Imagine it is 1861. Newly elected Abraham Lincoln is giving a major address to the nation, regarding slavery. He begins by talking about the injustices of slavery. How it violates not only our sensibilities, but the basic rights of human beings. He discusses the numerous harms created by the then current system. He goes to address to the need to do something about it. He states that "If we were starting a system from scratch, I think that the idea of a society and economic system that is not based upon slavery makes sense. That's the kind of system that you have in most advanced countries around the world. The only problem is, we're not starting from scratch. We don't want a huge disruption as we go into reform where suddenly we're trying to completely reinvent one-sixth of the economy....We’ve got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that’s not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they’ve known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside."
Lincoln does not have a specific proposal, but rather asks Congress to come up with a solution based upon some key principles:
1. Financial Viability: for both slaves and slaveholders. Bankruptcy (financial, if not moral) must be prevented.
2. Affordability: for businesses and slaves to continue working and producing, and reduce inefficiency
3. Universality: rules must apply to all slaves and slaveholders.
4. Portability: Providing rules for how slaves transition owners, and making the process easier. Just because a previous owner may have thought a slave to be disruptive or disobedient, that does not mean the new owner can treat them harshly as a result.
5. Guaranteed Choice: Slaves should be able to choose which job or jobs they perform on plantations (as much as possible). If they like their current job, they shouldn't be forced to do a different job (without extraordinary reason, and within financial limits).
6. Invest in Prevention: Invest in measures to prevent disputes among slaves and slaveolders from happening in the first place.
7. Improve Safety & Quality Slaving: address bad working conditions, and create way of promoting slaving "best practices."
8. Sustainability: creating a system that can continue well over time.
Now, understand that the pro-slavery lobby is very strong. There is opposition on Congress to radical proposals, and advocacy for incremental approaches. Abolitionist groups, who supported Lincoln's election a the basis that he advocated strong change, continue to support him despite the fact that he is abandoning real reform (which he really only vaguely promised in the first place, despite their belief in the contrary). Therefore, they encourage Congress to take strong action on the principles. The slim Congressional majority cobbles together a controversial plan that proposes several measures. While it does leave the current slavery system in place, new rules are intended to help insure better working conditions for the slaves. Slave mothers would be allowed to choose whether or not they want to keep their newborns with them -- in which the children would then become slaves -- or else give them away to families in the north who would raise them in freedom. A system would be set up whereby slaves could save up to eventually buy their freedom. Slaves would have some input into what chores they had to do. Slavemasters could only whip slaves under certain specific circumstances, and under threat of arbitration in which they would have to pay a small penalty if found in violation. They could also only take slave women into their beds if they themselves as well as the slave were unmarried.
This sounds crazy, of course. The logical and just path would be to end slavery. Anything else seems ludicrous to even contemplate. Why cite eight principles when one will do: a real and acknowledged right to freedom from slavery. So the above scenario would never have happened. In fact, nothing like that would ever realistically be allowed to happen.
You may think so. But nevertheless it is happening right now. It is happening in our current health care reform debate, in what has been proposed by Obama and Congress.
Do you doubt this? The hypothetical Lincoln quote above is drawn almost word for word from a statement by Obama on why he feels a single-payer guaranteed health care for all type system would be good, but only if they were "starting from scratch.* (After all, such a system is based upon proven ideas that work better than our "system" in all aspects). The principles of reform are similarly sourced.**
Plenty of similar analogies can be made to other historic struggles in the U.S.
Just imagine if:
* Martin Luther King, Jr. acknowledged that civil rights make sense, but only if they were starting from scratch, and that complete freedom for blacks in American would be too disruptive to the existing system. Therefore, instead he advocates for a couple extra rows at the back of the bus. And for blacks to be able to eat at lunch counters, though in special designated areas, and only only between 2 and 3 o'clock, and not on Tuesdays because that's when local KKK grand dragons like to come in to eat. And that literacy tests for voting are alright, as long as we make the questions a little easier.
* Alice Paul and suffragists acknowledged that giving women the right to vote makes sense, but only if they were starting from scratch, and to advocate for complete women's suffrage would be too disruptive to the existing system. Therefore, she concedes to a conditional right to vote: women be allowed to vote with the understanding that they would be required to vote the same as their husbands (or fathers). And only in off-off-year elections. And only in uncontested races.
* John Adams and other American colonial leaders acknowledged that requiring that the colonists have a democratic say in laws governing them makes sense, but only if they were starting from scratch, and to advocate for complete representation would be too disruptive to the existing system. Therefore, him and others concede taxation without representation, but advocate for lower rates.
* The peace movement acknowledged that ending the Vietnam War makes sense, but only if they were starting from scratch, and to advocate for an end the war that already started would be too disruptive to the existing situation. Therefore, they ask that that the US military use 500 lb. bombs instead of the 1000 lb. variety when carpets bombing heavy civilian areas in the North, that Vietnamese be warned before the debilitating chemical defoliant Agent Orange is dumped on the countryside, and that wealthy and well-connected draft-age Americans actually have to cough up an official fee in order to secure their deferments.
* Rachel Carson and environmentalists acknowledged that ending the use of the poisonous pesticide DDT makes makes sense, but only if they were starting from scratch, and to advocate for a complete ban would be too disruptive to the existing system. Therefore, they concede to it's continued use, as long as the containers that it is transported in are recyclable.
* Child labor reform activists acknowledged that ending unjust child labor practices in sweatshops makes sense, but only if they were starting from scratch, and to advocate for a complete ban would be too disruptive to the existing economy. Therefore, they concede that 8 year olds can continue to work long hours in hazardous conditions, but advocate that industry be required to pay an extra penny per hour, and 2 cents on holidays, and that the kids be allowed to use the bathroom twice a shift instead of just once.
To imagine any of these things is to conceive of an American very different from the one we have known, one that would be hardly recognizable, if such a creature could even be considered to be anything related to the American nation which we have created.
Unfortunately, the current health care reform situation is unfolding in such a way that departs similarly from the progressive legacy of the past in this country.
This is due largely to the fact that the current administration and Congress is a political courage-free zone. And a real leadership free zone. And a principle-zone free (at least, free of any honorable principles). A government which is truly that the best that money (in terms of campaign contributions) can buy.
I don't know which is worse: the Republicans who want little real change, but who at least virtually acknowledge being led by the insurance companies. Or the Democrats, who while the claim they do want some reform and demonize the insurance companies in word, but don't acknowledge that they are still beholden to them and don't really want to bite the the hands that feed their reelection prospects.
It is clear that the current "reform" efforts are political calculated, and not based on any concept of true reform. One indication of this is the aforementioned "we're not starting from scratch" mantra (of the Democrats). Another is their open desperation to pass "something, anything" for fear of losing seats in Congress next time around. Another is the fact that possible reforms wouldn't be scheduled to kick in for years, ensuring that the results of their (mis)steps are years away and disconnected from their present actions, at the expense of years of suffering by Americans under the existing "system."
This current rights struggle -- to establish a genuine right to health care -- is one of THE pivotal and defining political struggles of our era. Such a right can only be established in actuality by replacing our current ridiculous "system" -- one which costs too much, covers too little, excludes too many, and is getting worse -- with one that will actually solve the problem: a single-payer guaranteed health care for all. We must demand real reform, guided by political courage and not expendiency, based on leadership and not political calculation, and founded on rights rather than legalized bribery.
To accept anything less is to give in to selfish monied interests who exercise their power at the expense of the rightful rulers of this country: the people. It is to allow problems to continue. It is to accept injustice. It is to fail as a country, as a society, and as individuals. And it would be to accept the demise of this nation, in spirit (and inevitably, eventually, in its very existence).
We must not, we cannot, allow that to happen.
* President Barack Obama: "If I were starting a system from scratch then I think that the idea of moving toward a single-payer system could very well make sense. That's the kind of system that you have in most industrialized countries around the world. The only problem is that we're not starting from scratch. We have historically a tradition of employer-based healthcare. And, although there are a lot of people who are not satisfied with their health care, the truth is that the vast majority of people currently get health care from their employers, and you've got this system that's already in place....We don't want a huge disruption as we go into healthcare reform where suddenly we're trying to completely re-invent one-sixth of the economy.
If you’re starting from scratch,’ he [Obama] says, ‘then a single-payer system’-a government-managed system like Canada’s, which disconnects health insurance from employment-’would probably make sense. But we’ve got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that’s not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they’ve known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside.’
** Obama's 8 Principles of Health Care Reform:
1. Protect Families’ Financial Health. The plan must reduce the growing premiums and other costs American citizens and businesses pay for health care. People must be protected from bankruptcy due to catastrophic illness.
2. Make Health Coverage Affordable. The plan must reduce high administrative costs, unnecessary tests and services, waste, and other inefficiencies that consume money with no added health benefits.
3. Aim for Universality. The plan must put the United States on a clear path to cover all Americans.
4. Provide Portability of Coverage. People should not be locked into their job just to secure health coverage, and no American should be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions.
5.Guarantee Choice. The plan should provide Americans a choice of health plans and physicians. They should have the option of keeping their employer-based health plan.
6. Invest in Prevention and Wellness. The plan must invest in public health measures proven to reduce cost drivers in our system—such as obesity, sedentary lifestyles, and smoking — as well as guarantee access to proven preventive treatments.
7. Improve Patient Safety and Quality Care. The plan must ensure the implementation of proven patient safety measures and provide incentives for changes in the delivery system to reduce unnecessary variability in patient care. It must support the widespread use of health information technology and the development of data on the effectiveness of medical interventions to improve the quality of care delivered.
8. Maintain Long-Term Fiscal Sustainability. The plan must pay for itself by reducing the level of cost growth, improving productivity, and dedicating additional sources of revenue.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Question: What has a couple decades and lots of techno-wizardry wrought? Answer: a few inches of legroom.
1985 Honda CRX HF vs. 2010 Honda Insight - Modern Automotive Technology vs. Past Technology - Automobile Magazine
What does it say that 25 years ago they produced a car that got as good or better mileage than our fancy and pricy new hybrids with all of their computer-techno-wizardry?
Is newer always better?
Is the latest technology always better than the tried and true?
Has over two decades simply given us more complexity and a few inches of legroom?
What does it say that 25 years ago they produced a car that got as good or better mileage than our fancy and pricy new hybrids with all of their computer-techno-wizardry?
Is newer always better?
Is the latest technology always better than the tried and true?
Has over two decades simply given us more complexity and a few inches of legroom?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Definition of Heinous
Republicans for Rape - Blog - The Daily Show gets it
I try to understand. I really do. In fact, I have become a trained moderator and facilitator in community dialogues and deliberations with the express purpose of trying to better understand. That is, understand the thoughts and opinions of others. And particularly on political and social issues. And particularly of those with whom I may differ.
However, in this case, I simply don't understand. I have found no way to justify what is in effect a vote to condone rape: a vote against legislation that would bar the government from contracting with companies that require employees to agree not to sue the company if they are raped by fellow employees on the job. As Jon Stewart says -- be sure to watch the video on the link -- shouldn't this be a "slam-dunk"? A no-brainer?
Apparently not. At least to the 30 Republicans Senators who voted against it.
The only motive that I can see is a desire to protect Halluburton/KBR and other contractors/big campaign contributors.
This is heinous. No, wait: it is the definition of heinous.
When we have leaders of our country who take these sort of actions -- not to mention undertake the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents in wars and consigning tens of thousands more to premature preventable death due to inadequate health care -- I fear for our country. When the interests of the American people are not being well represented, and those of powerful monied interests are served instead, I fear for our country.
Now, if we, the American people, sit back and don't do anything about our democracy being stolen from us, and don't do anything to take it back, then I fear our country is dead.
With that in mind, I encourage people to contact your Senators should you be unfortunate enough to have one of these guys as yours (and I do mean guys...or perhaps I should say old rich white guys):
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Kit Bond (R-MO)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
John Ensign (R-NV)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
James Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)
David Vitter (R-LA)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)
By the way, the website at the link is satirical (in case you wondered).
Nathan Ruggles
I try to understand. I really do. In fact, I have become a trained moderator and facilitator in community dialogues and deliberations with the express purpose of trying to better understand. That is, understand the thoughts and opinions of others. And particularly on political and social issues. And particularly of those with whom I may differ.
However, in this case, I simply don't understand. I have found no way to justify what is in effect a vote to condone rape: a vote against legislation that would bar the government from contracting with companies that require employees to agree not to sue the company if they are raped by fellow employees on the job. As Jon Stewart says -- be sure to watch the video on the link -- shouldn't this be a "slam-dunk"? A no-brainer?
Apparently not. At least to the 30 Republicans Senators who voted against it.
The only motive that I can see is a desire to protect Halluburton/KBR and other contractors/big campaign contributors.
This is heinous. No, wait: it is the definition of heinous.
When we have leaders of our country who take these sort of actions -- not to mention undertake the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents in wars and consigning tens of thousands more to premature preventable death due to inadequate health care -- I fear for our country. When the interests of the American people are not being well represented, and those of powerful monied interests are served instead, I fear for our country.
Now, if we, the American people, sit back and don't do anything about our democracy being stolen from us, and don't do anything to take it back, then I fear our country is dead.
With that in mind, I encourage people to contact your Senators should you be unfortunate enough to have one of these guys as yours (and I do mean guys...or perhaps I should say old rich white guys):
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Kit Bond (R-MO)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
John Ensign (R-NV)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
James Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)
David Vitter (R-LA)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)
By the way, the website at the link is satirical (in case you wondered).
Nathan Ruggles
Friday, October 9, 2009
Obama Wins Nobel (?!?)
In Surprise, Nobel Peace Prize to Obama for Diplomacy - NYTimes.com
This. Is. Ridiculous.
An analogy inspired by an old friend:
It's like getting kudos for winning "Biggest Loser." Before actually losing the weight. Based on promises to lose weight. And others hopes that the weight might be lost. But meanwhile, for the most part, the same old fast food is being consumed (if perhaps under different wrappers, and a medium fry instead of a large). And there is no real workout plan in place.
But really. What has he actually DONE? Oh, wait! Forgive me. He has done a couple things: continued to prosecute two unjust wars, causing the deaths and injury of thousands of innocents, and wasting billions that could actually be used for peaceful purposes.
Oh, and then there's Columbia: support for continued militarism. And the U.S. defense budget: INCREASES, and well beyond $600 billion a year (more than the next 16 or so countries, several times more than all of the potential enemies of the U.S. combined).
How about a list of what he hasn't done. Peace in the Middle East? No progress there. Iran? Rising tensions. North Korea? Nothing. Darfur? Still waiting. Nuclear weapons reduction? Only promises. Closing Guantanamo Bay? Broken promises. AIDS and global infection diseases? Hardly a word. World poverty? Silence. Torture and civil rights under the "war on terror"? Harmful and illegal policies continued.
Hope is not substance. This award historically has been for work, not simply words.
For instance, Jimmy Carter received it for negotiating a substantial peace treaty that still holds, and years of post-presidential works supporting democracy and peace. Woodrow Wilson spearheaded the birth of the League of Nations, the first real international organization dedicated to avoided war and promoting peace between countries.
There are also many other deserving nominees this year.
Gandhi never received one; one could be considered posthumously.
And Peace Prizes have not been awarded in some years for the lack of worthy candidates; better that than this.
This is all not to say that Obama can't reverse course, and actually perform accomplishments that are truly worthy of an honor for doing "the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". However, the prestige and significance of the Noble Prize for Peace will be forever diminished by this undeserved, misplaced (and only potentially premature) award to Barack Obama.
This. Is. Ridiculous.
An analogy inspired by an old friend:
It's like getting kudos for winning "Biggest Loser." Before actually losing the weight. Based on promises to lose weight. And others hopes that the weight might be lost. But meanwhile, for the most part, the same old fast food is being consumed (if perhaps under different wrappers, and a medium fry instead of a large). And there is no real workout plan in place.
But really. What has he actually DONE? Oh, wait! Forgive me. He has done a couple things: continued to prosecute two unjust wars, causing the deaths and injury of thousands of innocents, and wasting billions that could actually be used for peaceful purposes.
Oh, and then there's Columbia: support for continued militarism. And the U.S. defense budget: INCREASES, and well beyond $600 billion a year (more than the next 16 or so countries, several times more than all of the potential enemies of the U.S. combined).
How about a list of what he hasn't done. Peace in the Middle East? No progress there. Iran? Rising tensions. North Korea? Nothing. Darfur? Still waiting. Nuclear weapons reduction? Only promises. Closing Guantanamo Bay? Broken promises. AIDS and global infection diseases? Hardly a word. World poverty? Silence. Torture and civil rights under the "war on terror"? Harmful and illegal policies continued.
Hope is not substance. This award historically has been for work, not simply words.
For instance, Jimmy Carter received it for negotiating a substantial peace treaty that still holds, and years of post-presidential works supporting democracy and peace. Woodrow Wilson spearheaded the birth of the League of Nations, the first real international organization dedicated to avoided war and promoting peace between countries.
There are also many other deserving nominees this year.
Gandhi never received one; one could be considered posthumously.
And Peace Prizes have not been awarded in some years for the lack of worthy candidates; better that than this.
This is all not to say that Obama can't reverse course, and actually perform accomplishments that are truly worthy of an honor for doing "the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". However, the prestige and significance of the Noble Prize for Peace will be forever diminished by this undeserved, misplaced (and only potentially premature) award to Barack Obama.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Liberals Aren’t Un-American. Conservatives Aren’t Ignorant.
Liberals Aren’t Un-American. Conservatives Aren’t Ignorant.
I strongly believe in the need for better dialogue in our social and political world, especially in this country. I strongly believe there needs to be less extremism and more understanding. So therefore, I looked with interest to this article. Unfortunately, I almost didn't continue reading the article after Haidt disdain for the bumper stickers in the beginning of the article.
Speaking for myself, as well as many people I have known in the peace movement opposing the the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would say that they strongly believe in the messages of “Support our troops—bring them home” and “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” If you believe that troops should only be sent into war under certain circumstances, in which the nation is threatened, then to support troops sent into an unjust war would be supporting them. If you believe that dissent is not only allowed but encouraged by democratic form of government -- historically and by principle -- then to express it using your First Amendment rights is indeed patriotic.
Haidt's apparent disbelief that these messages could be genuine -- when they indeed can -- points to a lack of understanding of the political view of people. This puts his entire enterprise into question.
Also, to divide people's beliefs up into such distinct and opposing groups, and maintaining generalist and stereotypical view towards all "liberals" and "conservatives" -- terms which do not adequately describe the diversity and complexity of political-ethical view in this country, a fact acknowledged by a good political scientist now for some years -- also calls into question that he has an adequate understanding of his subject.
Yet, I will nevertheless check out the websites mentioned. Though I will be considering them with a big grain of salt.
I strongly believe in the need for better dialogue in our social and political world, especially in this country. I strongly believe there needs to be less extremism and more understanding. So therefore, I looked with interest to this article. Unfortunately, I almost didn't continue reading the article after Haidt disdain for the bumper stickers in the beginning of the article.
Speaking for myself, as well as many people I have known in the peace movement opposing the the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would say that they strongly believe in the messages of “Support our troops—bring them home” and “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” If you believe that troops should only be sent into war under certain circumstances, in which the nation is threatened, then to support troops sent into an unjust war would be supporting them. If you believe that dissent is not only allowed but encouraged by democratic form of government -- historically and by principle -- then to express it using your First Amendment rights is indeed patriotic.
Haidt's apparent disbelief that these messages could be genuine -- when they indeed can -- points to a lack of understanding of the political view of people. This puts his entire enterprise into question.
Also, to divide people's beliefs up into such distinct and opposing groups, and maintaining generalist and stereotypical view towards all "liberals" and "conservatives" -- terms which do not adequately describe the diversity and complexity of political-ethical view in this country, a fact acknowledged by a good political scientist now for some years -- also calls into question that he has an adequate understanding of his subject.
Yet, I will nevertheless check out the websites mentioned. Though I will be considering them with a big grain of salt.
Friday, September 25, 2009
The real ACORN story
I normally do not watch MSNBC, but a friend shared this.
Finally, someone in the mainstream media telling the bigger story on the supposed ACORN scandal. For instance, it more often than not goes unmentioned that ACORN self-reported voter registration problems in the first place. It usually goes unreported that one of the offices these "journalists" visited called the police, and that the videos were heavily edited.
Thousands are dying and going bankrupt without good health care, and thousands more innocents are dying in Afghanistan, and we are actually concerning ourselves with this non-story of ACORN?!?!
******
The media fails ACORN Sept. 24: Rachel Maddow is joined by Occidental College politics professor Peter Dreier, who authored a study on how myths about ACORN were manufactured and how easily the mainstream media - not just the right wing media - was led into reporting falsehoods. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/33013202#33013202
Finally, someone in the mainstream media telling the bigger story on the supposed ACORN scandal. For instance, it more often than not goes unmentioned that ACORN self-reported voter registration problems in the first place. It usually goes unreported that one of the offices these "journalists" visited called the police, and that the videos were heavily edited.
Thousands are dying and going bankrupt without good health care, and thousands more innocents are dying in Afghanistan, and we are actually concerning ourselves with this non-story of ACORN?!?!
******
The media fails ACORN Sept. 24: Rachel Maddow is joined by Occidental College politics professor Peter Dreier, who authored a study on how myths about ACORN were manufactured and how easily the mainstream media - not just the right wing media - was led into reporting falsehoods. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Ignorance & Misinformation Among Anti-Obama Activists
Some excellent footage from the recent demostration in DC.
I have honestly tried really hard to understand these people. I do understand some of their legitimate concerns about taxes, the bailout, government spending, fears of losing (good) health care if there were changes, and general concerns over the effectiveness of proposed health care reform. However, this represents a small minority. And even then, that fact remains that:
a) spending and bailouts started under Bush, and this crowd largely supports him (making them hypocritical), and
b) their health care reform concern are not based on real facts (e.g. Obama is not proposing a government takeover of health care.)
After listening carefully and looking at the signs I saw, here is a list of other concerns these people have:
Obama is like Hitler
Obama is a good speaker (like Hitler)
Obama is a Muslim
Obama "already destroyed most of the country"
Obama is going to arm volunteers with weapons
Barack Obama = the Antichrist (according to the Bible)
"Obamacare"
"we didn't vote for this health care plan"
commies
socialists
fascists
"shame on the press"
abortion
lies
people on welfare
czars
And here are some things they want:
God
a Christian in the White House
ruled by God
freedom
change in government
"take our country back"
abolish Medicare
Glenn Beck
My response to these is that while some of these may be legitimate things to be concerned about generally (i.e. fascism) or to support generally (i.e. freedom), the specific connections to Obama and current actual or proposed policies are either mistaken or nonexistant. As for the rest, many of these are just plain ignorant and offensive on the face of it. My overwhelming sense is that what they have to say is largely based in ignorance and misinformation.
One may ask how this is possible in the "information age." But with so many sources of information, you may easily find some (or one) source of (mis)information that suits your preconceived notions and/or perceived values. These people have apparently done so.
I have been worried about this country's future for awhile now, about the possibility of making the American Dream a reality. Sadly, this makes me scared even more.
But at the same time, I must have hope...and continue to work for progress, peace, and justice.
I have honestly tried really hard to understand these people. I do understand some of their legitimate concerns about taxes, the bailout, government spending, fears of losing (good) health care if there were changes, and general concerns over the effectiveness of proposed health care reform. However, this represents a small minority. And even then, that fact remains that:
a) spending and bailouts started under Bush, and this crowd largely supports him (making them hypocritical), and
b) their health care reform concern are not based on real facts (e.g. Obama is not proposing a government takeover of health care.)
After listening carefully and looking at the signs I saw, here is a list of other concerns these people have:
Obama is like Hitler
Obama is a good speaker (like Hitler)
Obama is a Muslim
Obama "already destroyed most of the country"
Obama is going to arm volunteers with weapons
Barack Obama = the Antichrist (according to the Bible)
"Obamacare"
"we didn't vote for this health care plan"
commies
socialists
fascists
"shame on the press"
abortion
lies
people on welfare
czars
And here are some things they want:
God
a Christian in the White House
ruled by God
freedom
change in government
"take our country back"
abolish Medicare
Glenn Beck
My response to these is that while some of these may be legitimate things to be concerned about generally (i.e. fascism) or to support generally (i.e. freedom), the specific connections to Obama and current actual or proposed policies are either mistaken or nonexistant. As for the rest, many of these are just plain ignorant and offensive on the face of it. My overwhelming sense is that what they have to say is largely based in ignorance and misinformation.
One may ask how this is possible in the "information age." But with so many sources of information, you may easily find some (or one) source of (mis)information that suits your preconceived notions and/or perceived values. These people have apparently done so.
I have been worried about this country's future for awhile now, about the possibility of making the American Dream a reality. Sadly, this makes me scared even more.
But at the same time, I must have hope...and continue to work for progress, peace, and justice.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The Edwardses: Complicated?
My comment on the following Op-Ed:
New York Times
A Complicated Question
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/opinion/06dowd.htmlNew York Times
A Complicated Question
We are asked here to consider Elizabeth Edwards' motives; the piece calls them into question. It is difficult to judge her motives without reading the book, the Time article, and seeing her Oprah appearance. My instinct says to avoid being judgmental considering what she's been through; to do so risks seeming to minimize her pain and condone his behavior. Frankly, any public embarrassment he suffers as a result is deserved; he best grin and bear it. His self-destruction and public excoriation should serve as a warning and deterrent to men (politicians) who would contemplate similar behavior.
In the end, Dowd did seem a bit hard on her; I'm not sure why.
One statement that confused me: the criticism that "She may be smart, but she doesn’t seem to know much about men." It seems to imply that she doesn't understand that men are going to be unfaithful given the opportunity. If that is a correct interpretation, I resent such generalizations about us "men." Not all of us are like Mr. Edwards in this way.
Finally, in addition to the suffering of Elizabeth and her family, and the ending of an at least somewhat laudible political career, perhaps the biggest loss in my mind is that of a champion of the poor. There aren't many, sadly. Low income Americans need more allies in places of power...
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Some Worst Fears Realized
Story: An emerging progressive consensus on Obama's executive power and secrecy abuses
Link: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/13/obama/
Some of my worse fears are now realized. I just didn't think -- or maybe hoped against hope -- that it wouldn't be so blatant, so extensive, so flagrant, and so soon.
As this essay indicates, the Obama administration is guilty of supporting and even extending some of the worse abuses of the Bush administration with regard to secrecy, executive power, and human rights.
Now, we must acknowledge -- as does the essay -- that there have been some progressive successes and victories since the Obama administration came to power. However, they are minor and limited when considered in light of the disappointing record so far on much larger issues, i.e.:
Now, whereas the new attitude from the White House is refreshing, when it comes to the imperative issues of war and peace, human and constitutional rights, executive power and privilege, corporate power and abuse, and the health and well-being of the people: whether it comes with a smirk and stumbling Texas drawl, or delivered with a pleasant smile and pretty words....bad policy is still bad policy.
While I am proud I voted the way I did -- for Nader not Obama -- any sense of vindication is and will be overwhelmed by a sense of disappointment, and a concern for all those who did vote for Obama, their deep hopes entrusted to him, and how some of them now may well become cynical, disaffected, and withdraw from civic and political involvement.
Link: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/13/obama/
Some of my worse fears are now realized. I just didn't think -- or maybe hoped against hope -- that it wouldn't be so blatant, so extensive, so flagrant, and so soon.
As this essay indicates, the Obama administration is guilty of supporting and even extending some of the worse abuses of the Bush administration with regard to secrecy, executive power, and human rights.
Now, we must acknowledge -- as does the essay -- that there have been some progressive successes and victories since the Obama administration came to power. However, they are minor and limited when considered in light of the disappointing record so far on much larger issues, i.e.:
- continued bailout and subsidy of corporations and the powerful and wealthy;
- continued rising military budgets;
- continued illegal, immoral, unwise, and unconstitutional wars;
- continued escalation of such wars (simply trading Afghanistan for Iraq), and;
- continued non-solutions to the health care crises.
Now, whereas the new attitude from the White House is refreshing, when it comes to the imperative issues of war and peace, human and constitutional rights, executive power and privilege, corporate power and abuse, and the health and well-being of the people: whether it comes with a smirk and stumbling Texas drawl, or delivered with a pleasant smile and pretty words....bad policy is still bad policy.
While I am proud I voted the way I did -- for Nader not Obama -- any sense of vindication is and will be overwhelmed by a sense of disappointment, and a concern for all those who did vote for Obama, their deep hopes entrusted to him, and how some of them now may well become cynical, disaffected, and withdraw from civic and political involvement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)