Egotists are us

So NYC mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner is asked a question by a voter who wants to know how he can lead a city administration and expect employees to behave in an ethical manner when he can't.  Watch this CNN video.

IMO the problem isn't that Anthony Weiner is a douche who can't control his fantasies, but that he's an egotistical, self-centered ass who can't ever admit that he isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread.   He actually can't tell when he's gone off the rails.  As a result, he can't see the utter contempt that he attracts.  

New Yorkers don't have to settle this low for a mayor.  The rest of us also have our own collections of egotistical, self-centered politicians pandering for votes.  We shouldn't settle that low either.

In a related video, The Daily Show's Aasif Mandvi tries selling a promising congressional candidate on going to Washington DC, despite its 535 obvious flaws.  The conclusion? 

"Washington is too gridlocked to attract the kind of results-oriented politicians we need to break the gridlock."

Debate in the Legislature? Imagine that!

Yesterday, the Illinois House of Representatives had something extremely unusual, a free and open debate on a topic of great interest, including votes on individual components of possible legislation.   It was about gun control and concealed carry of firearms, and was caused by a December Federal Court decision that invalidated the State's existing prohibition on concealed carry of firearms.  I am not a fan of Democratic Speaker of the House Madigan and can't know what his motivation was for the unusual debate yesterday, but it is a welcome breath of fresh air.  

The Republican Party's collective head exploded because it, in their words, was all a publicity stunt.  The Republican minority complained that it was a stunt designed to force legislators to reveal their positions to the public.   Imagine that??

""This is a political stunt," said Rep. Dennis Reboletti, R-Elmhurst, a former prosecutor. "It demeans this process."

A stunt?   Legislators debating a matter of great import and trying to determine, in public what provisions might have enough support to become law?   A stunt?  Apparently being a former prosecutor is not great preparation for being a legislator.

The legislators debating an issue, as opposed to backroom discussions that lead to a final bill to vote up or down at the last minute, is the way legislative deliberation is supposed to work.  The fact that is was so unusual is a damning commentary on how our State government normally operates (I hesitate to use the term "functions").   I can only hope that our esteemed State lawmakers liked the experience and demand similar behavior on subsequent issues.

NRA lobbyists and their sympathizers complained that the list of possible exemptions to allowing concealed carry was so long, there would hardly be any place left to carry a concealed weapon in Illinois.   Pardon me while I shed a tear.  If Illinois was the only State that did not allow concealed carry of firearms until the Federal Court ruled that could not continue, what's wrong with Illinois being the only State with a very long list of places that concealed carry is not allowed?   Nothing.  Schools, churches, mass transit, malls, stadiums, movie theaters, grocery stores?  What the NRA just does not understand is that a lot of Americans do NOT feel safer knowing their neighbors may be carrying a deadly firearm in his/her pocket.   They feel LESS safe knowing that the public, including unknowable numbers of hot-heads and unbalanced personalities, are armed to the teeth.

Democratic lawmakers voted in favor of prohibiting concealed weapons in places like casinos, libraries, hospitals, mental health centers, child care facilities, stadiums and amusement parks.

"When they get done with this, you won't be able to carry anywhere," said Rep. David Reis, R-Willow Hill, expressing a frustration among many gun rights advocates as they watched restrictions get piled on.

Mr. Reis, maybe that's exactly the point.  

Can We Get Any Crazier?

Is it possible for America to get any more paranoid and schizoid about weapons in general and automatic weapons in particular?   I think not, but I am not taking any bets on that.

So we've had 20 kindergarten and 1st grade children murdered by a man with an assault rifle, a bunch of people gunned down in a movie theater by another guy with an arsenal on his back, a couple of volunteer firefighters murdered when they responded to a fire alarm by another man with an assault rifle, and the NRA has come up with a plan to fix our gun violence by putting armed guards in every school in the country.   That was before the NRA put out an ad calling the President a hypocrite because he is opposed to arming all the schools while his daughters have armed guards (aka, Secret Service) in their school.  Clearly the NRA has abandoned all pretense that they are anywhere near a mainstream organization and even some conservatives are now labeling them a "fringe group."

Never mind that it would cost in the neighborhood of $15 BILLION per year to put armed guards in all 100,000 schools in the country.  Never mind that it's unlikely that even spending that kind of wealth would even prevent loss of life.  Never mind that there is a flourishing conspiracy movement out there that has already declared the Newtown school murders didn't even happen.

One of the major problems is that the availability of military style weapons (or IMO any clearly non-hunting firearms) allows anyone to become a horrendous killer at the drop of a hat.  It's the people who "snap" and have access to these weapons that worry me.  These are people who will easily pass a serious background check (which too often doesn't even happen due to loopholes in current laws) because they haven't previously done anything horrible.   But it seems that past behavior is not necessarily an indicator of future behavior (along the lines of that financial disclaimer that companies provide with their stock prospectuses: past performance is not indicator of future return).  The person who has been law-abiding in the past may very well "snap" in the midst of a child support battle, buy an easily obtainable automatic (or semi-automatic) weapon, and kill his girlfriend and a couple of her family members.  It would inarguably be harder to do such a thing with a 22 rifle or a shotgun; not impossible, but more difficult than with a semi-automatic pistol.  As I said in a previous post, the U.S. in 2013 is simply not the same country it was in 1789 when the Constitution and its amendments were produced.

By the way, it's hard to know exactly when the guy in Tennessee "snapped."   Was it when he went out to buy the pistol and acted "perfectly normal?"  Or was it five hours later when he killed his girlfriend?   Does "snapping" preclude premeditation?  

No, I don't think we can get any crazier.   We will, however, undoubtedly have more examples of our collective craziness in the future.  And that is very sad indeed.
  

Absolutely Horrifying

Part and parcel of our current consternation over 20 kindergarten kids murdered in Connecticut is the 800 pound gorilla in the room: our healthcare system and its inability to adequately help our citizens suffering from mental illness in its various forms.   

This blog article by a mother of a teenager with serious mental health issues is horrifying and puts the spotlight on what may have happened in Connecticut.  Read "I am Adam Lanza's mother."

A Graphic That Says It All

I believe that Americans who are sick and tired of innocents being gunned down in public places, like movie theaters and schools, need to take control of the public dialogue from the National Rifle Association.  This graphic pretty much sums up the very least that we must do.

Another Tragedy

This time in Connecticut, where a gunman opened fire in an elementary school and killed 27 people, including, apparently, himself.  There will be lots of pundits pontificating on why and how it happened, and the NRA can be counted on to repeat it's tired "guns don't kill, people kill" mantra. 

There was a comment thread on the Democracy for America Facebook page that called for "serious dialogue about gun control."  My comment was: "We're way past time for "a serious dialogue about gun control." It's time to tell the NRA to get lost and enact serious control measures. We don't live in the late 18th century anymore. We have way too many people living in much more dense communities than 1789 and it's time to recognize that."

I'm dismayed that so many people on a liberal page like DFA were still mouthing NRA  platitudes and refusing to recognize that the Founders didn't do as great a job on the Second Amendment as they did on the rest of the Constitution.   Times have changed.   A lot.  

Back during the formation of our nation, we had essentially a foreign army on our soil (the British army and its hired mercenaries) and we were largely an agrarian society.  In that context, it may have made sense to guarantee "the right to bear arms" for the citizens who were largely on their own for defense.  And when the new country declared independence and needed to quickly pull together an army to drive out the "foreign" troops, the American recruits brought their own weapons with them.

Times have changed and the context has changed.  We have robust police departments at the local and state levels to protect us, but the odds are currently stacked against them.
 
Life is a lot more crowded these days.   US Population in 1790: 3.9 Million.  US Population in 2010: 308.7 Million. That's an increase of nearly 800% (although my math skills may not be up to par; correct me if my arithmetic is off).  Population density has also changed drastically.  In 1790, we had our population spread across about 865,000 square miles, or 4.5 persons per sq. mile.  In 2000, our population was spread across 3.5 million sq. miles, or about 80 persons per sq. mile.  We live much closer together and with the huge increase in sheer numbers, IMO there are simply a lot more unbalanced people out there.  

We can no longer justify the rationale that had merit 223 years ago.  The rest of the developed world has nowhere near our firearm murder rates and it's past time for us to grow up and pass serious, nationwide, gun control laws. 

Pat Boone Says What?

OK, so I think people should vote and be civically involved, but I'm nervous about all the promoting that "everyone" should vote.  I think those who vote should be at least minimally informed of who and what they're voting on.   If you don't care enough to learn at least something factual about the issues of the day, I say stay home.

I just got a robo-call from Pat Boone (I swear he said "Yes, that Pat Boone.  I'm still singing Love Letters In the Sand").  He was calling to "sing the praise of" and encourage us to vote for Joe Walsh, who is (IMO) the biggest tea party dipshit in Congress.  

Now, if encouraging "everyone" to vote means encouraging people who would be influenced by a recorded message from Pat Boone on who to vote for, then I'm against encouraging "everyone" to vote.   I mean, really, Pat Boone was considered to be a worthwhile influence for the Walsh campaign?  Really?  

I shudder to think about the type of person who would get this message and then say, "I'm no longer undecided, I'm gonna do what Pat Boone asked and vote for Walsh."

A Clash of Zealots

So the national chain "Hobby Lobby" has filed a lawsuit against part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which is more often referred to as "Obamacare."   The retail chain, owned by the Green family, believes the ACA requirement for employers to provide health insurance which includes birth control is unconstitutional.   Specifically, they object to being required to cover the morning after pill and similar drugs.  Hobby Lobby describes itself as a "biblically founded business," whatever that means.

It was perhaps inevitable that a group would start an online petition demanding that Hobby Lobby back off this lawsuit.   After all, online petitions seem to be the weapon of choice lately for a wide range of political issues, especially in cases of corporate right-wing, political activism (such as Chick-fil-A).   Ultraviolet, an organization devoted to promoting women's rights, is promoting a petition which states:

"All women deserve affordable access to birth control and it's a woman's personal, medical decision on which form to use. I won’t be shopping at your store until you drop this suit, and I’ll be telling my friends to do the same."

Now, I have never shopped at Hobby Lobby, mostly because I object to their incessant, strident proselytizing.   I just don't get why some people feel it's necessary to be everyone else's face 24/7 about their religious views.  This retail chain's penchant for full-page newspaper religious treatises is too "in my face."  So, I concur that this company needs to join the rest of our society and follow the law passed by our elected representatives.

On the other hand, I think the petition against the Green family's lawsuit has a couple of problems.   First, it's a waste of time because I don't believe the company really cares what people think of the company.   That is, these people are so convinced that their religious views are the only correct views that no petition will change their collective minds.  

Second, there's no back up plan.  As might be expected, Ultraviolet has now reported that 

Hobby Lobby isn't backing down.

After 80,000 petition signatures, thousands of posts on Facebook, and hundreds of calls to their customer service center, Hobby Lobby is still holding firm in its lawsuit against covering certain forms of birth control.

And now the right wing is rallying around the lawsuit. Conservative media outlets are covering the story, while others are drowning Hobby Lobby's Facebook page in positive comments.

It's pretty much exactly what happened a couple months ago with Chick-Fil-A and the anti-gay marriage statements of its founder.  The right circled the wagons and promoted "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Days."  

So what's the plan?   Ultraviolet is now emailing people to post "reviews" on Yelp, reviews which are not really reviews but political rants:

Can you post a review of Hobby Lobby on Yelp today, and make sure all of its customers know about their anti-woman lawsuit? There are Hobby Lobby stores in 41 states, so there is probably one in your state. 

Suggested language for the "review?"

"I'm very disturbed by Hobby Lobby's lawsuit attempting to deny women access to some forms of birth control. I'm not shopping at Hobby Lobby until they drop this lawsuit, and I hope no one else will either. What kind of birth control a woman uses is definitely not her employer's business. No more Hobby Lobby for me!"

So when Hobby Lobby continues to ignore the outrage, we'll be left with a bunch of faux reviews on a food and entertainment website, and what?   Nothing.

I'm not inclined to post a faux review on Yelp, and while I signed the petition, I don't agree with the last part: "until you drop this suit."   Whether or not Hobby Lobby drops the lawsuit, I won't shop there, for the same reason I haven't shopped there up to now.   I prefer to not patronize a company that has incessant, strident, right-wing proselytizing as part of its business plan.

Health and Politics-A Very Bad Mix

The scandal of the month appears to be the short-lived "non-political" decision by the Susan Komen Foundation to cut it's ties to Planned Parenthood, which has used Komen Foundation money to provide breast cancer screening and support to thousands of women.  The Foundation defended its decision because they have a "policy" that prohibits them from making grants to organizations "under investigation."   What investigation was targeting Planned Parenthood (PP)?  In case you hadn't heard, Republican Representative Cliff Stearns of Florida has launched a Congressional Investigation of PP.  That's not even close to a criminal investigation, which most of us might consider possibly valid rationale for a charity to guard its grant money.  Congressional investigations are a dime a dozen and signify nothing, beyond some political agenda.

In this case, Representative Stearns is an avowed opponent of PP and has vowed to find a way to cut off all federal funds the group receives.  PP is already prohibited from using those funds to provide abortion services, but that is apparently not good enough for Mr. Stearns.
What's even worse than the Congressional witch-hunt, is the lame and unbelievable defense that the Komen CEO presented for the Foundation's action.  When word spread that the Komen Foundation had succumbed to heavy pressure from abortion opponents to cut ties with PP, CEO Nancy Brinker maintained that the decision had nothing to do with her recent hiring of a former conservative Georgia gubernatorial candidate as Vice-President for Public Policy.  Karen Handel lost her race for nomination in 2010 after campaigning on an anti-Planned Parenthood platform.  Brinker announced that Handel "had nothing to do with" the Foundation decision to cut off PP funds, despite the fact that Brinker had already said the action was taken in conformance with a new Foundation "policy."  Who could possibly believe that the person in charge of public policy wasn't involved?  It's just plain ridiculous.


The good news is that Planned Parenthood raised nearly a million dollars in the few days after the Komen announcement, and the Internet was filled with angry people who vowed to never participate in another Komen "Race for the cure" fundraiser.  

Don't forget, this is the same foundation that filed lawsuits a year or so ago against other charities who they alleged were infringing on Komen's "trademark" of the words "for the cure."   Can you say charity acting like a corporation?
    

Throw Them All Out

Over the years I've found politics in general to be fascinating and positive, but in recent years, I've come to the conclusion that something is very wrong with the political process in this country.   Our nation's current inability to adjust the debt ceiling, the latest of a long series of governmental paralyses, is truly frustrating and apparently never-ending.

The people who are arguing ad nauseum in Washington, D.C. over how to raise the debt limit, have one thing in common with the politicians who find ways to also justify their personal peccadilloes.  Like Congressman Joe Walsh (no relation to the great Eagles guitarist) who has been ranting and raving that President Obama is a "liar" and that there are lots of ways to fund the government's programs without raising the debt limit.  He has accused the "other" party of mismanaging the economy and recklessly spending our money.  He was elected by about 300 votes in 2010.

Now we have news that the Congressman is arrears more than $100,000 to his ex-wife for child support.  He has dismissed the reports as a political hatchet job, but the court records and extensive "negotiating" with his ex-wife, as well as other reported financial problems he seems to have had, tend to lead me to the conclusion that he is just another politician who is a hypocrite and hack.

I've come to believe that the major cause of our political paralysis is because so many (all?) of our politicians and so-called "leaders" are egomaniacs convinced that they have all the answers.  This world-view means that they are unable to even consider that someone else might have some insight on a particular subject and that it would be in the national interest to actually negotiate with them to reach a compromise.   In fact, the very notion of a compromise is anathema to them.  To reach a compromise is admit they didn't have all the answers.

And this is why we have the Speaker of the House walking out of discussions with the President and frantically trying to pull his House majority together, including the Tea Party zealots, to make a symbolic, but meaningless (because it has no chance of passing the Senate), effort to raise the debt ceiling by further debilitating the middle class.  The Republicant Party has sold itself to the Tea Party egomaniacs and corporate interests and can't reach out to actually negotiate. 

While I think the Republicant Party has made egomania and hypocrisy an art form, politicians of both major political parties seem to believe they are the font of all knowledge.  We need to throw them all out.

These are very scary times we live in. 

Who Needs A Brain?

I like this quote so much I put it on my list of favorite quotes (scroll down toward the bottom of the blog) as well as here:

“Let’s say that she’s 90 percent [recovered]. Well, we’ve had congressmen in Arizona who didn’t even have a brain. So, it’s not like you have to be as talented as she is to be good at it.” Mike McNulty, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' last campaign manager on her viability to run for Sen. Kyl's Senate seat in Arizona (Newsweek, 4/10/11) 

A Simple Proposal

Terry Newell, Founder, Leadership for a Responsible Society, recently made what he called a "simple proposal" to address two problems with the current public appetite with budget cutting.  The first problem:  Americans have very inaccurate understandings of what their government currently spends money on.

For example, almost three-fourths of Americans in a 2010 Zogby Poll think we spend 6% or more of the federal budget on foreign aid. More than a third think we spend 11% or more. We actually spend about 1%. Needless to say, cutting foreign aid -- often the most popular choice of Americans to fix the budget, wouldn't make the dent in the deficit we might think.

The second problem is that a depressing number of Americans don't understand how they personally benefit from Federal spending and tax policies.   A simple example:

... 60% of those who claim the mortgage-interest deduction report that they "have not used a government social program." Percentages for student loans (53.3%), social security (44.1%) and Medicare (39.8%), to cite three other examples, highlight the fact that those who attack "social spending" are attacking their own benefits in many cases.

Newell proposes a "simple solution."   He suggests that the government issue an annual report to each citizen which sets out in two pages how Federal money was spent in the past year and how those funds applied to that citizen.   Much of the data can be culled from everyone's tax return, and other data is already in government computers.   His idea is very similar to the one proposed last year by the The Third Way, a think tank, about which I blogged last October.  It also relates to another post from April of 2010 which contained a long list of government programs and benefits which many people use, but don't often think about when demanding cuts to all those "socialist entitlements" that other people get.

Either proposal would go a long way to counter the current uninformed budget cutting fever, which is based on ignorance, rather than intelligent debate.

Democracy For All! Except...

The ability of a people to control their own destiny, generally includes the right to band together for mutual support and assistance.   Like forming a union to bargain for employment rights.  Or demanding a dictator leave the country.  The 'crisis du jour' among the Republicants this year seems to be blaming the current economic disaster on the middle class and public employee unions, rather than the riverboat gambler bankers of Wall Street.

So it's interesting to view what's going on in the Middle East side by side with what's going on in a number of States  (Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio) around this country regarding the efforts to strip collective bargaining rights from public employees.  This effort purports to be for the purpose of needing to "balance the State budget."   In fact, union contracts for public employees have nothing to do with State budget imbalances, which are mostly caused by the current economy and the collapse of tax revenues.

It's ironic that the nation is hand-wringing over the poor demonstrators across the middle East who are oppressed by those nasty dictators, while the democratic process is being defiled around this country by zealots bent on destroying the ability of employees to band together for their benefit and protection.   Hypocritical to say the least.

Cartoon by Clay Bennett of the Chattanooga Times

 

A Lesson Never Learned

Time after time, Americans experience tragic shootings in which dozens of people are killed by gun violence.  Time after time, we have "memorial" services and "pray" for some intangible "peace."   Time after time, we are confronted with another shooting and we still do nothing to stop the madness.  

Cartoonist RJ Matson captures the process:

Murders In Arizona

The State that prides itself in having citizens routinely carrying loaded weapons around, experienced multiple murders today at a shopping center.  The target was Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford, who was critically injured, while several others, including a 9 year old girl and a Federal judge, were killed.   The NY Times, as well as every other newspaper in the country, has a detailed report.  It contains a rather remarkable comment by the Tucson Sheriff, on a possible cause for the shootings.  As reported by numerous outlets, including the Huffington Post, Sheriff Dupnik told reporters:

"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," said the sheriff. "And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry... All I can tell you is that there's reason to believe is that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think that people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol."

Well said, Sheriff, well said.

Filibuster Reform - Again

Reform of the US Senate's filibuster is back on the "to-do" list for the Senate (see my 10/5/10 post on this topic). While still holding a majority in that House of Congress, Democrats need to do something strong to reduce the Party of No's (PON) frequent use of this technique to stall debate and action in the Senate.  See my list of filibuster votes near the bottom of this page.

Some Democrats are attempting to change the rules to more closely follow the original filibuster procedure, which required the person blocking some action to hold the floor of the Senate and talk, for hours or days if needed. Under current rules, the filibuster can be invoked by merely threatening to block action. The Credo Action lobbying group provides examples of how this technique was used in recent years:

The filibuster is why health care reform didn't contain a public health care option similar to Medicare; it's why no meaningful climate legislation was passed; why even non-controversial judges were denied confirmation despite a crisis in the judiciary; and why even the bipartisan DREAM Act wasn't even brought to the floor.

The proposed changes are not perfect, but they're a step in the right direction.

Sens. Udall, Merkley and Harkin have proposed a number of provisions to limit the ability of the Republicans to game the rules and bring the Senate to a grinding halt. Their proposal includes:

1. Making those who filibuster actually stay on the floor and talk, like Jimmy Stewart in the famous scene of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
2. Reducing the opportunities to filibuster
3. Expediting the nominations process for relatively uncontroversial nominees
4. Eliminating secret holds

For whatever good online petitions do, this one is worthwhile. Anyone who believes in the democratic process should support this effort.

Do Ask Do Tell

Self explanatory comic from Harrybliss.com.

A Million Petitions

It seems like as Americans become more and more estranged from their governments at all levels (municipal, State, Federal), an awful lot of them spend a lot of time petitioning for one thing or another.   I'm not talking about people going around knocking on doors to invite me to join them in their effort to get some level of government to either stop doing something or start doing something else.  I'm talking about online petitions and they're all over the place these days.  These email invitations are different than the ones that result in sending an email or fax to my specific elected representatives.   Rather, these are efforts to accumulate thousands of "signatures" on a petition to be delivered to decision makers on a particular topic.


A sampling:  

• "End Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DemocracyForAmerica)
• "Send a Video Message to the President to "say no to a millionaire bailout" (MoveOn.org) (not strictly a petition, but similar enough)
• "Extend Emergency Unemployment Insurance" (AFL/CIO) 
• "Fully Fund NPR (Stand Up To Sarah Palin)" (Credoaction.com)
• "Join the fight against the Republican repeal hypocrisy" (healthcareforamericanow.org)

I have to wonder if most of these petition efforts are more about collecting email and street addresses of people that can be solicited for donations later, than about really effecting change.   

I mean, did Target Corporation really care about the petitions protesting the company's political contributions to right-wing candidates in Minnesota?   I doubt it, and I certainly didn't hear any company reaction to the protests.  The effort to boycott Target didn't seem to have any noticeable effect at my local Target; the parking lot is always filled just as it was before the political donation.  I'm afraid most Americans just don't care if corporations are funneling money into political campaigns, even if the Supreme Court has opened the floodgates to such corporate intrusion into the political system.  Most Americans have been successfully indoctrinated in consumerism, and tend to focus on "Expect More, Spend Less" rather than on how their democracy is being stolen from them.

Is President Obama really going to sit down and watch a few thousand video messages asking him to oppose extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy?   I hope he has a lot more important things to do than waste a week or so doing something like that.  Is this MoveOn.org effort just to make people feel like they're doing something productive, when in reality, they are anything but?

I think that's the core of the issue: making people feel like they are empowered, when in reality, they are definitely not.   I can't believe that anyone in Congress is impressed when presented with electronic petitions bearing tens of thousands of names, especially when there seems to be an epidemic of petitions.   As a decision maker, if you see one or two during the course of a year, you've got to be more impressed than if you're presented with dozens, or hundreds, of petitions.  

As someone who has been elected to our school board several times, I know what is involved in getting actual signatures on an actual nominating petition.   And how difficult it can be to actually get people to sign their name to a piece of paper.  Electronic petitions take no effort and carry corresponding impact.   Little or none.

Quantitative Easing Explained

You may not know whether to laugh or cry when you watch and hear this video. Gotta love a computer voice saying things like "shit hit the fan."  

This video covers a lot of territory about what the Federal Reserve is up to and why.  And who benefits most.   Clue: it's not you and me.

Here's the video.

The Mob Mentality

I recently came across an essay broadcast on the Bob Edwards week-end radio program.   It is part of his "This I Believe" series and it put my thoughts into words very nicely.   The essay is about why the author doesn't participate in demonstrations and marches - mostly because she doesn't feel her opinions are more valid than anyone else's opinions.   I've blogged about this a bit (10/17/10, 8/24/10) regarding the flood of solicitations I received for political donations for far-away elections.  I said I was uncomfortable with the notion that "people around the country think they know what's best for other people around the country."  This discomfort is present even if I happen to agree with the candidate or group.

The author starts off by describing how she is uncomfortable about participating in a peace march in Washington, D.C.:

But the thing that made me uneasy wasn’t just the number of people gathered there. It was the mob mentality of a large group of people who feel they are right, even if I agree with them. It was the absolutism lurking in the liberal ideals. To me it felt just as scary as any other kind of intolerance

Anyway, the essay can be found here and it's worth reading or listening to the podcast.