These are questions I wish someone had asked the republican candidates on Wednesday night. I think the answers would have been far more interesting than the anwers given to the same old questions always asked - even by "ordinary" citizens.
These are questions I've thought of since Wednesday. I'm sure I'll think of more, and some that should be asked of democratic candidates as well. I'll post them as I think of them.
Why do you want to be president – not why do you think you're qualified – but why do you want the job? What's in it for you?
What do you think of the job George W. Bush has done as president? What, if anything, would you do differently from him?
(Holding up a copy of the Constitution) Do you agree with everything in this book? Do you believe in everything in this book?
For example, do you believe in the balance of powers?
Do you believe, as it says in the Constitution, that only Congress can declare war?
Why did we really go to war in Iraq?
Under what circumstances, if any, would you go to war against Iran?
Why did we not go to war against Saudi Arabia when 15 of the hijackers were Saudis?
What do you think of the job your party and your president did in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina?
If a corporation can't be arrested, can't be convicted of a crime, and can't go to prison, and if a corporation can't get sick and be in need of medical care, and if it doesn't have a conscience or a soul or a mind or a body, should a corporation still be considered a person?
Do you consider health care a right or a privilege?
If you believe all Americans have a right to medical care, what would you do to improve our system of health care so that all Americans, including middle class citizens who cannot afford health insurance, have access?
Why is there no racial or gender diversity in this field of candidates?
If a pregnant woman's life was in danger and terminating the pregnancy was necessary to save her life, do you think abortion should be legal in that circumstance?
Do you believe in the separation of church and state?
Do you believe America is or should be a "Christian nation?"
Is water-boarding torture?
Should a nation of Christians engage in torture?
Are there any religious groups whose members would be disqualified from serving in your cabinet?
Would you ever include a Muslim in your cabinet?
What would you want your legacy as president to be? What would be the most important thing, other than winning the "war on terror," that you would want said about your presidency long after you die?
Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
God, guns, gays, torture and taxes
I forced myself to watch the CNN You Tube debate last night because I wanted to put down my partisan loyalty for two hours and see if there was just one candidate on the Republican side that I could support in his bid to be president.
There wasn't.
In fact, my allegiance to the Democratic Party is stronger than ever, even with all of its weaknesses and flaws. How anyone could support any of those ridiculous white men after two hours of dissembling, flip-flopping, taunting, muscle flexing, Bible interpreting, Hillary hating, and gay and immigrant bashing I don't know.
What I learned by watching the debate was not only that I have no respect for any of the candidates as candidates (as people some of them might be okay) but that I simply cannot identify with any of the issues the republicans are obsessed with.
Since this was a debate in which ordinary people (except for Grover Norquist who appeared mid-debate) asked the questions via home made videos, the questions were representative of what republican voters care about. Sure, CNN picked the videos, and obviously slanted the topics to those they thought would be of interest to republicans, so there may have been other videos about other topics. However, these seem to be the topics the candidates always talk about, so I think it was representative of the republican mindset.
The debate began with a question about illegal immigration and immediately Rudy and Mitt were in a schoolyard name-calling contest about who provided sanctuary to illegal immigrants. It was embarrassing. The candidates all insisted they wanted a secure border (who doesn't?) but couldn't come up with any real policy to solve the problem of illegal immigration. No one seemed to want to touch the idea that corporations lure people here with the promise of jobs and that the Mexican economy is a big part of the problem, but that would involve having a sophisticated answer and apparently these candidates think their supporters only crave the red meat of immigrant bashing. It was shameless.
There were the inevitable questions about guns. The other candidates wanted to trip Rudy up on all the gun laws he supported, and the crowd actually booed when he said he thought there should be reasonable regulations. The answer was in response to a video where a young man caught a rifle that was thrown to him by someone off camera, at which point the ridiculous Duncan Hunter gave everyone a lecture about gun safety and the importance of not throwing guns to people.
McCain talked about all the guns he used when he was in uniform but, in response to an absurd question about what guns each candidate owned, he said he didn't own any now. I guess that means he can appeal to gun lovers and gun haters, I'm not sure. Maybe it just means "I'm so tough I don't need a gun." Romney, in one of his many more ridiculous moments, also tried to appeal to gun lovers and gun haters by saying there were two guns in his home, but they belonged to his son.
I wanted to get on You Tube and ask this question: "Do any of you know the psychodynamic significance of bragging about your guns?"
The blood thirsty crowd also liked questions about war and torture, although they did not look kindly on the retired gay general who asked when gays would be allowed to serve openly in the military. By far the most absurd answer of the evening was given by Duncan Hunter who claimed all the people in the military are Christians and they should not have to put up with gays in the military because it violates their moral code. Really?
I lived next to Camp Pendleton for nearly eighteen years and I can tell you that a great many of those Marines violated as much of the Christian moral code as was possible.
No one seemed willing to channel the father of modern conservatism, Barry Goldwater, who said it shouldn't matter whether you are straight as long as you can shoot straight.
From there it was on to torture. Again, Mitt wanted to have it both ways. He wouldn't ever torture anyone, but he refused to say waterboarding was torture. McCain jumped all over him and said waterboarding was most definitely torture and if a president won't condemn it and refuse to use it, the U.S. might as well withdraw from the Geneva Conventions. Good for you, John. If you weren't such a warmonger, and so contemptuous of the American people, whom you blame for the "loss" in Vietnam, I might be able to support you. (Note to John: it's those American people who opposed Vietnam and now oppose Iraq that you want to vote for you. Might not be such a good idea to attack them.)
One of the questions was from a very menacing looking young man who fit the stereotype of the Hollywood mass murderer. He held up a copy of the Bible and demanded to know who on the stage believed every word in the book. This struck me as a really stupid question. Does a candidate for president really now have to profess to a belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible? Only Mitt, Mike, and Rudy answered this one. The others (except Duncan Hunter) probably wanted to hide under their podiums. As much as I dislike Rudy, I believed he answered this best, saying the Bible is instructive but much is allegorical and metaphorical. Mike the preacher said he believed everything in the Bible although he couldn't claim to understand it all as he isn't God. Then flip-floppin', please-let-me-have-it-both-ways Mitt just kept saying he believed the Bible, hoping no one would ask him about those extra Mormon scriptures he also believes in.
There was another God question, this one asking whether Jesus would support the death penalty. No one gave a direct answer, because the answer would have to be "no," and the candidates know that republicans love the death penalty. Huckabee talked about how many people he executed as Governor of Arkansas and how difficult that was. Until this question, I was going to say Huckabee should run for preacher of a megachurch rather than president, but I'm not sure he qualifies for that either with his record on executions.
Grover Norquist had all the candidates falling all over themselves pledging not to raise taxes. A few said they wouldn't make the pledge to him but to the American people, while the mostly silly Duncan Hunter said he wouldn't make a pledge because there might be a national emergency. What a ridiculously absurd thing to take a pledge not to raise taxes, unless these eight old men can see into the future and know what we might face two or four years down the road. And they all must know that even if one of them becomes the president and keeps his pledge, everyone's children and grandchildren will be faced with higher taxes.
Republicans are so clever. They all lower taxes and pledge never to raise them, creating huge deficits and enormous economic problems for the country, knowing full well that eventually a responsible democrat will come along and be forced to raise taxes, whereupon they can point to democrats as those evil people who always raise your taxes. Brilliant!
So there you have it: God, guns, gays, torture and taxes, the big topics of the night. There was no discussion of the deterioration of the middle class, how to save Social Security and solve the health care crisis, how to shore up the economy, create jobs, and improve education. The one question about how each candidate would repair our image in the world was answered universally with statements about protecting America from "Islamofascists," and continuing the "war on terror," which is to say the question was not even understood by the candidates.
Another topic that was not addressed was the man they wish to replace as president. George Bush was not even mentioned, although Hillary was nearly a half dozen times. Mike Huckabee made the most hostile (though the audience thought it was quite humorous) statement of the evening when, in a question regarding the space program, he said he would like to send Hillary Clinton to Mars. I can't imagine a democrat saying the same thing about Laura Bush were she to run for president or any other office. For sheer nastiness, no one can beat a republican candidate, even one who calls himself a preacher. In fact, that's one of the defining characteristics of the Republican Party and one that came out quite vividly in this debate: their members claim to be Christian, but act in the most ugly, hostile, bullying, and unchristian ways imaginable.
As for my assessment of the individual candidates, I see each as fatally flawed. While Giuliani makes sense in terms of regulating gun ownership and not criminalizing abortion, he is too much of an imperialist, agressive warmonger. He truly scares me.
Mitt Romney is a joke, trying to be on both sides of every issue and trying to explain away positions he held years ago when it was necessary to hold those positions to win. He will do or say anything to get elected and so nothing he says can be trusted.
Mike Huckabee is a fundamentalist who, in spite of absolute evidence to the contrary, believes the world was created 6000 years ago. What other insane things might he believe and act on?
Ron Paul may have it right on the war, but he has it wrong on everything else. You can't just abolish all governmental agencies in a country this big and this interconnected. Libertarians who hate government shouldn't be in the business of governing.
Tom Tancredo is off the radar and should drop out soon. Thompson's candidacy makes no sense to me, nor does he. Hunter is a nutjob. And McCain is too old, too bitter, and too single minded about the war. It doesn't help that he despises the American people.
The question I was left with at the end of the debate was this: Couldn't the Republicans find any better candidates? I would still probably disagree with them on policy issues, but it would be nice to listen to one of them who was honest, decent, and who also made sense.
There wasn't.
In fact, my allegiance to the Democratic Party is stronger than ever, even with all of its weaknesses and flaws. How anyone could support any of those ridiculous white men after two hours of dissembling, flip-flopping, taunting, muscle flexing, Bible interpreting, Hillary hating, and gay and immigrant bashing I don't know.
What I learned by watching the debate was not only that I have no respect for any of the candidates as candidates (as people some of them might be okay) but that I simply cannot identify with any of the issues the republicans are obsessed with.
Since this was a debate in which ordinary people (except for Grover Norquist who appeared mid-debate) asked the questions via home made videos, the questions were representative of what republican voters care about. Sure, CNN picked the videos, and obviously slanted the topics to those they thought would be of interest to republicans, so there may have been other videos about other topics. However, these seem to be the topics the candidates always talk about, so I think it was representative of the republican mindset.
The debate began with a question about illegal immigration and immediately Rudy and Mitt were in a schoolyard name-calling contest about who provided sanctuary to illegal immigrants. It was embarrassing. The candidates all insisted they wanted a secure border (who doesn't?) but couldn't come up with any real policy to solve the problem of illegal immigration. No one seemed to want to touch the idea that corporations lure people here with the promise of jobs and that the Mexican economy is a big part of the problem, but that would involve having a sophisticated answer and apparently these candidates think their supporters only crave the red meat of immigrant bashing. It was shameless.
There were the inevitable questions about guns. The other candidates wanted to trip Rudy up on all the gun laws he supported, and the crowd actually booed when he said he thought there should be reasonable regulations. The answer was in response to a video where a young man caught a rifle that was thrown to him by someone off camera, at which point the ridiculous Duncan Hunter gave everyone a lecture about gun safety and the importance of not throwing guns to people.
McCain talked about all the guns he used when he was in uniform but, in response to an absurd question about what guns each candidate owned, he said he didn't own any now. I guess that means he can appeal to gun lovers and gun haters, I'm not sure. Maybe it just means "I'm so tough I don't need a gun." Romney, in one of his many more ridiculous moments, also tried to appeal to gun lovers and gun haters by saying there were two guns in his home, but they belonged to his son.
I wanted to get on You Tube and ask this question: "Do any of you know the psychodynamic significance of bragging about your guns?"
The blood thirsty crowd also liked questions about war and torture, although they did not look kindly on the retired gay general who asked when gays would be allowed to serve openly in the military. By far the most absurd answer of the evening was given by Duncan Hunter who claimed all the people in the military are Christians and they should not have to put up with gays in the military because it violates their moral code. Really?
I lived next to Camp Pendleton for nearly eighteen years and I can tell you that a great many of those Marines violated as much of the Christian moral code as was possible.
No one seemed willing to channel the father of modern conservatism, Barry Goldwater, who said it shouldn't matter whether you are straight as long as you can shoot straight.
From there it was on to torture. Again, Mitt wanted to have it both ways. He wouldn't ever torture anyone, but he refused to say waterboarding was torture. McCain jumped all over him and said waterboarding was most definitely torture and if a president won't condemn it and refuse to use it, the U.S. might as well withdraw from the Geneva Conventions. Good for you, John. If you weren't such a warmonger, and so contemptuous of the American people, whom you blame for the "loss" in Vietnam, I might be able to support you. (Note to John: it's those American people who opposed Vietnam and now oppose Iraq that you want to vote for you. Might not be such a good idea to attack them.)
One of the questions was from a very menacing looking young man who fit the stereotype of the Hollywood mass murderer. He held up a copy of the Bible and demanded to know who on the stage believed every word in the book. This struck me as a really stupid question. Does a candidate for president really now have to profess to a belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible? Only Mitt, Mike, and Rudy answered this one. The others (except Duncan Hunter) probably wanted to hide under their podiums. As much as I dislike Rudy, I believed he answered this best, saying the Bible is instructive but much is allegorical and metaphorical. Mike the preacher said he believed everything in the Bible although he couldn't claim to understand it all as he isn't God. Then flip-floppin', please-let-me-have-it-both-ways Mitt just kept saying he believed the Bible, hoping no one would ask him about those extra Mormon scriptures he also believes in.
There was another God question, this one asking whether Jesus would support the death penalty. No one gave a direct answer, because the answer would have to be "no," and the candidates know that republicans love the death penalty. Huckabee talked about how many people he executed as Governor of Arkansas and how difficult that was. Until this question, I was going to say Huckabee should run for preacher of a megachurch rather than president, but I'm not sure he qualifies for that either with his record on executions.
Grover Norquist had all the candidates falling all over themselves pledging not to raise taxes. A few said they wouldn't make the pledge to him but to the American people, while the mostly silly Duncan Hunter said he wouldn't make a pledge because there might be a national emergency. What a ridiculously absurd thing to take a pledge not to raise taxes, unless these eight old men can see into the future and know what we might face two or four years down the road. And they all must know that even if one of them becomes the president and keeps his pledge, everyone's children and grandchildren will be faced with higher taxes.
Republicans are so clever. They all lower taxes and pledge never to raise them, creating huge deficits and enormous economic problems for the country, knowing full well that eventually a responsible democrat will come along and be forced to raise taxes, whereupon they can point to democrats as those evil people who always raise your taxes. Brilliant!
So there you have it: God, guns, gays, torture and taxes, the big topics of the night. There was no discussion of the deterioration of the middle class, how to save Social Security and solve the health care crisis, how to shore up the economy, create jobs, and improve education. The one question about how each candidate would repair our image in the world was answered universally with statements about protecting America from "Islamofascists," and continuing the "war on terror," which is to say the question was not even understood by the candidates.
Another topic that was not addressed was the man they wish to replace as president. George Bush was not even mentioned, although Hillary was nearly a half dozen times. Mike Huckabee made the most hostile (though the audience thought it was quite humorous) statement of the evening when, in a question regarding the space program, he said he would like to send Hillary Clinton to Mars. I can't imagine a democrat saying the same thing about Laura Bush were she to run for president or any other office. For sheer nastiness, no one can beat a republican candidate, even one who calls himself a preacher. In fact, that's one of the defining characteristics of the Republican Party and one that came out quite vividly in this debate: their members claim to be Christian, but act in the most ugly, hostile, bullying, and unchristian ways imaginable.
As for my assessment of the individual candidates, I see each as fatally flawed. While Giuliani makes sense in terms of regulating gun ownership and not criminalizing abortion, he is too much of an imperialist, agressive warmonger. He truly scares me.
Mitt Romney is a joke, trying to be on both sides of every issue and trying to explain away positions he held years ago when it was necessary to hold those positions to win. He will do or say anything to get elected and so nothing he says can be trusted.
Mike Huckabee is a fundamentalist who, in spite of absolute evidence to the contrary, believes the world was created 6000 years ago. What other insane things might he believe and act on?
Ron Paul may have it right on the war, but he has it wrong on everything else. You can't just abolish all governmental agencies in a country this big and this interconnected. Libertarians who hate government shouldn't be in the business of governing.
Tom Tancredo is off the radar and should drop out soon. Thompson's candidacy makes no sense to me, nor does he. Hunter is a nutjob. And McCain is too old, too bitter, and too single minded about the war. It doesn't help that he despises the American people.
The question I was left with at the end of the debate was this: Couldn't the Republicans find any better candidates? I would still probably disagree with them on policy issues, but it would be nice to listen to one of them who was honest, decent, and who also made sense.
Monday, November 26, 2007
The only presidential candidate representing a new direction
It's just over one month until the Iowa Caucuses, the first chance ordinary citizens - and not journalists and pundits - get to say who they want to be the party nominees for president.
The caucuses are different than primary elections where people simply mark a ballot. In Iowa, people actually get together, discuss, debate, and lobby each other. They talk about electability as well as personal and policy matters and often end up voting for the person that started out being their second choice. This is why the results in Iowa are often such a surprise and why they often change the dynamic of the entire race. People aren't just voting alone; they are talking to each other and thinking things through with other citizens. What a concept!
Currently, Obama leads the Democratic field in the Iowa polls, but just barely. Hillary Clinton is close, as is John Edwards. As we all know, Howard Dean was the favorite in Iowa a month out, but his surprise loss there pretty much ended his campaign.
On the Republican side, Romney's early advertising and digging into his own pockets has him first in polls, but Mike Huckabee is closing in. Giuliani and McCain have not paid much attention to Iowa and so are not high in the polls. I guess they don't want to upset their slick media based campaigns with an appeal to the great unwashed masses. This way, they can simply discount the results in Iowa by saying they never really tried to win.
The way I see things today, I believe Obama might just pull off a big victory in Iowa, which will enable him to come in no lower than second in New Hampshire. Then it will come down to super Tuesday in February, when 22 states will hold primaries.
In fact, I think it just might be possible for Obama to win the nomination and even go on to be the first African American president in the history of the country. I don't say this because of any inside knowledge, but because I think he represents the best candidate in either party on which the American people can pin their hopes and dreams.
Every other candidate in the race is either a well known commodity infused with the negative taint of politics (Clinton, Giuliani, McCain, Edwards, Romney), a second tier candidate who excites some but is way too ideologically bound (Tancredo, Hunter, Kucinich, Paul, Huckabee) or someone who is really running for Vice President or Secretary of State (Dodd, Biden, Richardson).
Obama is someone new with a fresh face and a quick mind. He is psychologically just what the American people need right now. He is nothing like George W. Bush, and for that matter, nothing like Bill Clinton. His intelligence and ability to speak clearly outshine Bush. He seems more sensible and down to earth, and is not nearly as ideological as Bush has proven himself to be. While he shows strength, he doesn't display arrogance, something we have seen too much of with the last president and vice president.
He has charisma, but not like Clinton. He is not nearly as slick, having already made a few mistakes on the campaign trail. But the mistakes only make him more human, more likeable and more trustworthy.
His moving up in the polls is an indication, I believe, that the American people are starting to feel quite comfortable with him. At first, the Democrats gravitated to Clinton, believing she was tough enough to take on any Republican. But the people may be growing weary of her for a variety of reasons, and having second thoughts about voting for her. Like the Iowa caucus voters, Americans are thinking things through and may be deciding that the best solution to the national depression we feel, after seven years of Bush and six years of fear and war, is to turn in a completely different direction to a completely different kind of candidate.
I sense a real change of mood with the American people, and I think that is good for an Obama candidacy. We will have to see, however, if the monied interests and the media will prevent the American people from really knowing their own minds, and influence them to vote not only against their own interests, but against their political instincts.
The caucuses are different than primary elections where people simply mark a ballot. In Iowa, people actually get together, discuss, debate, and lobby each other. They talk about electability as well as personal and policy matters and often end up voting for the person that started out being their second choice. This is why the results in Iowa are often such a surprise and why they often change the dynamic of the entire race. People aren't just voting alone; they are talking to each other and thinking things through with other citizens. What a concept!
Currently, Obama leads the Democratic field in the Iowa polls, but just barely. Hillary Clinton is close, as is John Edwards. As we all know, Howard Dean was the favorite in Iowa a month out, but his surprise loss there pretty much ended his campaign.
On the Republican side, Romney's early advertising and digging into his own pockets has him first in polls, but Mike Huckabee is closing in. Giuliani and McCain have not paid much attention to Iowa and so are not high in the polls. I guess they don't want to upset their slick media based campaigns with an appeal to the great unwashed masses. This way, they can simply discount the results in Iowa by saying they never really tried to win.
The way I see things today, I believe Obama might just pull off a big victory in Iowa, which will enable him to come in no lower than second in New Hampshire. Then it will come down to super Tuesday in February, when 22 states will hold primaries.
In fact, I think it just might be possible for Obama to win the nomination and even go on to be the first African American president in the history of the country. I don't say this because of any inside knowledge, but because I think he represents the best candidate in either party on which the American people can pin their hopes and dreams.
Every other candidate in the race is either a well known commodity infused with the negative taint of politics (Clinton, Giuliani, McCain, Edwards, Romney), a second tier candidate who excites some but is way too ideologically bound (Tancredo, Hunter, Kucinich, Paul, Huckabee) or someone who is really running for Vice President or Secretary of State (Dodd, Biden, Richardson).
Obama is someone new with a fresh face and a quick mind. He is psychologically just what the American people need right now. He is nothing like George W. Bush, and for that matter, nothing like Bill Clinton. His intelligence and ability to speak clearly outshine Bush. He seems more sensible and down to earth, and is not nearly as ideological as Bush has proven himself to be. While he shows strength, he doesn't display arrogance, something we have seen too much of with the last president and vice president.
He has charisma, but not like Clinton. He is not nearly as slick, having already made a few mistakes on the campaign trail. But the mistakes only make him more human, more likeable and more trustworthy.
His moving up in the polls is an indication, I believe, that the American people are starting to feel quite comfortable with him. At first, the Democrats gravitated to Clinton, believing she was tough enough to take on any Republican. But the people may be growing weary of her for a variety of reasons, and having second thoughts about voting for her. Like the Iowa caucus voters, Americans are thinking things through and may be deciding that the best solution to the national depression we feel, after seven years of Bush and six years of fear and war, is to turn in a completely different direction to a completely different kind of candidate.
I sense a real change of mood with the American people, and I think that is good for an Obama candidacy. We will have to see, however, if the monied interests and the media will prevent the American people from really knowing their own minds, and influence them to vote not only against their own interests, but against their political instincts.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
All about family
The holiday season officially starts tomorrow and thoughts turn from politics to family, the reason some of us care so much about politics in the first place.
This year on Thanksgiving my three sons will be spread out across the country. Jeff is accompanying his girlfriend to her parents' home in Virginia. My son Matt and his wife Maria will sit down with my oldest son, Terry, and assorted friends in Seattle.
My husband and I will enjoy the company of my parents, my daughter and her husband, and my three beautiful grandchildren, Sean, Grace, and Maddie. The three will delight us with their youthful spirits, their imaginative play, and their boundless energy. Sean and Grace will run upstairs and get out their favorite toys - one of which is a six foot long soft toy snake that they drag throughout the house and dangle over the upstairs banister. Maddie, who is two, will amaze us with her ability to keep up with her older siblings who love Star Wars and Harry Potter. Note in the picture her Star Wars shirt, and her two "babies," whom she has named "Harry Potter" and "Malfoy."
Happy Thanksgiving!
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Facing a moral crisis
In my last post I used as an example of the media focusing on trivial things, the story about John McCain laughing when a woman in the audience asked him how to "defeat the bitch."
Bob Fertik, over at Democrats.com, has a different view and I have to agree he makes an excellent point. He says:
It's interesting that while racial slurs are no longer acceptable in political discourse, gender slurs apparently are still okay. Even though many still hold strong racist sentiments, they (everyone except George Allen) know enough not to use them. But some politicians apparently still think it's okay to laugh at a gender slur.
What is the word "bitch," after all, but an assault on a woman's femininity and an attempt to shame her into returning to a submissive feminine role?
It should be noted that John McCain did not use the word himself. He knows better than that. But his laugh and his comment indicate that deep inside he still holds the traditional view that women like Hillary Clinton are too uppity and should not be taken seriously.
Hillary Clinton may not want to play the "gender card, "pretending instead that she is being treated exactly the same as her male counterparts, but in fact she is being treated differently. The story a few weeks ago about her laugh is but one example. It has been described by numerous pundits as a "cackle," and by smarmy political consultant Dick Morris as "loud, inappropriate, and mirthless... a scary sound that was somewhere between a cackle and a screech." Of course, we all know what image the mind conjures up when he hear the word "cackle." More importantly, can anyone think of a male politician whose laugh was ever criticized? (Howard Dean comes the closest, but it wasn't his laugh that was demeaned but his "scream," which wasn't characterized as witchlike so much as proof he was unhinged.) No, Hillary Clinton's laugh was targeted because she is a woman, and only women can be characterized as witches, those mythical distortions of femininity who cast spells and eat children.
Hillary Clinton is also criticized for being calculating, for crafting careful responses, for raising huge amounts of money from corporate America, for using clever tactics that make her seem too polished, too ambitious. How is this strategy any different from that of most male politicians, and most particularly that of George W. Bush? Is she more calculating than he was when he put secret religious language in his speeches? Is she being more ambitious than he was with his rangers and pioneers? Is her responding to planted questions any more devious than his refusing to allow anyone into his campaign events unless they sign a loyalty pledge? Of course not. No one can match George W. Bush and Karl Rove in devious, dishonest, and calculating campaign tactics.
The difference with Hillary is that she is female, and somewhow female politicians are not supposed to compete the way men do, if they're even allowed to compete at all. As a woman, she's apparently supposed to charm men into voting for her, and assure women that she is not a threat to them.
Hillary Clinton, however, is a powerful woman in her own right, unlike most First Ladies who defer to their husbands. She was a respected lawyer who kept her own surname even though she was the First Lady of Arkansas for many years. She was a different kind of First Lady of the nation – one who dared become involved in something other than beautifying the nation or glamorizing the White House. Now she is a Senator with much influence and even more power. She is the strongest woman ever to achieve public office in this country and a force to be reckoned with – and many people, both men and women, cannot handle that very well. So they resort to demeaning her, cutting her down to the size they want her to be, using the tactics they always use to keep an "inferior" in his or her place.
The media's attempt to play "gotcha" with McCain's inappropriate response to a female questioner is not the real story here. I doubt McCain is the only Republican candidate who would have reacted this way. The question caught him off guard, and he did not have a canned response, so his natural prejudice came out unintentionally.
The real story is that prejudice against strong women still exists in this country, especially in the Republican Party, and in voters as well as candidates. There has been, and continues to be, a backlash against the feminist movement and against strong women, among conservatives and especially among certain religious conservatives who believe women must be subservient to men. (If you doubt that, just listen to Rush Limbaugh for one day.) McCain did what many in this group would do when he recognized a belief that he agreed with but dared not express himself. He laughed.
Above all, what the story tells us is that true equality does not exist in this country where large groups of people do not believe blacks are equal to whites or women are equal to men. Look at the Republican candidates – all white men - not a woman, not a Hispanic, not an African American among them. White supremacy and male supremacy still dominate large segments of this society and the candidacy of Hillary Clinton is the most serious threat ever to those ideologies. The candidacy of Barack Obama would likewise challenge them. These are ideologies based on fear, phenomena that I will explain in a future post. For now, I simply want to make this point:
Should either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama be the Democratic nominee, I predict we will face something of a moral crisis in this country. The once disguised biases of one segment of the population will become even more obvious, and we will have to decide as a country if we really believe in equality for all, as we say we do, or if we are simply fearful, lying hypocrites.
Bob Fertik, over at Democrats.com, has a different view and I have to agree he makes an excellent point. He says:
Here's a thought experiment: imagine if John McCain had been asked by a South
Carolina supporter, "How do we beat the nigger"?
How do you think he would have reacted? Would he have fought off laughter, then cracked up, then said "it's an excellent question"?
Not on your life.
McCain would have looked at the woman straight in the eye and said "Madam, that is an appalling question." And if he hadn't, the media - and the American people - would have been all over him.
It's interesting that while racial slurs are no longer acceptable in political discourse, gender slurs apparently are still okay. Even though many still hold strong racist sentiments, they (everyone except George Allen) know enough not to use them. But some politicians apparently still think it's okay to laugh at a gender slur.
What is the word "bitch," after all, but an assault on a woman's femininity and an attempt to shame her into returning to a submissive feminine role?
It should be noted that John McCain did not use the word himself. He knows better than that. But his laugh and his comment indicate that deep inside he still holds the traditional view that women like Hillary Clinton are too uppity and should not be taken seriously.
Hillary Clinton may not want to play the "gender card, "pretending instead that she is being treated exactly the same as her male counterparts, but in fact she is being treated differently. The story a few weeks ago about her laugh is but one example. It has been described by numerous pundits as a "cackle," and by smarmy political consultant Dick Morris as "loud, inappropriate, and mirthless... a scary sound that was somewhere between a cackle and a screech." Of course, we all know what image the mind conjures up when he hear the word "cackle." More importantly, can anyone think of a male politician whose laugh was ever criticized? (Howard Dean comes the closest, but it wasn't his laugh that was demeaned but his "scream," which wasn't characterized as witchlike so much as proof he was unhinged.) No, Hillary Clinton's laugh was targeted because she is a woman, and only women can be characterized as witches, those mythical distortions of femininity who cast spells and eat children.
Hillary Clinton is also criticized for being calculating, for crafting careful responses, for raising huge amounts of money from corporate America, for using clever tactics that make her seem too polished, too ambitious. How is this strategy any different from that of most male politicians, and most particularly that of George W. Bush? Is she more calculating than he was when he put secret religious language in his speeches? Is she being more ambitious than he was with his rangers and pioneers? Is her responding to planted questions any more devious than his refusing to allow anyone into his campaign events unless they sign a loyalty pledge? Of course not. No one can match George W. Bush and Karl Rove in devious, dishonest, and calculating campaign tactics.
The difference with Hillary is that she is female, and somewhow female politicians are not supposed to compete the way men do, if they're even allowed to compete at all. As a woman, she's apparently supposed to charm men into voting for her, and assure women that she is not a threat to them.
Hillary Clinton, however, is a powerful woman in her own right, unlike most First Ladies who defer to their husbands. She was a respected lawyer who kept her own surname even though she was the First Lady of Arkansas for many years. She was a different kind of First Lady of the nation – one who dared become involved in something other than beautifying the nation or glamorizing the White House. Now she is a Senator with much influence and even more power. She is the strongest woman ever to achieve public office in this country and a force to be reckoned with – and many people, both men and women, cannot handle that very well. So they resort to demeaning her, cutting her down to the size they want her to be, using the tactics they always use to keep an "inferior" in his or her place.
The media's attempt to play "gotcha" with McCain's inappropriate response to a female questioner is not the real story here. I doubt McCain is the only Republican candidate who would have reacted this way. The question caught him off guard, and he did not have a canned response, so his natural prejudice came out unintentionally.
The real story is that prejudice against strong women still exists in this country, especially in the Republican Party, and in voters as well as candidates. There has been, and continues to be, a backlash against the feminist movement and against strong women, among conservatives and especially among certain religious conservatives who believe women must be subservient to men. (If you doubt that, just listen to Rush Limbaugh for one day.) McCain did what many in this group would do when he recognized a belief that he agreed with but dared not express himself. He laughed.
Above all, what the story tells us is that true equality does not exist in this country where large groups of people do not believe blacks are equal to whites or women are equal to men. Look at the Republican candidates – all white men - not a woman, not a Hispanic, not an African American among them. White supremacy and male supremacy still dominate large segments of this society and the candidacy of Hillary Clinton is the most serious threat ever to those ideologies. The candidacy of Barack Obama would likewise challenge them. These are ideologies based on fear, phenomena that I will explain in a future post. For now, I simply want to make this point:
Should either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama be the Democratic nominee, I predict we will face something of a moral crisis in this country. The once disguised biases of one segment of the population will become even more obvious, and we will have to decide as a country if we really believe in equality for all, as we say we do, or if we are simply fearful, lying hypocrites.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Getting the leaders we deserve?
I can't decide whether I want to scream for about five minutes, or throw an entire set of dishes across the room.
That's my general reaction to the presidential campaign, already in full swing one year prior to the election.
There is so much nonsense, insanity, dishonesty, and ugliness. There are so many dirty tricks, and media attempts to make mountains out of molehills, that the entire process of choosing a president seems tawdry and unbecoming a powerful and (supposedly) educated nation.
What bothers me the most, however, is the media's unending focus on trivial things. Last week, for instance, there was the story about McCain laughing when a woman at one of his speeches asked him how to "defeat the bitch." Then there was the story suggesting that the Hillary camp was playing the gender card. Then there was the debate in Las Vegas where CNN convinced a questioner to ask Senator Clinton if she preferred diamonds or pearls.
I am tired of hearing about John Edwards' haircut, or Hillary Clinton's laugh, or Mitt Romney's Mormonism, or Barak Obama's ancestry, or Mike Huckabee's Chuck Norris endorsement, as if these have anything to do with how good a president any of them would be.
In the meantime, the media doesn't pay nearly enough attention to things that are significant, such as Rudy Giuliani's actual record as mayor, Hillary Clinton's record as senator, Richardson's record as governor, and Edwards' work on behalf of the poor.
Because scandals and nonsense are easy to report and supposedly get ratings, the media seems unwilling to focus intensely on the candidate's positions on issues of importance, like the economy, jobs, health care, trade and foreign policy. We hear a little, but not nearly enough.
But, then, the media has decided the public isn't really interested in policy. They're convinced the public looks at political campaigns they way they read People magazine, or watch Entertainment Tonight. To the media, the people care about Hillary Clinton the same way they care about Brittany Spears, and so they call them both by their first names, and spread gossip about them in equal measure.
With this approach to covering campaigns, I can see it now – how two match-ups might play out in the media.
Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton. A battle between the adulterer and the "bitch." A fight between a straight man dressed in drag, and "Nixon in a pantsuit." A contest between a guy who exudes enough testosterone to defeat the enemy, and a woman who is scary precisely because she's as tough as Giuliani. Giuliani and Clinton are the two candidates with the most baggage – he as a tough talking mayor who has been with a number of women (three of whom he married) - which is also a comment on his testosterone, she a perceived manipulator who, though married only once, chose to forgive her husband even though he has also been with a number of women. Rudy may be a cad, but he knows how to attract women - which makes him a guy's guy. Hillary may be forgiving, but she doesn't know how to keep her man interested, which reflects poorly on her as a woman. (These things might not be said, but they are implied.)
His claim to fame is walking around looking competent after 9/11 (even though the firefighters would say otherwise), hers is a failed health care plan in 1994 (even though she has been an exceptionally competent Senator for eight years). This would be an ugly race with an enormous amount of disgusting advertising about things that have nothing to do with the actual responsibility of the presidency. As such, it is the race the media wants, the one it promotes daily.
The other possible race that might appeal to the media is one between Mitt Romney and Barak Obama. The media would spin it this way: the Mormon vs. the son of a Muslim. Since neither candidate has the baggage of a Giuliani or a Clinton – both have been married once, both have limited experience in government, and much less media visibility – the campaigns would, I suspect, appeal under the radar to racist and religious bias. One side would appeal to anti-Mormon sentiment, the other to anti-black prejudice.
In spite of the ugliness that might appear in a Romney - Obama race, I prefer it over the Giuliani - Clinton race. Both Giuliani and Clinton have become caricatures, and a race between them would not be good for the country, nor would it be good to have either of them as president. While I think Clinton would make a relatively good president, in terms of ability, the radical right would do everything it could to destroy her and would thus cripple her presidency. Giuliani, on the other hand, would be a disaster even worse than Bush.
A Romney - Obama race, on the other hand, even with its potential for fueling all of our prejudices, might actually stretch us a little. It took JFK to finally convince people that a Catholic could be a good president. It might take Romney to convince people that a Mormon could be a good president or Obama to convince them of the same thing regarding an African-American. (And isn't it a shame that the people have to be convinced.)
How I long for a unifying leader, someone with integrity, someone who can appeal to a large enough group of Americans to overcome the partisan ugliness. On the other hand, maybe it isn't our candidates, maybe it's us. After all, there is no perfect candidate. If our media focuses only on their imperfections while it ignores their abilities and their platforms, and we let the media get away with that and vote on the bases of our prejudices, we will never again have a strong and competent leader.
Maybe we really do get the leaders we deserve.
That's my general reaction to the presidential campaign, already in full swing one year prior to the election.
There is so much nonsense, insanity, dishonesty, and ugliness. There are so many dirty tricks, and media attempts to make mountains out of molehills, that the entire process of choosing a president seems tawdry and unbecoming a powerful and (supposedly) educated nation.
What bothers me the most, however, is the media's unending focus on trivial things. Last week, for instance, there was the story about McCain laughing when a woman at one of his speeches asked him how to "defeat the bitch." Then there was the story suggesting that the Hillary camp was playing the gender card. Then there was the debate in Las Vegas where CNN convinced a questioner to ask Senator Clinton if she preferred diamonds or pearls.
I am tired of hearing about John Edwards' haircut, or Hillary Clinton's laugh, or Mitt Romney's Mormonism, or Barak Obama's ancestry, or Mike Huckabee's Chuck Norris endorsement, as if these have anything to do with how good a president any of them would be.
In the meantime, the media doesn't pay nearly enough attention to things that are significant, such as Rudy Giuliani's actual record as mayor, Hillary Clinton's record as senator, Richardson's record as governor, and Edwards' work on behalf of the poor.
Because scandals and nonsense are easy to report and supposedly get ratings, the media seems unwilling to focus intensely on the candidate's positions on issues of importance, like the economy, jobs, health care, trade and foreign policy. We hear a little, but not nearly enough.
But, then, the media has decided the public isn't really interested in policy. They're convinced the public looks at political campaigns they way they read People magazine, or watch Entertainment Tonight. To the media, the people care about Hillary Clinton the same way they care about Brittany Spears, and so they call them both by their first names, and spread gossip about them in equal measure.
With this approach to covering campaigns, I can see it now – how two match-ups might play out in the media.
Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton. A battle between the adulterer and the "bitch." A fight between a straight man dressed in drag, and "Nixon in a pantsuit." A contest between a guy who exudes enough testosterone to defeat the enemy, and a woman who is scary precisely because she's as tough as Giuliani. Giuliani and Clinton are the two candidates with the most baggage – he as a tough talking mayor who has been with a number of women (three of whom he married) - which is also a comment on his testosterone, she a perceived manipulator who, though married only once, chose to forgive her husband even though he has also been with a number of women. Rudy may be a cad, but he knows how to attract women - which makes him a guy's guy. Hillary may be forgiving, but she doesn't know how to keep her man interested, which reflects poorly on her as a woman. (These things might not be said, but they are implied.)
His claim to fame is walking around looking competent after 9/11 (even though the firefighters would say otherwise), hers is a failed health care plan in 1994 (even though she has been an exceptionally competent Senator for eight years). This would be an ugly race with an enormous amount of disgusting advertising about things that have nothing to do with the actual responsibility of the presidency. As such, it is the race the media wants, the one it promotes daily.
The other possible race that might appeal to the media is one between Mitt Romney and Barak Obama. The media would spin it this way: the Mormon vs. the son of a Muslim. Since neither candidate has the baggage of a Giuliani or a Clinton – both have been married once, both have limited experience in government, and much less media visibility – the campaigns would, I suspect, appeal under the radar to racist and religious bias. One side would appeal to anti-Mormon sentiment, the other to anti-black prejudice.
In spite of the ugliness that might appear in a Romney - Obama race, I prefer it over the Giuliani - Clinton race. Both Giuliani and Clinton have become caricatures, and a race between them would not be good for the country, nor would it be good to have either of them as president. While I think Clinton would make a relatively good president, in terms of ability, the radical right would do everything it could to destroy her and would thus cripple her presidency. Giuliani, on the other hand, would be a disaster even worse than Bush.
A Romney - Obama race, on the other hand, even with its potential for fueling all of our prejudices, might actually stretch us a little. It took JFK to finally convince people that a Catholic could be a good president. It might take Romney to convince people that a Mormon could be a good president or Obama to convince them of the same thing regarding an African-American. (And isn't it a shame that the people have to be convinced.)
How I long for a unifying leader, someone with integrity, someone who can appeal to a large enough group of Americans to overcome the partisan ugliness. On the other hand, maybe it isn't our candidates, maybe it's us. After all, there is no perfect candidate. If our media focuses only on their imperfections while it ignores their abilities and their platforms, and we let the media get away with that and vote on the bases of our prejudices, we will never again have a strong and competent leader.
Maybe we really do get the leaders we deserve.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Stop them now!
Every day in my house I throw away between one and five catalogs that arrive in my mail. Most of them come unsolicited - actually all of them come unsolicited as I never signed up to receive any of them. A few, however, have been welcome over the years and they continue to come because I have purchased something that I saw on their pages.
For years, though, I have been troubled by the waste that they represent. How many trees must be cut down just to print them? It must be an enormous amount. And now, with each of the companies that publish catalogs also having websites, it has become quite easy to just go on line when you are in the market for something. So catalogs, for me at least, have become unnecessary.
However, companies don't just want to sell things to people who already know what they are looking for. They want to sell to people who are relatively satisfied with what they have, at least until they see that new gadget or special dress or fancy cookware in a catalog. Sears knew this decades ago when they began sending out their Wishbook at Christmas time. Kids looked through it, found toys they had never seen before, and made up their list for Santa.
Today, a catalog is something you might just browse through after work when you look through the rest of your mail. All it takes for the catalog to pay for itself is for one thing in that catalog to catch your eye. Even if you don't order it immediately, your brain is primed to think about it, and eventually to want it. You may pick up the phone and order it in a day or two, or wait until you go into the store and buy it then. Either way, the psychology of the catalog has worked.
To my thinking, the enormous number of catalogs that flow uninvited into our homes, while beneficial to the companies that publish them, have created many problems for our society. One has already been mentioned - the destruction of our forests. Another is enticing people to buy things they don't need, creating clutter and storage problems for us as we run out of room to put the special decor for Christmas that is used only two weeks out of the year, the latest cleaning gadget that doesn't really save us time, the fiftieth pair of shoes that we wear only once, and the toys that our children spread all over the house. Finally, in enticing us to buy so many things we don't need, catalogs deplete our bank accounts and run up our credit card debt.
Finally, there is hope - a way to stop the flow of catalogs to your home, to stop the destruction of the forests, the cluttering of your house, and the enticement to buy things you will only regret later.
For years, though, I have been troubled by the waste that they represent. How many trees must be cut down just to print them? It must be an enormous amount. And now, with each of the companies that publish catalogs also having websites, it has become quite easy to just go on line when you are in the market for something. So catalogs, for me at least, have become unnecessary.
However, companies don't just want to sell things to people who already know what they are looking for. They want to sell to people who are relatively satisfied with what they have, at least until they see that new gadget or special dress or fancy cookware in a catalog. Sears knew this decades ago when they began sending out their Wishbook at Christmas time. Kids looked through it, found toys they had never seen before, and made up their list for Santa.
Today, a catalog is something you might just browse through after work when you look through the rest of your mail. All it takes for the catalog to pay for itself is for one thing in that catalog to catch your eye. Even if you don't order it immediately, your brain is primed to think about it, and eventually to want it. You may pick up the phone and order it in a day or two, or wait until you go into the store and buy it then. Either way, the psychology of the catalog has worked.
To my thinking, the enormous number of catalogs that flow uninvited into our homes, while beneficial to the companies that publish them, have created many problems for our society. One has already been mentioned - the destruction of our forests. Another is enticing people to buy things they don't need, creating clutter and storage problems for us as we run out of room to put the special decor for Christmas that is used only two weeks out of the year, the latest cleaning gadget that doesn't really save us time, the fiftieth pair of shoes that we wear only once, and the toys that our children spread all over the house. Finally, in enticing us to buy so many things we don't need, catalogs deplete our bank accounts and run up our credit card debt.
Finally, there is hope - a way to stop the flow of catalogs to your home, to stop the destruction of the forests, the cluttering of your house, and the enticement to buy things you will only regret later.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
What we have lost
The news from the wars in the Middle East appears to be good. While our servicemen and women are still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, the numbers of dead are down and there are fewer suicide bombings and IED explosions. There are fewer Iraqis who are dying as well.
This is terrific news, and although I always have been and remain adamantly opposed to our presence in Iraq, I hope the good news continues.
But good news in Iraq does not translate into good news for many returning veterans. Reports of suicides and divorces among those returning from Iraq are shocking. Traumatic brain injuries, PTSD, depression and other mental illnesses may temporarily or permanently affect the quality of life for many veterans.
The statistics are slowly leaking out on these things, as is the reality that returning veterans face joblessness, homelessness and long waits for decisions on their claims for disability. In other words, after leaving home and family, facing bombs and bullets each day for a year or more, and being willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, their country does not ensure they have a good life once they return. In fact, for many, after less than a year at home trying to put their lives back together, their country sends them back to face the bombs and bullets again.
Congress and military groups are finally calling attention to the plight of veterans, but who is attending to the families of these men and women? They, too, are suffering. First they must face the agony of saying goodbye, not knowing if it will be the final goodbye, and then they are asked to do it again, and again. Some must make funeral arrangements and face a life without the person they love so deeply. Others find the man or woman who returned is not the man or woman they married, and the marriage, as well as the soldier or Marine, become the casualty. And in these instances, I am only talking about the pain experienced by adults: the parents, spouses, brothers and sisters of the serviceman or woman.
What about the children? How do we begin to calculate the pain to the children of men or women who have died or committed suicide, who are incapacitated with traumatic brain injury or PTSD, or who are gone from the home because of war-related divorce? How do we measure the effects of bedtime stories not read, back-to-school nights and little league games not attended, fatherly or motherly advice not given, smiles not seen and hugs not felt, and graduations not celebrated?
The ramifications of war are widespread, affecting the fighting men and women, their parents and spouses, brothers and sisters, and above all their children, who are to most of us invisible. And what of all the other children in this country, those who simply watch as the adults in their lives glorify war? What does it do to them? Will the next generation be even more callous than this one?
War affects us all, however, even if we don't know anyone in uniform. War, especially war that is waged far away, makes death and violence ordinary, reduces it to a topic of conversation at cocktail parties, a game of statistics on the nightly news, a political debate among legislators.
This war, waged on the basis of falsehoods, and wholly unnecessary to defend our country, has tarnished all of us, divided us from each other, depleted our treasury, and passed an enormous burden of debt on to our children. And as part of what the President calls the "Global War on Terror," of which the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are considered just one part, we have kidnapped and tortured hundreds of people, including many who were innocent of any wrongdoing.
We are no longer a moral nation, a shining beacon of freedom and dignity and goodness. A few short years ago, we were the nation that was trying to broker peace agreements between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Now, the rest of the world holds its collective breath, waiting to see if the United States will wage war on another country.
We are a war machine, willing to sacrifice our own sons and daughters for victory and access to oil, willing to ignore the pain of their children, unwilling to even consider the pain of the children of our "enemy." We have lost something precious in these years of war, besides the more than 4000 brave men and women who have died.
We have, I fear, lost our soul.
This is terrific news, and although I always have been and remain adamantly opposed to our presence in Iraq, I hope the good news continues.
But good news in Iraq does not translate into good news for many returning veterans. Reports of suicides and divorces among those returning from Iraq are shocking. Traumatic brain injuries, PTSD, depression and other mental illnesses may temporarily or permanently affect the quality of life for many veterans.
The statistics are slowly leaking out on these things, as is the reality that returning veterans face joblessness, homelessness and long waits for decisions on their claims for disability. In other words, after leaving home and family, facing bombs and bullets each day for a year or more, and being willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, their country does not ensure they have a good life once they return. In fact, for many, after less than a year at home trying to put their lives back together, their country sends them back to face the bombs and bullets again.
Congress and military groups are finally calling attention to the plight of veterans, but who is attending to the families of these men and women? They, too, are suffering. First they must face the agony of saying goodbye, not knowing if it will be the final goodbye, and then they are asked to do it again, and again. Some must make funeral arrangements and face a life without the person they love so deeply. Others find the man or woman who returned is not the man or woman they married, and the marriage, as well as the soldier or Marine, become the casualty. And in these instances, I am only talking about the pain experienced by adults: the parents, spouses, brothers and sisters of the serviceman or woman.
What about the children? How do we begin to calculate the pain to the children of men or women who have died or committed suicide, who are incapacitated with traumatic brain injury or PTSD, or who are gone from the home because of war-related divorce? How do we measure the effects of bedtime stories not read, back-to-school nights and little league games not attended, fatherly or motherly advice not given, smiles not seen and hugs not felt, and graduations not celebrated?
The ramifications of war are widespread, affecting the fighting men and women, their parents and spouses, brothers and sisters, and above all their children, who are to most of us invisible. And what of all the other children in this country, those who simply watch as the adults in their lives glorify war? What does it do to them? Will the next generation be even more callous than this one?
War affects us all, however, even if we don't know anyone in uniform. War, especially war that is waged far away, makes death and violence ordinary, reduces it to a topic of conversation at cocktail parties, a game of statistics on the nightly news, a political debate among legislators.
This war, waged on the basis of falsehoods, and wholly unnecessary to defend our country, has tarnished all of us, divided us from each other, depleted our treasury, and passed an enormous burden of debt on to our children. And as part of what the President calls the "Global War on Terror," of which the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are considered just one part, we have kidnapped and tortured hundreds of people, including many who were innocent of any wrongdoing.
We are no longer a moral nation, a shining beacon of freedom and dignity and goodness. A few short years ago, we were the nation that was trying to broker peace agreements between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Now, the rest of the world holds its collective breath, waiting to see if the United States will wage war on another country.
We are a war machine, willing to sacrifice our own sons and daughters for victory and access to oil, willing to ignore the pain of their children, unwilling to even consider the pain of the children of our "enemy." We have lost something precious in these years of war, besides the more than 4000 brave men and women who have died.
We have, I fear, lost our soul.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
The fight over evolution
Last night I watched the Nova special "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial," a two hour documentary on the Dover, Delaware court case challenging the School Board's attempt to introduce the concept of Intelligent Design into Dover classrooms.
When the school board mandated that a statement challenging evolution be read by all science teachers in science classrooms, the teachers refused and a number of parents filed the lawsuit.
After watching the program I thought about the many attempts that have been made and continue to be made by evangelical Christians to oppose the teaching of evolution. As I was fortunate to have fourteen years of excellent Catholic education, where the theory of evolution was not challenged, and in fact was considered by my instructors to be wholly compatible with Catholic teaching, I have not understood why so many American evangelicals are so adamantly opposed to it. In fact, the opposition is so extreme that the judge who ruled against the school board in the Dover case received multiple death threats, as did the parents who filed the suit.
Then it occurred to me that this one issue is an existential one for many evangelicals, especially those who are also fundamentalists, i.e. believers in the Bible as the literal and unerring word of God. By existential, I mean threatening the truth and thus the very existence of their faith and ultimately their own survival beyond this life.
If your faith includes the belief that the world was actually created in six days and that God formed man out of clay and woman out of man's rib, as fundamentalists believe, then the intricacies of evolution simply cannot be true. Yet, if vast numbers of your fellow citizens, and nearly the entire scientific community, say the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, your faith is greatly threatened. You must do everything you can to fight the theory of evolution, because if it continues to be accepted as truth, it will do dreadful things to your children, your faith, and to you. It will present your children with ideas that are contrary to biblical ideas and might cause them to abandon their faith. Not only will it threaten the story of creation that you believe in, it will threaten every other belief you have that is based on the infallibility of the Bible, including your very belief in God. Finally, with the basis of some of your beliefs challenged, and perhaps eventually proven false, you will be left without a foundation for your faith, and thus with no foundation for a belief in an afterlife, which means you have got yourself a real existential crisis.
Those of us who were raised in a faith that looks to the Bible for inspiration rather than literal truth have no problem with the theory of evolution. We can easily believe in both God and evolution, as the creation story for us is a metaphor rather than literal truth. The God we believe in is a mystery and how the universe was created is also a mystery. If evolution is the way the mystery of life unfolded, over millions of years rather than over six, that complexity actually adds to the wonder of creation and the majesty of the Creator.
All fundamentalists would have to do in order to resolve their existential crisis over evolution would be to accept the Bible as metaphor rather than literal truth. Why they can't do that when people of other faiths can, I don't know. But for now, it appears, they can't, and the Dover case that was won by the proponents of evolution will not be the last case in which fundamentalists fight for their absolute belief in the Biblical story of creation, which as we have seen is a fight for their very existence.
When the school board mandated that a statement challenging evolution be read by all science teachers in science classrooms, the teachers refused and a number of parents filed the lawsuit.
After watching the program I thought about the many attempts that have been made and continue to be made by evangelical Christians to oppose the teaching of evolution. As I was fortunate to have fourteen years of excellent Catholic education, where the theory of evolution was not challenged, and in fact was considered by my instructors to be wholly compatible with Catholic teaching, I have not understood why so many American evangelicals are so adamantly opposed to it. In fact, the opposition is so extreme that the judge who ruled against the school board in the Dover case received multiple death threats, as did the parents who filed the suit.
Then it occurred to me that this one issue is an existential one for many evangelicals, especially those who are also fundamentalists, i.e. believers in the Bible as the literal and unerring word of God. By existential, I mean threatening the truth and thus the very existence of their faith and ultimately their own survival beyond this life.
If your faith includes the belief that the world was actually created in six days and that God formed man out of clay and woman out of man's rib, as fundamentalists believe, then the intricacies of evolution simply cannot be true. Yet, if vast numbers of your fellow citizens, and nearly the entire scientific community, say the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, your faith is greatly threatened. You must do everything you can to fight the theory of evolution, because if it continues to be accepted as truth, it will do dreadful things to your children, your faith, and to you. It will present your children with ideas that are contrary to biblical ideas and might cause them to abandon their faith. Not only will it threaten the story of creation that you believe in, it will threaten every other belief you have that is based on the infallibility of the Bible, including your very belief in God. Finally, with the basis of some of your beliefs challenged, and perhaps eventually proven false, you will be left without a foundation for your faith, and thus with no foundation for a belief in an afterlife, which means you have got yourself a real existential crisis.
Those of us who were raised in a faith that looks to the Bible for inspiration rather than literal truth have no problem with the theory of evolution. We can easily believe in both God and evolution, as the creation story for us is a metaphor rather than literal truth. The God we believe in is a mystery and how the universe was created is also a mystery. If evolution is the way the mystery of life unfolded, over millions of years rather than over six, that complexity actually adds to the wonder of creation and the majesty of the Creator.
All fundamentalists would have to do in order to resolve their existential crisis over evolution would be to accept the Bible as metaphor rather than literal truth. Why they can't do that when people of other faiths can, I don't know. But for now, it appears, they can't, and the Dover case that was won by the proponents of evolution will not be the last case in which fundamentalists fight for their absolute belief in the Biblical story of creation, which as we have seen is a fight for their very existence.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Tragedy in the neigborhod
On Sunday night, just a block and a half away from my home in a very quiet golf course neighborhood, five people were shot to death in what police are calling a murder suicide. Monday morning, the street was still blocked off with police tape, and news trucks with very tall satellite hookups lined the adjacent streets. As I drove to the grocery store I was met by a line of cars, filled with insensitive people, coming to gawk at the circus.
And on the local paper's website, hundreds of readers posted the most absurd comments imaginable. A sample: these were renters and renters are scum; our city isn't safe anymore; cheap houses have brought in gangs and low-life; it was probably illegal immigrants; I'm moving to Alaska. Other readers chastised their fellow readers for their negative value judgments and prejudice. Of course, no one knew the facts; no one knew who had died.
Today we know the identities of the victims, but we still don't know who did the shooting. A man and his seventeen year old son died, as did the man's girlfriend and her fifteen year old twin girls. There were gathered together for a Veteran's Day barbecue; a flag waved from a flagpole over the garage.
None of the neighbors seem to know much about the family, other than that the father who died was the only permanent resident of the home. His son, who died with him, and his daughter, who escaped, lived (live) with their mother. The entire family had lived together in a different home in this development as recently as a few years ago. Then, apparently, the couple divorced.
Speculation is that it was the teenage boy who pulled the trigger, although no law enforcement official has confirmed this. What can be assumed, however, is that at least one of the people in that house on Sunday was very disturbed and had access to a deadly weapon to express his or her pain.
Although this incident will not get the same media attention as other multiple murders - eg. the Simpson case, Columbine, Virginia Tech - some will use it to speculate about who and what is to blame for one more example of senseless violence. It's guns, some will say, or violent video games. Others will blame parental neglect of a troubled teen.
Since we still have little information, it seems premature to pin the blame on anyone. However, one thing seems clear. This is a family that was isolated from its neighbors, a family that was broken, a family that had few lifelines to grab onto, a family whose distress was invisible.
And that seems to be the single unifying characteristic in nearly every instance of mass killing we have seen in the news over the past few years, from the school shootings to the family murder-suicides. To some extent the family, and especially the shooter, are not well connected to the neighbors and the larger community, so that when the tragedy finally happens, everyone is surprised. No one saw it coming because no one really saw the individuals who were so troubled.
This is the disease of our times. We are all isolated, to some extent, from each other. We know our neighbors by name, but we do not learn much more about them. They go about their business and we go about ours. We get into our cars, drive off to work, have a superficial relationship with those at the office, drive home after work, enter our garages by pressing the automatic door opener, hit the button again to close the door, and go into our house. We're rarely outside where we might converse with neighbors. We don't go outside to wash our own cars, mow our own lawns, or pull our own weeds. Those things are largely done by the illegal immigrants we insist should go home.
Whatever troubles we have stay within the confines of our "castles," which may not be surrounded by moats and fortified walls, but might as well be. Isolation is what breeds the despair that leads to these horrifying outbursts of violence. Interestingly, the neighbors say the teenage boy was outside washing his truck the morning of the shooting. No one, however, says they talked to him. What if someone had? What if just one person came over and showed some interest? Might it have made a difference? If, indeed, he was the shooter, might that small display of interest been the one thing that made him feel validated and hopeful and stopped him from the action he took?
And on the local paper's website, hundreds of readers posted the most absurd comments imaginable. A sample: these were renters and renters are scum; our city isn't safe anymore; cheap houses have brought in gangs and low-life; it was probably illegal immigrants; I'm moving to Alaska. Other readers chastised their fellow readers for their negative value judgments and prejudice. Of course, no one knew the facts; no one knew who had died.
Today we know the identities of the victims, but we still don't know who did the shooting. A man and his seventeen year old son died, as did the man's girlfriend and her fifteen year old twin girls. There were gathered together for a Veteran's Day barbecue; a flag waved from a flagpole over the garage.
None of the neighbors seem to know much about the family, other than that the father who died was the only permanent resident of the home. His son, who died with him, and his daughter, who escaped, lived (live) with their mother. The entire family had lived together in a different home in this development as recently as a few years ago. Then, apparently, the couple divorced.
Speculation is that it was the teenage boy who pulled the trigger, although no law enforcement official has confirmed this. What can be assumed, however, is that at least one of the people in that house on Sunday was very disturbed and had access to a deadly weapon to express his or her pain.
Although this incident will not get the same media attention as other multiple murders - eg. the Simpson case, Columbine, Virginia Tech - some will use it to speculate about who and what is to blame for one more example of senseless violence. It's guns, some will say, or violent video games. Others will blame parental neglect of a troubled teen.
Since we still have little information, it seems premature to pin the blame on anyone. However, one thing seems clear. This is a family that was isolated from its neighbors, a family that was broken, a family that had few lifelines to grab onto, a family whose distress was invisible.
And that seems to be the single unifying characteristic in nearly every instance of mass killing we have seen in the news over the past few years, from the school shootings to the family murder-suicides. To some extent the family, and especially the shooter, are not well connected to the neighbors and the larger community, so that when the tragedy finally happens, everyone is surprised. No one saw it coming because no one really saw the individuals who were so troubled.
This is the disease of our times. We are all isolated, to some extent, from each other. We know our neighbors by name, but we do not learn much more about them. They go about their business and we go about ours. We get into our cars, drive off to work, have a superficial relationship with those at the office, drive home after work, enter our garages by pressing the automatic door opener, hit the button again to close the door, and go into our house. We're rarely outside where we might converse with neighbors. We don't go outside to wash our own cars, mow our own lawns, or pull our own weeds. Those things are largely done by the illegal immigrants we insist should go home.
Whatever troubles we have stay within the confines of our "castles," which may not be surrounded by moats and fortified walls, but might as well be. Isolation is what breeds the despair that leads to these horrifying outbursts of violence. Interestingly, the neighbors say the teenage boy was outside washing his truck the morning of the shooting. No one, however, says they talked to him. What if someone had? What if just one person came over and showed some interest? Might it have made a difference? If, indeed, he was the shooter, might that small display of interest been the one thing that made him feel validated and hopeful and stopped him from the action he took?
The wonderful "free market"
Following up on my article on the health care crisis, here is an interesting article from the L.A. Times on the incentives offered to insurance company analysts for cancelling policies.
Woodland Hills-based Health Net Inc. avoided paying $35.5 million in medical expenses by rescinding about 1,600 policies between 2000 and 2006. During that period, it paid its senior analyst in charge of cancellations more than $20,000 in bonuses based in part on her meeting or exceeding annual targets for revoking policies, documents disclosed Thursday showed.
The revelation that the health plan had cancellation goals and bonuses comes amid a storm of controversy over the industry-wide but long-hidden practice of rescinding coverage after expensive medical treatments have been authorized.
These cancellations have been the recent focus of intense scrutiny by lawmakers, state regulators and consumer advocates. Although these "rescissions" are only a small portion of the companies' overall business, they typically leave sick patients with crushing medical bills and no way to obtain needed treatment.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Veteran's Day 2007
"How I feel about the war today I can sum up in one question, the same question that can be asked for Vietnam. What have we gained as a country? What have we actually accomplished other than the loss of some damn fine people - people willing to give their life for the country we have - for this nation?"
James Blake Miller, Iraq War Veteran and "The Marlboro Marine," from a short video by L.A. Times photographer Luis Sinco.
James Blake Miller, Iraq War Veteran and "The Marlboro Marine," from a short video by L.A. Times photographer Luis Sinco.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Band of Brothers
My six year old grandson Sean (on the far right) and his friends. He loves running around, being silly, enacting scenes from Star Wars, learning to read, eating ice cream, singing, learning to play the piano, hitting a baseball, and checking the weather every morning on a computer his mother just put in his room. He especially loves being with his friends. And they love being with him. The little boy in the yellow sweatshirt who is an only child often asks Sean "What if we were brothers?" Whenever I see the name of another soldier or Marine who has died in Iraq, especially one who is only 18 or 19 or 20, I think of them as once being six, like Sean. I think of the times they must have played with friends the way Sean does. I think of them laughing and running and learning to play soccer. I think of them innocent and pure, carefree and joyous. And then I think of how we have failed them, and denied them a long life on this planet, all because we can't figure out how to live in peace with each other.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Another day, another toy recall
My granddaughter got a Curious George stuffed animal for her birthday yesterday. It was the only thing she asked for. Today we find out that there is a recall of some Curious George products made in China. This is getting insane.
Try to remember...
If you have forgotten how many scandals have erupted during the Bush administration, check out Hugh's list. The list is incredibly long, and curiously few of these scandals seem to have caused George Walker Bush much trouble. The media either ignores them, superficially covers them, or accepts the Bush administration excuses or rationalizations as adequate explanations for whatever has occurred.
Just for fun, then, imagine the kind of media attention these scandals would be getting if the president in whose administration they occurred was named William Jefferson Clinton.
Just for fun, then, imagine the kind of media attention these scandals would be getting if the president in whose administration they occurred was named William Jefferson Clinton.
Mortgage meltdown explained
The mortgage meltdown and shaky stockmarket are giving everyone the jitters. Not being an economist, I have struggled to understand just how this all happened and how the mysterious "hedge funds" factor into all of this. I'm going to have a lot to say about this in future posts, but for now I recommend these words from Warren Buffet to anyone who wants to understand better what causes these crises to happen.
A healthy nation
Part Five of my series on reforming the health care system now up at Outraged Citizen.
And Paul Krugman weighs in with another excellent article on health care.
And Paul Krugman weighs in with another excellent article on health care.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Her future
Today is my granddaughter Madeline's second birthday. It is because of her, her sister Grace, and her brother Sean that I care so much about the future. It is what motivates me to get up at 5 a.m. to write every day.I want a safe world for Maddie. I want clean skies and clear water and peace around the world. I want her to know that she can always see a doctor when she is sick, and that she doesn't have to worry about having enough to eat.
We owe Maddie and all the other two year olds in this country a decent place to grow up. We owe them leaders who care enough about them not to engage in foolish wars, or build up a huge national debt that they will have to pay for someday, and who are decent enough not to reward their cronies with the money that should go towards securing their future.
By the time Maddie reaches her third birthday, we will have elected a new president. The best present she could possibly receive would be the election of someone wise and humane, someone with the vision and the strength to restore the country that was taken away over six years ago.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY MADDIE!
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
More dirty tricks
I just came back from Target where there was a young man gathering signatures for a ballot initiative to fund children's hospitals. At least, that's how he got my attention.
Since these paid signature gatherers do not usually have only one petition with them, and since I was suspicious that he was collecting signatures for the initiative to change the way California awards its electoral votes, I asked if that was his only petition. He said no, there was one on eminent domain, and one on the electoral college. I told him I would not sign his petitions and he made a snide remark, confirming what I knew: the children's hosptial petition and the eminent domain petition were not his main interests. He was going to use people's compassion for sick children and their fear the government might seize their property to get signatures for another Republican Party attempt to win an election they cannot win fairly and squarely.
These ploys (this one and the nonsense in the past two elections in Florida and Ohio) are signs of desperation. As the failed policies of the Republicans in power are exposed and people turn to new leadership in the Democratic Party, the Republican Party will resort to anything to stay in power. If it means rigging voting machines, they will do that. If it means scrubbing the voter rolls of legitimate voters whose names kinda sorta resemble the names of felons, they think it's a jolly good idea. If it means making African Americans - who mostly vote Democratic - stand in the rain for hours to vote, causing many of them to give up because they had to get to work, they'll do that too.
If the American people really want to keep a Republican in the White House for another four years, even though the dollar is dropping, gas prices are at an all time high, the stock market declined again today, the real estate crisis is causing tens of thousands to lose their homes and even more to lose their jobs, and we are on the verge of total meltdown in the Middle East with crises in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, then I will accept the will of the people as I believe in our system of government. But at least I want to know the vote was fair and that the parties respected the process. This latest ploy of the Republican Party isn't just dirty tricks, it's completely undemocratic.
Since these paid signature gatherers do not usually have only one petition with them, and since I was suspicious that he was collecting signatures for the initiative to change the way California awards its electoral votes, I asked if that was his only petition. He said no, there was one on eminent domain, and one on the electoral college. I told him I would not sign his petitions and he made a snide remark, confirming what I knew: the children's hosptial petition and the eminent domain petition were not his main interests. He was going to use people's compassion for sick children and their fear the government might seize their property to get signatures for another Republican Party attempt to win an election they cannot win fairly and squarely.
These ploys (this one and the nonsense in the past two elections in Florida and Ohio) are signs of desperation. As the failed policies of the Republicans in power are exposed and people turn to new leadership in the Democratic Party, the Republican Party will resort to anything to stay in power. If it means rigging voting machines, they will do that. If it means scrubbing the voter rolls of legitimate voters whose names kinda sorta resemble the names of felons, they think it's a jolly good idea. If it means making African Americans - who mostly vote Democratic - stand in the rain for hours to vote, causing many of them to give up because they had to get to work, they'll do that too.
If the American people really want to keep a Republican in the White House for another four years, even though the dollar is dropping, gas prices are at an all time high, the stock market declined again today, the real estate crisis is causing tens of thousands to lose their homes and even more to lose their jobs, and we are on the verge of total meltdown in the Middle East with crises in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, then I will accept the will of the people as I believe in our system of government. But at least I want to know the vote was fair and that the parties respected the process. This latest ploy of the Republican Party isn't just dirty tricks, it's completely undemocratic.
Deadly imports
According to the Associated Press, the United States is not the only recipient of defective, dangerous toys from China. In Australia, several children were hospitalized after swallowing beads from a popular toy because they contained a chemical which, when ingested, is converted into gamma hydroxy butyrate, otherwise known as the "date rape" drug.
Parents really need to sit up and take notice of the dangers of importing so many Chinese-made toys. Perhaps parents and grandparents might consider a boycott to get the attention of toy companies. I know it's close to Christmas, and a boycott right now might be difficult, but let's face it - most of our children already have enough toys, and if we spent this Christmas searching for special types of presents that are not made in China, it might send an urgent message to those American companies (and now Australian companies) who import cheap Chinese toys.
In a related story, CNN reported a few days ago that there are problems with imports of prescription drugs from China. According to the network, up to fifty percent of all pharmaceutical ingredients are imported from China, with little to no inspection or regulation. According to the New York Times, "chemical associations in the United States and Europe cautioned that globalization has led to a rise in complexity in supply chains" for pharmaceutical ingredients, making both counterfeiting and contamination more common. In fact, two Chinese government exporters mislabeled a poison as a drug ingredient and were responsible for the deaths of 200 people in Haiti and Panama. Other companies use the internet to sell counterfeit medications to consumers in the United States and other countries.
In China, companies that sell drug ingredients fall into a regulatory gap and so are not subject to government inspection. The FDA, which should be protecting Americans from tainted and counterfeit medication is seriously under-funded and cannot possibly inspect all plants in China, nor check all imports coming to the United States. According to the Times, Rep. John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said "China alone has more than 700 firms making drug products for the U.S., yet the F.D.A. has resources to conduct only about 20 inspections a year in China."
Ah, the wonders of globalization. Not only are our children's toys coated with lead paint, a substantial amount of our medicine might be, at best, nothing more than placebo, and at worst, poison.
We could put a lot of people to work if we opened more toy factories and pharmaceutical manufacturing plants here in the United States. More importantly, we could better protect our health and the health of our children.
Sure, toys and medication might cost a little more. But what price does one put on the life or the health of a child?
Parents really need to sit up and take notice of the dangers of importing so many Chinese-made toys. Perhaps parents and grandparents might consider a boycott to get the attention of toy companies. I know it's close to Christmas, and a boycott right now might be difficult, but let's face it - most of our children already have enough toys, and if we spent this Christmas searching for special types of presents that are not made in China, it might send an urgent message to those American companies (and now Australian companies) who import cheap Chinese toys.
In a related story, CNN reported a few days ago that there are problems with imports of prescription drugs from China. According to the network, up to fifty percent of all pharmaceutical ingredients are imported from China, with little to no inspection or regulation. According to the New York Times, "chemical associations in the United States and Europe cautioned that globalization has led to a rise in complexity in supply chains" for pharmaceutical ingredients, making both counterfeiting and contamination more common. In fact, two Chinese government exporters mislabeled a poison as a drug ingredient and were responsible for the deaths of 200 people in Haiti and Panama. Other companies use the internet to sell counterfeit medications to consumers in the United States and other countries.
In China, companies that sell drug ingredients fall into a regulatory gap and so are not subject to government inspection. The FDA, which should be protecting Americans from tainted and counterfeit medication is seriously under-funded and cannot possibly inspect all plants in China, nor check all imports coming to the United States. According to the Times, Rep. John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said "China alone has more than 700 firms making drug products for the U.S., yet the F.D.A. has resources to conduct only about 20 inspections a year in China."
Ah, the wonders of globalization. Not only are our children's toys coated with lead paint, a substantial amount of our medicine might be, at best, nothing more than placebo, and at worst, poison.
We could put a lot of people to work if we opened more toy factories and pharmaceutical manufacturing plants here in the United States. More importantly, we could better protect our health and the health of our children.
Sure, toys and medication might cost a little more. But what price does one put on the life or the health of a child?
Birds of a feather
Pat Robertson has just endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president. This is the same Pat Robertson who once wholeheartedly agreed with Jerry Falwell when he said after the attacks on 9/11, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say: 'You helped this happen.' "
Pat Robertson, who claims to be pro-life, and condemns pro-choice Americans, has just endorsed a pro-choice candidate. Pat Robertson who claims to be opposed to "gay rights," and who in fact thinks homosexuals are immoral and partly responsible for 9/11, just endorsed a man who promotes gay rights.
This proves one thing. Regardless of what they say, many prominent members of the radical right, including those who call themselves "Christian," are not really opposed to Democrats because of their positions on legal abortion or gay rights. They are opposed to Democrats for reasons having to do with money and power and chest-thumping aggressive fantasies.
Robertson has dreams of a world war between Islam and Christianity, in which Christianity can prevail. This fits in perfectly with Giuliani's desire to show his manliness by taking Bush's "war on terror" to the next level.
It scares me that people like Robertson and Giuliani are teaming up, but it doesn't really surprise me. They're very much alike, after all, both egomaniacs, both in love with violence, both shameless opportunists.
At last, we are seeing the true character of men who have pretended for so long to be something they most definitely are not.
Pat Robertson, who claims to be pro-life, and condemns pro-choice Americans, has just endorsed a pro-choice candidate. Pat Robertson who claims to be opposed to "gay rights," and who in fact thinks homosexuals are immoral and partly responsible for 9/11, just endorsed a man who promotes gay rights.
This proves one thing. Regardless of what they say, many prominent members of the radical right, including those who call themselves "Christian," are not really opposed to Democrats because of their positions on legal abortion or gay rights. They are opposed to Democrats for reasons having to do with money and power and chest-thumping aggressive fantasies.
Robertson has dreams of a world war between Islam and Christianity, in which Christianity can prevail. This fits in perfectly with Giuliani's desire to show his manliness by taking Bush's "war on terror" to the next level.
It scares me that people like Robertson and Giuliani are teaming up, but it doesn't really surprise me. They're very much alike, after all, both egomaniacs, both in love with violence, both shameless opportunists.
At last, we are seeing the true character of men who have pretended for so long to be something they most definitely are not.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Fixing health care
On my website Outraged Citizen I am writing a five part series on the health care crisis in this country, why I think an unregulated free market cannot fix things, and what I believe can.
Parts I through IV are already posted, with Part V to follow soon.
Check it out.
Parts I through IV are already posted, with Part V to follow soon.
Check it out.
Dirty tricks in California
A few months ago a group of Republicans, anxious to overcome their perceived disadvantage in the upcoming presidential election, began collecting signatures to put an initiative on the ballot for the 2008 June primary election. The initiative would change the way California's electoral votes are assigned. Instead of all the electoral votes going to the winner of the statewide election, they would be divided according to who won in each congressional district. That would mean that California's many electoral votes would be divided between the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate. Since no other large state does this (two small states do and it has never had any significant impact on the outcome of the election), Republicans would be at a distinct advantage in the presidential election. No red state is currently planning on doing this.
You may think that, since California is still considered a blue state, such an initiative would easily be defeated, but consider this: the election the promoters of this initiative are aiming for is in June, while the presidential primary is in February this year. How many people will actually go to the polls in June? You can bet the promoters of this initiative will have their voters out in force since it could help them win the presidential race, which will probably be extremely close as it has been for the past two elections. But how many citizens of California who oppose such a move will even know about it?
If this was a plan that was being implemented in every state in the nation, I would be all for it. But since it will only be on the ballot in California, and all other states operate according to winner-take-all, implementing this initiative would be blatantly undemocratic and unfair, especially to the Democratic candidate. And it will make it easier for the Republican candidate to spend less money in California than he would normally have to spend to try and win the state.
The promoters of this initiative include those who sponsored the recall of Gray Davis. One big supporter is my Congressman Darrell Issa, who funded the recall because he wanted to run for governer, then cried on television when he had to leave the race because the party had already annointed Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Petitioners are out all over California trying to get signatures. Please, if you care about the fairness of our elections, and the importance of California's electoral votes, don't sign this petition.
You may think that, since California is still considered a blue state, such an initiative would easily be defeated, but consider this: the election the promoters of this initiative are aiming for is in June, while the presidential primary is in February this year. How many people will actually go to the polls in June? You can bet the promoters of this initiative will have their voters out in force since it could help them win the presidential race, which will probably be extremely close as it has been for the past two elections. But how many citizens of California who oppose such a move will even know about it?
If this was a plan that was being implemented in every state in the nation, I would be all for it. But since it will only be on the ballot in California, and all other states operate according to winner-take-all, implementing this initiative would be blatantly undemocratic and unfair, especially to the Democratic candidate. And it will make it easier for the Republican candidate to spend less money in California than he would normally have to spend to try and win the state.
The promoters of this initiative include those who sponsored the recall of Gray Davis. One big supporter is my Congressman Darrell Issa, who funded the recall because he wanted to run for governer, then cried on television when he had to leave the race because the party had already annointed Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Petitioners are out all over California trying to get signatures. Please, if you care about the fairness of our elections, and the importance of California's electoral votes, don't sign this petition.
New Day, New Blog
Welcome to Daily Democrat, a new blog combining my interest in politics, psychology, and family. I hope to provide food for thought to everyone who shares my love of country and my concerns regarding the direction it has recently taken.
For busy parents, who have little time to keep up with politics and government, I hope to provide some helpful information on what is happening in our country that may be relevant to you, the future of this country, and the well being of your family.
Sometimes I will rant about what is happening in Washington or Sacramento. Sometimes I will address issues of parenting. Sometimes I will comment on what is happening in the fields of pyschology and psychotherapy.
Always, I hope, you will find something of interest to help you in your daily endeavors, or give you something important, and perhaps controversial, to discuss with your co-workers or family members.
For busy parents, who have little time to keep up with politics and government, I hope to provide some helpful information on what is happening in our country that may be relevant to you, the future of this country, and the well being of your family.
Sometimes I will rant about what is happening in Washington or Sacramento. Sometimes I will address issues of parenting. Sometimes I will comment on what is happening in the fields of pyschology and psychotherapy.
Always, I hope, you will find something of interest to help you in your daily endeavors, or give you something important, and perhaps controversial, to discuss with your co-workers or family members.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)