Garland County Democratic Central Committee Election of Officers for 2011-2012

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 the members of the Garland County Democratic Central Committee elected Dr. Gene Shelby to the position of Chair for the coming term. He stated that he may be running for office again in 2012 so may have an abbreviated term if he does. The officers were the usual slate with the exception of Gene. I was wholeheartedly behind him for this position. He represents a cool head and a dedicated Democrat that follows the philosophy as well as the platform of what makes us Democrats.

The group decided and voted George Hozendorf to be our representative at the state level. This to me is proof positive that the Peter Principle is alive and well in Garland County. I hope the State committee has a broader understanding of the political process than the local group.

George refused to answer my question concerning the removal of those people that won't support the party doctrine right down the line. He put forth in an email to all members of the committee that anyone not supporting unflinchingly any Democrat in office he/she should be removed from the Central Committee. He stated that since it was 'his choice' he didn't have to answer my question or defend his opinion. Rick Saunders defended his right not to answer which led me to believe that if you aren't a sheep you're not welcome in the ranks. Their excuse is your opinion if it does not follow the "Party" is unwelcome and will be used by the Republicans to defeat any Democrat that runs. This may be the 'general' opinion of democracy in action but it aint mine. Representative Mike Ross voted AGAINST the Democratic platform by voting to repeal the Health Care Reform bill. I saw no motion to pull his membership as a Democrat.

When a person can't voice his/her opinion in a group of like minded people you end up with a fascist form of oligarchy. I was hoping that we could move beyond that with the removal of George but there are those that still believe 'passive agreement' is the better course for Democrats.

And they wonder why we keep getting our pants knocked off. If you won't stand for something you'll stand for anything. The Democrats let the Republicans frame the issues in the last election and with this philosophy the same thing will happen in the next one.

Jerry Rephan is running a great campaign for the position of District 24 Representative in Little Rock. The special election will be held March 8, 2011. I encourage everyone that wants to see the government be more responsive to the people then they will get behind Jerry wholeheartedly. His credentials are impeccable and his public service is outstanding. Whether you live in District 24 or not, I would like everyone to get out and work for his election.

I just started reading Griftopia by Matt Taibbi. I had the library order it for me. I may have to get my own copy because this book is just too good to not use as a reference and to just read over and over because it is so insightful and current. I posted on my wall in Facebook a passage from the book if anyone cares to read it. Or you can just go buy your own copy or wait until I finish it and borrow it from the library.

Half-assed Representation

Today I called Washington to request that Senators Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor support the filibuster reform action Senator Reid is bringing forth this week. It will try to make the filibuster more transparent and allow the Senate to over-ride it with a majority vote rather than the 60 now needed. (That is as I understand it, there seems to be some question as to the details).

The Washington operator informed me that Blanche had vacated the premises and was no longer available. I called Bozeman's office and the person answered with "Senator-elect Bozeman's office". Now if there is a 'vote' for filibuster reform, Bozeman can't vote , he's not sworn in, Lincoln won't vote, she's gone. That leaves Arkansas with 1 (one) Senator representing us until the newly elected officials are sworn in.

Thanks, Blanche, you did everything to help us that you could, you won't be missed by me.

Letter to the Editor - 12/29/10

Dear Editor,
Oh to be a "religious fanatic/nut/bigot". I'm sure I would have all the following in the world if I "preached" the nonsense that so many seem to believe is the "truth". These people believe "words" that come straight from a book that was written centuries ago and is the "word" of those zealots that "knew" or "heard" God's voice speaking to them or what someone remembered someone as saying. Even the passages where Jesus is quoted is from someone else's mouth, not his.

The Declaration of Independence states that "When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to Separation.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."

If I understand "nature" as I was taught, it was a woman aka "Mother Nature" or "man's nature" referring to what most people do without conscious effort.

No where in the Constitution is "God" mentioned, not in the Preamble or any of the subsequent amendments.

The addition to the Pledge of Allegiance, "Under God", was added during the McCarthy years and the Communist witch hunt. In 1955, "In God We Trust" was mandated by law to be printed on all money printed or coined by the US Mint. President Eisenhower was instrumental in the addition of the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, and the 1956 adoption of "In God We Trust" as the motto of the United States. It was a long ways from 1776 and the Salem witch hunts years earlier. It was a manifest of a conservative Republican president that brought "God" into our government's actions and policy.

Now the "tea party" is giving a "gift" to the newly elected officials in a "workshop" about ethics and "separation of church and state". If these people who won the office didn't have "ethics" before they ran, what makes you think some misguided evangelist with questionable credentials will make them better servants of the general public good? And where is it mandated that the church CAN'T be involved in politics? I guess that would be under the rules of the IRS. If you want non-taxable status, you can't be functioning in any capacity that would sway public opinion in politics one way or the other. Several churches have lost their "tax exempt" status because of these "political" activities. Anybody that wants to exercise their right to vote and express their opinion is free to do so, they just can't do it from a church pulpit. Placing "political" signs on church grounds are also strictly prohibited. I am wondering how those "crosses" were allowed to stay on the lawn of the Nazarene church on Central. Protesting a political opinion is fine by word of mouth, using church property to push one's personal agenda is not. I would think they would be more involved in keeping their "tax exempt" status than re-interpreting the Constitution to meet their needs.