And...the Birthers are at it again

It looks like the birthers are not going to go away anytime soon.

Only this time their target is not Barack Obama. They aren't even railing against a Democrat or a liberal this time.

Instead, there are those insisting that Texas Senator Ted Cruz, part of the rightest right of the Republican Party and a darling of the Tea Party, is not eligible to run for president, as he is showing every indication of wanting to do. These people are contending that he is not a "natural born citizen", as the US Constitution requires to be eligible to hold the highest office in the land.

Here's the deal: Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and a mother who was a US citizen. He holds both Canadian and US citizenship. This, some people say, means that he is not eligible to be President of the United States, based on criteria outlined in the US Constitution.

Now, I have to admit that it's tempting to sit back and watch the Tea Party be hoist on its own petard. There is something satisfying in the idea of having them have to see how it feels to have one of their own accused of not being qualified. on this technicality, to lead the country.

I also have to confess that there are many reasons why I do not want to see Ted Cruz in the White House, not the least of which is the fact that he seems to think the comparisons that have been made between him and late Senator Joseph McCarthy, who led the way in causing so much misery in the 1950s as he saw a Red under every bed, are complimentary. He's been quoted as saying that the comparisons mean that he must be "doing something right." He won't go so far as to say publicly that he admires McCarthy's attitudes and tactics, but it seems clear that the assumption that he does admire Red-baiter McCarthy is not far from the mark. Also, the Libertarians like him, and I'm not a big fan of that particular political and social outlook on life.

But, as much as I'd hate to see Cruz elected to, well, almost anything, claiming on this technicality that he is not eligible to run is not a smart way to keep him from running. Unless there is a clear ruling from a court saying that to be considered a "natural born citizen", a person has to have been born on US soil, having a parent who is a citizen should be the standard for citizenship. Period.

Just as trying to make sure that only people you think will vote for your candidates can participate in the electoral process (voter suppression) is not a legitimate tactic, neither does trying to prove that candidates whose positions you don't like aren't eligible to run at all constitute an acceptable way to stack the electoral deck in your favor.

Not in the America I grew up in. In the America I grew up in, we were taught to play fair.

Taking a birther position in a case like this is not anywhere near playing fair.

Waving goodbye to 2012...

Out of all the year, this is the week I hate the most.

The week between Christmas and New Year's Day has always seemed to me to be a huge waste of time. It's like the world is holding its breath waiting for the new year to begin. Nothing gets accomplished, really. Human nature being what it is, with two holidays (well, four, since Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve have taken on the status of holidays as well) just a week apart, a lot of people spend the week talking about how their Christmas was and looking forward to whatever big New Year's Eve party they are attending.

It has seemed to be even worse than usual this year, so far at least. I imagine part of that has to do with the fact that I've been sick since before Christmas. I started noticing the first symptoms of the Cold from Hell a couple of days before Christmas, and I'm still sick, although today is the first day that I haven't felt absolutely wretched.

Another factor contributing to my feeling about the week is fallout from being sick: I've spent a lot of time in front of the TV because I haven't felt like doing anything else. It seems like that year-in-review thing that they do in the media in the last couple of days of the year has been going on all week long. At least on MSNBC, which is my cable talking heads channel of choice, that's nearly all they've been doing. Today, of course, they've been forced to report some news, with the drama over whether Congress is going to act in time to avoid the economy going all to hell again, but that has barely slowed down the endless procession of year-end commentary. Although, I have to say that I'm watching "The Last Word" right now, and they've been managing to keep things interesting. Too bad the rest haven't been able to keep up.

Now, this isn't to say that I don't think there are things that went on during the year that bear further discussion. It was an election year after all, with all that entails. I especially think the recent statement from one of Mitt Romney's sons that Mitt really didn't want to run for president at all bears further examination and comment. The war on women was no fluke born of election hyperbole; I don't think it has slowed down at all, and we will need to talk more about that. Partly associated with that, the Tea Party is still with us despite the outcome of the election in November, and they aren't going to go without a fight. We'll be talking about that whole phenomenon further, I'm sure. And then there's gun control. It was the subject no one wanted to talk about during the election campaigns, but because of recent events in Connecticut and in upstate New York most notably among other events, it has become clear that we, as a nation, are going to have to tackle that issue, and soon.

But, my big year-in-review to come before the new year will be my review of the books I read this year. Since Sunday is Music Sunday and Monday is Movie Monday and Tuesday is 2013, I suspect that I'll do that tomorrow unless something happens between now and then that needs attention.

Now, if somebody would do a big show with notable people talking about the best books they're read this year, the best movies they've seen, and the best music they've listened to...I would definintely watch that.

Enough, already...

Is there some reason why the media in this country can't at least wait a week or two before they start talking about the next presidential election?

The election was two days ago. Not all the absentee and provisional ballots have even been counted yet. But it seems like all I've been hearing and reading today are speculations about who will run for President in 2016.

Since Barack Obama can't run again in 2016, names from both parties are being mentioned as possible contenders. On the Republican side, and since few people expect Mitt Romney to make another run, the most commonly-mentioned names are Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Florida senator Marco Rubio, and former Florida governor Jeb Bush.

There are troubles with most of these names. The Romney campaign all but hid Paul Ryan in the last weeks of the election. I suspect that they did not trusting him to stay on-message. New Jersey governor Chris Christie made points for fighting so hard to make sure the residents of his state got the aid they needed after Hurricane Sandy, but he lost points among the hierarchy in the GOP and the Romney campaign for appearing to be too friendly to, and saying nice things about, President Obama during that time. Jeb Bush, the son of one president and the brother of another, still has questions hanging over his head in some people's minds (including my own) about just how much of a role he had in the electoral shenanigans in his state during the 2000 presidential election. I don't know much about Marco Rubio, so I can't say what his strengths or handicaps might be should he decide to make a run for the White House.

On the Democratic side there is, of course, talk that current Vice President Joe Biden might run for President next time. There is also much speculation, especially after Bill Clinton took such a vocal role in the Obama campaign this year, that Hillary Clinton might be thinking about running again in 2016. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's name has also been mentioned. Another name I've been hearing, although he is apparently considered to be a longer-shot as a candidate, is Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villarigosa.

All the speculation is interesting, I'll admit. But I don't really care right now.

What I do care about is hearing about how the Republicans in Congress plan to dial back their ideological rhetoric and start doing the business of the country rather than simply trying to obstruct any legislation proposed by the Obama administration in the name of trying to deny Obama a second term. Since that plan failed and he can't run again, continuing to hold up important legislation will only be seen as mean and spiteful.

I also want to know what the leaders of the Republican Party are going to do to disassociate themselves from the misogynist, racist, and classist rhetoric we heard so much of during the run-up to the election. How are they going to step away from the excesses of the Tea Party? I want to hear them say that, yes, Barack Obama is a Christian and not a Muslim. And that it wouldn't matter if he was a Muslim. I want them to put a stop to this "birther" nonsense coming from the extremists in their party.

And, dear God, I want them to put a muzzle on Donald Trump, who holds no position in the GOP, but walks around like his money and notoriety give him some special dispensation to interject himself into the political conversation, to the point that he clearly retains only a tenuous grasp on reality.

I would also like the Republicans to step away from Rush Limbaugh, but I suspect that that's asking too much.

But, mostly, I'd love it if I didn't have to hear about politics at all for at least a little while. I'd like to see all the campaign signs down. And I'd like to pretend that the next campaign for California governor won't start ramping up in about six months, since it's just two years until that election. This is especially something I' like, considering that by the time that's over, the next campaign for President will be strating in earnest.

And those WTF moments just keep on coming...

I've been sitting on this for nearly a week.

Can't do it any longer, because I'm still angry about it.

I'm talking writing, of course, about the idiots who cheered and laughed and yelled out "Yes!" when the question of possibily letting an uninsured coma patient die for the lack of health insurance came up at a Republican presidential candidates' debate at the beginning of the week. I'm also writing about the huge, yawning, nearly universal silence regarding the incident from the candidates participating in the debate, the rest of the Republican party, politicians otherwise affiliated, and the media.

Oh, there were a few who mildly criticized the audience members who apparently believe that anyone who lacks health insurance should just die, but as far as I was able to find, there really wasn't much comment at all about the incident. If there was any, I'd love it if you all, dear readers, would point me to the coverage of those comments.

Mostly, the reaction of those people in the debate audience made me sick. But it also brought up some questions.

Aren't those the same Tea Party types who were incensed about so-called "death panels" they said would be instituted if President Obama's health care legislation passed? And how many of the people appearing to think that people without insurance being left to die is something to be celebrated are the same ones who characterize themselves as "pro-life" and would outlaw abortion, even in the case of rape or incest? My question for them is, do they really mean to say that the right to life ends at birth?

Oh, well. I suppose they're just being consistent. They are probably the same people who congregate outside of prisons where executions are being carried out, laughing and celebrating. Certainly, there were also cheers that night when the number of executions presided over by candidate and Texas Governor Rick Perry was mentioned.

Except for one problem. The only "crime" committed by the ininsured is being too poor to afford insurance. And that isn't even always the case. Some follks are without insurance because their employers have dropped their coverage to save the business money. And many people are denied insurance coverage that they are able and willing to pay for simply becuase they have a "preexisting condition". So, I guess, what those cheering people in that audience were really saying is that if you're poor, or if you work for a cheap company (or a company that simply can no longer afford to pay outrageous insurance premiums), or even if you've just been sick before, you deserve to die. It isn't a simple case of people not "taking responsibility", as candidate Ron Paul seemed to imply in his comments during the debate.

I thought writing about this would help diffuse my anger about this. Get it out of my system.

Yeah. Not so much.