Radicalized citizens

I've been putting off writing this post for a while, hoping that things would settle down, that we could resume our regularly scheduled lives without waiting for the next ugly thing to happen. Or maybe I've just been in denial about the whole thing, refusing to accept that my fellow citizens could truly resort to these kinds of behaviors.

I've gone back a bit in time, thanks to the internet, to refresh my memory about the period of time - late 60s through mid-70s or so - when the radicals in this country were on the left. Many - maybe most - were so far left that even those of us who identified ourselves as Democrats couldn't relate to them. I didn't know anyone who identified with the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Black Panthers, or Students for a Democratic Society, but I lived a rather sheltered life in the South, free from most of the frustrations and concerns these organizations sought to address. In looking back, I suppose I felt that they really didn't have anything to do with me, and it seemed unlikely that my life would be impacted by them. I also lived near a US Air Force base and most of the people I associated with supported the military - and, by extension - the war in Vietnam.

We were also, during these years, still numbed by the several assassinations that had been carried out against liberal figures - both Kennedys, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X - and I suppose felt that it couldn't get much worse.

It's been a long time since I've been as concerned as I am today about the tenor of the conversation in this country.

It frightens me that elected officials are receiving death threats because of their votes or because of the color of their skin. It deeply disturbs me - as it should any person of goodwill - that there are those who would attempt to influence the votes of our officials through threats and intimidation. I believe strongly that, in a free society, we have not only the right but the obligation to make our feelings known to our representatives. We can make those statements through our votes, our letters, our phone calls, our donations; when we make them by threatening the well-being of others then we are perilously close to becoming that which we despise.

When I see and hear the hatred and anger that is being expressed by so many on the Right; when I see elected representatives encouraging and providing venues for this anger; when I hear talk radio personalities and public figures using words like "target," "crosshairs," "reload," in their rhetoric; and when explicit threats are left on voice mails and the addresses of family members are published on the internet; when I hear words comparing our President to the most hated and reviled man of the 20th century; all of these things make me fearful for our nation and for my safety and that of my loved ones.

As a free society we must recognize the responsibility that is inherent in that freedom. We must remember that our right to free speech does not extend to the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or to slander or libel others by our words. And though most of the language that is spoken in these rallies and on television and radio can claim free speech protection, there is still a responsibility to be aware of the influence we may have on those whose claim to mental stability is tenuous at best.

I invite you to view the following two clips for a sense of what is going on. For those of you who do not subscribe to my political views, I apologize that they are from a liberal television show - Rachel Maddow on MSNBC - and ask that you not let that influence your perception of what is going on. I have seen most of these clips on a variety of venues (though not on FOX News, since I don't watch it), and am satisfied that they are representative of what is happening today in our land. They are long, but I think they are well worth the time spent.

Finding the origin of political violence

Right wing threats of violence intensify

We truly must find a way to come together in this country. We are dangerously close to losing what so many have given their lives to secure.

Hypocrisy, thy name is "Republican"

So much has been going on lately in Washington politics that I've been immobilized by indecision about what to say.

In President Obama's State of the Union Address on January 27, the political divide was embarrassingly obvious. Nearly every point the President made that was not supportive of big business or the banking industry was met with stony-faced silence by the Republican side of Congress. Almost without exception, Republicans showed their dislike for this President by refusing to applaud any of the measures accomplished this past year, including reducing taxes for the majority of Americans and putting a freeze on Federal spending beginning in 2011. The freeze actually elicited snickers of amusement from the Right, who apparently don't understand that budgets are correctly set for a year at a time, and that it would be unconscionable - if not impossible - to impose a freeze on a current year's budget.

Then, just two days later, Obama was an invited guest to the Republican retreat, where he gave a speech and then took questions and gave answers, spending almost two hours with the Republican legislators. Several of the questions - as the President correctly noted - were thinly veiled "talking points," laden with untruths, half-truths, and mis-characterizations of current issues. Pres. Obama wasn't shy about calling these questioners out, particularly Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. He acknowledged that partisanship exists on both sides of the aisle, but also pointed out that Democrats made several concessions, especially in the health care bill, in an attempt to gain bipartisan support. He also chided the Republicans for taking such rigid positions on issues that they leave themselves no room to negotiate. As he said, bipartisanship means that neither side gets everything it wants; each side has to participate in give-and-take. And he also told them that many of the ideas they proposed did not pass the test of feasibility from any credible budgetary standpoint. Interestingly, the President was so effective in his refutation of Republican leaders that FOX News stopped broadcasting the event some 20 minutes before it ended.

Additionally, the Senate recently passed a "Pay-Go" bill that was originally supported by Senators Snowe (ME), Collins (ME), McCain (AZ), and Voinovich (OH). The bill was passed despite "no" votes from each of these Senators, when, in fact, each of them voted for this same bill in 2004-2005.

As if all of this isn't enough, President Obama has invited Republican leaders to the White House for an open and televised discussion about the health care bill. Despite repeated calls by these same Republican leaders for the President to include them in televised discussions, they are now backpedaling on both their participation in talks, and on the public aspect of those talks.

And so it would seem that the Republican Party is not just the "Party of No," but increasingly the "Party Against Anything Obama Supports." There are too many sitting in Washington, DC at our expense who do not have our best interests at heart. They care only for the money in their campaign coffers and will work hard to defeat the will of the people as long as they can keep the goodwill of Big Business, Big Banks, and Big Insurance.

Quite frankly, the Democrats need to grow a pair and stop letting the minority party run roughshod over the principles that this country was founded upon. If they want to filibuster, I say let them do it. Let's have nonstop, televised coverage of Republican Senators reading from the telephone book and show the taxpayers what their elected officials think of Democratic Process.

Unrequited love? Say it ain't so!

Dear Mr. President,

I fell in love with you almost two years ago. I'd heard about you, of course, although I missed your speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. I had heard how brilliant it was, how inspired and enthusiastic, and of course heard all the predictions that you would be a Presidential contender "some day." But you didn't really enter my conscious space until 2008, when I began to listen and read, when I began to look for someone who could lead this great nation out of the mess George W. Bush and his friends had created.

I looked at John Edwards.

I looked at Hillary Clinton.

I looked at Barack Obama - and I liked what I saw and what I heard. I began to fall in love. Oh, I'm almost old enough to be your mother, so it wasn't a romantic love; but it was love nonetheless. You had a fire in your belly. You had people around you who admired you, trusted you, spoke well of you. You had a youthfulness and energy that appealed to me and lots of others like me. I came out of my self-imposed exile from all things political to make phone calls, knock on doors, and donate a few dollars on your behalf. I had conversations about you and your campaign, and told many people - and it was true - that I hadn't felt this inspired by a candidate since John Kennedy ran in 1960.

Your history as a community organizer appealed to me. I used to work extensively with volunteers and know the special kind of work that is and how difficult it can be. I liked it that you spoke of bringing people together across political lines. I, too, am a conciliator and prefer it to bluster, bribery, threats, or force. And, yes, as a woman who traces her ancestry through generations of white Southerners, I was thrilled that you are African-American. So it's pretty easy to see why I fell in love.

Today, I confess, I'm feeling some strain in our relationship.

As I've watched the past few months (and defended you over and over, even while writing several emails to ask you why you don't seem to care anymore), you've put on your cloak of Harvard-professordom and been very lawyerly and professional-appearing when you've spoken to the American people. You've ignored the lies, the insults, the outright flaming from the Republicans. Now, I don't expect you to be someone other than who you are, but, dammit, Mr. President, I know the fire is there and you're banking it instead of allowing it to burn and purify!

I remember one of your televised rallies during the campaign. You and the folks attending the rally started a little back-and-forth, saying "Yes, we can!" You said it, they said it, you said it again, they said it again... you were getting into a rhythm, I was getting ready to channel my long-dead granny and shout "Amen!" Then you appeared to realize what you were doing - concerned that it would seem too "ethnic," maybe - and you cut it off. But for a minute there, I saw the fire.

Mr. President, don't you ever want to tell Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh to just shut the fuck up? I mean, really, how much of their crap can you take without letting them have it with both barrels? Tell them to get their fat asses out of the way and let the Democrats do the work We, the People elected you to do.

I can even imagine that sometimes - not often, I know - but sometimes your mother-in-law goes out in the evening and Michelle decides to turn in early and says something like, "Barry, keep an ear out for the girls. Make sure they get their baths and get to bed on time." And there you are, maybe reading up on tomorrow's news and all of a sudden you hear, "Give me that! It's mine!" "Make me!" Now I know you're a good daddy, but sometimes don't you just want to go in their room and lay it on the line? Say, "Cut it out, you two. You've been raised better than this, and I'm tired of the fighting." (I know they fight because I have a  sister, so don't pretend they don't.) And I know you're human and you get tired of the same battles between the girls, and having to say the same thing over and over. I know that, just as I know that sometimes you have to take a tough stance with them for their own good. You can't just let them get away with stuff because you're a nice guy and don't want to upset them. You have a responsibility to them, to raise them to take their places as responsible people.So sometimes, even though you're a nice, understanding kind of guy - one who really doesn't like confrontation - you have to do the things you don't really like to do. In the name of the greater good.

Well, Mr. President, We the People need to see that side of you, and we need it pretty darn fast. We believed your dual messages of Hope and Change, we even believed you wanted us to prod you when you got off course. But somehow our prodding isn't getting through. Have the people around you managed to isolate you from what we're saying? Or - and I hope this isn't it - were you just leading us on? Were we just a hot date for you, and now that you have what you wanted you're ignoring our messages and refusing our phone calls? Because, honestly, Mr. President, it kinda seems that way right now, and we're not going to be strung along until you need us again. Yesterday's loss in Massachusetts - Ted Kennedy's seat, for Pete's sake! - well, that was our daddy collaring you and asking what your intentions are, exactly. Should we go ahead with the plans for 2012 or start looking now for someone who really cares and won't lead us down that Primrose Path?

Until I see what direction this relationship is going to take, I need to take a little time to decide if it's worth pursuing. Let me know real soon, okay?

How can these people look in the mirror?

A 7.0 magnitude earthquake hit Haiti yesterday. I've only been in one earthquake and it was tiny. Really tiny. The papers on my bulletin board swung back and forth for about 12 seconds - quite possibly the longest 12 seconds of my life. Well, not really, because I didn't realize what was going on for about 5 seconds. But it was scary. The planet is supposed to be stable, after all; that's why we refer to it as terra firma, solid ground. We know, of course, that it's not as solid as was once thought, but we depend on it for the foundations of our homes and businesses, and the roots of our plants. When it moves under our feet, it's scary and disconcerting.

The other major natural catastrophe I've experienced was Hurricane Andrew in Miami in 1992. That was far more devastating than my tiny earthquake. We lost most of our roof and a goodly portion of the interior of our home, along with many thousands of dollars of earthly possessions. Some people lost more than that. It, too, was disconcerting to see what had been considered stable - houses, trees, fences, a US Air Force base - reduced to rubble. Disconcerting is really too mild a word; it was life-changing. It causes a re-evaluation of what's important. That often comes later, though, after the shock of seeing the incredible damage that nature can inflict, and after exhausting and terrifying hours trying to hold your child and yourself in safety, and after more exhausting hours of clearing lumber and timber and shingles and carpet and drywall from your yard and your home. Then you give thanks for your life and the lives of those who love.

Neither of these personal experiences, as profound as they were to me at the time, can hold a candle to what we are hearing about Haiti. Huge buildings - the Presidential Palace, at least one hospital, and God only knows what else - are gone. As are perhaps tens- or hundreds-of-thousands lives. There's no way to prepare for an earthquake, since there's no warning, and precious little you could do about it even if you knew it was going to happen. And Haiti is said to be the poorest country in the Western hemisphere. So here are people who already have nothing and now they have less. They are frightened with horrible aftershocks, many of them earthquake caliber themselves. They are injured, dying, grieving, holding the bodies of those they love, trying to mitigate serious injury in the midst of serious uncertainty and the ever-present fear. They are without power, without running water, without sewers. They will run the risk of infection, of dying from injuries that shouldn't be fatal, and of those who would take advantage of their tragedy.

From across this nation, help is arriving: Doctors Without Borders, Habitat for Humanity, Oxfam, The American Red Cross, and my own Episcopal Church through the Episcopal Relief and Development Fund, are just a few among the many who are sending money, people, supplies, and whatever else is needed in response to this devastation. The goodness of people around the world is being tapped in response to human need and in a spirit of our common humanity.

Into this outpouring of generosity and concern step two men who call themselves "patriots" and/or "Christian."

The first, Pat Robertson, is a man who has spent the past 40 years or so predicting the end of the world and pronouncing that "God did it because..." in the event of both natural and man-made disasters. He linked Hurricane Katrina and the 9/11 attacks to the United States' "ungodliness," blaming abortion rights and homosexuals along the way. Now he proclaims that God is punishing Haiti for entering into a "pact with the Devil" sometime in the 19th Century. Well, I'm sorry, Pat, but the God I know doesn't work that way. If he did, why do you suppose he hasn't just wiped North Korea, China, and a host of other countries engaged in human suffering right off the planet? Is your God only interested in the US? Oh, perhaps he just realized this whole "pact with the devil" thing; I guess that explains it. God's been so busy punishing the USA that Haiti somehow fell through the cracks until now. Or maybe Robertson's just a sick man who takes delight in the suffering of others if it helps to advance his agenda and increase his donations. Unfortunately, there are too many in this nation who actually believe him and will echo his pronouncements.

Next into the fray steps Rush Limbaugh, the advance man for the Republican Party, telling his listeners that "...we've already donated to Haiti. It's called the US Income Tax." Of course, you can't really expect anything else from a man who has no kindness in his heart for the citizens of his own country. A man whose most common response to those who live in poverty, are losing their homes, can't afford health insurance is "get a job." Rush has his, so the rest of the world can just kiss his ass. And a lot of people do. Far too many of them are in the very boat that he's shooting at; but somehow just listening to Rush makes them feel that they, too, can someday have a big house in Florida and take winter vacations in Hawaii. In the meantime, they will subscribe to his narrow-minded and bigoted view of the world.

And, so, here we are: the wealthiest nation in the world. Even our very poor have more than most of those who live in Haiti. We have no real concept of the abject poverty that already exists there, nor can we fully understand what they are now experiencing. Even those in this nation who have experienced major earthquakes could rely on the largesse of our government, on the outpouring of aid from our citizens. Perhaps only those who were manhandled in the aftermath of Katrina could have a glimmer of understanding, but even they were shored up by the outrage of their fellow citizens. Haitians have nothing. And now they have even less.

We have Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh.

Death and Politics

Over the past several years, we've seen what I consider an odd phenomenon in this country when tragedy visits private citizens. I'm sure you've seen it in your community: a sudden outpouring of grief, usually in the form of teddy bears, flowers from the local Safeway, and poster-sized messages of condolence from people who are complete strangers to the victim(s) and the families. This is often accompanied by candlelight vigils and live interviews of teary-eyed women (usually; sometimes men) with their small children in tow.

In early 2002, two young teen-aged girls went missing just a few miles from where I live. Their bodies were eventually found, buried in the backyard of a man who had long been a suspect, and who had been accused previously by one of the girls of attempted rape. For nearly a year, our daily newspaper and local news stations covered the case almost nonstop, frequently relegating the war in Afghanistan to a lower status. Yes, it was local news, and yes, we do have provincial media in this part of the country, but we were also sending hometown soldiers off to war, and many of them weren't much older than these girls.

The abduction and murder of these two children was tragic, but had people cared about them in life, perhaps they wouldn't have been living in circumstances that led to the joint tragedy. At the risk of sounding callous and uncaring (neither of which I am) we were witnesses to what I think of as cheap grief. People were openly crying and wailing, getting their air time (one local television reporter became so personally involved with the families that she spoke at one of the funerals), and then going home to resume their daily routines.

Overlapping this local tragedy and the media and community involvement and exploitation of it, was the Florida case of Terri Schaivo. For 15 years, Mrs. Schaivo was on life support in what was characterized as a "persistent vegetative state," meaning there was no hope of recovery. When her husband petitioned to have her removed from life support, the largely Republican Florida State Legislature and then-Governor Jeb Bush intervened to prevent it. Once all legal avenues had been pursued in the State, the US Congress got involved, led by then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and joined by others in the Republican Party, along with pro-life and right-to-life groups. President George W. Bush returned from vacation to sign a bill into law in an attempt to prevent Mrs. Schaivo's husband from removing her life support. Eventually all options were exhausted and Mrs. Schaivo's life support was removed and she was allowed to die.

(In the interest of full disclosure, one of the senators who voted for the bill that Bush signed was Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL. During two presidential primary debates, he admitted that it was his biggest professional mistake and "...allowed Congress to intrude where it shouldn't have.")

Today, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) led a group of "teabaggers" to protest the Democratic health care plan now before Congress. Those who grieved so publicly and left signs, flowers, teddy bears and expressions of love for two girls they didn't know, live in prime "teabagger" territory, and are vocal in their opposition to health care reform.

Yesterday, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) released the Republican Party's health care plan. The proposed plan has been  reviewed by the Congressional Budget Office and the CBO found that not only would it cut the deficit by about $36 billion less than the Democratic plan, but that it would also leave more people (52 million) uninsured in 2019 than are uninsured today (46 million); this contrasts with CBO's estimate of 19 million uninsured in 2019 under the Democratic plan. Where is the outpouring of interference that was accorded Terri Schaivo? Why are Congressional Republicans now so determined to "keep government out of our lives"?

I invite you, Dear Readers, to visit YouTube and watch and listen to all eight segments of Rep. Alan Grayson's (D-FL) reading of the numbers of people who have died in Republican Congressional Districts.  Listen to the individual stories that he recounts. Listen to hear Republican Congressmen try to cut him off.

Then ask yourself what relationship these seemingly disparate events I've related here have to each other. And ask yourself as well why there are those in this country who are so willing to indulge in "cheap grief" and so unwilling to make a difference.

Socialism and me

Many years ago I was approached as I entered a 7-11 store by a man who asked me for $5 so he could buy a sandwich. I was briefly conflicted as to whether or not to give it to him. After all, he could be genuinely hungry; or he could want money for booze, drugs, or any number of other things that I wasn't willing to provide. Almost parallel with that thought, however, I seized upon what I thought was the perfect solution. "Come into the 7-11 with me," I said, "and I'll buy you whatever you want to eat."

We entered the store and he followed me to the refrigerator section, where I began to look through the prepared sandwiches. If you've ever - even briefly - considered buying a sandwich at a 7-11, you know you'd have to be pretty darned hungry to pony up several dollars for anything they sell that's between two slices of bread. As I continued my search, the man spoke up: "Lady," he said, "these don't look so good and they ain't very big. For five dollars, I can go right next door to Subway and get a big sandwich that will fill me up. Plus, it will have stuff I like in it."

As I looked at him and realized the truth of what he said, I had one of those little arguments I have with myself sometimes. I had the five dollars; no problem there. If I gave it to him, maybe he would go next door and get a Subway, or maybe he'd buy a bottle of wine, cigarettes, beer, or even go down the street for his next fix. When the light bulb went on, I realized that if I chose to give him the money, then I was relinquishing control over how he spent it. So how far did my responsibility go? Should I trust him to use it as he said he would, or should I close my wallet, make my own purchases, and tell him he could either take my offer or not? Was maintaining control - and hanging on to a few dollars - more important to me than this man's dignity? I handed him the money, bought what I had come in for, and left. As I drove away, I saw him standing at the counter in Subway.

It's probably been twenty years since this happened, yet I recall it periodically, and find in it a lesson for myself.

Socialism derives from the word "social." "Social" is defined as pertaining to, devoted to, or characterized by friendly companionship or relations; seeking or enjoying the companionship of others; friendly; living or disposed to live in companionship with others or in a community, rather than in isolation; of or pertaining to human society.

There's a lot of conversation today about fears that the US will evolve into a socialist form of government. The truth is, we're already partly socialist, and most people are happy to have it that way. What if you had to call - and pay - when you needed a police officer, a fireman, to utilize the services of a judge, or hire a jury? What if you had to pave your own road or personally care for the parks in your city?

We have, in this nation, a system of Social Security - everyone pays into it, everyone who lives long enough can collect from it. Currently, as you know, We, the People, own automakers and banks - although we're all hopeful that it won't be for too long!

Living in a society carries with it a responsibility to that society. Those who don't play nicely are usually punished - thieves, rapists, arsonists, murderers - and that punishment is frequently referred to as "paying a debt to society."

We pay taxes, Federal and State, for a myriad of services: a standing Army (Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard as well - not to mention our over-utilized National Guard!), a federal highway system, a functioning national transportation system, our precious national parks and forests, the safety of our food and our medication. Is it always perfect? No. Few systems are. But for the most part, the government does a good job and makes our lives easier without respect for income, race, status in life, gender, age, or sexual orientation.

In the Declaration of Independence, we find the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I think it's important to note the word among in that sentence. The signers of that Document didn't attempt to define all the unalienable rights that we have as humans, but to list what were to them the most important: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Throughout the history of this nation we have strived to achieve the lofty ideals of the Declaration. We've failed badly sometimes, but we've also had enormous success in areas.

Today, in the 21st century, we find that too many of our fellow Americans - our friends and neighbors, our family members, citizens of our cities, counties and states - our society - are falling woefully behind in being able to even dream of the American dream, much less actually achieve it. "We've earned our money, let us choose how to spend it," is our cry. We don't want to support more government programs, we will give where we want to give, not where the government wants us to. What a sad commentary on our way of life.

How can we know where the greatest need is? How can we make choices between supporting schools and keeping our highways safe? Between building prisons and providing healthcare for our Veterans? How can we decide who is worthy of our help and who isn't, and how can we monitor the donations we do make?

In the New Testament, we are told, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." We in this great nation have so much; even many of our poor are better off than what is considered middle class in other countries.And yet we are never satisfied; we always want more and we don't consider that we have a responsibility to our fellow members of this society called the United States.

I don't advocate for a socialist form of government whereby we cannot enjoy the fruits of our labors, or where we share equally in all earnings. But I do advocate for socialism in helping those who, for reasons we may or may not agree with, can't help themselves. I truly believe that caring for one another in ways big and small, can only make us better people.

The very last words in the Declaration of Independence are, "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." These were attested to by men who had much to lose and who yet stated that they would stand by and for each other as members of a common society.

I've started - and discarded - three drafts of this post before finally reaching this point. And I've researched word definitions and historical documents and recalled instances from my own life. But what it all boils down to is simply this:

Caring for our fellow human beings is just the right thing to do.

How do you measure patriotism?

In recent weeks, two people who are part of my extended family network, and both of whom are politically right of center, have played what I've come to call "the Veteran card." Both of them served in the military in Vietnam, and both also generously gave of themselves to either volunteer or work in a paid position for their respective law enforcement offices.

Each of them, unknown to the other as far as I know, has made the statement that was along the lines of, "I didn't serve my country in the military and in civilian life to see it become a socialist nation." (In both cases, the subject was government-run health care.) Both of them claim to have performed in a way that exceeds the performance of the average American, and since I know so many who have never served in the military or worked for any governmental agency, they may be right. I would, however, deny that their service gives them any special insight or a more "special right" to their opinion than I have.

I know, for example, neither of them ever suffered the death of a family member in the course of government service. The late Ted Kennedy lost three brothers in service to this nation, and he was the Senate's strongest proponent of universal health care.

Former Sen. Max Cleland sacrificed both legs and an arm in Vietnam, and he supports universal health care.

Of course there are Republicans - Sen. John McCain and former Sen. Bob Dole comes to mind - who have also sacrificed in wartime and who don't support universal health care.

My point is that having served one's country does not confer a specialized knowledge about what is good for the country. It may, and should, inform one's opinion; but each person's opinion should be informed by his or her life experiences, and the validity of those diverse opinions are given voice at the polls.

So if you have served our country in war or peace; if you have served in the military or as a civilian; if you have been a volunteer or held a paid position, I respect what you have done, and I appreciate your service.

It doesn't mean I have to agree with your politics.

Politically autobiographical

If you've found your way here from my personal blog, you've probably already figured out that, politically, I am somewhat left of center. It seems that in my later years I have found my way back to the politics of my youth, and I felt that a few (or, perhaps, many) words of explanation were in order.

If one can be raised within a political party, we were. I don't recall much in the way of politics from my very early years, but after my parents were divorced, my mom entered politics with a vengeance. My earliest political memory was campaigning with her for Nick Nuccio to be elected Mayor of Tampa in '56; I was 9 years old. Nuccio was elected, and was a sometime visitor to our house, along with people like the late US Representatives Sam Gibbons and Claude Pepper. In 1960, we campaigned fervently for John Kennedy, and had the memorable pleasure of meeting him on the Monday before he was assassinated.

Mom was Democratic Precinct Committeewoman for more years than I can remember, and held a tea in her home for Rosalynn Carter during Jimmy Carter's first campaign for the Presidency. She was invited to both Carter's and Lyndon Johnson's inaugurations, and was a delegate to the party's mid-term convention in Kansas City in 1974. In short, my life was infused with political activity and activism, to the degree that, when I left home in the late 60s, I was glad to be away from it all, and frequently (and obnoxiously) stated that the only political thing I ever wanted to do again was vote!

Fast forward to marriage and children, and life in a small farming town where I became actively involved in my church. I worked only sporadically, so my social circle was filled with like-minded people. My husband was a volunteer policeman in addition to his full-time paying job, and so my world became more and more circumscribed and influenced by political conservatives. I did vote for Jimmy Carter in 1976, but shortly afterward changed my party affiliation to Republican. After all, they were the "family values" party and I was all for family values!

In 1987 I became very involved in working with AIDS patients, and shortly after that learned that my own son is gay. A change began to happen inside me, and my devotion to God and my family led me to start asking myself some hard questions. I saw intimately what happens when those with few options are denied help in the midst of ostentatious plenty. I saw things and heard stories that made me weep. And I began, slowly, ever so slowly, to question my adherence to a political party that seemd to lack compassion for anyone except the very wealthy.

Allthough I was conflicted, I maintained my official affiliation with the Republican Party. When my mother died in 1992, I had never garnered the courage to tell her of my defection, but that fall I cast my vote for Bill Clinton, largely because of his promise to pave the way for gays to serve in the military.

Upon my divorce in 1994, I moved to Oregon to be near my sister and her family, bringing my youngest son - then 14 - with me. My sister is four years younger than I (really only 3-1/2!) but despite my elder sister arrogance, she has often had insights and words of wisdom that have had tremendous impact on me. As I mounted one of my best arguments against social services - that our mother had managed to raise three kids in the 50s and 60s with no help from our father, and without once having to resort to government aid - Peggy looked at me and said, "Instead of using her as a yardstick by which to measure others, you should admire the fact that she had the knowledge, skills, and perseverance to do that. Not many people do, you know!"

I knew she was right, but pride - my old enemy - still kept me as a registered Republican. I even took a certain pride in being an "open-minded conservative." I am ashamed to admit that I voted for George W. Bush in 2000 for the most frivolous of reasons: Al Gore bored me. And I was willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt for his first few years in office.

The war in Iraq, however, was an eye-opener - but only after we began to learn of the deceits that launched it. In 2004, I voted for John Kerry and began to see the true nature of what the Republican Party had become when the swift boat affair was initiated. For an entire party to impugn the integrity of a man who had served so nobly was anathema to me. Inertia being what it is, however, I remained a Republican in name only.

Until 2008. When I heard Rush Limbaugh exorting Republicans to switch party affiliations so that they could vote in Democratic primaries and try to undermine the integrity of the party, I was finally, at last, appalled beyond belief. So I switched back to the party of my youth (I''m home, Mom!), and for the first time in my adult life, I not only voted but campaigned and donated money as well. And I'm proud - very proud - that my man won!

The ensuing efforts by those on the Right to not only discredit those who are trying to help our country, but to have no shame in putting forth blatant lies and ridiculous assertions have only strengthened my resolve to work harder for what I believe in.

And so this blog. Separate from my personal blog, and dedicated to promoting truth and progressive political policies. All who read are welcome to respond; there will be no "approval" necessary to have your comments posted. However, they will be diligently vetted for truth and factual information, and anything bearing the label of any known right-wing news organization will be especially scrutinized. If you object, thank FOX News, who has publicly declared itself to be the "opposition." Misinformation, lies, distortions, will all be pointed out and rebutted.

And I in return, I invite you to scrutinize my posts. If I'm wrong, I want to know it. If my sources are biased and can't be independently verified, I want to know that, too. For that reason alone, you will never find me using a publication such as Huffington Post as my only source of information.

Truth alone will bring this country back to - in the words of the original Pledge of Allegiance, "...one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

And I'm determined to do my part!