers who bring complete believability to their roles. From the moment they start singing, we believe they are the legendary group. When Brad Weinstock first sang out as Frankie Valli, I breathed a sigh of relief. Instead of a strained impersonation, I experienced a strikingly beautiful voice that brought new life to old favorites. Jersey Boys’ strength is the music from beginning to end.

In fact, Jersey Boys is strong in every area that is presented on the stage. The acting, music, set design, production value, and overall feel of the show is perfect. Even so, the perfection of musical execution could not overcome the lack of plot depth. There simply is not enough conflict, resolution, and character development to move the show beyond a really fun night of enjoyable music.

With so much good music and a less than meaty plot, there were times when the musical felt like the world’s best cruise ship musical review. At one point, the audience cheered and applauded when they realized Frankie Valli’s biggest hit was about to be sung. At that moment I felt like I was in Branson, Missouri surrounded by hundreds of grey haired adults reliving their childhood. I also began to understand why Jersey Boys is so popular. It fits the demographic of old rich white people who are able to afford the ticket price of a Broadway caliber show. For those reminiscing their teenage years, it might be an incredibly nostalgic and heartwarming show. For those of us who weren’t raised on The Four Seasons, it just kind of becomes a fun musical biopic about some very talented Jersey boys who make it big.

Jersey Boys has plenty of explicit Jersey language, so I recommend the show to any adults who want to have a fun night reliving their past or learning about the past of a really good singing group. For those looking for a little bit more musical drama complexity, Jersey Boys might not be your ticket.

Doug writes a Fairlyspiritual.org
Doug tweets @fairlyspiritual
Doug speaks mon-fri from 4-6 pm (pst) on “Live from Seattle” at www.kgnw.com

She would direct the blade through each apple slice,
Towards her calloused thumb.
I admired her peace with the blade.

My earliest memory of Mom is contrast;
Me sitting on the counter, ready to sift the flour,
gazing at apple, blade, and calloused thumb.

When I was young, I didn’t realize the gift of her grace and care.
I assumed her calloused hands were made to caress her little boy.

Later I saw the miracle of it all.
Her ability to give love she had not received,
To give care she had yearned for but not known.

My God,
How did you form my Mother?
How did you make something so beautiful,
Out of so much pain?

I was born into a miracle,
Nurtured by grace.

Every once and awhile I find myself sitting on that counter.
Just a little boy, waiting to sift the flour,
Looking at my mother, paring the apples, preparing the dough.

I realize it was always a miracle.
A miracle that God took my broken little girl Mother,
and turned her into my grace gift with calloused thumbs.

You can read Doug at Fairlyspiritual.org
You can tweet Doug @fairlyspiritual
You can hear Doug on his talk show “Live from Seattle” Mon-Fri from 4-6pm (pst) at KGNW.com

Early in his Senate career, Senate Majority Leader Robert Taft presented his fellow Republican from Kentucky, John Sherman Cooper with a question? “Are you a Republican,” Taft asked, “or a Democrat? When are you going to start voting with us?” Cooper’s reply was for the books. “If you`ll pardon me. I was sent here to represent my constituents, and I intend to vote as I think best.“ A Democratic colleague, Robert Kerr, an Oklahoma Governor turned Senator, also espoused a similar view, once explaining that he votes his beliefs first, his state second, and his party third.

And that’s what we need. In this hyper-partisan age, a statesman or two would be nice. Politicians who neither posture, nor worry about offending colleagues by straying from the line. Folks who don’t read polls, strain for public opinion. Simply doing right by country. And conscience. Cooper and Kerr were among two mid-20th century public servants who lived by that. And the result from their colleagues was not detachment, but respect.

It may’ve mattered little that Cooper and Kerr were both men of fortune. Not all who have been blessed with such good fortune have had a “to hell with popular opinion” approach. That’s what makes Cooper and Kerr so remarkable.

Cooper
Cooper was first and foremost, to quote the 1989 documentary about his life is entitled, the “Gentleman from Kentucky.” With that characterization came a stubborn advocate for independence. His party unity score was just 51%, almost unimaginable today and if not a maverick, his independent streak was noted by colleagues early on.

Early in his career, the Senator from Somerset, Kentucky opposed his party’s plan to reduce funding for the Marshall Plan, GOP attempts to override Truman’s tax cuts, and sponsored legislation increasing highway and education funding He turned on Joseph McCarthy before it was common, was a fierce advocate of Civil Rights, even fighting Jim Crow Laws. The issue on which he tangled with Taft was war bonds. But the latter, who was in name and in deed was “Mr. Republican,” learned real quickly that to know him was to work productively with him, as Cooper and Taft would sponsor the first federal education bill that was enacted into law.

Cooper, whose friendship with President Kennedy was well-known, also proved his mettle as a sponsor of Medicare, becoming one of four Republicans (New York Republicans Javitz and Keating and Kuchel of California to back the original version that failed in 1962, and on that, he had a herculean task convincing many of his own supporters that he was not off the reservation.

Cooper told Robert Schulman, author of The Global Kentuckian,of the “thousands” of letters he had received from physicians urging him to oppose his bill.” But he waxed poetic on his Pulaski County days and added that “I noticed that the old country doctors and county officials, people who had been out in the country and had seen the plight of the people who live in the hollows and down in the dirt roads — they were for it..no one would help (the poor) but these country doctors. You just can’t let people go hungry. You can’t ignore the sick and let them die.”

Cooper’s independence was to the consternation of both Democratic and Republican Presidents, particularly on Judicial matters. Cooper opposed the nominations of both Abe Fortas and Haynesworth, though backed Nixon’s second nominee to the court, Harrold Carswell. In reaching his conclusion on Carswell, Cooper said, “I consider that the absence of such claims against Judge Carswell and his experience as a trial and appeals judge are positive factors supporting his confirmation.” Because Cooper commanded so much respect, the Nixon White House hailed Cooper. But it wasn’t enough.

Late in his career, Cooper became known for his opposition to U.S. involvement in Vietnam, which came in spite of his backing the Gulf of Tonkin. As such, he authored an amendment with Democratic Senator Frank Church to end U.S. military involvement in Cambodia and Laos. It garnered the support of Democratic Leader Mike Mansfield but President Nixon threatened to veto it. Ultimately, the amendment was stricken from the final bill.

Politically, Cooper may be an example of, if at first you don’t succeed, try, try, again. He was first appointed to the Senate to fill the vacancy of another legendary Kentuckian, “Happy” Chandler, who had given up his seat to become the second baseball commissioner. He was defeated in his bid for a full-term but not before his fellow Kentucky Senator Alben Barkley, a Democrat, basically said Cooper deserved more than two years to continue his work. The fact that Barkley was his party’s Vice-Presidential nominee made his statement more remarkable.

In 1952, another vacancy arose and Cooper won it. The comeback was short-lived, however, as Cooper again lost, to former Vice-President Alben Barkley. But Barkley died a year and a half later and Cooper, though reluctant, took Eisenhower’s entreaties to regain the seat. He won and continued his go-his-own-way approach.

And Kentuckians responded with a roar of approval. Cooper’s final two re-election margins were the largest margin for a Senator in state history, not to be broken until Mitch McConnell exceeded it in 2002. Labor gave him much aid.

Cooper had attended Yale University and Harvard Law School and was chauffeured to work each day, but had a personable, empathetic disposition. He called himself a “truly terrible speaker.” But that mattered little, for he was one of the most respected statesman in the Senate and out. After the close of World War II, he was appointed to lead Bavaria.

Then, even after his first short Senate span, Cooper had made such an impression on Harry Truman that the Democrat appointed Cooper a delegate to the United Nations. Kennedy asked him to head a fact finding mission to Moscow and New Delhi. Following President Kennedy’s assassination, he was the Senate Republican President Johnson selected to serve on the Warren Commission, and after his retirement, was appointed by Ford to be Ambassador to East Germany.

Cooper served until his retirement in 1972, and, save his brief stint as an Ambassador, spent his remaining days in Kentucky. He died at 89 in 1991.

Kerr

When one thinks of the term “Boy Wonder” of Democratic politics in the mid 20th century, Robert Kerr is the man (his Republican counterpart was fellow Minnesota Governor Harold Stassen, which ultimately didn’t end to well). More important, every state has a Governor that provided a boost which led to an indelible transformation. And in Oklahoma’s case, Kerr again stepped up to the plate.

When you think of the Broadway show, “Oklahoma,” Bob Kerr may resemble that. The first Native-American Governor (also Log-Cabin born), he took office in 1942 as the state was still crippling from the Depression and the “Dust Bowl” and, as Arrell Gibson in his book “Oklahoma: A History of Five Centuries” points out, Kerr helped bring about “a resurgence of state pride and spirit and a broad determination the Sooner States image.’”

Gibson notes that he provided an “earthy and subtle humor” that resonated with fellow Okies. And forward he did. Kerr’s net worth was $10 billion but he made improvement of “Sooner States’ Kerr took numerous tours of the nation to promote Oklahoma’s potential, which paid handsome dividends as his land became a focal point for military training, industry, and bases. He continued his efforts on behalf on industry after the war.

A loyal “New Dealer” Kerr gave the Keynote address at the 1944 Democratic convention and played a vigorous role in Harry Truman’s selection as vice-president, a pick credited with allowing Oklahoma Democrats to soar. Kerr made his way to the Senate in 1948 and mounted a bid for the Democratic nomination for President in 1952. He didn’t get very far but that sure wasn’t the case in the Senate.

It’s a matter of debate as to whether Kerr had more impact as a Governor or in the U.S. Senate. In the former, his accomplishments are felt today. In the Senate, it is more his presence and master of debate that drew notice, and, where he sat, it was impossible for it to have not. He Chaired the Finance Committee, and the Senate Commerce Committee on Space and Aeronautics. There was a reason he was called the “Uncrowned King of the Senate.”

Kerr tried to remain true to his party. Paul Boller’s book, Congressional Anecdotes recites a tale of Kerr on the campaign trail at a forum, when his opponent credited the Lord with “telling me that it was my duty to run.” with getting him to run. Kerr conceded the possibility that the “Almighty might urge an individual to run for the Senate. It’s inconceivable, however, that the Almighty would tell anyone to run on the Republican ticket.”

Nor did Kerr go without wheeling and dealing. He remained true to his region by promoting development of the Arkansas River throughout his entire Senate career. He traded support for the Interstate Highway System for funding of three reservoirs on the water. Kerr did not live to see the project completed but his efforts have made the 18 lock river accessible to barges, and commercial traffic, and a center for hydro-electricity. It bears his name.

Kerr also became an unapologetic defender of the natural gas industry, paramount to his state’s economy. “The Saturday Evening Post” summed up the relationship between JFK and Kerr. “Kennedy asked,” they said. “Kerr decided.”

A classic example, cited in Boller’s book, is a zinc bill, which Kennedy told him he’d be vetoing. He told Kerr that “Ted (Sorensen) and Mike explained it to me.” When Kerr raised the matter of his tax bill “‘if I’m away in Oklahoma, your tax bill, which lies in the Finance Committee that I chair, will never come to the floor,”, JFK did an “about face” saying, “Bob, this is the first time anybody really explained the zinc bill to me.”

Finally, Kerr used his Finance post to become a major player on entitlements. To say that he had his reservations about Medicare is an understatement. He was among the Democrats who successfully blocked Kennedy’s proposal in 1962, which lost 52-48. But his proposal with Wilbur Mills, which ultimately became known as the Medicare Assistance for the Aged, was enacted into law, and Sue Nevins in her book, “Medicare’s Mid-Life Crisis” noted the programs coverage of dental and prescription drugs would ultimately be much more “generous” than Medicare (it did require means testing”).

Kerr died of heart failure of New Years Day, 1963, just as he had appeared to be on the mend.

In his inaugural address as Governor, Kerr called for ending the “smearing (of) the reputations of persons who did not agree with the administration.” Gibson called him “firm but not arrogant.” But his legacy to stand by principal enhanced his reputation.

There were a few other Senators famously known for abiding by their convictions. Barry Goldwater was notorious, once instructing a staffer to “do what you feel is write even if it goes against me.” Wisconsin’s Bill Proxmire’s staunch oversight had him always offending someone, and found him often casting lone votes on bills. Paul Wellstone has been called a more modern day “conscience of the Senate.”But in an era when it wasn’t demanded, Cooper and Kerr stand out most.

And in an age when personal convictions outweighing offending friendships are few and far between, they are true models. Let’s hope the states send more our weigh who can do them, and the country they serve, proud.

Setting aside the debate over gun control (too heavy a topic for me and my allergy ridden head) they are fighting a dumb battle.

For one thing the bill seems to be increasingly minor, mostly background checks and similar items, not any real gun control.

The bill is no better than an even bet to make it out of the Senate with a simple majority and even if it does the House is even less likely.

If it does pass it will be challenged in the courts and given recent rulings might well be tossed, or at minimum will be on hold for years.

So the pro gun side has pretty much already won the battle but by blocking the vote the GOP loses the war by looking insensitive and stubborn.

Doing things the damn silly way again.

By Scott Crass

In the past two weeks, an astounding 13 Senators have made public their support for marriage equality. The tally includes moderates, Senators preparing for tough re-election bids next year, and even a Republican, Mark Kirk. The sole liberal among this group is West Virginia’s
Jay Rockefeller, who hails from a culturally consrvative state, but who has announced his retirement. The conversions leave three Democratic Senator’s remaining on the fence, with the most noteworthy being Mary Landrieu, the three-term Louisianan who also faces the voters next year. Landrieu’s primary conundrum is that the “Pelican State” approved the amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage with 78% in 2004. And that invites a comparison with Al Gore Sr, the fomer vice-president’s father and prominent Tennessee Senator, on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Gore was not exactly a conservative on Civil Rights. The Tennessee Democrat had been one of three southern Senators who refused to sign the “Southern Manifesto” and had opposed the poll tax as a member of the House as far back as 1942. His Tennessee colleague, Estes Kefauver, who had been his party’s standard bearer for vice-president just before, was another, with Lyndon Johnson the third. During his own Presidential campaign, Al Gore Jr cited his father’s courage on the Civil Rights issue, which while certainly debatable, is not totally without merit.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 came to the floor just as Gore was facing re-election. He had no Democratic opposition in the primary, but faced a tenacious Republican in his bid for a third term. Tennessee hadn’t sent a Republican to the chamber since 1868 (one briefly filled a vacancy in 1912), but Gore was facing an erstwhile foe. And much of the deep south was rebelling against LBJ on the Civil Rights issue. Gore voted against it and survived his re-election bid by just 53-46%, as Johnson’s 55% in Tennessee was far below Democratic norms. Whether Gore would’ve backed the landmark legislation had the election already been held may never be known. But his actions before and after the vote indicates that he was sympathetic to the movement.

Enter 1965, a different ballgame. The “Voting Rights Act” came before the chamber and Gore, safely back in the Senate for another six years had no qualms about voting for it. He backed the Fair Housing Act three years later. Meanwhile, on other issues, Gore was a solid liberal. Tennessee4Me calls Gore “the forerunner for Medicare” and notes his legislation for minimum wage increases and the construction of the Interstate Highway System.Gore lost his Senate seat in 1970 to Bill Brock, later President Reagan’s Secretary of Education.

The younger Gore credited his father’s vote for Civil Rights as a decisive element in his loss and, minus the ’64 law, was partially right. But it was Gore’s vocally dovish position on the Vietnam War also played a major role in his loss, and he earned the enmity of the Nixon White House for it. Nixon’s team went all out to beat Gore, and to everyone’s surprise, were only narrowly successful. Gore took 48%, indicating that, like Landrieu will do, Gore successfully touted his long work on behalf of the state. Landrieu’s problem is that she must also deal with a White House, only this is oneof her own party she’d rather not be reminded of. which indicates that, like Landrieu, other issues wil also come into play. And it starts with marriage equality.

Landrieu has tinkered around the edges of the same-sex marriage issue and like Gore, has already taken stands that may get her into trouble. While Gore opposed the Civil Rights Act, he did back a previous version years before. And as early as 1957, he nominated two African-Americans from Memphis to the Air Force Academy, which was not without controversy.

Landrieu stated recently that she personally has no problem with same-sex marriage (”it’s very tough because I think most people believe that people should love who they love”).But as a matter of public policy, she acknowledged that she must reconcile that with her state, which she said separately”has a very strong constitutional amendment against gay marriage and I think I have to honor that.”

Landrieu has stuck with her party on most other issues but unlike Gore, has not universally towed the party line. She was one of several Democrats who killed the public option and has consistently supported drilling in Alaska. Which is why her vocal expression of support for the party on issues of support may be eyebrow raising. She recently had a high profile, heated confrontation with Texas Senator Ted Cruz on abortion policy in the middle-of-the-night during a 43 amendment vote-a-rama.

Ginger Gibson notes in a Politico story that as other Democrats facing the voters next year opposed the Democrats budget, she supported it. She refused to repeal a medical device tax. And on what is perhaps her biggest achilees heel, her vote for the Affordable Care Act, Landrieu is taking a similarly unapologetic, full-throttle ahead approach. “I am proud of my support for the Affordable Care Act, whether my opponents want to call it ACA or Obamacare, I voted for it. I’m glad I voted for it.”

Gibson opened her piece by writing “Sen. Mary Landrieu hasn’t gotten the memo for 2014 red-state Democrats: run scared.”

At this point, Landrieu is looking surprisingly strong in polls, leading perspective rivals by 5 to 8%. That can be misleading. In her past two re-election bids, Landrieu looked comfortable for most of the election season, only to eke by with just 52% each time, including a 2002 runoff. But Louisiana has a unique primary system where a candidate must take 50% on primary day, which happens to be held when the other 49 states are hosting their general elections. If not, the top two finishers meet in December runoff.

Recently, Congressman Jeff Fleming, who appeared poised to run bowed out, citing the need for party unity (his colleague, Bill Cassidy had jumped in the race the day before). But by abandoning the race, he may have inadvertently aided Landrieu’s prospects by making one less person to keep her under 50%. But it’s highly unlikely likely Cassidy will have the field to himself, and Landrieu may not hit 50% vin the first round anyway. That will make her task at turning out the state’s African-American population crucial.

While Republicans salivate at tying Landrieu to Obama, Landrieu intends to return fire with Bobby Jindal, a once and perhaps future star-contender who has seen his popularity slide as Louisiana’s Governor. Landrieu will also bank on her role on Appropriations as her ability to do deliver for the state. But it’s not 50+1% that Landieu has to be concerned with, it’s 41%, which is That figure is daunting when one onsiders the 14% Obama received among white voters in 2008.

A recent Harper Polling survey had Landrieu up by 17% among women, but down 7% among men and 15% among white voters overrall. But Louisiana is not Arkansas and while many analysts cite Blanche Lincoln’s 19% loss in 2010 as possibly fitting into Landrieu’s fate, there are differences. Arknasas’ shift to the right has been rapid, as Louisiana has simply drifted a little further. Lincoln was never as popular as Landrieu, a fact she hopes to outline via her Appropriations seat. And Louisiana has an African-American population of 32%. Arkansas is just 15%, which may’ve contributed to Obama’s 41% in the “Pelican State,” vs. just 36% in the “Natural State.”

In closing, Landrieu’s decision on a powerful, emotional social issue may force her to take a position prior to Election Day. Like Gore’s 50 years earlier, she may well side with her state even though, by her own reckoning, her heart is on the unpopular side of opinion. Will that save her career? No one knows (it’s doubtful the vote would be so lopsided today). But like Gore, she clearly recognizes that the times are what they are and is showing no inclination to change it. The bottom line, her fight will be a Tyson-Hollyfield like battle, but it’ one she appears to anxiously await.

not a big fan of the “For Dummies” publishing empire. Let’s just say if “Home Repair for Dummies” put on a concert, I wouldn’t buy a ticket.

For those of you unfamiliar with the “For Dummies” genre, these books exist to educate the ignorant and easily confused masses. Therefore, these mentoring manuscripts cover almost every topic within the spectrum of human existence. The titles range from Gardening for Dummies to Gargling for Dummies to Nuclear Reactors for Dummies. The educational needs of dummies are so great that supply is perpetually struggling to keep up with demand. At least that’s what I read in Economics for Dummies.

My problem with these supposedly helpful books is they can make an average dummy feel like a complete moron. I’m no rocket scientist (Rocket Science for Dummies has not yet been released), but I still have most of my neurons firing. Even so, I once read a “For Dummies” book I simply could not understand. It was rather debilitating to realize I was too stupid to even understand material crafted for the express purpose of educating dimwits.

To make matters worse, I didn’t discover my ineptitude until my “For Dummies” book had lured me into a false sense of proficiency. As I read the introductory chapters, I began to feel I was destined to learn this previously confusing material. It seemed that I wasn’t the problem after all. Rather, it was my former teachers and those confusing text books that had kept me from understanding. Thankfully, this “For Dummies” book seemed to be written in my language.

These were my perceptions until I reached a brick wall of confusion masked as chapter six. Chapters one through five made perfect sense. However, chapter six made no sense whatsoever. It was as if the foreign film subtitles suddenly disappeared. I became a confused dog frantically searching for a stick my cruel master had neglected to actually throw. Sure, he made the throwing motion, but the stick was nowhere to be found. The logic train had left without me. In the distance I could see the dumb passengers waving goodbye as I stood stunned in moron station. Chapter six became the impenetrable barrier between my desired proficiency and my thoroughly engrained ineptitude.

Failing to clear the “For Dummies” hurdle got me thinking about the power of perception. What if I had read the same book with a slightly different title? What if the words “For Geniuses ” had replaced the words “For Dummies”? How would I have felt about my inability to understand chapter six? How would this column be different? Huh, I can see it now. . .

“The other day I read a do-it-yourself book for geniuses. Guess what? I almost understood it. Well I guess I’m not a genius, but at least I’m no dummy.”

Perception and reality are two different things, although we frequently get the two confused. Just because I think I’m smart, it doesn’t necessarily mean that I am. By the way, my wife has been telling me this for years. In the same way, feelings often muddle our perception of what is true or real. For instance, just because you feel condemned, it doesn’t mean you stand condemned.

As a pastor I love it when I get the opportunity to shine a little reality on a muddled situation. When I find someone who truly feels unloved and condemned, I try my best to point towards the truth of the matter.

I know for certain that God has come not to condemn you, but to free you and show you his immeasurable grace and love. Your life is not hopeless, you might just have the wrong title. I’m confident God can give you a better perspective concerning your existence. Even if you’re a big dummy, just like me.

You can read Doug Bursch at www.fairlyspiritual.org
You can tweet Doug at @fairlyspiritual
You can listen to Live from Seattle with Doug Bursch Mon-Fri,4-6 pm(PST) at www.kgnw.com

Sequester Cuts: Not In My Backyard!
by Dick Polman

Back in the winter, Republicans were perfectly happy to let the sequester happen. They hewed to their math-challenged belief that Washington could slash the budget deficit by taking an axe to entitlement programs, preserving or hiking defense spending, lowering tax rates, and foregoing any new revenue. And if the Obama administration refused to go that route, Republicans were fine to let the sequester kick in on March 1 – as mandated by the 2011 deal between the parties.

Granted, the sequester was never supposed to happen – draconian by definition, it was designed to bring everyone to their senses – but Republicans figured it had an upside. Federal spending would be cut 2.5 percent across the board, and, to them, that smelled like victory. Nobody in the real world would really get hurt, they said, and anybody who claimed otherwise was just a scaremonger.

Five weeks later, it’s bye bye mockery. Republicans have awakened to reality. They’re still fine with the sequester in the abstract, of course, but they seem displeased with how it’s starting to bite in their own backyards. Funny how that works.

It should be noted that their whining is quite selective. They’re basically silent about the imperiled or reduced Head Start programs for kids in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and Morris County, New Jersey and Cincinnati Ohio; about the special-education cuts and the imperiled rent assistance program in Sacramento, California; about the research funding cuts at the University of Florida and in the Human Genome Project at Missouri’s Washington University; about the Medicare cuts that are already prompting cancer clinics to turn away patients because the clinics can’t shoulder the cost of expensive chemotherapy drugs. (As one cancer clinic executive said, “A lot of us are in disbelief that this is happening.”)

Republicans don’t seem particularly upset about that stuff, but they’re shocked to discover that certain cuts are aimed at their own enclaves. Why, it’s an outrage!

For instance, Texas congressman Steve Stockman is fulminating about possible cuts at NASA (which is situated in his district). NASA has a “legitimate function of government,” he said, because it helps American avoid getting “hit by an asteroid.” And South Dakota senator John Thune is upset that the feds have closed some campgrounds at Wind Cave National Park (which is situated in his state). He says that these campgrounds are “a revenue source,” and he thinks that the Obama administration’s shutdown decision is “politically calculated.”

But Republicans have reserved their finest whine for the spending cuts at rural airports.

The Federal Aviation Administration, which has been ordered to slash $637 million for the rest of the current fiscal year, has announced that it will close 149 air traffic control towers at small airports. The air-traffic controllers who work there can be laid off immediately because they’re private contractors; unionized air-traffic controllers, who work at the bigger airports, can be laid off only after a one-year negotation period. The rural skies will remain safe, says an AP story, because “pilots will be left to coordinate takeoffs and landings among themselves over a shared radio frequency with no help from ground controllers, under procedures that all pilots are trained to carry out.”

A huge share of these rural airports are in red states and red congressional districts. So of course Republicans are asking that the cuts be rescinded, that they receive special treatment. Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann (I’m trying to finish this sentence with a straight face) says that the FAA decision to close a tower in her district “shows a troubling lack of priorities.” Missouri senator Roy Blunt says that the decision to close a rural tower in his state is “interrupting Americans’ lives and air travel.” Florida congressman Dennis says that the “arbitrary” closure of an “important” tower in his district could have a “devastating” impact on the upcoming “Sun n’ Fun,” an annual convention that “serves our children.”

In response to this whining, I will simply invoke Mr. Pink, the film character in Reservoir Dogs played by Steve Buscemi, who rubbed his fingers together and said, “You see this? This is the world’s smallest violin, playing just for you.”

Yo, Republicans: You wanted across-the-board spending cuts? Fine, you’ve got them. It’s not just kids and cancer patients and 47 percenters who get hurt. Welcome to your own back yard.

Copyright 2013 Dick Polman, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Dick Polman is the national political columnist at NewsWorks/WHYY in Philadelphia (newsworks.org/polman) and a “Writer in Residence” at the University of Philadelphia. Email him at dickpolman7@gmail.com.

Video out of North Korea shows beloved leader holding firearm in beginner’s grip for target practice.

(In the past few years I’ve had many conversations with adults who struggle with dyslexia. So many of these individuals have mentioned dealing with feelings of worthlessness. With this in mind, I thought I’d repost something I wrote a few years back.)

I’m Dyslexic…No Joke!

I don’t enjoy reading. I’ve been told this is the definition of dyslexia. Or at least part of the definition. Dyslexics lose their desire to read, or they never gain a desire, or they can’t seem to maintain a desire to continue along the written page. It seems dyslexia is more than the reversal of letters and words. It’s more than a punch line about atheists who don’t believe in dog. It’s more than erroneous spelling and perpetual i before e confusion.

Dyslexia is an issue of desire. My mind does not desire the written word. No matter the scolding, the guilting, the prodding or pushing, my mind does not enjoy reading.

Fortunately, I was born into a family of language specialists. Their respect for the written word was greater than their respect for my brain’s wishes. Consequently, they spent countless hours forcing my brain to read. They were gentle with me, but ruthless with my mind. Unwilling to let my dyslexia set the parameters of my existence, they became mind drill sergeants.

Reading is a race I’ve never enjoyed running. While others sprinted ahead, I lumbered forward, pausing between words and sentences as if they were high hurdles or steeple chase walls. At every pause, my mom would push my brain forward. “Trace it out Dougie, sound it out, speak it out.” Eventually, I would scale the road block and move forward. By the time I finished the phrase I had forgotten how it began. Reading became a form of necessary conditioning, an unavoidable medicine, a chore I had to finish.

Over time my dyslexia yielded to my parent’s will. With much foot dragging, I slowly learned to read and to comprehend. I even learned to spell, or at least spell check. The more I was able to read or accomplish the task of reading, the more I began to view my dyslexia as defeated, vanquished, or simply gone.

As I grew older, I began to tell people the story about how I used to be dyslexic, about how I grew out of my disability. It sounded right to me and it made me feel special, even though it wasn’t true. Dyslexia doesn’t go away, it doesn’t disappear. Dyslexia is the name we use for people with different brains. For some reason, no one bothered to tell me this. . . or maybe I chose not to hear it. Or maybe I had read it somewhere but failed to comprehend the meaning.

Regardless, I have lived most of my life believing the erroneous fiction that I am no longer dyslexic. Consequently, I have mislabeled just about everything that has caused me struggle.

Instead of seeing my most pervasive struggles as the fruit of a dyslexic brain, I attributed my shortcomings to a lack of character, commitment, or moral integrity. My inability to remember someone’s name became a sign that I was uncaring and egotistical. My inability to remember important dates and events meant I didn’t pay enough attention to important things. My failure to learn a foreign language was blamed on poor study habits and a lack of respect for other cultures.

I blamed my competency failings on everything and anything other than the culprit. Although my life was producing the fruit of dyslexia, I perpetually mislabeled the tree.
At some level, I knew these issues went beyond effort, but I always felt sheepish or embarrassed with my generalized excuse. “I’m sorry, I’ve got a really bad memory. I know who you are, I just really struggle with names.” I’d say these words as if I were the town drunk, apologizing for the liquor on my breath. “Sorry, I just can’t help it. If only I were a better man.”

It has not been until very recently that I’ve discovered the truth of my life and the futility of all my unnecessary guilt and shame. It seems odd to write, but I find it necessary to say these things. I don’t lack character, I’m not a bad student, and I’m no more egotistical than anyone else. I’m just dyslexic!

That’s it, no big inner struggle between my better and lesser virtues. No, I struggle because I’m dyslexic. My dyslexia is nothing to be ashamed of, it’s just the brain I’ve been given.

Frankly, I’m just barely beginning to understand my dyslexia. It has only been a couple months since I came to the clear awareness that I have been, and will always be dyslexic.
I host a daily radio show and a few months back I thought it would be nice to do a show about dyslexia. I thought I could help people by sharing my story about how I learned to read and “grow out” of dyslexia.

The only problem with my show idea was I couldn’t find a specialist to perpetuate my fiction. Instead, I found a professor from Yale (I can’t quite remember her name right now) who began to describe my life. But she didn’t us my name, she used the word dyslexic.

In the middle of our interview, I proudly blurted out, “I’m dyslexic!” I said those words as if I’d won a prize or at least found a place to stand without shame.

I got so excited that I wanted to go out and buy the specialist’s book, so I could figure out who I am. But I haven’t done that yet, because I don’t remember her name, and I don’t remember the title of the book, and oh yeah, I almost forgot. . . I don’t enjoy reading. I’m dyslexic!

Doug Bursch blogs at www.fairlyspiritual.org
His twitter handle is @fairlyspiritual
He also hosts a weekday radio talk show that can be heard live at www.kgnw.com from 4-6 pm (PST)

Grapic via shutterstock.com

When it comes to Congress and the President, they are by no means “Enchanted.” And surely, they don’t think “You’ve Got The Magic Touch.” The damage to many Americans in just one month has been exponential and “Only You” can make it right. Now I may be the “Great Pretender” but “My Dream,” in fact
“My Prayer” is that for the sake of the well-being of the thousands of families who are being hurt, all parties will move “Heaven on Earth” to rectify this.

One night during the Johnson administration, Ohio Congressman Wayne Hayes was home sleeping. It was around 2:30 AM when the President called. He asked if he had awakened Hays to which he replied, “no, Mr. President, I was just lying here waiting for you to call.”

Now that’s a funny story. But the issue that I use that line to launch into my segment is no joke. In fact, it’s serious. Deadly serious. The sequestration is now entering its second month, and the consequences are mounting. The people who shoulder the responsibility are showing little inclination to fix it. That said, it should be obvious to all at this point that this is not routine business which will not be worked out between nine and five. Therefore, someone needs to put in a 2:30 AM phone call to someone.

What we have instead is a Congress on a two week break and the President is doing fundraisers for House Democrats. and real people are suffering? Is anyone doing anything besides the perfunctory meeting or press conferences blasting the other side. There are no serious negotiations going on and no one has a clue when it will end. That is not only unacceptable but it signals a colossal failure of government at the highest levels.

When the law mandating automatic budget cuts was signed in August 2011 mandating automatic, several areas were exempt, chief among them Social Security. But many were not. Defense Secretary Hagel spoke of “a damaging and disruptive effect on the military” and civilian defense personnel jobs have been borne much of the brunt. 249 air-traffic towers around the country have been forced to close, not to mention the inconvenience to the public in airports in terms of lines. This will only worsen.

An exponential number of workers are being faced with as many of two weeks of furloughs. To the average person, that may not sound like a lot but, for people who live paycheck to paycheck, well, I could use that famous Joe Biden quote when he whispered into the mic but I recognize the need to keep it clean.

Closer to home, Head Start and unemployment funding is being cut. As many as 60,000 customs workers were expected to be furloughed, though Government Exec magazine said that it had been postponed. About 20,000 court workers are impacted, which means the wheels of justice, which is already slow to be administered due to due to judicial shortages) will be moving even slower. And just this week, we are hearing that contractors connected to the space industry will be forced to lay off up to 10 percent of it’s workforce. Kevin Smith, president of the Transport Workers Union Local 525 whose workers would be greatly affected said,
“I haven’t seen a company out there that is immune at this point.”

In some cases, it is life and death, as in cancer treatments. You’d think Medicare cuts would’ve been immune from automatic mandates, right. Well, they’re not.

The Medicare cuts were somehow pushed off until April 1 but now, the funds that they provide for chemotherapy and other drugs are being substantially reduced. Consequently, Medicare will have to turn a way thousands of patients. That means patients will have to go to hospitals and other facilities for treatment, but they don’t have the capacity for all of these patients. Medicare is looking for other alternatives but a spokesman recently said he is “unaware of any authority that could exempt Part B drugs from the sequestration requirements.”

Now the President and other cabinet members have taken a pay-cut but that’s a drop in the bucket. And the adversity they will feel as a result is non-existent. That can’t be said for everyone else. Nonetheless, the President and Congress are elected by the people, and “for” the people. Having a Laissez faire, whatever will be will be attitude, is simply unacceptable.

To revert back to my “Platters” example, it has to be now. For those impacted, this truly is “Twilight Time.”

49 Democrats and 2 Republicans now support repeal of the law.

Of course it takes 60 to break a filibuster and the House is not yet there, but it is pretty amazing progress.