149. Hope can't create miracles for us

As the Cleveland Browns participated in the NFL Draft, I recalled the power of hope. Hope not only gives us something to look forward to, a potential to rejoice in, but it also helps heal the current unpleasant situation. For Browns fans, the connection is obvious-the draft helps us put the past behind us. For Browns fans, it is a chance to look forward to something better, even if it is maybe a little unrealistic or exaggerated.

In the last election, hope was a powerful message-one that was central to President Obama's campaign. People were hurting-from the economy and jobs to the lack of healthcare and other social issues. Hope worked to relieve some of that pain, to bring passion to a depressed country . . . to bring the prospect of a better tomorrow. While we will debate the realization of that hope, its power as a political message is explicit. It is a pseudonym for change-for we do not want to change that which we are not hopeful to achieve.

However, there is more to the idea of hope-a pretentious side.

Hope can also be used as a measure of justification- ironically even delaying that which we are hopeful to achieve. When I was a child, my father, like most of us, was always either on a diet or ready to embark on one. Growing up, I cannot even count how many times we had that last unhealthy meal or made that last trip to the ice cream stand. Like nearly everyone trying to start a diet, there is that tendency to start a diet tomorrow, or on a Monday. Nobody ever starts a diet on a Friday night, right? Today, as an adult always on a diet or ready to embark on one, I can't help but laugh at myself each time I pledge to start my diet tomorrow. It's easy to do and I sound just like my dad.

Nevertheless, as much as there is hope that I will lose weight and look better, the crutch of the premise is that I am really looking to eat what I want today-without guilt. And not only can I eat guilt free, I can usually justify eating as much as I want. Hope allows me to shed that responsibility of eating healthy today; hope becomes that justification for doing the wrong thing-rather than doing that which will lead to the result that I actually seek.

We find this idea, not just in weight loss, but also in many endeavors of our lives. We use hope to start financial diets, or make commitments to our family. We may not always call it hope, most of the time it is a promise to ourselves or even a resolution. The idea that we will stop going out to dinner so often, stop smoking, quit drinking, or commit to spending more time with our family allows us to get through the day-and enjoy one last fling. It's a promise to ourselves that we hope to keep.

So whether it is a new quarterback, a new president or a new diet, hope is there to lead the way. It makes today more bearable as we look towards tomorrow. We all need hope from time to time. We just need to be careful not to make hope less likely or less available because of what we do today. We need to understand what hope is, for it is not capable of creating miracles-just believing something won't make it come true. Finally, we need to carefully consider the power of hope when we use it as justification to do what we want to today because each day we push into the future is one day less we'll have to enjoy the outcome.

148. Little efforts by all have big impact

Just how much do people hate paying taxes? Right down to the nickel, according to a new law in Washington D.C. that created a five-cent tax per plastic shopping bag. The result of the tax was astonishing--after one month, the number of plastic bags used by consumers decreased from 22.5 million to just 3 million.

Plastic bags might seem to be a bit insignificant because they are so freely distributed; they are thin and handy when used to carry our groceries from the store to the kitchen. However, the reality is that over one billion plastic bags are handed out, for "free," each day. Of course, in reality, nothing is free, and plastic bags cost retailers about $4 billion dollars each year-resulting in higher prices for consumers.

Beyond the cost, plastic bags are notorious in the environmental realm. A single bag, made from petroleum, toxic chemicals, and energy, takes up to 1,000 years to degrade in a landfill. Those that do not make it into the landfill are often found littering our neighborhoods. Remarkably, only about three percent are actually recycled. In addition to the human impact, it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of animals, often sea turtles, whales and even cows and goats, are killed each year when the bags are mistaken for food and ingested.

This is one situation where I don't care how we get there, as long as we get there. It is a shame that it takes a five-cent tax to inspire people to act responsibly--that a lowly nickel is all that it takes to overcome the inconvenience of carrying around a reusable bag. Really, is the environment not worth a nickel on its own merits?

I would be in favor for any measure that "taxed" people for their waste-whether it is the use of plastic bags or it is a per bag charge for garbage placed on the curb each week (in places that have not adopted the blue bins). While punitive measures may be more effective, I would also be in favor of rewards for those people who produce less waste. At Target, they give you a five-cent credit when you use a reusable bag. Again, while people might be inspired by financial reasons, more than environmental ones, I would subscribe to "whatever it takes."

We often hear, from both political parties, of the incredible debt we are leaving to our grandchildren. Is there a similar concern over the environmental debt we are creating or the continued waste of natural resources? Which might we find to be more difficult to repay?

The scale of change is immaterial; a little can make a big difference. Oberlin continues their environmental push and there is no reason why Amherst, or Lorain, or Lorain County cannot follow their lead-and the lead of other progressive cities. Everyone, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, want clean water, healthy air, and un-littered neighborhoods.

Washington D.C. is using the tax revenue to clean up the Anacostia River, which is an obvious use of the tax dollars. And while that makes sense, I would not really care what the money was used for-let competing interests fight it out. It's about doing the right thing, no matter how we get there.

147. Opposition to Obama is baffling

The real winners in the healthcare debate are not the Democrats, but the millions of previously uninsured Americans that will now have health insurance, as well as those with pre-existing conditions, those who might max out their benefits, and the small business owners. The losers, quite obviously, are the insurance companies and those making more than $250,000 per year.

However, moving beyond the winners and losers, it's a political debate that has spiraled out of control. Political allegiance has become so entrenched that people have nearly lost their minds in protesting something that benefits so many Americans. Many of the arguments against healthcare are puzzling, and the people protesting, remarkably, are often protesting against their own interest. Tomorrow it could be them that loses their job (and subsequently their healthcare insurance), or them that becomes uninsurable due to a pre-existing condition. Do the social conservatives of the Republican Party really believe that thousands upon thousands of fellow Americans, and fellow Christians, should die because they do not have access to affordable healthcare? I don't think they do and the tantrum being thrown by some Republicans is difficult to understand.

While incited during the healthcare debate, the ramifications of this political allegiance appear to go much deeper.

A recent Harris poll showed that 67 percent of Republicans believe that President Obama is a socialist, 57 percent believe he is a Muslim, 42 percent believe he is a racist and, among other things, 38 percent believe he is doing the same things as Hitler. While people have a right to "believe" whatever they wish, at some point we must be concerned when more than a third of Republicans are completely separated from reality. I mean, Hitler, really? More concerning than what people believe, however, is how they have come to have those beliefs. I think the case can be made that if you say it often enough, people will start to believe it-particularly if it is something that people want to believe.

There are many good political and philosophical debates that can be had between not only Republicans and Democrats, but also among all political parties, such as Libertarians, and, yes, even Socialists. I find that many issues have excellent arguments on both sides, and their discussions intrigue me. While I am steadfastly a liberal, more than a "Democrat," I always enjoy a good philosophical argument.

The problem today is these arguments are evaporating into sound bites full of exaggerations, purposeful misinformation, name-calling, myths, lies and, now, even threats of violence. While the problems certainly exist on both sides of the aisle, conservative television and radio, as evidenced by the Harris Poll, have reached unprecedented levels of influence. The assertion, for example, that Obama is a socialist is pounded into the minds of viewers and listeners, obsessively, repeatedly, day after day, month after month. The near hatred that the people have for Obama is not only disrespectful-it is scary.

Believe it or not, that is a difficult perspective for me to not only undertake, but also to suggest. I fear my own biases and prejudices in making that assertion; however, it seems to be undeniably true. The comments made by Republican congresspersons, the name-calling and racial slurs made by their followers, and now the threats of violence over the healthcare bill have brought out the worst in American politics.

To experience this, all anyone has to do is read the comments following a story about healthcare on the Internet-the comments are not about actual problems in the healthcare bill, they are personal attacks on Obama. It is a steady diet of socialist, Hitler, terrorist, Marxist and so on. Here are just a few from Reuters.com about the possible repeal of healthcare, "The arrogant communist has spoken," "even hitler was more subtle," "This guy truly is a Marxist!" "Nice try, you make Castro and Karl Marx proud." "Long Live Our Democratic Republic....we will do whatever it takes to bring down this democrat administration which is full of communist, fascists, and terrorists." This goes on and on, for pages.

The ironic part about this learned attack is the presumption that Obama is extremely liberal (or any of the other things he is called). As I said, I am a liberal on most issues-and I know lots of liberals - and many of us are unhappy with some of President Obama's policies. Advocates of the public option are unhappy with him, so are environmentalists, and civil rights activists. Dennis Kucinich, Michael Moore, Bill Maher and many others have criticized him. The great civil rights activist and pacifist, Howard Zinn, called Obama a great disappointment before he died. There is no blind allegiance, rather there is some understanding that there needs to be room for compromise. While President Obama is certainly not a conservative, he is not the unapologetic liberal that he is accused of. Nor is he a socialist, Muslim or anything resembling Adolf Hitler.

The perspective held by political followers is obviously subjective and easily influenced. I think people have picked a side more than they have invested themselves into objectively understanding the issues. At some point, the inflammatory speech needs to end, and talk show hosts need to be held accountable for their actions, or, at the very least, inspired to have some honest conversation. In what should be the marketplace of ideas, these hosts only seem to be trying to antagonize their audience-taking it up a level to see who can garner the most attention for his or her commentary.

Unfortunately, the healthcare debate is not over . . . Republicans have declared war and promised to repeal it at first instance. Each and every problem with the bill will become a "sky is falling" rallying cry. However, one headline about the first bill introduced to repeal it made the point that people seem to be missing, it said something like, "Republicans introduce bill to uninsure millions of Americans." At some point, conservatives need to calm down and regain their composure. While this bill is not perfect, it is also not Armageddon-no matter what Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity proclaim.

146. Democracy now for sale, cheap

Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer, in a blog for the American Constitutional Society, wrote this about the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, "The decision will unleash unprecedented amounts of corporate "influence-seeking" money on our elections and create unprecedented opportunities for corporate "influence-buying" corruption. With a stroke of the pen, five Justices wiped out a century of American history devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy."

The case was the result of a movie about Hillary Clinton produced by the conservative group, Citizens United, that it wanted broadcasted on cable channels during the 2008 Democratic primaries. However, the federal courts thought the movie was more of a political advertisement and applied political campaigning regulations.

The case evolved slightly to consider whether the ban on the purchase of political ads placed on corporations and labor organizations, which prevented the infusion of even more corporate money and influence on government, should be overturned.

In a 5-4 decision, the conservative segment of the Supreme Court ignored precedent and opened the door for the use of corporate profits to further corporate interest by influencing elections. In many cases, campaign spending wins elections and the pressure will be on both Republicans and Democrats to secure corporate support. This support, of course, comes at a price-one paid by the American public.

The court used the First Amendment to make the argument of free speech under the pretext that a corporation has the legal right of a "person." Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, stating, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

However, what sounds democratically engaging is actually a license to corrupt, which is why the regulation existed in the first place. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote of such in his dissent, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

What it really means to the American public is that their hard work for a corporation, and the profits realized therein, may be used by corporate officers and directors to help elect candidates or support issues that they adamantly oppose.

Daniel J.H. Greenwood, Professor of Law, Hofstra University School of Law, in his blog for the American Constitutional Society, agrees and takes it one step further, "Most importantly, if corporations - which are not citizens and many of which are multi-national organizations with interests that may be radically opposed to those of ordinary Americans - are allowed to freely intervene in our elections, then each citizen must have a corresponding decrease in influence. My contribution means less if I must compete with BP-Amoco and not just my fellow Americans' money."

What is also means for voters is that they will have to sort through the interest of corporations and labor unions who choose to engage in political advertisements. The advertisements will likely lead to more misconceptions, more half-truths and more negative campaigning. Those that will spend to win elections will be counting on an uninformed public, one that will subscribe to marketing over education in casting their votes. After all, who has the time to research each and every political assertion?

It seems that America is willing to continue down this dangerous road, one that avoids the interest of ordinarily middle class Americans in favor of industries that need bailed out because they are "too big to fail" and corporations who are given the green light to run roughshod over our economic and political systems.

We do not fight. The wealthy are dominant and united, the rest of us are powerless-divided into conservatives and liberals, fighting over things like immigration and abortion. We not only succumb to the ideologies that created this system, but we march it forward. We patriotically raise our fist for capitalism while our political systems become corrupt, the poor get poorer and the sick die. We've sold out democracy. I don't know how much clearer the picture needs to be.