Hmmmmm ...
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Surviving the disaster
Blood bath. Tidal Wave. Tsunami. Earthquake.
These were some of the ways that the pundits were using to describe the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives. The largest switch of power in the House since 1948 was breathtaking to watch.
But election night was not as bad for the Democrats as you might think. The Republicans failed to win the Senate. Despite a very tough race with a favorite of the T.E.A. party movement, Harry Reid will remain as Majority Leader. And while promising to embrace an era of compromise in Congress, Reid also promised to defend health care reform.
The Democrats still hold the presidency and the Senate, and frankly I've woken up to much worse political news than that. Their control of the White House and both Houses of Congress -- including a near filibuster-proof majority -- was a political aberration. Apparently, they knew they would only have two years to enjoy such an advantage and they used it to get health care reform and other legislation passed. That is something that probably could not have been achieved under a divided government.
And according to the exit polls, the sea of red that has swept across the maps of the TV pundits does not mean that Americans will now embrace the entirety of the Republican platform. Elections are won in the middle, with independents. And the independents who backed Obama in 2008 switched to the GOP candidates in 2010.
But they did so not because they and other voters loved the Republicans so much, but because they were so very unhappy about the economy and needed to express their frustration. So, they backed the Republicans, but it is cautious support and it could switch back to the blue in another two years. They are on probation, and voters will be waiting to see whether they make things better.
I take comfort in the fact that the most extreme of the T.E.A. party candidates either lost or seem to be lagging behind in the vote counts at this writing. O'Donnell, Paladino, Angle, Buck and Miller were the most outrageous in this campaign, and I would be glad to see their ambitions clipped. Apparently Murkowski is way ahead of Miller in Alaska, but because hers was a write-in campaign, we will need to wait as the votes are verified.
My other concern was Rand Paul in Kentucky, who made some questionable attacks on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He had criticized the part of the act that required businesses to not discriminate against customers. He saved his campaign by reaffirming his support of the Civil Rights Act. However, I will have to wait and see what his record will be in the Senate. Paul is a ophthalmologist who has never held office before. However, his father is a former congressman and former candidate for president.
In the end, I don't think that the Republicans or the T.E.A. party candidates have the mandate or the means to conduct the kind of dismantling of governmental agencies, programs and the Constitution that had been bandied about in this election.
But they do carry the message to Washington that the economy is the No. 1 concern of American voters. They will also carry their core philosophy of smaller government and less taxes, which is a theme I respect but they had lost sight of under George Bush. So, the debate between the left and the right will continue. Hopefully, it will be a debate conducted with some sanity and reason.
The good news is that Democrats and Republicans now have a common enemy: unemployment.
We avoided falling into a second Great Depression in 2008. The economy stabilized and there has been some small economic growth. The problem is that it has been a jobless recovery. Nearly 10 percent of the workforce is still unemployed, and that was a major source of voter dissatisfaction.
So, this is the opportunity to show compromise is possible. The two sides need to work together on creating jobs in America. That is the mandate for both parties.
Here's a blog in the Washington Post that I thought was very insightful: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/2010/11/voters_wanted_change_not_neces.html
Good interview on the Colbert Report with David Frum.
These were some of the ways that the pundits were using to describe the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives. The largest switch of power in the House since 1948 was breathtaking to watch.
But election night was not as bad for the Democrats as you might think. The Republicans failed to win the Senate. Despite a very tough race with a favorite of the T.E.A. party movement, Harry Reid will remain as Majority Leader. And while promising to embrace an era of compromise in Congress, Reid also promised to defend health care reform.
The Democrats still hold the presidency and the Senate, and frankly I've woken up to much worse political news than that. Their control of the White House and both Houses of Congress -- including a near filibuster-proof majority -- was a political aberration. Apparently, they knew they would only have two years to enjoy such an advantage and they used it to get health care reform and other legislation passed. That is something that probably could not have been achieved under a divided government.
And according to the exit polls, the sea of red that has swept across the maps of the TV pundits does not mean that Americans will now embrace the entirety of the Republican platform. Elections are won in the middle, with independents. And the independents who backed Obama in 2008 switched to the GOP candidates in 2010.
But they did so not because they and other voters loved the Republicans so much, but because they were so very unhappy about the economy and needed to express their frustration. So, they backed the Republicans, but it is cautious support and it could switch back to the blue in another two years. They are on probation, and voters will be waiting to see whether they make things better.
I take comfort in the fact that the most extreme of the T.E.A. party candidates either lost or seem to be lagging behind in the vote counts at this writing. O'Donnell, Paladino, Angle, Buck and Miller were the most outrageous in this campaign, and I would be glad to see their ambitions clipped. Apparently Murkowski is way ahead of Miller in Alaska, but because hers was a write-in campaign, we will need to wait as the votes are verified.
My other concern was Rand Paul in Kentucky, who made some questionable attacks on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He had criticized the part of the act that required businesses to not discriminate against customers. He saved his campaign by reaffirming his support of the Civil Rights Act. However, I will have to wait and see what his record will be in the Senate. Paul is a ophthalmologist who has never held office before. However, his father is a former congressman and former candidate for president.
In the end, I don't think that the Republicans or the T.E.A. party candidates have the mandate or the means to conduct the kind of dismantling of governmental agencies, programs and the Constitution that had been bandied about in this election.
But they do carry the message to Washington that the economy is the No. 1 concern of American voters. They will also carry their core philosophy of smaller government and less taxes, which is a theme I respect but they had lost sight of under George Bush. So, the debate between the left and the right will continue. Hopefully, it will be a debate conducted with some sanity and reason.
The good news is that Democrats and Republicans now have a common enemy: unemployment.
We avoided falling into a second Great Depression in 2008. The economy stabilized and there has been some small economic growth. The problem is that it has been a jobless recovery. Nearly 10 percent of the workforce is still unemployed, and that was a major source of voter dissatisfaction.
So, this is the opportunity to show compromise is possible. The two sides need to work together on creating jobs in America. That is the mandate for both parties.
Here's a blog in the Washington Post that I thought was very insightful: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/2010/11/voters_wanted_change_not_neces.html
Good interview on the Colbert Report with David Frum.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Indecision 2010 - David Frum | ||||
| ||||
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Where did Obama go?
I'm watching the early results on the election, and of course it is not going well for the Democrats. Holding the Senate will be the big victory if the Dems can pull it off.
As I watch the returns, I'm asking myself why didn't Obama get out and campaign more to educate the public about all the good his administration his done.
After being elected with such soaring rhetoric in 2008, why couldn't he have brought those skills to bear to get out the story of the people who have been helped?
Perhaps he felt that deeds would speak louder than words. True enough. They often do. But we need to know what the has been done.
The only rhetorical refrain that has resonated was his analogy that the Republicans wanted the keys back after crashing the car into the ditch. It was an accurate analogy, but was not enough to push back against the tsunami of T.E.A. party rhetoric.
Part of what happened was that the T.E.A. party candidates were given free reign on the political landscape. Their rallies should have been answered with progressive rallies all along. The Democrats needed an image makeover, and they needed it much earlier.
It is probably fair enough to say that the impact of the T.E.A. party movement had not been anticipated early enough.
The Jon Stewart rally may have helped a little, but Stewart was not trying to save the Democrats. If he had been trying to save them, it was too little, too late.
Which is sadly the best way to sum up the Democratic campaigns this year.
But I'm watching the returns and waiting to see how it actually works out.
As I watch the returns, I'm asking myself why didn't Obama get out and campaign more to educate the public about all the good his administration his done.
After being elected with such soaring rhetoric in 2008, why couldn't he have brought those skills to bear to get out the story of the people who have been helped?
Perhaps he felt that deeds would speak louder than words. True enough. They often do. But we need to know what the has been done.
The only rhetorical refrain that has resonated was his analogy that the Republicans wanted the keys back after crashing the car into the ditch. It was an accurate analogy, but was not enough to push back against the tsunami of T.E.A. party rhetoric.
Part of what happened was that the T.E.A. party candidates were given free reign on the political landscape. Their rallies should have been answered with progressive rallies all along. The Democrats needed an image makeover, and they needed it much earlier.
It is probably fair enough to say that the impact of the T.E.A. party movement had not been anticipated early enough.
The Jon Stewart rally may have helped a little, but Stewart was not trying to save the Democrats. If he had been trying to save them, it was too little, too late.
Which is sadly the best way to sum up the Democratic campaigns this year.
But I'm watching the returns and waiting to see how it actually works out.
Marxism vs. Capitalism
No, I'm not a Marxist or a socialist.
I'm a Democrat and a capitalist. It is not socialism that I want. It is capitalism with a conscience.
Capitalism works well as an economic system, unless you are those unlucky enough to fall between the cracks and you don't have money or a job. If you are poor or disadvantaged, capitalism can be cruel.
If you want to see what capitalism is without a conscience, check out Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" as well as the works of other journalists and writers at the beginning of the 20th Century. We've come a long way from those days. Let's not fall back into them again.
I'm a Democrat and a capitalist. It is not socialism that I want. It is capitalism with a conscience.
Capitalism works well as an economic system, unless you are those unlucky enough to fall between the cracks and you don't have money or a job. If you are poor or disadvantaged, capitalism can be cruel.
If you want to see what capitalism is without a conscience, check out Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" as well as the works of other journalists and writers at the beginning of the 20th Century. We've come a long way from those days. Let's not fall back into them again.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Thoughts before the voting
The brilliance in Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity was that it was performed without making a plea to vote for either political side. He delivered a message that will still be relevant no matter what the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections. He does not have to rely on a political victory for his call for sanity to be answered.
However, it seems unlikely that sanity would be achieved if the T.E.A. party radicals achieve the kind of overwhelming victory that they are hoping for. And much as he claimed that his rally was not a response to Glenn Beck's Rally to Restore Honor, comparisons are inevitable. Stewart himself has said that he does not care what outcome or influence there may be from his rally, but I care. And I'll make some comparisons even though Stewart is not likely to.
I do so as a Democrat, so I am applying my own filter in interpreting Stewart's rally. So, I have to apologize to Jon because I am about to become one of those people who will tell you what I think the rally means.
The exact numbers from each rally are up for debate -- to a point -- but from every reasonable source I have seen, Stewart's rally had at least 200,000 to 250,000 people. That's a number at least double the size of Beck's rally. Those estimates on the sanity rally are probably safe guesses considering that they probably do not include the crowds that also milled about on the streets around the National Mall.
Aside from keeping score, what do those numbers mean? They mean that Jon Stewart has demonstrated more with action than with words that he is the better man. He has checked Glenn Beck from making any reasonable claim that he speaks for the majority of Americans. And even though the T.E.A. party candidates do have the momentum and the energy to win in this election, he has served notice that a large part of this country is not going to support the more radical of their plans.
His rally and his call for sanity was directed at the moderate middle. It was a call for making the kind of political compromises that allow government to work. It was a call for responsible commentary on the issues. It was a call to scorn the hot heads and not hire them as news analysts. (And maybe fire the ones that are working?)
Most of the audience that demonstrated a political viewpoint leaned to the left, and that is in part because the left has been taking more of a beating this year. In a way, Stewart is like the guy who comes upon two kids having a street fight. He runs to break up the fight and restore order, but in doing so he also saves the weaker kid who is losing the fight.
Critics of Stewart would say that his audience leans to the left because he is a tool of the liberal elite. But Jon Stewart is nobody's tool.
I respect him tremendously because he has the integrity as a comedian that many journalists today lack. He is fearless in directing his thoughtful and often biting commentary at anyone who deserves it. One of his favorite targets is Fox News, which shows the least integrity of any media organization. He attacks them so often because they spend 24-hours a day pumping their propaganda and nonsense into the political landscape. Of course they are going to draw more fire.
And I apologize if my criticism has become uncivil. I am striving to be a saner person since attending the rally.
It seems unlikely that the Rally to Restore Sanity will give the Democrats the kind of last-minute boost they have been hoping for. The pundits and pollsters seem to have concluded that it is all but certain the Democrats will at least lose the House. However, so many races are so tight and so tightly contested that now more than ever, every vote will count. Every vote will matter.
Of course, I am hoping for at least a close race in this election. If the Democrats lose the House, but just barely, or at least by only a respectable margin, perhaps that might create the atmosphere for political compromise that we need. The T.E.A. party candidates may put the Republicans in charge, but perhaps there will emerge a moderate coalition that can actually get some functional legislation passed. But that is likely be a faint hope.
To repeat my earlier blog, the key is to have both fiscal responsibility and a social conscience in government. To me, that is as obvious a solution as the two-state solution is for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the Israelis and the Palestinians do not see that as so obvious or as easy to achieve. Neither would this kind of compromise be for Democrats and Republicans.
Still Democrats and Republicans should have an easier time in finding compromise because they do not have years of actual bloodshed to overcome. They just have years of name calling and bitter rivalry to deal with.
So, it comes down to the voting on Tuesday. The results may include some surprises for us. Stewart may have energized the middle more than the pundits expect. After all, this was not just one rally of nearly a quarter of a million people. It was a series of satellite rallies held all over the country. For every person who actually stood on the National Mall on Saturday, there were who-knows-how-many others who wanted to be there but couldn't.
And how will this energized middle vote? We'll have to wait and see. But even though the Rally to Restore Sanity may come too late to have an impact on this election, its legacy may be felt on many elections to come.
However, it seems unlikely that sanity would be achieved if the T.E.A. party radicals achieve the kind of overwhelming victory that they are hoping for. And much as he claimed that his rally was not a response to Glenn Beck's Rally to Restore Honor, comparisons are inevitable. Stewart himself has said that he does not care what outcome or influence there may be from his rally, but I care. And I'll make some comparisons even though Stewart is not likely to.
I do so as a Democrat, so I am applying my own filter in interpreting Stewart's rally. So, I have to apologize to Jon because I am about to become one of those people who will tell you what I think the rally means.
The exact numbers from each rally are up for debate -- to a point -- but from every reasonable source I have seen, Stewart's rally had at least 200,000 to 250,000 people. That's a number at least double the size of Beck's rally. Those estimates on the sanity rally are probably safe guesses considering that they probably do not include the crowds that also milled about on the streets around the National Mall.
Aside from keeping score, what do those numbers mean? They mean that Jon Stewart has demonstrated more with action than with words that he is the better man. He has checked Glenn Beck from making any reasonable claim that he speaks for the majority of Americans. And even though the T.E.A. party candidates do have the momentum and the energy to win in this election, he has served notice that a large part of this country is not going to support the more radical of their plans.
His rally and his call for sanity was directed at the moderate middle. It was a call for making the kind of political compromises that allow government to work. It was a call for responsible commentary on the issues. It was a call to scorn the hot heads and not hire them as news analysts. (And maybe fire the ones that are working?)
Most of the audience that demonstrated a political viewpoint leaned to the left, and that is in part because the left has been taking more of a beating this year. In a way, Stewart is like the guy who comes upon two kids having a street fight. He runs to break up the fight and restore order, but in doing so he also saves the weaker kid who is losing the fight.
Critics of Stewart would say that his audience leans to the left because he is a tool of the liberal elite. But Jon Stewart is nobody's tool.
I respect him tremendously because he has the integrity as a comedian that many journalists today lack. He is fearless in directing his thoughtful and often biting commentary at anyone who deserves it. One of his favorite targets is Fox News, which shows the least integrity of any media organization. He attacks them so often because they spend 24-hours a day pumping their propaganda and nonsense into the political landscape. Of course they are going to draw more fire.
And I apologize if my criticism has become uncivil. I am striving to be a saner person since attending the rally.
It seems unlikely that the Rally to Restore Sanity will give the Democrats the kind of last-minute boost they have been hoping for. The pundits and pollsters seem to have concluded that it is all but certain the Democrats will at least lose the House. However, so many races are so tight and so tightly contested that now more than ever, every vote will count. Every vote will matter.
Of course, I am hoping for at least a close race in this election. If the Democrats lose the House, but just barely, or at least by only a respectable margin, perhaps that might create the atmosphere for political compromise that we need. The T.E.A. party candidates may put the Republicans in charge, but perhaps there will emerge a moderate coalition that can actually get some functional legislation passed. But that is likely be a faint hope.
To repeat my earlier blog, the key is to have both fiscal responsibility and a social conscience in government. To me, that is as obvious a solution as the two-state solution is for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the Israelis and the Palestinians do not see that as so obvious or as easy to achieve. Neither would this kind of compromise be for Democrats and Republicans.
Still Democrats and Republicans should have an easier time in finding compromise because they do not have years of actual bloodshed to overcome. They just have years of name calling and bitter rivalry to deal with.
So, it comes down to the voting on Tuesday. The results may include some surprises for us. Stewart may have energized the middle more than the pundits expect. After all, this was not just one rally of nearly a quarter of a million people. It was a series of satellite rallies held all over the country. For every person who actually stood on the National Mall on Saturday, there were who-knows-how-many others who wanted to be there but couldn't.
And how will this energized middle vote? We'll have to wait and see. But even though the Rally to Restore Sanity may come too late to have an impact on this election, its legacy may be felt on many elections to come.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Jon Stewart, media prophet
Because he asked us to, hundreds of thousands of people gathered in one spot to hear a man speak.
The man said what he felt needed to be said. He gave no direct instructions, no political endorsements, but he told a joke here and there. When he had finished what he had to say, he walked away.
Jon Stewart has evolved from late-night comedian to modern-day prophet.
"I can't control what people think this was. I can only tell you my intentions," was how Stewart began his final speech at the Rally to Restore Sanity. He gave us a metaphor of America as one massive traffic jam, ten lanes of vehicles that must merge into one so that they can enter a mile-lone tunnel. It would be impossible without compromise, without concession. "You go, then I'll go."
Stewart ended his rally with a moment that was appropriately Zen.
"If you want to know why I'm here, and what I want from you. I can only assure you this, you have already given it to me. Your presence was what I wanted. Sanity will always be and has always been in the eye of the beholder. To see you here today and the kind of people that you are, has restored mine."
If we did help restore Jon Stewart's sanity, I'm grateful because he is the man who has kept me sane for 11 years, especially during the Bush administration. Apparently, he had been helping a few other people too.
I had nothing to worry about.
Actually, the rally was very much like a Halloween party. We loved to take pictures of each others' signs. Many were not political. "Up with boobs." "Down with panties." "Down with toilet seats." "I have a sign." "I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." "Anyone for Scrabble later?" "Everybody poops."
Kids carried signs. People wore costumes, and dressed like bananas, as a gorilla in a Ghostbusters uniform, as a fox, as Darth Vader. One guy wore a dress made entirely out of candy. I think it was all Smarties. A lot were college-aged people, but every generation was represented. A couple I talked to in a Starbucks after the rally had come from Pittsburgh. The man said that it was the largest rally he had been to, and that included when he had been a protester during the Vietnam War.
But what united all of us was that we had shared that same moment of sanity each night, delivered by a man who gave us the news, but with a reality check. "Yeah, did you see that? Did that really happen? Did he really say that? He did, and it was crazy."
So, we came to Washington D.C. for one big national reality check. And we came away a little saner. Through the skits and video, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and the rest of the Comedy Central team showed us America through the funhouse mirror of media punditry. With Stephen Colbert's media assault, he showed us the fear and the ugliness.
And it was a balanced assault. The video clips included Fox commentators -- including some from Glenn Beck -- but also liberal pundits going over the edge. "Republicans are liars," one commentator screamed into the camera. It was an image that stayed with me. In this age of attack ads, I'm tempted to scream the same thing. Seeing that in the video montage helped me pull back.
That is what I hope came out of the rally, that we all as a nation could pull back from the brink.
There comes a time in an argument when we nearly say the things that we don't mean to say, but after we say them, we create a breaking point from which there is no return. After such arguments, people may stop talking to each other, sometimes not for the rest of our lives.
If that happens politically, then we lose the opportunity for compromise. Without compromise, government will not work.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Simplifying the situation
To sum up my previous post, let me just say this:
Under politics without compromise, the extremes take control of the system. The more extremist the leadership is, the more bitter the opposition becomes. Government grinds to a halt, and nothing gets done.
Under politics without compromise, the extremes take control of the system. The more extremist the leadership is, the more bitter the opposition becomes. Government grinds to a halt, and nothing gets done.
Find the sane choice
I’m going to the Rally to Restore Sanity. I’m going as a Democrat who has become seriously concerned about the swing to the right that this country is about to take. However, I know that this rally is not about supporting one political view. I’ve been reading the signs posted online, and it is clear that many of those who will be at the rally come from a variety of political opinions. However, all of us will be expressing a common theme: that we do not like the rhetoric, anger and lies that have been thrown about in this election.
Most of that is coming from T.E.A. party candidates and their supporters. Their movement owes its strength to Fox, a media organization whose owner, Rupert Mudoch, decided to use as an organ of the Republican Party and the conservative right. As a former journalist and a former journalism professor, I am saddened that a media company would choose to put a political agenda above the dispassionate reporting of the news.
Fox has given Glenn Beck a daily platform to spew an extremist view and connect the dots on nonsensical conspiracy theories that can be traced back to the John Birch Society. For more on that, I recommend an article in the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/18/101018fa_fact_wilentz?currentPage=all
The article is seven pages long but spells out the history of Glenn Beck’s philosophy, and it is well worth reading. Know what philosophy you are supporting before you pull that lever.
As we try to restore sanity, I would say that much of the responsibility for the insanity we see today is because of Fox. I would also blame what I call the “wedgy Web” politics of today. And I would also put some blame on the Democrats political strategy, which is a result of the Wedgy Web politics.
First, to talk about Fox. While other media organizations try to play by the rules – such as banning their reporters from attending the Rally to Restore Sanity unless they have been assigned to cover it – Fox shamelessly works for the conservatives. And really, the strongest antidote to their propaganda has been Jon Stewart and the Daily Show.
Jon Stewart may only be a comedian, but he is a smart comedian and commentator on the news. He is also a thorough and fair interviewer, and he asks hard questions when hard questions need to be asked. That was very clear when he interviewed President Obama on his show Wednesday night.
I expect that many Democrats will not like everything that Jon Stewart has to say at the rally, but I know I will respect what he says and does.
The other part of the insanity comes from wedge politics, which I trace to Karl Rove and George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign. The tactics that were used undercut John McCain’s bid for president included a phony poll to voters in South Carolina, asking “Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain...if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" http://www.thenation.com/article/dirty-tricks-south-carolina-and-john-mccain. If you read the article, you get a sense that this incident not only cost McCain the nomination, but permanently changed his stance in the Republican party.
Rove may deny his involvement in the scheme, but it is his style of politics. It began a new era of win-at-any-cost strategies in politics, and it has reached a fever pitch today. In the current campaign, misleading and deceptive attack ads are running in Congressional districts with tightly contested races, without any check on accuracy and without having to declare where the funds for these ads came from. The more money you have, the bigger lie you can make in a TV ad.
Wedge politics goes to a new level on the Internet, what I call “wedgy Web politics.” During George W. Bush’s presidency, he bypassed the traditional media and communicated directly to his base via e-mail and the Internet. So, while most of the country did not know his positions or plans, his base had what they needed to do what was needed to keep him and the GOP in power. It has gone to new levels today, and both sides are using this tactic now.
I am on many e-mail lists from the Democrats, and I receive frequent e-mails with requests for money, updates on campaigns and inspirational memos from leaders. While I agree with and appreciate most of these e-mails, my concern is that so much of the political discourse is happening underground. Each side gets filled up on talking points from their leaders, and when we encounter someone from the opposing side we don’t so much discuss but spout a party line. That does tend to turn the political process insane.
It’s also not pragmatic. Elections are won by persuading the voters in the middle, the undecideds. Getting out the party faithful is part of winning an election, and it demonstrates a political strength. However, the true test in politics is in making a thoughtful and resounding argument to the nation as a whole.
I don’t hear thoughtful argument from the T.E.A. party candidates because they shout too loud without thinking out their positions. And the Democrats are making their own case so quietly they are not being heard. We'll know what the middle thinks on election day.
So, what has happened?
Wedge politics got George Bush elected in 2000 and 2004. The GOP used every political trick to hold onto and expand their power throughout his presidency. But he also abandoned key Republican principles such as fiscal responsibility. He expanded government and governmental spending and increased the deficit. (It was a surplus when Clinton finished.) GOP laissez-faire rules and and a lack of oversight also allowed greed on Wall Street to expand so that the entire system very nearly collapsed and almost caused a second Great Depression.
In response to the policies of the Bush administration, we elected Barack Obama as president and gave him an overwhelming majority in Congress. This also marked a collapse of the traditional center of the conservative movement, which has now been filled by T.E.A. party radicals.
But even after Bush left office, the wedge politics remained. Because either the Republicans wouldn’t cooperate, or the Democrats did not pursue it far enough, bipartisanship did not emerge. Instead, Democrats decided to go it alone, and pushed through their agenda on the bailouts and health care. What emerged was legislation without any Republican backing. Aside from Fox, the lack of bipartisanship has been another major driving force for the T.E.A. party movement. Check this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/25/AR2010102502408.html
Were the T.E.A. party candidates to take charge, we would be no better off. We would just see more power plays, this time with the right in charge instead of the left. But it would be worse because these are candidates who have ideas that go beyond just cutting taxes. They actually want to dismantle major programs of the federal government and undo key principles of our constitution. Check this link: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/17/how-tea-partiers-get-the-constitution-wrong.html
What do we need? We need a middle again.
I believe government can be fiscally responsible and have a social conscience. If we are to have social programs that can save Americans from the crises that can destroy lives and keep people in poverty, we need to agree on how to pay for it. That is not easily done, and it is not going to be solved by shouting slogans or electing extremists. It could be done by having the moderates from each party work together. We need to honestly accept that there are social issues that need to be solved and find a reasonable way to solve them.
So, I am going to the Rally to Restore Sanity. I do not know whether this rally will have any impact on next week’s election, but it is a message that I hope the country listens to. Let us hope we find the sane choices.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Term limits
Term limits are being pushed for again. A friend recently suggested term limits for Congress on a Facebook post. "12 years for Senate, 10 years for House. Or maybe less."
Term limits and I have gotten off on the wrong foot. The first time I was approached about term limits was in the parking lot of the Ralph's supermarket on Pico Boulevard in Los Angeles. A group of women asked me to sign their petition so that we could get rid of the current group of elected officials on the city council.
Since I actually liked and voted for the Democrats on the city council, I would not sign their petition for term limits. It just seemed a way of me giving permission for them to take away my right to choose.
That is the problem I have with term limits. It seems to be an issue that is raised to attack whoever the incumbent is. Perhaps I want to vote for that incumbent because I consider them to be the best person to do the job, in part because they have the experience and the track record that is needed.
I liked an answer to term limits I heard years ago. "We already have term limits. It's called voting."
HOWEVER ...
I understand how naive that can seem. With the influence of money, power and prestige, we do have a system that can favor the incumbent and make it difficult for the newcomer.
Without term limits, our system has career politicians, whose entire set of skills and experience are limited to politics. It is easy to see how someone like that will get caught up in the pursuit of personal power and wealth rather than serving the public good.
I can see the argument that term limits would take that temptation out of the equation because if you know you are going to be in the job for only a short time, you can't use it for personal enrichment. You go into the job knowing that you have a short time to achieve what you promised, and that you will go back into private life when you are done.
I'm reminded of the story of Cincinnatus, a Roman who answered the call of duty to defend Rome. He became a general, defeated the enemy and could have used his position to continue with great power in Rome. Instead, when his war was won, he left the army and returned to his life on the farm.
The story of Cincinnatus inspired another general, George Washington, who became our president and left office voluntarily after serving two terms. He was also the first president of the Society of the Cincinnati. By tradition, Washington established the two-term limit for presidents, which was not broken until Franklin Roosevelt. After Roosevelt, it became law.
But my other reservation about term limits is that there is a value to having an elected official who has served on the job for decades. There is an institutional and historic knowledge that comes with someone who has been there for so long. Such a person can have a positive impact on the process, and can keep a legislative body from making the same mistakes as in the past. Such as person can be a ready resource on a variety of matters.
I might consider term limits if perhaps: 1) it was not applied to current office holders. (Yeah, I know that won't be popular.) and 2) That after you serve your terms, you don't have a lifetime ban, but instead can run again after being out of office for a while. I could imagine some bright, energetic 25-year-old getting elected, serving his/her terms and then coming back and running again in their 40s or 50s. Why not have someone like that come back??
I'm not entirely persuaded to support term limits. Perhaps the next time someone approaches me with a clipboard and asks me to sign a petition, I'll think about it.
Term limits and I have gotten off on the wrong foot. The first time I was approached about term limits was in the parking lot of the Ralph's supermarket on Pico Boulevard in Los Angeles. A group of women asked me to sign their petition so that we could get rid of the current group of elected officials on the city council.
Since I actually liked and voted for the Democrats on the city council, I would not sign their petition for term limits. It just seemed a way of me giving permission for them to take away my right to choose.
That is the problem I have with term limits. It seems to be an issue that is raised to attack whoever the incumbent is. Perhaps I want to vote for that incumbent because I consider them to be the best person to do the job, in part because they have the experience and the track record that is needed.
I liked an answer to term limits I heard years ago. "We already have term limits. It's called voting."
HOWEVER ...
I understand how naive that can seem. With the influence of money, power and prestige, we do have a system that can favor the incumbent and make it difficult for the newcomer.
Without term limits, our system has career politicians, whose entire set of skills and experience are limited to politics. It is easy to see how someone like that will get caught up in the pursuit of personal power and wealth rather than serving the public good.
I can see the argument that term limits would take that temptation out of the equation because if you know you are going to be in the job for only a short time, you can't use it for personal enrichment. You go into the job knowing that you have a short time to achieve what you promised, and that you will go back into private life when you are done.
I'm reminded of the story of Cincinnatus, a Roman who answered the call of duty to defend Rome. He became a general, defeated the enemy and could have used his position to continue with great power in Rome. Instead, when his war was won, he left the army and returned to his life on the farm.
The story of Cincinnatus inspired another general, George Washington, who became our president and left office voluntarily after serving two terms. He was also the first president of the Society of the Cincinnati. By tradition, Washington established the two-term limit for presidents, which was not broken until Franklin Roosevelt. After Roosevelt, it became law.
But my other reservation about term limits is that there is a value to having an elected official who has served on the job for decades. There is an institutional and historic knowledge that comes with someone who has been there for so long. Such a person can have a positive impact on the process, and can keep a legislative body from making the same mistakes as in the past. Such as person can be a ready resource on a variety of matters.
I might consider term limits if perhaps: 1) it was not applied to current office holders. (Yeah, I know that won't be popular.) and 2) That after you serve your terms, you don't have a lifetime ban, but instead can run again after being out of office for a while. I could imagine some bright, energetic 25-year-old getting elected, serving his/her terms and then coming back and running again in their 40s or 50s. Why not have someone like that come back??
I'm not entirely persuaded to support term limits. Perhaps the next time someone approaches me with a clipboard and asks me to sign a petition, I'll think about it.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Watching the disaster
“The government since the 1960s has thrown billions of dollars at social programs for the poor and guess what? We still have poor people!”
True.
But we’ve spent billions of dollars on firefighting services, and we still have house fires.
And when your house catches fire, you expect a government-paid service of firefighters to show up and put the fire out.
We’ve spent billions on crime and crime prevention, and there is still crime. And when an intruder breaks into your house and attacks you, you hope that taxpayer funded police office shows up and saves you.
We pay for these and other services from the government to save us in these moments of crisis, make-or-break times when a timely rescue can spare us a lifetime of misery.
Where you draw the line between a necessary government rescue and unnecessary government waste defines where you are on the political spectrum.
Let’s say you work full-time as an independent contractor. Your house catches fire. The fire department shows up and saves your house, but you are seriously injured.
An ambulance takes you to the hospital, but you don’t have health insurance. You get hit with thousands of dollars of hospital bills. You lose work and income. This could be a worse disaster than if you had lost your house.
The health care system needed reform to save average people from having to face staggering medical bills on their own. And it needed reform not so that more money could be thrown at a problem, but so that people could get health care with less waste and greed from the insurance companies.
The execution of that reform is still being debated. The details can still be argued, but the need is undeniable. Something had to be done.
The common campaign theme of the T.E.A. party candidates seems to be borrowed from a JG Wentworth commercial – “It’s my money, and I need it now.” They have attacked or called for dismantling a variety of federal programs and services ranging from Social Security, unemployment, the minimum wage, the Department of Education and health care. One candidate has even attacked the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s in the name of resisting government control.
The call for smaller government and lower taxes is not new. And that’s a position I’ve always respected. After all, you can’t get something without paying for it or knowing from where it will be funded. Ignoring the costs of a program within a government budget will only lead to runaway deficits and economic disaster.
The philosophy of the tax-and-spend liberal of the 70s and 80s does not work. Government should be leaner. However, I believe government can be fiscally responsible and have a social conscience.
Give the T.E.A. party candidates the kind of changes they are shouting for, and you are sure to have more tax dollars in your pocket. But it will be a government without a conscience, without a means of helping those whose lives are in crisis.
In a way, we will be like the neighbors to that home in South Fulton, Tennessee, that the firefighters just let burn to the ground. The fire department made sure the neighbors' homes did not burn, but it left a bad taste in the mouths of many who watched. They followed the rules, but it was a rule with no conscience. No wisdom.
When our neighbors lives are hit with disaster, either financial, medical or otherwise, shall we have a government that will do nothing? Shall we stand by and watch as our neighbors' lives are destroyed?
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Popping bubbles
Serves me right for not listening to Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Fox News.
[shudder]
But then again, I made a choice that for my own sanity I was not going to watch Fox. I would rather have root canal than listen to Sarah Palin. (It’s true. I “liked” that on Facebook.) I tuned out the T.E.A. party rallies and their distortions, using patriotism as a weapon against their opponents.
After we overwhelmingly elected Barack Obama as president in Fall of 2008, I slowly retreated into my safe little progressive bubble. I tuned out the conservative right. Obama had been elected after promising to tackle health care reform, jobs and the economy, which had collapsed on the Republicans’ watch. As far as I was concerned, he was doing the job he had been asked to do.
So now, in Fall of 2010, I discover that many Americans believe Obama is a Muslim Nazi Communist bent on destroying a country who does not want health care reform. The Democrats are at fault for the economy, according to Republicans, who seem to have forgotten that in 2008 we all very nearly dropped into another Great Depression.
What happened?
A couple of weeks ago, I posted a piece of anti-T.E.A. party art on my Facebook wall. Before I had a chance to even make my own cup of tea, the posting drew challenges and sparked a debate between my conservative and progressive friends.
In the 20 postings that followed my piece of art, I not only got an earful of views, but a quick snapshot of the political landscape and what has changed in America in just two years.
Today, many Americans live in political bubbles of our own choosing. That’s because the mainstream media has lost its relevancy for them. A large segment of the population – on both the left and the right – can get up in the morning, surf the Internet, watch cable news programs all day and go to bed at night, all without seeing anything that challenges our political views. We can choose sources of information that already agree with our worldview.
But it is more than opinion and viewpoints that we find in our bubbles. It’s facts and history. Those change depending on which bubble you are in.
So, when someone in a political bubble on the left bumps into a someone from a bubble on the right, the debate quickly explodes because the two sides have few facts to agree on. They don’t even agree about previously unchallenged topics like American history and the Constitution. And since either side can choose to ignore the mainstream media, we have no moderator to help us sort through the realities.
Time to pop the bubbles. Including my own.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Answer to an e-mail from a high school student
---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
>From: NAME WITHHELD
>Subject: Re:
>To: ebond@ithaca.edu
>
> My apologies Mr. Bond. Thank-You so much for this.
> Even though I am still attending High School, I as
> well am a very busy young lady. Email will be fine
> for me, if only that is alright with you Sir. The
> things I wanted to ask was what inspired you to
> become a full-time professor? Did you always know
> you wanted to write? I will not lie, it has amazed
> me that you use to be a writer for the Star-Gazette
> in Elmira, Asbury Park Press, Indianapolis Star and
> the Los Angeles Times! What was that like? Were you
> able to write any and everything you wanted? What
> key tips can you share with me that will help me get
> to my goal of being a journalist? Once again I
> Thank-you for your time and consideration.
>
From: "ebond@ithaca.edu"
To: NAME WITHHELD
Sent: Thu, April 22, 2010 10:01:51 PM
Subject: Re:
I became a journalist because I loved newspapers and I loved writing. I grew up with newspapers. I had a paper route as a kid, and I always read the comics first. Later on, I started reading the front page more and more.
I was drawn to the energy and fun of newspapers. I loved the deadline driven world. At 18, I used to cover city council and school board meetings in N.J., and I loved the adrenalin rush of making deadline.
I got to write all sorts of stories, met all sorts of people and learned a lot about all sorts of topics. The fun of working for a newspaper was that you never knew what the day would bring. One day it might be a teacher's strike, the next might be an interview with a famous scientist, the next might be a close encounter with a celebrity.
I didn't get to write every story I wanted to, but I'd say about 90 percent of the stories I wrote, I came up with on my own.
I got into teaching because I was once invited to speak to a high school class in Corning N.Y., and then I was invited back. Later on, when I was working at the L.A Times, I met a journalism professor at a community college in Los Angeles. I spoke to her class, and that started me on the path to being a professor myself. I would eventually replace that teacher in her job.
What I discovered was that I enjoyed standing in front a group of young people, eager to learn, and talk about why journalists do what we do. We are trying to improve the world, in a way, by giving people the news and information that they need to make decisions they will make. We don't make those decisions for people, we don't advocate for a cause, but we try to show people all sides of an issue. It's a role that is not always appreciated.
As to advice about becoming a journalist, the first piece of advice is to read: newspapers, magazines, books. Be familiar with the written word. Take an interest in the issues in the world. Get educated on the issues.
Secondly, you should know that the world of journalism that I entered years ago is very different from the world that you may enter. Newspapers are dying, unfortunately, but journalism is still going strong. It's now become multimedia. Reporters need to be able to not only write stories but to shoot pictures, shoot video, edit these materials and get them on the Web.
So, I would recommend you find ways to give yourself as much practice with these as possible. Join the student newspaper, take classes in technology, start your own blog. Learn how the world of media works today.
Well, I'd say that's it in a nutshell. I hope this helps you in your pursuits.
Good luck,
Ed Bond
www.edbond.com
>Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
>From: NAME WITHHELD
>Subject: Re:
>To: ebond@ithaca.edu
>
> My apologies Mr. Bond. Thank-You so much for this.
> Even though I am still attending High School, I as
> well am a very busy young lady. Email will be fine
> for me, if only that is alright with you Sir. The
> things I wanted to ask was what inspired you to
> become a full-time professor? Did you always know
> you wanted to write? I will not lie, it has amazed
> me that you use to be a writer for the Star-Gazette
> in Elmira, Asbury Park Press, Indianapolis Star and
> the Los Angeles Times! What was that like? Were you
> able to write any and everything you wanted? What
> key tips can you share with me that will help me get
> to my goal of being a journalist? Once again I
> Thank-you for your time and consideration.
>
From: "ebond@ithaca.edu"
To: NAME WITHHELD
Sent: Thu, April 22, 2010 10:01:51 PM
Subject: Re:
I became a journalist because I loved newspapers and I loved writing. I grew up with newspapers. I had a paper route as a kid, and I always read the comics first. Later on, I started reading the front page more and more.
I was drawn to the energy and fun of newspapers. I loved the deadline driven world. At 18, I used to cover city council and school board meetings in N.J., and I loved the adrenalin rush of making deadline.
I got to write all sorts of stories, met all sorts of people and learned a lot about all sorts of topics. The fun of working for a newspaper was that you never knew what the day would bring. One day it might be a teacher's strike, the next might be an interview with a famous scientist, the next might be a close encounter with a celebrity.
I didn't get to write every story I wanted to, but I'd say about 90 percent of the stories I wrote, I came up with on my own.
I got into teaching because I was once invited to speak to a high school class in Corning N.Y., and then I was invited back. Later on, when I was working at the L.A Times, I met a journalism professor at a community college in Los Angeles. I spoke to her class, and that started me on the path to being a professor myself. I would eventually replace that teacher in her job.
What I discovered was that I enjoyed standing in front a group of young people, eager to learn, and talk about why journalists do what we do. We are trying to improve the world, in a way, by giving people the news and information that they need to make decisions they will make. We don't make those decisions for people, we don't advocate for a cause, but we try to show people all sides of an issue. It's a role that is not always appreciated.
As to advice about becoming a journalist, the first piece of advice is to read: newspapers, magazines, books. Be familiar with the written word. Take an interest in the issues in the world. Get educated on the issues.
Secondly, you should know that the world of journalism that I entered years ago is very different from the world that you may enter. Newspapers are dying, unfortunately, but journalism is still going strong. It's now become multimedia. Reporters need to be able to not only write stories but to shoot pictures, shoot video, edit these materials and get them on the Web.
So, I would recommend you find ways to give yourself as much practice with these as possible. Join the student newspaper, take classes in technology, start your own blog. Learn how the world of media works today.
Well, I'd say that's it in a nutshell. I hope this helps you in your pursuits.
Good luck,
Ed Bond
www.edbond.com
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Texas school board decision on textbooks
A student flagged this on a blog, and I'm posting this for now to remind myself I want to blog on this later.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Sharing a fundraising letter from James Carville
I had to share this fundraising e-mail, ostensibly sent by James Carville. I say that with skepticism only because I often doubt that these letters actually come from the people whose names are on them. But this time I have reason to believe it. Just because the tone of it is so classically James Carville. For my friends who are Democrats, enjoy his salty language. No offense intended to my Republican friends.
Ed --
This is nuts. At a time when most of America is celebrating historic health care legislation that's been a century in the making, a few narrow-minded tea party nut jobs are trying to tarnish this great achievement.
But if you think these vile two-bit wing-nuts are just gonna slink back into whatever century they crawled out from now that health care reform is the law, think again.
The same uncorked tea party rage that we saw before the health care vote is now being used against the courageous House Democrats who stood strong and made it happen.
In fact, the slimy thugs at the Republican National Committee already raised $1,494,084 in their "Fire Nancy Pelosi" campaign. That's why I'm asking you to help my Democratic friends in the House by contributing to their Million Dollar Match campaign.
Contribute $5, $10 or more to support Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats before the critical March 31st FEC fundraising deadline and your contribution will be matched dollar-for-dollar by a group of committed Democrats.
This is the first FEC fundraising deadline since the House passed health care reform. And, Republicans and the media are watching closely to see whether we reach our million dollar goal.
We gotta take this fight right to those Republican special interests and right-wing extremists determined to bring back the failed policies of the past.
Contribute $5, $10 or more to support House Democrats before the critical March 31st FEC fundraising deadline and your contribution will be matched dollar-for-dollar by a group of committed Democrats.
We will not be intimidated by the lies, distortions and hate spewing venom from the mouths of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, John Boehner and the other Republican gas bags. And, we're not about to back down in the face of the tidal wave of special interest cash pouring into the campaigns of our Republican opponents thanks to the radical decision by the Supreme Court.
The March 31st FEC deadline is a golden opportunity to demonstrate that Democrats are on the march. We already dealt those tea party crazies a big blow by putting health care reform into the history books. Now let's make it a double-punch by beating them on this big fundraising deadline.
Thanks,
James Carville
Ed --
This is nuts. At a time when most of America is celebrating historic health care legislation that's been a century in the making, a few narrow-minded tea party nut jobs are trying to tarnish this great achievement.
But if you think these vile two-bit wing-nuts are just gonna slink back into whatever century they crawled out from now that health care reform is the law, think again.
The same uncorked tea party rage that we saw before the health care vote is now being used against the courageous House Democrats who stood strong and made it happen.
In fact, the slimy thugs at the Republican National Committee already raised $1,494,084 in their "Fire Nancy Pelosi" campaign. That's why I'm asking you to help my Democratic friends in the House by contributing to their Million Dollar Match campaign.
Contribute $5, $10 or more to support Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats before the critical March 31st FEC fundraising deadline and your contribution will be matched dollar-for-dollar by a group of committed Democrats.
This is the first FEC fundraising deadline since the House passed health care reform. And, Republicans and the media are watching closely to see whether we reach our million dollar goal.
We gotta take this fight right to those Republican special interests and right-wing extremists determined to bring back the failed policies of the past.
Contribute $5, $10 or more to support House Democrats before the critical March 31st FEC fundraising deadline and your contribution will be matched dollar-for-dollar by a group of committed Democrats.
We will not be intimidated by the lies, distortions and hate spewing venom from the mouths of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, John Boehner and the other Republican gas bags. And, we're not about to back down in the face of the tidal wave of special interest cash pouring into the campaigns of our Republican opponents thanks to the radical decision by the Supreme Court.
The March 31st FEC deadline is a golden opportunity to demonstrate that Democrats are on the march. We already dealt those tea party crazies a big blow by putting health care reform into the history books. Now let's make it a double-punch by beating them on this big fundraising deadline.
Thanks,
James Carville
Monday, March 22, 2010
Don't read my ads
I'm a Democrat and an Obama supporter. So, I'm dismayed at the anti-Obama and anti-health care ads on my blog this morning.
I don't have much time, but I just wanted to say, "Hooray for health care reform." It is probably not a perfect piece of legislation, but it is a start. It is better than nothing, and it can be improved an amended over time.
I'd like to see the Republicans try to repeal this. Taking away health care from people who need it? How does that help you politically?
I don't have much time, but I just wanted to say, "Hooray for health care reform." It is probably not a perfect piece of legislation, but it is a start. It is better than nothing, and it can be improved an amended over time.
I'd like to see the Republicans try to repeal this. Taking away health care from people who need it? How does that help you politically?
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The Image of God
We had a priest visiting from Colorado in church today. His sermon was on the Parable of the Prodigal Son. He made the point that really it should have been called the Parable of the Benevolent Father. He said that this is the story that we should draw our image of God from -- one of forgiveness and love.
He took the opportunity to fire a blast at Pat Robertson, who had declared that Haiti was being punished by God for its past sins. He also attacked those who had claimed that Hurricane Katrina was God's way of punishing New Orleans.
This is not the image of God that we should have, he said, of a God that is vindictive and mean. He was actually fuming with anger over this idea of God as using nature to punish humanity for their sins. It was the wrong idea to have about God. For a Catholic service, this was probably the most emotional and energetic sermon I had witnessed ... ever.
God is love. God forgives, and let us be grateful for that.
He took the opportunity to fire a blast at Pat Robertson, who had declared that Haiti was being punished by God for its past sins. He also attacked those who had claimed that Hurricane Katrina was God's way of punishing New Orleans.
This is not the image of God that we should have, he said, of a God that is vindictive and mean. He was actually fuming with anger over this idea of God as using nature to punish humanity for their sins. It was the wrong idea to have about God. For a Catholic service, this was probably the most emotional and energetic sermon I had witnessed ... ever.
God is love. God forgives, and let us be grateful for that.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Stumbled upon hate
Here's some unfortunate proof that racism exists: I was just surfing through YouTube just now and found this message embedded across the bottom of a video: "We are establishing a sovereign and independent all-White nation in the Pacific Northwest, which shall serve as a Homeland of safety and freedom for all White peoples the world over. www.northwestfront.org/"
The video is dated from September 2006, but it has had more than 2 million views. (2,237,584 views as of today). The link is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmbSupnmK8k.
The weird part is that if you click on the link from my blog, the racist green box is not there anymore. It must be an add on. You do see it if you go directly to the URL. Here's what it looks like:
The Web site it sends you to spells out a plan to a create a separate all-White nation in the Pacific Northwest. They even have a flag. So, at the very least, this is treasonous.
If it is a joke, it is a poor joke. If it is for real, it is to be condemned.
I skimmed through the Web site and found something more disturbing. They claim they support peace. But it is the brand of peace created by separating the races. They also complain about how the media has stereotyped their movement:
"When you say 'Northwest separatist' most people conjure up a vision of a religious nut living with multiple wives out in a cabin on a mountain, or else some shaven-headed, tattooed punk in a compound screaming 'White Power' and giving a Hitler salute with one hand while waving a can of beer in the air in the other. Like all stereotypes, these are mostly false and the creation of hostile government propaganda, but there is enough truth behind them to sting. We haven’t been as good at presenting ourselves as we might have been in the past."
So, what they are saying is that they want to carry on the ideas of white supremacy without the overt symbols of white supremacy. At best this is a brand of quieter racism, and a silent racism is as dangerous as an overt, offensive racism.
I might have just ignored this posting, but I couldn't. We need to look at this ugliness to know the evils that lurk out in the world.
The video is dated from September 2006, but it has had more than 2 million views. (2,237,584 views as of today). The link is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmbSupnmK8k.
The weird part is that if you click on the link from my blog, the racist green box is not there anymore. It must be an add on. You do see it if you go directly to the URL. Here's what it looks like:
The Web site it sends you to spells out a plan to a create a separate all-White nation in the Pacific Northwest. They even have a flag. So, at the very least, this is treasonous.
If it is a joke, it is a poor joke. If it is for real, it is to be condemned.
I skimmed through the Web site and found something more disturbing. They claim they support peace. But it is the brand of peace created by separating the races. They also complain about how the media has stereotyped their movement:
"When you say 'Northwest separatist' most people conjure up a vision of a religious nut living with multiple wives out in a cabin on a mountain, or else some shaven-headed, tattooed punk in a compound screaming 'White Power' and giving a Hitler salute with one hand while waving a can of beer in the air in the other. Like all stereotypes, these are mostly false and the creation of hostile government propaganda, but there is enough truth behind them to sting. We haven’t been as good at presenting ourselves as we might have been in the past."
So, what they are saying is that they want to carry on the ideas of white supremacy without the overt symbols of white supremacy. At best this is a brand of quieter racism, and a silent racism is as dangerous as an overt, offensive racism.
I might have just ignored this posting, but I couldn't. We need to look at this ugliness to know the evils that lurk out in the world.
Unlocking the problem of hate
I was driving into work the other day -- heading up a steep, twisty hill that is part of the backroads shortcut that I take to the college -- when I started thinking about the old sayings: "You can't imprison an idea." "You can't kill an idea."
They come from a sentiment of the freedom fighters of history. A similar statement: "The pen is mightier than the sword."
For those of us who live in free societies, these are comforting thoughts. We take them as proof of the universal need for democracy and freedom. They are still comforting thoughts for those who today are locked up in prisons or house arrest because of brutal dictatorships. They offer hope that ultimately freedom will prevail over injustice.
But there is the other end of the gradient.
You may not be able to kill an idea like freedom, equality or justice. You may not be able to imprison such ideas. But it also is just as difficult to stomp out hate.
Those who hate the U.S. have attacked us, our soldiers and our allies. They continue to plan attacks.
And we have met their violence with our own.
But violence does not defeat hate, it creates more.
Violence results in martyrs and victims who can inspire a cause. When that cause is liberty, such victims and martyrs inspire freedom and democracy. When that cause is hate, they inspire more hate.
Have you not noticed that many terrorist attacks come not from al-Qaida itself but from "militants inspired by al-Qaida"? You could kill every single member of al-Qaida but still have a world-wide problem with terrorism.
Yes, we must answer our enemies with military force, but to truly defuse the potential force of our enemies we must unlock the problem of hate.
They come from a sentiment of the freedom fighters of history. A similar statement: "The pen is mightier than the sword."
For those of us who live in free societies, these are comforting thoughts. We take them as proof of the universal need for democracy and freedom. They are still comforting thoughts for those who today are locked up in prisons or house arrest because of brutal dictatorships. They offer hope that ultimately freedom will prevail over injustice.
But there is the other end of the gradient.
You may not be able to kill an idea like freedom, equality or justice. You may not be able to imprison such ideas. But it also is just as difficult to stomp out hate.
Those who hate the U.S. have attacked us, our soldiers and our allies. They continue to plan attacks.
And we have met their violence with our own.
But violence does not defeat hate, it creates more.
Violence results in martyrs and victims who can inspire a cause. When that cause is liberty, such victims and martyrs inspire freedom and democracy. When that cause is hate, they inspire more hate.
Have you not noticed that many terrorist attacks come not from al-Qaida itself but from "militants inspired by al-Qaida"? You could kill every single member of al-Qaida but still have a world-wide problem with terrorism.
Yes, we must answer our enemies with military force, but to truly defuse the potential force of our enemies we must unlock the problem of hate.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
A final vote on health reform
Reposting an e-mail sent from the president:
Ed --
Last Thursday's first-of-its-kind summit capped off a debate that has lasted nearly a year. Every idea has now been put on the table. Every argument has been made. Both parties agree that the status quo is unacceptable and gets more dire each day. Today, I want to state as clearly and forcefully as I know how: Now is the time to make a decision about the future of health care in America.
The final proposal I've put forward draws on the best ideas from all sides, including several put forward by Republicans at last week's summit. It will put Americans in charge of their own health care, ensuring that neither government nor insurance company bureaucrats can ration, deny, or put out of financial reach the care our families need and deserve.
I strongly believe that Congress now owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. Reform has already passed the House with bipartisan support and the Senate with a super-majority of sixty votes. Now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that has been routinely used and has passed such landmark measures as welfare reform and both Bush tax cuts.
Earlier today, I asked leaders in both houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. And now, I'm asking you, the members of the Organizing for America community, to raise your voice and do the same.
The final march for reform has begun, and your participation is crucial. Please commit to join with me to take reform across the finish line.
Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system:
First, it would protect all Americans from the worst practices of insurance companies. Never again will the mother with breast cancer have her coverage revoked, see her premiums arbitrarily raised, or be forced to live in fear that a pre-existing condition will bar her from future coverage.
Second, my proposal would give individuals and small businesses the same choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves. And my proposal says that if you still can't afford the insurance in this new marketplace, we will offer you tax credits based on your income -- tax credits that add up to the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history.
Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for everyone -- families, businesses, and the federal government -- and bring down our deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. These savings mean businesses small and large will finally be freed up to create jobs and increase wages. With costs currently skyrocketing, reform is vital to remaining economically strong in the years and decades to come.
In the few crucial weeks ahead, you can help make sure this proposal becomes law. Please sign up to join the Organizing for America campaign in the final march for reform:
http://my.barackobama.com/commit
When I talked about change on the campaign, this is what I was talking about: coming together to solve a huge problem that has been troubling America for 100 years and standing up to the special interests to deliver a brighter, smarter future for generations to come.
I look forward to signing this historic reform into law. And when I do, it will be because your organizing played an essential role in making change possible.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
Ed --
Last Thursday's first-of-its-kind summit capped off a debate that has lasted nearly a year. Every idea has now been put on the table. Every argument has been made. Both parties agree that the status quo is unacceptable and gets more dire each day. Today, I want to state as clearly and forcefully as I know how: Now is the time to make a decision about the future of health care in America.
The final proposal I've put forward draws on the best ideas from all sides, including several put forward by Republicans at last week's summit. It will put Americans in charge of their own health care, ensuring that neither government nor insurance company bureaucrats can ration, deny, or put out of financial reach the care our families need and deserve.
I strongly believe that Congress now owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. Reform has already passed the House with bipartisan support and the Senate with a super-majority of sixty votes. Now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that has been routinely used and has passed such landmark measures as welfare reform and both Bush tax cuts.
Earlier today, I asked leaders in both houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. And now, I'm asking you, the members of the Organizing for America community, to raise your voice and do the same.
The final march for reform has begun, and your participation is crucial. Please commit to join with me to take reform across the finish line.
Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system:
First, it would protect all Americans from the worst practices of insurance companies. Never again will the mother with breast cancer have her coverage revoked, see her premiums arbitrarily raised, or be forced to live in fear that a pre-existing condition will bar her from future coverage.
Second, my proposal would give individuals and small businesses the same choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves. And my proposal says that if you still can't afford the insurance in this new marketplace, we will offer you tax credits based on your income -- tax credits that add up to the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history.
Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for everyone -- families, businesses, and the federal government -- and bring down our deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. These savings mean businesses small and large will finally be freed up to create jobs and increase wages. With costs currently skyrocketing, reform is vital to remaining economically strong in the years and decades to come.
In the few crucial weeks ahead, you can help make sure this proposal becomes law. Please sign up to join the Organizing for America campaign in the final march for reform:
http://my.barackobama.com/commit
When I talked about change on the campaign, this is what I was talking about: coming together to solve a huge problem that has been troubling America for 100 years and standing up to the special interests to deliver a brighter, smarter future for generations to come.
I look forward to signing this historic reform into law. And when I do, it will be because your organizing played an essential role in making change possible.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
Friday, February 5, 2010
Do tell
So, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, came forward this week to tell Congress he felt it a matter of integrity that gays not be forced to lie about themselves so that they can serve in the military.
We may look back at this as a watershed moment in the cause of gay rights. And while the elimination of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rule will end this kind of discrimination, it can open up other problems. I have two concerns to raise.
1) The one-year study on how the rule can be changed needs to go along with a moratorium on expulsions for homosexuals in the military. This only seems reasonable. How could you kick out someone for being themselves one year when you know one year later that will not be grounds for dismissal? Perhaps they can give someone who falls under scrutiny modified duty during that year? Or just put such investigations on hold? They should also give those who have been kicked out the option to be readmitted. (This issue may be resolved as events unfold.)
2) The worse problem, I'm guessing, will be the culture of homophobia within the military. Since I have not been in the military, I don't know this first hand, but the macho mindset usually generates a knee-jerk reaction against gays. Part of it is reaction to what is different and uncomfortable. My instinct tells me part of it is deeply routed misconception that all gays are out to convert you, to make you one of their own, to find a way to have sex with you. This may be the fear that drives the gay bashings and the hate crimes.
The problem is that even if the military authorities do allow gays to serve openly, they will have to work very hard to defuse the anti-gay prejudice within their ranks. This will take training, counseling and pre-emptive actions. But eventually, one would hope the majority of the military personnel will realize that 1) they aren't out to convert you (red rover, red rover, send Norman over) and 2) they aren't out to seduce you.
We may look back at this as a watershed moment in the cause of gay rights. And while the elimination of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rule will end this kind of discrimination, it can open up other problems. I have two concerns to raise.
1) The one-year study on how the rule can be changed needs to go along with a moratorium on expulsions for homosexuals in the military. This only seems reasonable. How could you kick out someone for being themselves one year when you know one year later that will not be grounds for dismissal? Perhaps they can give someone who falls under scrutiny modified duty during that year? Or just put such investigations on hold? They should also give those who have been kicked out the option to be readmitted. (This issue may be resolved as events unfold.)
2) The worse problem, I'm guessing, will be the culture of homophobia within the military. Since I have not been in the military, I don't know this first hand, but the macho mindset usually generates a knee-jerk reaction against gays. Part of it is reaction to what is different and uncomfortable. My instinct tells me part of it is deeply routed misconception that all gays are out to convert you, to make you one of their own, to find a way to have sex with you. This may be the fear that drives the gay bashings and the hate crimes.
The problem is that even if the military authorities do allow gays to serve openly, they will have to work very hard to defuse the anti-gay prejudice within their ranks. This will take training, counseling and pre-emptive actions. But eventually, one would hope the majority of the military personnel will realize that 1) they aren't out to convert you (red rover, red rover, send Norman over) and 2) they aren't out to seduce you.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The truth
When we die, the reward for a good life will be in knowing the truth of the universe and of God. A good soul will be free to learn and explore this truth. A wicked person will know only their own wickedness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)