The most recent example that inspired me to consider this combination is the full out assault on public education being waged by a partnership between “parents groups”, the religious right, and several very wealthy corporations, foundations, or individuals.

A lot of people will know of my absolute objection to voucher programs in all forms, and for a variety of reasons. Depending on which angle the pro-voucher propaganda is coming from, the purposes for pushing vouchers as a magical solution to education problems in this country have somewhat insidious ends behind them.

The religious right supports vouchers because they funnel public money into private schools run by churches and religious organizations, and funnel students in their direction as well, which saves them the effort of having to evangelize on foot. Instead, their flock comes to them, and has to cut them a check in the process (because the vouchers often do not cover the entirety of the costs).

If you’re a corporation, you see the benefits of voucher programs as offering up a new revenue stream by providing the opportunity to invest in private schools as commodities. And since everyone wants their child to go to school, and since the population is growing, your investment can only grow. It’s the real estate market for the 21^st century. Nowhere to go but up.

And if you’re a parent who’s easily manipulated by this political marriage of convenience, you believe the tripe about how public schools are failing our children, blah blah blah. When the truth of the matter is that pilot voucher programs have been completely and wholly ineffective in raising the standard of education for those students who have participated. For all the effort and money and time gone into Cleveland’s voucher program, their students tested no better than public school students on the same standardized tests.

There’s a great many things to be upset about, then, if you ignore the platitudes about “winning students” and “21^st century education” and “rescuing our youth from a failed system,” and focus instead on the truths of the matter.

The first truth is money. The churches or religious organizations are in charge of approximately 70% of the private schools in the U.S. To institute a voucher program is a huge boon to their coffers, with guaranteed greenbacks flying in year after year. Second, the corporate sponsors see a number of opportunities, including investment, direct advertising to impressionable minds (because the walls of the school will be lined with whatever they dictate as part of the investment arrangement), and even direct sales of their goods in the cafeteria, bookstore, vending machines, etc. Third, the schools and corporations and corporate leaders who funnel money in to support these programs then dictate the curriculum. And that’s where, above all else, it all goes to hell. Historical inaccuracies, scientific disinformation, and outright omission of facts will abound when Exxon and Coca-Cola are in charge of choosing and/or developing the textbooks for little Timmie’s 4^th grade class.

You can even make the point that an uninformed public simply believes what they’re told and buys what they’re sold, which certainly works for both the religious institutions and the corporations all at the same time. But that’s a larger discussion for another time.

The larger objection to all of this privatization nonsense is, in my mind, the simple truth that allowing an individual or small group of aligned interests to have control over such large institutions is in direct opposition to the founding of this country in the first place. America sought independence from the crown because it was finally realized that letting one person run a country was perhaps the worst thing the people could do. Subject to the whims, moods, greed, hatred, bitterness, and vitriol of a mad monarch was no way to live, and was certainly not in the best interests of the governed.

So too it is with Social Security, Public Education, and the like. Allowing one individual (or an alliance of like-minded fanatics) control over an institution that affects millions of people is the complete antithesis of a democracy. It is the rise of a philosophy that says that “he who yells the loudest must be correct.”

It’s time to stop greasing the squeaky wheel by kowtowing to a small group of aligned interests, and repair the whole damn wagon by focusing on what’s in the interest of the greater good. If people want to have discussions about how to improve the public education system, I’m all ears. But if your suggestion is to eliminate public education altogether, you have forfeited your right to use the microphone. Please step to the side so someone else can offer a suggestion.

Related: Michelle Rhee, while portrayed as a school reformer, actually hates schools too. And is hanging out with other people who hate schools, like “Governor Dead Eyes” Scott Walker.

No doubt you’ve been hearing a lot about the struggles for organized labor in states like Ohio, New Jersey, New Mexico, and of course Wisconsin. So I’ll spare you the recap.

What baffled me about Governor Walker (and his Republican gubernatorial cohorts) was one nagging question – what is the mentality of someone who takes money from the poor (or middle class, or average worker) and, under the obviously faulty logic of “fiscal responsibility”, turns around and gives it to rich people (who already have plenty of money and earnings of their own)?

This has been the trend everywhere lately. In every state I mentioned above, governors are trying to dismantle public worker unions and take away even the most basic collective bargaining options, all painted with the broad brushstrokes of “saving the taxpayer money”. But independent studies have shown that unionized public sector employees have, on the whole, done a more efficient and effective job at a significantly lower cost than private contractors (which is where many of these governors would like to see things headed).

You only need to look as far as Iraq and Afghanistan to know that private contractors are not the answer, are not the solution, and are generally not a very good idea is “efficiency” and “effectiveness” are truly your goals.

So, in the face of all this evidence, in the face of reason and logic, why in the world would anyone think this is a proper course of action?

I think I’ve finally figured it out. Scott Walker wants the “cool kids” (read: Rich People) to hang out with him. He’s hoping he might finally be allowed to join their club. And he’s willing to do anything to be considered among their “pals”.

You know how this goes. This is grade school mentality gone awry. The cool kids get some younger, dorkier kid to do their bidding with the promise (spoken or otherwise) of being allowed to hang out with them.

“Hey, I’ll tell you what, if you go in that store and steal us all candy bars, then maybe we’ll let you hang out with us later on.”

That’s the only explanation that I can think of.

Scott Walker was never the cool kid. And he’s probably got a lot more money than most of us, but still isn’t as disgustingly wealthy as the Koch brothers. And so maybe he’s desperate to join their ranks.

And he’ll do anything to be allowed to hang out with the rich kids.

He’ll take the ball (money, rights, etc.) away from the little kids (working class) and give it to the bigger kids (rich people), just to have it kicked or thrown away. Taken simply because it could be. Taken simply to be a bully to someone smaller, weaker, unable to fight back.

That is your explanation. Scott Walker is a putz. He’s the kid that no one wants to hang out with, because he tries too hard to fit in with one group while alienating another. He’s loathsome, but he’s also an effective puppet for the individuals that he desires to be counted with.

He’s the third grader who picks on and takes from the first graders at the behest of the fifth graders.

He’s a half-ass bully and a sad sack, all at the same time.

Moreover, though, it’s obvious by legislation coming up in several states across the country (all at roughly the same time, I might add) that there is a concerted effort to further disenfranchise, disown, disavow, and disrespect workers. Not coincidentally, the legislation is being introduced or supported or rammed through by newly elected Republican governors – governors who just happen to have been supported by large corporations and businesses and “special interests” (that are also funded by large corporations and businesses).

The more I think about it, the more I really can’t understand why an average person wouldn’t support the labor movement right now. Unions are one of the few ways that people can protect their own livelihood and their families. Unions are one of the few ways people can ensure that they get paid a fair wage that matches what it truly costs to live in this country (especially when gas is $3.50/gallon here in my area, while the rest of the economy is still far from recovered).

And, most important, unions are perhaps the only tool left for protecting workers from giant, multi-national corporations and conglomerates using and abusing workers.

The labor movement began at a time when one guy or a couple of people owned one big factory, and the conditions within that one place were terrible. Safety concerns weren’t on the radar, and if somebody fell over from too much work, there was someone else looking for a job to fill that slot on the line.

Those companies, though they could have grown to be considered “large” in their time, are nothing compared to even just one arm of one of the multinationals operating nowadays. And if you think those organizations wouldn’t lower wages/benefits/conditions/standards to pinch pennies and make the stock price look even prettier, then you may be dangerously out of touch with our present reality.

I’ve had jobs in the past that needed a union. Sitting in a cubicle writing about whatever the project was that particular day – No. Watching friends work 14-16-hour days for barely minimum wage, with health “benefits” that cost too much to even consider enrolling – Yes.

In essence, businesses will get away with virtually anything they can up until someone tells them to stop. There are a handful of labor laws built in to federal and state levels to protect workers, but far from the standards that unions and their members protect.

I realize that Republican leadership in Wisconsin is not discussing abolishing the weekend, or paying all their employees in Gouda, or anything silly like that. But what they are discussing is stripping people of their ability to sit down and come to a reasonable agreement about wages and benefits that is agreeable for both parties.

In the interest of honesty, I will say that I think there have been a number of instances in the past where unions have overstepped, or where employers have overpromised. Case in point – the U.S. government has had to prop up the automakers in this country a few too many times for my liking. But, those automakers also promised the world to those workers without much consideration for the future. (Their lack of ability to foresee the future shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who, like me, is still waiting for their damn flying car and jetpack.)

Back to my point – It is not that I unreasonably oppose employers (including local and state governments) having to say to their employees “we need to find a way to come to an agreement that helps us rein in some of our financial burdens, or we’re going to be in a bad spot here pretty soon”. What I do oppose is employers telling their employees “no, we don’t have to talk to you, and we’re not going to talk to you, and if you don’t like the seven clam shells we pay you per week, there’s always McDonald’s”.

Unions (and their members) are capable of making some pretty significant concessions in the here and now, so long as it ensures that their families will be cared for now and later. That’s the primary concern of virtually every union member everywhere. But they can’t demonstrate that if their employers aren’t even willing to sit down for a chat.

First up, let’s begin with something pleasant – Happy New Year, all. I hope for a very good 2011 for everyone. Even the billions of people out there who won’t read this blog. But hey, it’s the thought that counts.

And now, on with the show.

(Note – This is certain to be one of my least popular blog posts ever. Enjoy!)

As many of you may have heard/read/seen, lawmakers in the state of Illinois passed some last minute legislation in the wee hours this morning, including an income tax adjustment.

Make special note of the word choice above – I have chosen to term this a tax adjustment, even though none of the knee-jerk reactionary press or citizens have done so. And I have chosen that particular term for several important reasons.

The first is that the state of Illinois, even with this (spooky number time!) 66% increase, still has a lower income tax rate for its residents than several other Midwestern states (Iowa, Wisconsin, we’re looking at you). Illinois, with the third largest city in the country in Chicago, has a whole lot of residents. So, obviously, each person can contribute a smaller amount, and the end result will still be a great deal of money. So yes, residents of Iowa each pay more because there are perhaps fewer of them paying into the system. BUT – keep in mind that more residents also require more funds for services, supplies, and materials. So the expenditures of the state of Illinois are also understandably higher than other states in the region that somehow still have a higher income tax rate.

So many people like to blame Democrats, of course, but let’s not forget those heady “Pre-Blago” years, when the state and its residents were doing fairly well. Who held the offices in the land in those days? None other than Republican governors Edgar and Ryan, who couldn’t be expected to raise taxes much (if at all) if they were to maintain their standing under the banner of Republicanism. Edgar of course promised not to raise taxes, but did in the face of necessity. (He also endorsed the current tax hike legislation that Gov. Quinn will sign, which comes as no surprise considering that former Gov. Edgar draws a state pension, and the pension fund is in dire need of some cash – cash that will be provided by this tax increase that he personally benefits from while Democrats in the legislature take the heat and bad press.) And Governor Ryan promised similarly not to raise the income tax, a pledge he held to – while raising other taxes instead. Still, though, people bought into the idea that taxes wouldn’t be raised, and somehow stuff would still be paid for.

I term this an adjustment also because there were alternatives to this plan. There was another way. The alternative would have been voting for politicians in D.C. who would allow the government to tax the filthy, stinking rich, their estates, and the corporations they “run”. If they had, the federal government would have the funds needed to send to/subsidize state budgets and services, preventing states like California and Illinois from going bankrupt, and (*gasp) preventing an increase in the state income tax level for individuals. But since so many voters bought into the Reagan-esque rhetoric of “taxing rich people will cause them to be big fat meanies to the economy and not hire people and then we’re all doomed”, the states that offer the most to their residents are left hanging by a thin fiscal thread and searching in the dark for some type of relief.

Of course, Republicans in Illinois not only opposed the income tax adjustment, but opposed all of the alternatives too. No increased tax on cigarettes (which would have raised revenue for education budgets statewide), no authorization to borrow funds in order to make sure that the state could pay its bills (including the millions of dollars owed to learning institutions like the University of Illinois, which would have then been able to loosen the choke hold on hiring if some or all of those funds were available, which might have actually helped lower the state’s unemployment rate). So what, then, is the alternative? Either the state goes bankrupt, or the state cuts everything (and bankrupts the citizens in the process by eliminating paychecks, jobs, schools, etc.).

Ah yes, the grand, mythical beast that is “Spending Cuts”. Like a Nordic deity, invoked time and again when it is necessary to frighten the villagers and keep them in order, the rhetoric of “Spending Cuts” is repeated ad nauseum, shouted throughout the halls of government and the streets and the microphones of an eager press corps too lazy to do any actual question asking.

Unlike Nordic deities, however, these “Spending Cuts” are never named. They are not given specific identities so that the villagers may embrace them. It is supposed by the imperial wizards of the GOP that the concept of “Spending Cuts” alone should be enough to hoist the magic wand of fiscal responsibility over the entirety of the land and restore economic sanity.

But when pressed with questions like “what, specifically, would you suggest cutting?”, the answer is, like the Nordic deity, non-existent. It is a specter, a vapor, an ethereal concept whose existence and specifics are never to be questioned.

I will ask it, though – where, then, should we cut? Where will all of the budget deficit be recovered with one simple swipe of Thor’s hammer?

The answer is that there is no answer. The two largest state expenditures, education and medicare, are already strapped and strained under the weight of neglect and a still-waning economy. And even if, if, you could make any cuts to one, the other, or both, you would still be well short of the amount of money needed just to keep the state of Illinois from falling off a financial cliff.

Do you think, as so many of them want you to think, that this tax increase will cause businesses to leave the state in search of greener pastures? I would ask you this, then; where will they go? California, perhaps?

There’s a lot to consider before a business can move its operations to another state. One major factor is whether there will be a large, skilled pool of workers from which to hire and recruit and profit. And while Illinois might not be New York, the balance between cost of operation, access to goods and services, and abundant skilled workforce is strong enough that I believe these threats from “business leaders” are empty and meaningless.

Illinois has had no shortage of criticism following this move, including from our next-door neighbor state Indiana. A lot of talk about how they haven’t raised taxes and how they love business and what not. Except that Indiana did raise taxes. They just did that in 2008, before the bottom of the economy fell out from underneath everyone.

That above link also points out the reality of several other bogus claims, like the praise for Gov. Christie in New Jersey. He claims to have balanced the budget out there, except that they’re still facing a $10.5 billion deficit, which is down from the $10.7 billion. So I guess that’s something.

The point of all of this is that I don’t think taxes are the end of the world, but so many people seem to. A big thanks to previous Republicans for making taxation the other, other, other third rail in American politics, because it seems to me that you simply can’t even talk about them without unleashing a torrent of vitriol on yourself. But that’s absurd. The basis of a functioning government is the ability and willingness of people to talk about problems and arrive at a solution. In this case, the problem is that the State of Illinois is having trouble paying for basic services that people have come to expect. The solution in this case is to (temporarily, mind you) raise the taxes at some level. But there, again, is the third rail issue, because many Republicans and pundits have made it impossible to even suggest raising taxes on people who can actually afford it (rich folks and big business, I’m looking at you). Thus, the average person sees their taxes raised instead, all in the name of not offending the wealthy out of some irrational and unproven fear that they might “take their ball and go home”.

A final point – I’m comfortable calling for taxing the rich and taxing big business for one reason – because I know almost without one single shred of doubt that I will never be one of them. And I know that most of my friends, relatives, colleagues, acquaintances, and associates will never be one of them either. I’d also like to think that, should I some day, by some miracle, join that group of moneyed people, I’ll be fairly comfortable with paying a slightly higher tax rate than those who have not. Because I went to the same schools, drove on the same roads, relied on the same road signs, utilized the same infrastructure, and generally made use of the same collective resources as others, and for the longest time I didn’t pay all that much for them.

As an additional prelude to this post, you may want to read Dan Froomkin’s piece on how we may be headed for another financial disaster, with housing prices in the country plummeting yet again, even as we’re in the midst of a tenuous economic recovery.

Now, on with the show.

There’s a real rift growing between the have-a-lots and the have-nothings in this country, and for a variety of reasons. Income inequality, disproportionate distribution of wealth at the very tippy-top of the population, growing economic strife and struggle among 90% of the population, the complete and utter decimation of the middle class, etc.

And most people are primarily upset with the nonchalance exhibited by the wealthy or moderately wealthy towards the current economic standing of the many. That, in my estimation, is the thorn that really sticks in the side of people who are just trying to get by.

But before you run out and wrap one of your last remaining blankets around a stick and light it on fire for a makeshift torch, take a step back and try to understand the other side.

And by understand the other side, I mean “understand that the rich don’t understand you”.

It’s true. The rich don’t understand your troubles, your day-to-day stress level, or the worries that plague your days and deprive you of sleep each night.

How could they? They’ve likely never had concerns like yours. They probably haven’t ever spent a single moment wondering how they’re going to make the house payment (on their vacation cottage on the Vineyard), or whether their (third) car would be repossessed, or if they would be able to afford the electric bill (for their in-home sauna and grotto filtration system).

So they don’t understand. They can’t understand. Their existence lacks the kinds of character-building experiences that regular people deal with each and every single day.

And, to be fair, they have concerns of their own.

In fact, their concerns are hard work. The sorts of things that worry rich people take an awful lot of energy.

Mainly because they have to make them up first.

You see, the drama that populates the minds of the wealthy has to be manufactured. They have no real concerns, and so they must pick up their imaginations and create it themselves.

And that’s hard work, crafting your own drama. Much like the sweat and labor and craftsmanship that goes into their marble staircases and hand-built Mercedes-Benz AMG car engines and the hand-laid tiling in their new in-ground pool.

Rich people have it rough, man. Making up all the things that they worry about in between sips of 50-year-old scotch and bites of $330,000 white truffle is incredibly difficult. Particularly when you don’t have a little help from real, ordinary life concerns to give you a starting point.

The blank slate is a difficult place to work from, and rich people are stuck with it all the time. Like a lump of clay without form, they must make something from virtually nothing.

And so, like the underpaid and malnourished workers who mine their wives’ diamonds in the sweltering heat, they roll up their sleeves and get to work, concocting all sorts of concerns for themselves.

“These taxes are keeping me from upgrading the sound system on my yacht. How can I reduce what I pay my employees in order to save a little something for me?”

“Which superstar musical artist will I hire for several thousand dollars to play for about 7 minutes at my daughter’s thirteenth birthday party?”

“Where will I find a private charter jet to fly my wife and I 500 miles for a seafood dinner on the coast?”

“Waiter, wasn’t this dessert supposed to come with a layer of genuine gold on top?”

You see – who among us has the fortitude, the strength, the resolve to stand up and craft our own concerns like these? And how can we be so upset with the rich, understanding how much effort they must put in to craft their own drama, their own worries and doubts?

So, next time you’re consumed with some silly woe like “how will I afford to put brakes on this hunk of crap car so I can get to work and continue to earn just enough to buy food for my kids?” or “will I be able to finally make the house payment this month?” or “I sure hope the kids don’t grow for a few more days, because I don’t have any money left to buy them clothes right now”, think of how hard it must be for rich people. After all, your concerns and worries and stressors are just sitting right there, pre-made and ready to thwart your every attempt to live a comfortable life, get a good night’s sleep, or avoid an ulcer.

But rich people have to come up with their own. And that’s hard work.

Is that right? I’m just going on the overall use of terms and the prevalent media definitions here.

Seriously, the media outlets and talking heads and tea party wankers and everyone else out there seems to have completely shifted the definition of the word “terrorist” to include some clause or stipulation about skin color and religious affiliation.

While the article linked above does not delve into speculation or information about the suspect’s religious affiliation, it also refuses even hinting at the term “terrorist” or “terror plot”.

Did I miss something? Did domestic terrorism end in Oklahoma City (which was very, very early on speculated to be the work of Islamic terrorists, by the way)?

Oklahoma City, Columbine, the guy that flew his small aircraft into the IRS building – these are all acts of terror. They are terrorism. Plain and simple. And it doesn’t matter if they perpetrated by a person or persons of any specific religious affiliation.

Sometimes we need to call a spade a spade. There is still such a thing as domestic terrorism. And we probably need to be more prepared for those acts than for anything else.

Which makes using the correct terminology all that much more important. If we refuse to identify a problem by name, it doesn’t just go away. In fact, it gets worse.

Tell the press to quit pussyfootin’ around. And tell everyone to quit assuming that “acts of terror” are only perpetrated by people of a certain faith or ethnicity. They’re not. They’re perpetrated by crazy people, and crazy people come in every flavor.

*Addendum – Luckily, Glenn Beck knows that not every Muslim is a terrorist. Just 157 million of them. /facepalmANDheaddesk

The cruel irony is that you’re hearing it from a group of politicians and pundits who are actively, vehemently, and viciously opposed to any and all forms of progress or change – much like the school child who throws a tantrum because they don’t want to change grades, or don’t want to try a new food simply because it’s “different”, or don’t want to play by the rules of that game because it’s “different”.

Far from “adult” indeed.

It may be wrong to lump all politicians on the right side of the aisle together as “anti-progress”, but it’s also hard to avoid doing so when their most vocal squeaky wheels parrot the same regression-centered talking points.

This post provides a pretty good list of points of regression, including:

“…science is under assault, the environment is being ravaged, women’s right and gay rights are regressing, religious tolerance is evaporating, civil liberties are being dismantled, wealth disparities are exploding, privacy is disappearing, and wars are being waged with no end.”

As mentioned in the above post, “American Exceptionalism” is another phrase you’re likely to hear a lot of (if you spend too much of your time watching cable news or studying talking points). And, as mentioned in the post above, the use of the phrase by some is absolutely counter to the actual meaning of the phrase.

If you break down the phrase to just one base word, it would have to be “exceptional”. And, as defined by Merriam-Webster, exceptional means “1: forming an exception: rare 2: better than average: superior”.

When considered in the context of some of the factors listed above, “American Exceptionalism” would seem to me to mean things like:

1)      Better than average civil rights

2)      Rare (in the world) religious tolerance

3)      Superior environmental protection

4)      Superior scientific study and development

5)      Etc.

But, in the view of the most vocal talking heads and politicians on the right, American Exceptionalism equates to:

1)      Removal of rights and protections for women and homosexuals

2)      Thinly veiled disdain for, and removal of rights from, non-christian religions

3)      Rolling back and/or removing environmental protections (to decades earlier levels, if any)

4)      Reduced or eliminated funding for scientific research and advancement

5)      Etc.

Surely I’m not the only one that sees a tremendous disparity between the claims of protecting American Exceptionalism, and the reality of their rhetoric and beliefs. There’s nothing “superior” about repressing certain groups of people simply because they’re “different” – it’s happened in history for centuries, and continues to happen to this day in places like Central Africa and the Middle East. And, sadly, right here in America.

Far from exceptional.

There’s nothing “better than average” about stifling scientific inquiry by choking off funding. Science was repressed and renounced by the church for centuries. Likewise, education was actively withheld from lower classes, reserved only for a select few, and quite often in those cases based in religious institutions.

Far from exceptional.

There’s nothing rare about destroying or refusing to protect the environment. Mankind has pumped pollutants into the air and water, caused chemical spills and wildfires, blown holes in mountains, ravaged entire forests and more for centuries.

Far from exceptional.

Additionally, there’s nothing exceptional about tax cuts for the wealthy, or loopholes and tax dodges for corporations, or anything of that sort.

If there were a genuine belief in “American Exceptionalism”, there would be efforts to advance civil rights, religious tolerance, scientific study, financial security and more – on both sides of the aisle.

That is what would be truly exceptional. A system of representatives of the people who are working for the people. What is truly unexceptional is a group of elected officials who, in the midst of a continuing economic crisis, and in the face of crumbling infrastructure and dire safety concerns, decide that priority A1 is deficit reduction. Deficit reduction that can only be achieved (at least, in their narrow world view) by cutting the handful of legitimately “exceptional” programs this country has to offer (Medicaid, Social Security and Unemployment Insurance being chief among those).

Thus, laying claim to some grand, immaterial notion like “American Exceptionalism” is, dare I say it, far from exceptional.

And so, take them for what they are – Modest Proposals. Check back all this week for additional topics and proposals as we prepare to head to the polls next Tuesday.

________________________________________

Your yellow ribbon magnet means nothing.

I don’t mean to say that you don’t support the troops. Not at all. Many people who have a yellow ribbon magnet on their car may also have a friend or family member who is serving/has served. And for that I am grateful.

But the magnet doesn’t really mean anything.

What gets lost in the rhetoric around the “support our troops” rallying cry is what it means to actually support our troops.

Your full-throated and occasional cheer is not enough. Your bumper sticker and ribbon are not enough. For several years, the budget of the Veterans Administraion in this country wasn’t enough.

Because it seems to me that there’s plenty of money for bombs, and plenty of money for jet fuel to send our troops into harm’s way. But where’s the money to rehabilitate them when they get home? And where is that same full-throated rallying-cry pseudo-patriotic energy when they get back and actually need help?

It’s counterintuitive to ask someone to do a job that few are willing or able to do, and then, as a thank you, offer them virtually no support when they get home. It’s shameful, in fact.

Instead of a “support our troops” sign in your lawn, today’s modest proposal is this – Actually supporting the troops.

Take the ribbon off the tree and use it to wrap up a care package.

Donate time or money (or both) to a local counseling center that actually offers assistance to returning troops.

Spend some time actually talking to men and women who have served, and find out just a little bit about what they’ve done, or what they need, or what they think should be done.

Because I’m willing to bet that not a one of them gives a crap about a magnet on your car.

In doing a little research for this week’s posts, I came across some information that President Obama’s VA budget was historically high.

As it should be, considering we’re sending troops to fight 2 wars (regardless of the end of combat operations in Iraq, men and women in uniform are going to be there for a long, long time). But this is the kind of budget for veterans that should have been introduced before the first boots arrived on the ground in the Middle East.

It’s called ‘planning’. Check it out.

That is past now. The point is that those of us (myself included) who purport to support our troops need to step up to the plate and prove it.

And that especially goes for politicians and candidates.

Specifically, those useless mouthpiece candidates who like to invoke the image of the American Fighting Soldier only when their poll numbers dip, or when they’re in front of a crowd that needs to be roused a bit.

If you really want to show your support for our troops, then actually show it. Thank every man or woman who has served or is serving when you see/meet them. Send flowers to and/or attend memorial services for local residents who have died as a result of military operations. Write to senators and congress members to demand that the right funding goes to the right needs and services for our troops. Demand that the quality of care that our men and women in uniform receive is beyond adequate.

Genuinely showing your support can be as simple as a handshake or a donation. But it’s going to require a bit more than slapping a $4.99 magnet on the side of your minivan and calling yourself a “patriotic American”.

That’s the last of the Modest Proposals for this week. Along with a friendly reminder to vote Tuesday, November 2^nd.

Thank you for reading.

And so, take them for what they are – Modest Proposals. Check back all this week for additional topics and proposals as we prepare to head to the polls next Tuesday.

_______________________________________________

You ever wonder what happened to Ross Perot?

I invoke the name of Perot not because I would have voted for him, and not merely because he was a crazy rich guy (he was), but because he is essentially the only viable third-party candidate that this country has had in recent history.

I’ll no doubt be bringing down a crashing chorus of calls from Nader supporters, but the numbers tell the tale. In ’92, when Nader was also on the ballot, Perot pulled 19.2% of the general votes. The highest Nader has ever finished is 2.7%.

So why make the argument for a third-party candidate? Won’t a third-party candidate of any worth simply siphon votes from one of the other candidates, to the detriment of the entire selection process?

The track record so far has shown that not to be the case. Even in ’92 (according to the article linked above), Perot’s supporters would have likely split virtually down the middle for either Bush or Clinton, give or take a percentage point or two (certainly not enough to toss electoral votes in one direction or the other).

So why a third-party candidate? To agitate the other two.

When there are only two individuals in the race, they both have a vested interest in not pressing the other candidate too far on any one given issue. (Of course, that’s supposed to be the job of an independent press, but you see how well our press has been doing in recent years/decades.) They can’t push the other guy too far or too hard for fear of what’s going to jump out of their closet. So there’s an imagined line that never really gets pressed.

But when there’s a third-party candidate, that individual can take shots at both of the other candidates equally, and can raise issues that are going to force the other candidates to speak honestly (or as close to honestly as a politician is ever going to get).

I’m not looking for a third-party candidate who’s going to siphon electoral college votes away from the main candidates. But don’t tell them I said that.

My hope is for a candidate who can actually press the issues. There are a lot of people who are tired of the hemming and hawing around the issues. Lack of information has become the standard. All filler, no killer. We’re done with that.

Get a candidate in the debates and on the campaign trail if for no other reason than to make the other two have to respond. Keep them on their toes. If they won’t say something or address something or answer something, make them. And what better way than to present a credible threat to their election/reelection hopes.

That’s the fourth of the Modest Proposals for this week. Along with a friendly reminder to vote Tuesday, November 2nd.

Thanks for reading, and check back for more as the week winds on.

And so, take them for what they are – Modest Proposals. Check back all this week for additional topics and proposals as we prepare to head to the polls next Tuesday.

_____________________________________________

Have you ever received an e-mail from someone that you could barely read? I mean an e-mail typed in English, on a standard keyboard, and presented in a standard format, but virtually illegible? Probably due to a complete lack of capitalization, punctuation, etc.

Have you ever received that e-mail from someone who makes significantly more money than you? And how did that make you feel?

If you replied “angry” or “bitter” or “stabby”, then you are not alone. For I too have received those messages.

And I’ve had to read scripts for radio that were not even composed of complete sentences.

And I’ve had to fix the writing of people who made more money than I. And more than I probably ever would.

And I’ve noticed something – apparently nobody knows (or cares) how to write anymore.

I’m not talking about being the next Hemingway or Shakespeare or even Dr. Friggin’ Seuss. I’m talking about being able to compose a coherent, grammatically correct, properly punctuated piece of communication.

Written language used to be a measure of an advanced society. And more advanced writing meant that society too was more advanced. But we seem to have eschewed that along the way somewhere.

All I’m asking is that people be taught to write like a respectable and respectful adult. If you would even consider sending an e-mail to a CEO or Senator or even your regional supervisor with either “lolz” or “wtf” in it, your paycheck should immediately become someone else’s property (preferably mine).

I hear stories all the time about terrible papers being turned in or e-mails being sent to teachers and professors. And not from fresh-outta-high-school kids, either. Juniors and seniors about to flood the job market with terrible grammar in cover letters and terrible spelling on their resumes.

So, for today’s proposal – mandatory courses on proper composition. I’m not talking about your ground level intro to writing course, either. Composition of essays and papers is another topic and is (hopefully) already being covered.

This series of courses specifically focuses on writing an e-mail, writing a cover letter, writing a thank you note (which some of these unfortunate souls have never even heard of). Even writing a text message to your boss in plain English.

Doesn’t sound complicated, does it? And yet, I would venture a guess that anyone reading this has gotten an e-mail like that, or read a handout in a meeting that made them question their decades of schooling and thousands of pages of written work turned in over those years.

Feel free to share your tales of woe below. Maybe I’m blowing this idea a bit out of proportion due to my various jobs as a copywriter and creative writer over the years. But I don’t think it’s out of the question to ask that, when I get an e-mail from someone telling me that I have extra work to do or that something needs to be changed at the last possible minute, that message be legible and comprehendible.

That’s the third of the Modest Proposals for this week. Along with a friendly reminder to vote Tuesday, November 2^nd.

Thanks for reading, and check back for more as the week winds on.