News consumers are LAZY!

This is my second post about this topic, but the situation is getting worse ... much worse. 

The more stuff I see on Facebook, the more irritated I get.  And I am not as irritated with the original writer or creator as I am with the lazy, lazy people who just keep sharing garbage - without checking accuracy first.

The original creator has an agenda, usually political or religious in nature.  And many times, facts get in the way of a meme that blasts the president or Islam or whoever/whatever is the target of the day.  It's kinda like Carly Fiorina and her infamous videos - remember?  The videos that never existed, the videos that the creators finally admitted were fraudulent and edited with the purpose of misleading?  Well, Fiorina had an agenda and she stuck by her story to the bitter end.  What she counted on was lazy news consumers to spread those lies ... and they did.

It usually takes about thirty seconds to check a story or a set of statistics.  A Google search will usually give you what you need.  But most people won't take the time and that's because the meme or article fits the reader's agenda, too!  Simple, huh?  Hey ... if you hate the president, then you will be more than happy to share the "news story" about the president being part of a conspiracy to murder Justice Scalia!  Oh, yes ... that started making the rounds within a few hours of Scalia's death - and some of my "friends" are more than happy to keep it going even though there is nothing to it.  Nada. Zip. Zilch.  No evidence of any such thing.

Faking a news story is actually very easy.  I bet you that within three hours, I can buy a domain name, then put up a website with a newsy name and a logo.  I can make up some reporters, write a few stories, grab a couple pictures off the internet, and then share one of those stories.  Let's say I write about a child who was punished at school for saying grace before eating his lunch - he was spanked and made to sit outside in the cold while other children ate inside the warm cafeteria.  Well, you can bet that the "war on Christianity" soldiers would grab that story in a heartbeat and it would go viral in minutes.  They wouldn't check:

•  Source of the story
• Who is quoted in the story
• Location of the story
• Credibility of the publication or reporter

 But spreading that fictional story would fuel their agenda.  They WANT people to believe that there is a war on Christianity and my piece of creative writing would help them do that.

Just do some checking before you post.  And if you do post something that is proven false, then delete it.  That's the responsible thing to do.  When you leave a false story or meme on your Facebook wall - even after it's been proven false - then you let the rest of us know a lot about your character - or lack of one.

Ignorance of the American people

I just ran into an article on Facebook about presidential executive orders ... and the title referred to "King Obama."  Yes, the article spoke to the number of executive orders issued by President Obama and how he had become a "king" or, better yet, a "dictator."

Some of my Facebook friends "liked" this article and a couple even commented about how overbearing President Obama has been.

This shows they do not understand the president's constitutionally-defined duties and they certainly do not understand how our system of government works.  This is just plain ignorance.  They should have learned all this in junior high, high school, or college.  Evidently, they ditched school on those days.  Or maybe their school curriculum simply didn't - or doesn't - include our form of government.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution deals with the Executive Branch of American government.  The Executive Branch ... well ... it's the President.  And his/her duties are to administer and enforce the law.  Presidents can - and have - issued executive orders since the very beginning, and that includes George Washington!  A president may - within the parameters of a law - clarify how a law is administered or enforced.  He/she must stay within the parameters of the existing law, but administrative changes are allowed.  

Let's take a look at the number of executive orders issued by some recent presidents, shall we?  These numbers come from published sources and are a part of the American Presidency Project.

Dwight D. Eisenhower               484
John F. Kennedy                         214
Lyndon B. Johnson                     325
Richard Nixon                            346
Gerald Ford                                169
Jimmy Carter                              320
Ronald Reagan                            381
George Bush                               166
William Clinton                          364
George W. Bush                          291
Barack Obama                            223

Well, let's see ... can my Obama-hating friends still call the President "King Obama?"  I think not.  But they will anyway ... and they will continue to show their lack of knowledge about how the government works and who has been doing what.  Ignorance.  They simply don't know.  Maybe you should tell them?


Data Sources:
• 1789 - 1945 (Roosevelt) data from Lyn Ragsdale, "Vital Statisitcs on the Presidency: Washington to Clinton." rev. ed. (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1998); data compiled by John Woolley, The American Presidency Project; and figures from the National Archives and Records Administration.
• 1945 (Truman) - present data compiled by Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project, from documents contained in the Federal Register.

Do a little research before you post!

Facebook can be fun!  I keep up with friends I don't see often.  I get to share my photography and the fun I have with my dogs.  I can read news from several sources. I can even play games if I want.

But more and more, I find my blood pressure rising to dangerous levels.  Why?

Because people post those wonderful internet memes without checking to make sure they are correct!  It's as though they intentionally spread misinformation. At least one thing is for sure: they don't check before they post.

Here's an example.  A meme put out by some website called "For America" says this:

Students at a public school in California were forced to sing “there is no God but Allah and his prophet Muhammed.” Outrageous! No child should be forced to sing praises to “Allah”!

I went to the website.  That's the entire story ... nothing else.  So, let's just look at what was written and see why red flags should be waving immediately:

1) What public school?  It isn't named and neither is the district.
2) Where in California?  No mention of city. 
3) Nobody quoted.  Maybe a parent or teacher?  How about a principal or pastor?
4) No source listed.  No. Source. At. All.

When I saw the "story" (such as it is), I knew immediately something was fishy so I did some research.  It took all of 30 seconds to find that the story is FALSE.   

There were several hundred comments attached to that meme - folks all in an uproar because they bought into the meme hook, line and sinker.  They didn't bother to take 30 seconds to check its veracity.  And even when someone points out that it's bad information, they won't delete the post. I think I know why ...

They WANTED to believe it.  The reasons?  Hey, I've already done enough ... see if you can figure it out.

President Trump? It's possible!

I can't believe I'm writing this.  But here goes ... 

I get it. I get why Donald Trump's election numbers are going up. And I truly believe he can move his gold bathroom fixtures into the White House. I listened to a single news story this afternoon on NPR and it became so clear to me! Iowans who were interviewed for the piece said Trump tells it "like it is" and "speaks from the heart" and is a "good businessman." And they love him for it because he is NOT like other politicians who lie, hedge their bets, and pander to whoever is in the room.  That is an extreme indictment against those now holding public office, but ... it's reality.  And those in office brought it all on themselves.  You see, sometimes karma doesn't wait until another lifetime.

What those Iowans don't understand, though, is that telling it "like it is" and speaking "from the heart" are simple solutions to extremely complicated problems. They don't seem to understand that the president is only one of 545 people that make up the three branches of government. And that's a low number because I only included the president, Congress, and U.S. Supreme Court.  If you add in judges from other levels, there are more.

The president can't run government like a for-profit business! If he were to do that, you can bet our military would be decimated.  There is nothing profitable about our military's readiness - and the cost of providing what our veterans have earned through their service. A balance sheet for defense ... or education ... or health ... or infrastructure ... yeah, you get it.  Or at least I hope you do!

The president can't "tell it like it is" during delicate negotiations with foreign leaders when finesse and diplomacy are necessary ... and when  you don't know which leader has his hand on the hot button.  "Telling it like it is" may feel good, but when it can send thousands of our men and women into battle ... well, perhaps there should be more substance to the discussion.  Right?

The president doesn't call all the shots and he/she doesn't control Congress or the Courts. The Republican establishment is not about to do everything Trump wants because they know they would never be re-elected if they do.  Stalemate.  Stalemate.  Stalemate.  If you think President Obama has issued too many Executive Orders (and his numbers are quite small compared to other presidents), think of what Donald Trump would attempt!  The man who would be King does not want to relinquish power and yet that is exactly what he will have to do.

Bottom line: Trump would have to give up the very things his supporters like about him in order to get anything done!

Maybe - just maybe - some other politicians can learn from Trump before it's too late and he gets elected!  And there are things to learn:  speak clearly, don't lie to us, tells us what you want to do and give us details because we're not stupid.  And then give us a reason to trust you, because right now ... we don't.  And THAT is why Trump leads in the Republican polls right now. And THAT is why he could be elected.

Marriage - a LEGAL contract

 I've really been getting a kick out of the so-called religious folks whose knickers are in a bunch because of the recent Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality.  They are gnashing their teeth and quoting Leviticus left and right, claiming marriage equality goes against their religion.  Well ... I hate to be the one to burst their bubble, but ....

Just so we all understand:  marriage, as sanctioned by the state (government), has nothing to do with religion.  Nothing.  It is a LEGAL CONTRACT equivalent to property ownership or employment agreements.

If you wish to bring religion into your marriage - or your marriage ceremony - you most certainly can do that.  But you don't have to.  In Arizona, for example, couples can legally be married by a judge, a magistrate, a clerk of the circuit court, or a clerk or clerk-treasurer of a city or town. Nobody has to get married in the eyes of God or any other Supreme Being.  But if you want your marriage to be LEGAL, you do have to get married under the laws of the state and nation.  Why is that?  Because there are LEGAL rights, benefits and protections that are based on marital status, that's why!

Example:  There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.  They range from tax law to social security to immigration to health care to employee benefits. Each state has its own list as well. 

This is exactly why the Supreme Court of the United States ruled for marriage equality.  The 14th Amendment clearly guarantees "equal protection of the laws."  It doesn't say religious doctrine; it says "the laws."  That means the laws governing this country and the individual states.  And to make another point:  the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and trumps state laws every time.

So, please.  From now on, don't use the religion argument when blasting the high court for the marriage equality ruling because it just shows your ignorance about the real issue.  The ruling came down to EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS and, until that ruling, a specific group of people were denied the protection that you have always had.  Uh ... kind of like when women were denied the right to vote.  Or when inter-racial couples were denied the right to marry.  Or when women were denied the right to own property.

When it comes to equality as it pertains to the law, how about quoting the U.S. Constitution instead of Leviticus?

Let's look at the budget ... shall we?

In my previous blog, I hammered the process used by AZ Gov. Doug Ducey and the GOP-controlled legislature.  Now, let's look at the budget itself.  The best article on the subject comes from the Tucson Weekly.  It's clear, very understandable and doesn't contain all the gobbledegook that causes eye strain.  To read it ... click here.  Full credit goes to writer Jim Nintzel and any other Tucson Weekly writer who may have contributed to the article.

I'm going to boil Nintzel's article down to an even more concise overview of Ducey's budget ... the budget he rammed down our throats in the wee hours of the morning, without the "transparency" he so promised in his election campaign.

• Education was nailed left and right, top to bottom, with nearly $100 million coming just from the three state universities.  Even some top conservatives are critical of what Ducey and his minions have done.  What will the monstrous cuts to education do to this state?  I'm going to let you think about it for a bit - and make sure to include Arizona's economy when you do your thinking.
• The Social Safety Net in AZ - whack!!  Remember the big stink when lawmakers discovered that several thousand reports of child abuse had not been investigated?  Remember when former Gov. Jan Brewer created a new agency to handle all that?  Well ... Ducey and the GOP yanked $11 million from that new agency.  Now we know how the governor feels about Arizona children.  Of course, they can't vote.  Many other social safety net programs were slashed, too, leaving many Arizona families ... where?  I can't even imagine.
• Cities and counties will have to pick up the tab.  Hey ... if state funding to cities and counties is reduced, who do you think will have to pay the bill?  Oh ... that's right.  YOU will pay the bill in higher county/city/town fees, fines, and taxes.
• Prisons and prison operators are cheering!  They got a whopping increase of about $39 million.  Perhaps Ducey knows he has to prepare for more prison space due to his cuts to education?  Now that is forward thinking!
• More tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.  Well, come on ... you shouldn't be surprised.  Ducey campaigned on that!  It's simple math.  If you cut taxes, you cut the money coming in to pay for state government.  From the Tucson Weekly article:  "... the Joint Legislative Budget Committee estimates that in fiscal year 2017, they [tax cuts] will cost $190 million more than in the current year, and in the following year, they will cost $267 million more than the current year."  Wow ... want to guess what future Republican budgets will look like?
• Democrats were left out of the process!  Okay, one Democrat voted for the budget, but he got a nice chunk of change for a project in his district.  Let's put it this way:  If you were opposed to this budget, you were not represented in the process because your representatives or senator were not included in the process.  

In a prepared statement, Ducey said,  "This is the job Arizonans hired us for, and I'm proud we were able to get it done in a responsible, swift and bipartisan manner."

Three lies in one sentence!  1) No, Arizona didn't hire you to gut education and social safety net programs and we didn't hire you to keep ignoring the middle class and the poor.  2) This budget was not created through responsible governing because the future of Arizona has been ignored.  3) Bipartisan - that's a laugh.

The only truth to Ducey's statement is that the process was swift.  

The ramifications of his work, however, will last a very, very, very long time.

Governing? I don't think so!

Recently, Arizona saw a great example of political maneuvering, manipulation and intimidation.  

Let me rephrase that:  Arizona saw the result of political maneuvering, manipulation and intimidation.

Okay, let me try again:  Arizona will soon experience the result of political maneuvering, manipulation and intimidation.

I'm talking about the recently-passed Arizona State Budget, a document that stipulates how $9.1 billion will be spent in the next fiscal year.  I can't give details because 1) I don't have them, 2) I wouldn't understand much of it.  

Of course, when it was passed in the wee hours of the morning, some lawmakers hadn't had enough time to really read it and understand all the complexities involved in the document, either.

Let me talk, instead, about how Arizona's GOP governor and legislative leadership worked to get the budget passed in both chambers.  They worked, part of the time, behind closed doors.  This, from a governor who promised "transparency" in his administration.  Uh, huh.  And you know something? We'll never know the full story about the deals that were struck - and the threats made - in an effort to get the governor's budget passed!

But let me make some guesses.  And since I wasn't at the State Capitol when the budget was being discussed, and certainly didn't have any video cams or tape recorders set up, these are guesses.  However ... my suppositions are based on many years covering the Arizona State Legislature in the news media.  I know how it works because I've seen it first hand.

I'll bet the governor met with the GOP leadership of both chambers ... he outlined what he (and his campaign contributors) wanted and they hashed out a few details, coming up with a budget they thought would fly.  And since the GOP controls the House and Senate, this just might be a slam dunk!  Whoopee! 

But there was a problem, you see.  Not all Republicans liked the drastic cuts to education ... and hundreds of pesky constituents showed up at the State Capitol - twice - to protest those cuts.  They also emailed, sent faxes and made phone calls voicing opposition to the budget bill. Those silly soccer moms, teachers, administrators and college students just might actually show up to vote in 2016 when all 90 Arizona legislative seats are up for grabs!

That, according to my script, is when the deals were made.  And maybe some threats, too.  Enter the Majority Whip, stage right.

The Majority Whip is the "enforcer," who typically offers inducements and threatens party members to ensure that they vote according to the official party line. A whip's role is also to ensure that the elected representatives of their party are in attendance when important votes are taken - or to make sure lawmakers stay home if they don't want to play ball.

Here are some of the tactics that the whip and the majority leader (and many times even the governor) will use in order to get the "right" votes from their party members.  And I'll bet you they were used in spades as the GOP rounded up enough votes to pass the Arizona budget bill: 

+ Vote the way we want you to vote or your bills/special projects will never see the light of day.  We will bury them! 
+ Want party campaign money to help you get re-elected?  Vote our way or get nothing! 
+ If you vote our way, then your district will get that special funding you want.  Your fault if the money doesn't come your way! 
+ Still don't want to do it our way?  Then just get sick and stay home so your vote won't hurt us.  Otherwise, you'll pay in some way down the line!  

Do I know this went on at the State Capitol before the budget vote?  No.  Did it probably happen?  Yes.  Why?  Because it's happened before and it will happen again (especially since outside money is playing a huge role in Arizona elections).

This is not governing.  Governing is making sure everyone is heard - and that all of us are represented.  My two representatives and one senator are all Democrats.  Basically, they were left out of the process so I was left out of the process!  Most Arizonans had no voice in those closed-door sessions and the deal-making.

Governing is talking, debating, compromising, listening, and making sure everyone is given the opportunity to participate in the process so that democratic representation truly takes place.  But that didn't happen with regard to the budget.  The self-imposed time line was so short that it was difficult for all the lawmakers to even read the amendments, let alone discuss/debate them!  But you see, the Republicans had to move fast in order to shut down more protests from regular folks like you and me.

Yes ... Arizonans will soon experience the result of political maneuvering, manipulation and intimidation.  I hope they remember that in 2016.