This month marks the 70th anniversary of the opening of 'The Wizard of Oz'. It's a movie that has in innumerable ways penetrated the consciousness of tens of millions (especially in the 50 years since it first became a holiday staple on network tv).
Little known: The Wizard of Oz (both as book and as film) is filled with rather subversive political reference and relevance. Frank Baum (author of the original Oz books) was a populist, and his mother was a staunch feminist. The plot line can be read as an allegory about the populist movement's efforts to link farmers and workers against the gold standard. The film translated the tale to the great depression, the New Deal and FDR. The humbuggery of the Wizard, in both book and movie, is a strong critique of politicians and our tendency to expect them to provide solutions, when, all the while, we have answers within ourselves.
The prime author of the film was the lyricist E Y Harburg. Yip Harburg was a very politically conscious writer with a talent for light verse that rivalled his role model W. S. Gilbert. His politics led to his blacklisting in Hollywood in the 50s. His great Broadway stage success was Finian's Rainbow. That show is about to open in a Broadway revival, fifty years after its last Broadway appearance.
This week on Culture of Protest I'll have a 2 hour block. We'll air two special documentaries about the political/social meanings of the Wizard of Oz and Over the Rainbow (its signature song). We'll hear some of the socially significant songs from Finian's Rainbow and a documentary about another of Yips' classics: Brother Can you Spare a Dime. That anthem of the great depression remains unfortunately pertinent...
This is all on Thursday, October 1 6-8 pm (PST) at KCSB 91.9 fm. It streams at www.kcsb.org.
Tags: Wizard of Oz, e. y. harburg, great depression
UC faculty are buzzing about an interview Pres. Mark Yudof gave to Deborah Solomon of the NY Times Magazine yesterday. Ms Solomon is skilled at giving celebrity interviewees the chance to make pungent comments that are sometimes insightful, and sometimes embarrassing. Pres. Yudof chose the latter approach. After claiming that the fiscal crisis of the university is because 'the shine is off education', there was the following exchange:
Already professors on all 10 U.C. campuses are taking required "furloughs," to use a buzzword. Let me tell you why we used it. The faculty said "furlough" sounds more temporary than "salary cut," and being president of the University of California is like being manager of a cemetery: there are many people under you, but no one is listening. I listen to them. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/magazine/27fob-q4-t.html?_r=2
The 'cemetery' analogy is, shall we say, inept (but scholars have quickly found via Google that Yudof loves to use this when talking about being a university administrator). But faculty are reading his remarks about the furloughs as a strong indication that he expects the salary cuts to be permanent.
Pres. Yudof was the preferred candidate, one surmises, of several very powerful and headstrong corporate Regents, including billionaire Richard Blum (spouse of Sen. Feinstein) and Gerald Parsky (who as we've noted here favors a flat income tax and other ways for the rich to exempt themselves from taxation.) Both of these guys were former chairs of the Regents. So it may well be that Pres. Yudof thinks his job description involves the further privatization and downsizing of the once great University.
Last Thursday thousands of faculty, staff and students throughout the state inaugurated what might well turn out to be a full scale movement to challenge that agenda. Yudof's interview was well-timed to increase that mobilization. But as I said in a previous post, such a movement needs to reach out beyond the university to all those affected by the state fiscal crisis.
On October 14, there will be a teach in at UCSB, organized by a group of staff, faculty and students. Speakers will include Prof. George L akoff, the Berkeley linguistics prof who has been a leader in the emerging movement, Stan Glantz, another system-wide faculty leader , Lonnie Hancock, legislative leader in favor of major political reform, Lennie Goldberg, the leading state expert on progressive tax alternatives, and Ruth Gilmore, who will trace the way the prison system now serves as a major obstacle to progressive policy. They'll be joined by staff union and student leaders. There will be major panels in Campbell Hall, and ample room for smaller group discussion.
For more information on the emerging movement in general and the teach in per se:
And for a comprehensive overview of all that has happening, and what the UC reformers are thinking, this is excellent: http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/
This week on my radio show, we'll be listening to Mary Travers; voice. She died last week after a long bout with leukemia at age 72. Back in the sixties, folkies like me were a bit disdainful of Peter Paul and Mary who took traditional songs and the new songs of protest and made them commercial The Weaves and Pete Seeger had been blacklisted; PPM took their repertory and popularized it. And they were the ones who made Bob Dylan's anthems world famous. We much preferred his raw and original voice to what we thought was there bland arrangements. And in person the trio seemed almost puppet like in their scripted performances.
Hearing the work today opens up a different view. First of all, they were musically far more complex and interesting than one might have thought back then. And it's clear that the great songs of protest that they made big hits would not have been as widely known and cherished. If you want to be reminded of their work (and also hear some terrific recent performances by Mary and the trio) tune in Thursday at 6 pm pacific time. For locals it's at 91.9 FM. You can get it streaming at www.kcsb.org. And I have found work that Mary did when she was at Elizabeth Irwin High School, as a member of a group called the Song Swappers. You'll hear her teen age voice belting out a classic labor hymn.
Tags: mary travers, peter paul and mary, folk songs
Thursday (9/24) is first day of class at UCSB. Returning students will be paying a good deal more this year--and getting a lot less. Many classes have been canceled because of budgetary shortfalls. Faculty and staff furloughs will reduce services and the number of class days per quarter. The first day of class is always a bit chaotic as students shop for classes and try to crash stuffed lecture rooms. This week will be much worse because of the cuts...and because a number of faculty will be observing a "walkout". Staff and faculty unions throughout the state are walking out on September 24. Some of the campuses have been open for weeks already, so their walkouts may well be widespread and well organized. At UCSB, at least some faculty will be using the first day to support the state wide action in one way or another. And it seems that student groups across the state will also be marking the day to protest the declining value and rising costs of their education.
The main public event at UCSB is a rally at the Arbor, scheduled to start at 11:30. If you know of other happenings please comment below. The 9-24 protests focus on what organizers are calling 'mismanagement' of the crisis by Pres. Yudof. There's dispute about whether the UC administration could use pots of money not allocated for instruction to offset the huge cuts the state budget has inflicted. There's widespread shock over the proposal, now being pondered by the Regents, to increase student tuition again during the current year. Faculty and staff 'furloughs' for next year are now on the table (these mean thousands of dollars of lost pay to each employee).
Personally, I think its clear that the crisis is not simply internal to the UC system, All of us at the university need to be thinking and acting in concert with everyone else in the state whose salaries are being cut, jobs being threatened and essential services being slashed. And we need to work for solutions that can help make California move in a new direction.
Another UCSB action aimed at doing just that is a teach-in planned for October 14--and educational happening open to community as well as campus folks. I'll be telling more about this soon.
It's crucial to start a big debate on the tax structure of California. I want to make a point that has been bugging me for years: For decades the University of California provided essentially a free education. Beneficiaries of this were many members of the business and political elite of this state. Yet many of these have resisted tax reforms that would help maintain affordable access to the UC system for the new generation. A good case in point is the just issued report by a thing called the Commission on the 21st Century headed by Gerald Parsky. This body , created by the gov. and Karen Bass, assembly speaker, is loaded with corporate leaders. They were charged with proposing a tax reform for the state (but the problem they were asked to solve was the alleged 'volatility' (unpredictability) of state revenue. They just released a report that provides for a virtually flat income tax (that would cut taxes for millionaires by 100 grand, and cut taxes for middle class folks by $4 (I'm not kidding). They propose a new business tax to be levied on all goods and services in the state to replace lost revenue from the income tax cut they want. They also advocate drilling in the coastal waters as a revenue generator. What they haven't proposed is an oil 'severance' tax (something all other oil producing states require). they propose no reform of prop 13 despite the enormous inequities that its current provisions are producing.
It's time to start talking about the tax structure. And its time for UC alumni to think about the debt they owe to the current and future generations of students struggling to pay for an education they got for virtually nothing.
First of all: some report having trouble registering here so they can make comments. You do need to know that 'STATE ST." is the correct answer to the question about Santa Barbara's main street. Scroll down and you'll find complete instructions on how to register.
My post yesterday aimed at getting health care supporters to see that the time is more than ripe for getting out in the streets to support real reform. A crucial moment will come when the house ( as expected) passes a bill that embodies a strong public option--and the senate doesn't. I think many of us would trek to Washington to rally around a bill that's reasonably progressive. But meanwhile, there are signs of grassroots organizing that may have potential. The big coalition supporting the administration healthcare reform is HCAN. Tomorrow in many cities, they plan what may be some good theater. If you know when and if Santa Barbara will be site for such protests (they are planned in waves over the next few weeks) let us know!
Nearly 200 "Big Insurance: Sick of It" Protests Happening Nationwide on Tuesday
Health Care for America Now Partners to Protest Insurance Companies; Demand They Stop Denying Care
Washington, DC - On Tuesday September 22, 2009, Health Care for America Now (HCAN) partners will hold a "Big Insurance: Sick Of It" day of action nationwide to highlight private health insurance industry abuses and call for reform that guarantees good, affordable health care and includes the choice of a strong national public health insurance option.
MoveOn.org Political Action is leading more than 100 events across the country. Other Health Care for America Now coalition partners are spearheading an additional 80 events, including 30 organized by SEIU. Three flagship events will be taking place outside major insurance company headquarters in Minneapolis (United HealthCare), Indianapolis (WellPoint), and Philadelphia (Cigna). Wendell Potter - the former Cigna executive who has been speaking out against the insurance industry - will be attending the event in Philadelphia.
Two other large-scale actions will take place in Hartford, CT - the insurance capital of the nation - and in Milwaukee, WI where WellPoint CEO Angela Braly is delivering the keynote speech at Marquette University's annual Business Leaders Forum luncheon.
As the health care reform debate rages on in Washington, the protests will highlight how Americans are suffering every day because of the profit-driven policies of the health insurance industry. People wronged by insurers will share their personal stories, and in some instances, protesters will read the stories of those who are no longer with us due to insurance company abuses.
Every liberal and progressive blogger is advising the president about strategies for change--except for those who are busy voicing their disappointment and disillusionment with him.
The strongest criticisms are about the many compromises built into the president's policies: the weakness of the financial regulation he's proposing, the refusal to support single payer health-care reform (and the seeming backing away from the 'government option'), the escalation of the Afghanistan war, the many compromises with the CIA on 'torture' issues, the failure to support gay rights, etc. Many progressive writers may grant the need for compromise and gradualism, but are upset when Obama seems to prefer accommodation and avoids aggressive confrontation with those who are against him. 'He needs to show how tough he is if he expects to prevail', is a very popular refrain.
The left critiques are valid and necessary but they run the risk of demoralizing progressive constituencies, and of feeding the cynicism now being exploited by right wing demagogues. Instead of constructing Obama as just another politician who betrays his promises and serves the powers that be, we might think about other ways of interpreting his actions that leave room for hope.
For me the central question is this: how do you make change possible when major centers of power resist it, when political structures are set up to defeat it, when the public at large is divided and cynical about reform. Leave aside the added problems that the majority of white people in the country voted against you, and that a portion of that constituency questions your legitimacy.
Let's spell this out with a bit of simplifying shorthand about the power relations Obama has to deal with: The health-care reform Obama wants threatens the insurance and pharmaceutical complex. The climate change/energy plans he wants threaten the energy industry. The military-industrial complex and the national security apparatus are interested in preserving the imperial presidency and its war making propensities. The financial complex wants government bailout but not regulation. Talking about these 'complexes' simplifies the important divisions within these sectors, but the basic point for me is that every morning the president has to take these kinds of forces into account. ON top of which is the structure of the senate--the filibuster rule, the power of conservative Democrats representing large stretches of land with almost no people living on it.
FDR and LBJ were presidents who were able to win major reform despite these sorts of big obstacles. I'm one of a legion of left-oriented historians and sociologists who believe that what made the New Deal and the Great Society reforms possible was the rising up from below of movements demanding the change, not primarily the political skills of Roosevelt and Johnson. The labor movement of the 30s and the civil rights movement of the 60s found levers of power themselves. It wasn't simply the numbers who 'marched', it was that they tore the social fabric that was sustaining the status quo. You can get a sense of that power by reading a book like Piven and Cloward's Poor People's Movements, which spells out in some detail the ways these movements were able to win some gains because of their disruptive political, social and cultural activity.
We haven't had a president till now who was so schooled in that reading of history. The best way to understand Obama, I think, is to refer to something Michelle Obama said in the early days of the campaign. She said at some point that Barack is not a politician first and foremost. He's a community activist exploring the viability of politics to make change.
Here's Barack Obama speaking to the AFL-CIO Pittsburgh convention last week:
These are the reforms I'm proposing. These are the reforms labor has been championing. These are the reforms the American people need. These are reforms I intend to sign into law: quality, affordable health insurance; a world-class education; good jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced; a strong labor movement. That's how we'll lift up hardworking families. That's how we'll grow our middle class. That's how we'll put opportunity within reach in the United States of America. (Applause.)
The battle for opportunity has always been fought in places like Pittsburgh, places like Pennsylvania. It was here that Pittsburgh railroad workers rose up in a great strike. It was here that Homestead steelworkers took on Pinkerton guards at Carnegie mills. (Applause.) It was here that something happened in a town called Aliquippa.
It was a tough place for workers in the 1930s -- "a benevolent dictatorship," said the local steel boss. Labor had no rights. The foreman's whim ruled the day. And the company hired workers from different lands and different races -- the better to keep them divided, it was thought at the time.
But despite threats and harassment, despite seeing organizers fired and driven out of town, these steelworkers came together -- Serb and Croat, Italian and Pole, and Irish, and Greek, and kin of Alabama slaves and sons of Pennsylvania coal miners. And they took their case all the way to the Supreme Court, securing the right to organize up and down the Ohio River Valley and all across America. (Applause.)
And I know that if America can come together like Aliquippa and rise above barriers of faith and race, and region, and party -- then we will not only make life better for steelworkers like Steve in Indiana, not only make life better for members of the AFL-CIO, but will make possible the dreams of middle-class families and make real the promise of the United States of America for everybody. (Applause.)
That's what we're fighting for. That's what this White House is committed to. That's what the AFL-CIO is committed to. (Applause.) And arm in arm, we are going to get this done.
That reference to the now obscure Aliquippa strike of 1937 intrigues me. As he suggests, it was a strike engaged in despite 20 years of efforts by Jones & Laughlin to segregate its work force by race and ethnicity. Yet 25000 workers struck and one of the most recalcitrant corporations in the land overnight agreed to bargain wit h their union and obey the federal labor laws.
I think the time is just about ripe for a new progressive movement in the streets. Health-care could be the first moment for such action. Am I wrong to imagine that hundreds of thousands might come to Washington to rally around a bill with a strong public insurance component, adequate subsidies, real regulation? Isn't it within the capacity of the labor movement, of Moveon, and even of Organize for America to convene such an action? Wouldn't it provide a needed answer to the pseudo populism that Glen Beck et al are stirring up? Instead of simply advising the President on strategy, can't we start making our own?
Tags: Obama, labor, social change strategy, progressive movement
Thursdays at 6 pacific time is when I have my weekly radio show on the campus station, KCSB (91.9fm). It's called CULTURE OF PROTEST. I've been doing this for 27 years. It's very much a music show, based on my collection of political, socially conscious recordings (in fact, doing this program has been a great excuse for buying stuff!) Each week we organize the hour around a theme. In the past few weeks for example, we've done programs on Hiroshima, the Woodstock anniversary, Labor day and Paul Robeson and the 60th anniversary of the Peekskill riots. For the last few months I've been trying to collect as many songs as I can that speak about 'hard times': songs from the 1930s (and before) and songs being released now in our current hard times--and there are quite a few artists of many genres consciously making such songs, many deliberately connecting with the great depression and the current situation. So this Thursday, we'll do one of a series of shows with this kind of material. There's something deeply evocative about hearing songs from decades ago that ring true in our time--songs that describe the experiences of those who are jobless or scared about that, songs about Wall Street, greedy bankers, songs about getting together to cope and to fight back. And I'll bet you'll find the new songs by artists known and unknown to be surprising and maybe inspiring.
I hope you'll tune in. We stream on line at www.kcsb.org, at 6-7 pm PST. And I've just started to post the play list (a day or so after the show airs) at http://kcsb.radioactivity.fm (click on the date of the program your interested in getting a play list for).
If you've any suggestions for 'hard times' songs use the comment space below!
If already registered: 1. go to dick flacks most recent blog post ( http://is.gd/3kp8B )
2. scroll to bottom and click 'log in'
3. log in (page will refresh to dick flacks blog)
4. comment away!
If not yet registered 1. go to dick flacks blog 2. click register link at bottom of page
A. choose username (no spaces)
B. choose password
C. enter valid email address
D. name of main st in Santa Barbara is 'State'
E. skip time & email settings
F. enter 10 digits (does not have to be your phone number if you'd rather not enter it).
3. Once registered, simply go back to Dick Flacks blog ( http://is.gd/3kp8B )(you should be logged in automatically). If not, click 'log in' at bottom of blog post and you'll be re-directed back to post after logging in.
4. comment away!
Give it a try and let me know if you're having any problems.
Nowadays, conventional wisdom has it that government policy is determined to a great extent by the vast lobbying efforts of special interests. Wealth translates to political power by use of campaign contributions, and all manner of methods, from subtle briberies to simulations of public opinion--all in aid of the profit oriented interests of particular firms or corporate sectors. But when old Karl Marx set out to define the role of the government in a capitalist society, he described the state as "the executive committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie". The government's primary function was, in his view, to oversee the system as a whole, and, implicitly, to subordinate narrow interests which conflicted with the overall 'class' interest of capitalists. And despite many differences among them, 20th century radical analysts of power (like C. Wright Mills, or new left historians, or Bill Domhoff) have all believed that there was a center of power in the corporate elite that concerned itself with governing the society, not simply to maximize short term profit, but to try to ensure the long term viability of capitalism itself.
So FDR and the New Deal promulgated reforms that many business leaders hated, but that were designed to save capitalism in the midst of the great depression. The New Dealers believed that on the one hand they were averting revolution by allowing, for the first time in US history, regulated labor unions to form and strike and by providing a safety net for millions of jobless and impoverished workers. The New Deal created a government-corporate partnership that promoted economic growth and industrial peace. When I was in college in the 50s and 60s, we learned that this partnership was now accepted by the corporate elite and by the GOP--and that it was proof that socialism was no longer relevant--that capitalism could reform itself.
Healthcare has become the most obvious area where such reform is necessary in our time. Healthcare costs are unsustainable for the corporations that provide insurance for their employees, and for the government programs providing care for those without employer based insurance. The reasons for these skyrocketing costs are many, but fundamental is the control of healthcare by profit oriented insurance, drug and hospital corporations, and the cost burdens that result from the millions of uninsured.
The optimal solution to this crisis would be to move toward a 'single payer' medicare for everyone, financed by a combination of employer contributions and payroll taxes. The burden of costs would be reduced for employers, a steady revenue stream would finance a healthcare budget aimed at efficiency and cost control, all those uninsured would be covered automatically, preventive medicine would be readily available, and all manner of institutional setups for delivering medicine could be encouraged--while enabling more patients choice of their own doctors than most can now get.
President Obama has acknowledged all the above, having said that if we were starting from scratch single payer would be the way to go. He and other liberal healthcare reformers 'took single payer off the table' at the start of the process, arguing that most Americans wanted to keep the insurance they have and would resist radical change. But this flies in the face of numerous polls, done over several decades that indicate that the majority of Americans would support universal government financed healthcare. Here's a more convincing reason for erasing single payer: to try to achieve it means to end the private insurance industry as we know it. So here's a principle for analyzing corporate power in a capitalist society: Government is most unlikely to institute a reform--even if the 'system' would be best served by it--if the reform deeply threatens a major corporate sector. Capitalist reform seems to require major compromise with the profit interests of corporations affected. We will shortly see this played out in the effort to reform the energy industry.
The compromise the liberal health reform leadership has agreed on involves these elements: everyone will be required to be insured, all employers who are able to will be required to ensure their employees, those who can't get employer based insurance will be able to get subsidies to buy insurance from a choice of companies, including a non-profit publicly owned one (while existing government programs (medicaid, medicare, veterans) will be expanded to enable low income people to be covered. All insurance companies would be tightly regulated so that they would no longer cherry pick customers, and would not discriminate against sick people.
Barack Obama seems to have thought that this version would win the backing of the corporate power elite, since it provides reasonable hope of containing costs, and making the health system rational. While cleverly claiming to support reform, however, the health insurance and pharma companies have invested in an enormous campaign to prevent any reform that would reduce their profits. Indeed, they seem to have achieved an astonishing success in the senate--the legislation emerging there promises to create a captive market for these companies, with no significant public competition, and a set of regulations that may, like much government regulation, be readily diluted. So here's a second principle for understanding corporate power: any corporate sector that has the means to control policy to its own advantage is likely to try to do so, even if this undermines reforms that the system as a whole requires.
Is there any hope for some semblance of decent reform? I think this lies in the kind of bill that the House seems ready to pass. And it's imperative that the House do this (which means that it's imperative that progressive congress members, including our own Lois Capps, stand firm in their resolve not to accept a bill without a real government option.) If the senate adopts the pro-corporate bill that is now shaping up, there will then come an opportunity for something real--a massive mobilization in favor of the house bill (and maybe having a million folks come to DC to overshadow the weird lunatic caravan that recently showed up there). The new deal history tells us that massive grassroots action must happen if corporate power is to be overcome. And that action requires something real to rally for.
Dick Flacks here...sociology professor emeritus at UCSB. Budget cuts mean that I can't continue my annual course on political sociology. Maybe a blog will be a space for me to continue to ruminate and pontificate. And maybe (as a veteran teacher on these matters) I can offer some ways of thinking about what's happening nationally and locally that will be useful, as we struggle to make sense of the tortured complexities of these times.
I've been a leftwing activist for more than 50 years. What we've been struggling for all these years is full democracy--to increase the opportunities for people to have real voice in the decisions that affect them. Step by step over these years we've made some gain...but it is a long march, and one that never ends. The big barrier to democracy in our society is the concentrated power of corporations. At the same time, democracy is undermined by the felt powerlessness of people in their daily lives--the persistent belief that our problems are only our own personal concern. It's a strong cultural theme--such individualism--constantlly reinforced by mass media and everyday circumstance. But the current big crisis of the economy maybe makes it more possible for more people to understand that we've got to have social reform and economic reform. So my writing here is aimed at helping us figure out what to think and act on that so that we can hope for new democratic possibilities. WE'll be talking about the local and the national.
The blog name comes from an old labor union hymn:
Step by step the longest march can be won. Many stones can form an arch...singly none. And by union what we will can be accomplished still. Drops of water turn a mill, singly none, singly none.
For 27 years I've had a weekly radio show on KCSB (91.9 fm. www.kcsb.org) It's called the Culture of Protest. It's comes from my fascination with music and social movements. I collect 'political' and 'protest' music and that's what we play each week (Thursdays 6-7 pm). So sometimes here we'll share and talk about that.
I'm worried about one thing about the blogosphere. And that's the way that some people use the blog comment space for anonymous nastiness. I'm sick of the kind of political blather that assaults the motives of others, and sees dark conspiracy behind every thing one doesn't like. This kind of stuff is helping to poison the political atmosphere. So I'm going to strive for a civil tone to whatever interaction may happen on this blogsite.
Dick Flacks here...sociology professor emeritus at UCSB. Budget cuts mean that I can't continue my annual course on political sociology. Maybe a blog will be a space for me to continue to ruminate and pontificate. And maybe (as a veteran teacher on these matters) I can offer some ways of thinking about what's happening nationally and locally that will be useful, as we struggle to make sense of the tortured complexities of these times.
I've been a leftwing activist for more than 50 years. What we've been struggling for all these years is full democracy--to increase the opportunities for people to have real voice in the decisions that affect them. Step by step over these years we've made some gain...but it is a long march, and one that never ends. The big barrier to democracy in our society is the concentrated power of corporations. At the same time, democracy is undermined by the felt powerlessness of people in their daily lives--the persistent belief that our problems are only our own personal concern. It's a strong cultural theme--such individualism--constantlly reinforced by mass media and everyday circumstance. But the current big crisis of the economy maybe makes it more possible for more people to understand that we've got to have social reform and economic reform. So my writing here is aimed at helping us figure out what to think and act on that so that we can hope for new democratic possibilities. WE'll be talking about the local and the national.
The blog name comes from an old labor union hymn:
Step by step the longest march can be won. Many stones can form an arch...singly none. And by union what we will can be accomplished still. Drops of water turn a mill, singly none, singly none.
For 27 years I've had a weekly radio show on KCSB (91.9 fm. www.kcsb.org) It's called the Culture of Protest. It's comes from my fascination with music and social movements. I collect 'political' and 'protest' music and that's what we play each week (Thursdays 6-7 pm). So sometimes here we'll share and talk about that.
I'm worried about one thing about the blogosphere. And that's the way that some people use the blog comment space for anonymous nastiness. I'm sick of the kind of political blather that assaults the motives of others, and sees dark conspiracy behind every thing one doesn't like. This kind of stuff is helping to poison the political atmosphere. So I'm going to strive for a civil tone to whatever interaction may happen on this blogsite.
