Sorry to have been absent from the blog for so long.
My parents are both terminally ill and I have had my hands full caring for them, even with the help of a paid caregiver. For a time I tried to keep up with the blog, but the hours needed for reading daily papers, checking other blogs and news sites, and just getting my thoughts straight in my head so they would make sense to others were things I had little time or patience for.
Things are not getting better with my parents, but I have decided to update the blog from time to time when I can, which translates to - when something I happen to read or see on the news really outrages me and prompts me to carve out some time to chime in.
This morning I read that the credit card bill working its way through Congress - a bill to protect consumers from predatory credit card practices and outrageous interest rates - has had an amendment attached that has nothing to do with credit cards and everything to do with the paranoid Republican Party.
Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who also happens to be a medical doctor, proposed the amendment that would allow people to carry loaded guns in national parks.
This is simply incredible. What on earth is Coburn thinking? Obviously, he's not. We certainly don't need gun nuts carrying their guns into family parks where stray bullets could cause death or injury. We don't need Yosemite turned into the Wild West.
What is the matter with these people? Are they so indebted to the gun lobby that they feel they must create more customers for them? Or are they so paranoid that they believe they must carry weapons even in beautiful places like Yellowstone or The Grand Canyon?
Tom Coburn should know better. He is a medical doctor. He knows what bullets do to the human body. No medical doctor who has a brain and a conscience should ever advocate for the gun lobby.
If people are so paranoid that they believe they must arm themselves in some of the most beautiful places in our country, where people go to hike, fish, swim, picnic, and just take in nature's beauty, then they should stay home. They are the ones we should be afraid of anyway, as they are the ones who would probably have an impulsive trigger finger and end up killing some innocent child.
With Dick Cheney running around accusing Obama of making the country less safe, and people like Coburn insisting we allow shoot-outs in our National Parks, we see that what drives the Republican Party, along with an isatiable quest for unlimited power, is pure paranoia.
And 27 Democrats votes for the amendment. They should be ashamed.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Why being a liberal is a good thing
From Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish - a reader comment and the best rationale for the liberal point of view, and indirect critique of the conservative point of view, I have read in a long time:
This country is wonderful.... if you work hard you have a good chance of being successful. But many people work very, very hard and are not successful - and not because they are stupid, or lazy. The difference between Obama and his predecessors is that he realizes that the people who work hard and don't make a lot of money, or work hard and don't have health insurance, or who worked hard all their lives and now - in their golden years- have little to show for it also deserve some minimum level of dignity.
And yes, someone has to pay for it, and I'm happy for it to be me and people like me, because there for but for the grace of God. It's not punishing the successful, it's realizing that hard work is only part of the equation and we as a society need to recognize our obligations to those people who have held up their part of the bargain but didn't end up on the winning side (and children get an automatic pass).
Friday, February 27, 2009
Me-tooism
Thirty years ago Ronald Reagan came along and was seen by a majority of the American people as an authentic and original politician (even though he was an actor). He won two presidential elections and is still revered by many on the right and a few in the center as being a decent and admirable president. To the right, he is the patron saint of conservatism, the icon every Republican bows down to, every right wing politician tries to imitate.
One thing that can be said of Reagan is that he was an original. That, more than anything is what captured the imagination of the American public.
Ever since then, however, much less original and less talented Republicans politicians have relied on tricks to stay in power. These tricks have included carefully crafted, focus group tested words and talking points, clever advertising, their own television network, and dominance of the talk radio market with propaganda.
For years, Democrats have been flustered with the success of politicians they consider wrong headed in terms of policies that are bad for the majority of Americans. And so Dems have tried to hire better advertising firms. They tried to jump ahead with technology. They started their own think tanks and tried to put together their own buzz words and talking points and they even ventured unsuccessfully into talk radio. None of this really worked. Even Bill Clinton wouldn't have been elected had it not been for the entrance of Ross Perot into the race and the recession that George H. W. Bush ignored. Bill Clinton may have been a good president, but he didn't interrupt the Republican machine.
Then along came Barack Obama, the most unique and original politician since Ronald Reagan, to capture the imagination and the trust of the American people. Sure he had good advertising companies making good commercials. And he had good speechwriters and good policy proposals. But more than anything else Barack Obama was a unique and new person on the political stage when the American people were ready for change. As for the Republicans - their old reliance on the ghost of Ronald Reagan to carry them to success one more time didn't work. The voters are younger now and many don't even remember Ronald Reagan, whose ghost has finally been exorcised.
So now the Republicans are humorously engaging in "me-tooism." Or at least some of them are. A group of them is engaging in wing-nuttery this weekend at the CPAC conference in Washington D.C., talking about revolution. But the mainstream of the Republican Party has, for the past year or so, engaged in "me-tooism," trying to imitate the appearance of the leaders of the Democratic Party.
Seeing the popularity of Hillary Clinton in the presidential primary, even though she lost, they decided to imitate the Dems by nominating a woman to be their vice presidential candidate. Somehow they thought this would woo over all the women in the Democratic Party, angry that their candidate lost. What it did instead, because Democratic women are smarter than that, was make them angry and determined to vote Democratic. Democratic women looked at Sarah Palin, and to paraphrase Lloyd Bentson, said "Governor, you're no Hillary Clinton."
Then Republicans elected Michael Steele to be their national chairman. Steele, a rare African American Republican, immediately said he was going to woo all those hip hop voters and prove to them how cool the GOP could be. Republicans not only think a woman is a woman is a woman, they also think a black man is a black man is a black man. Apparently they must believe the only reason people voted for Barack Obama is because of the color of his skin. That would be akin to saying the only reason people voted for Reagan was because he was an actor. It would be denying the talent of the politician and the message he represents.
Finally, me-tooism was evident in the response to the president's address to Congress by Bobby Jindal. The set imitated the White House press conference venue, and the choice of a dark-skinned speaker was their way of saying "See, we have a blackish guy too."
The Republicans are where the Democrats were for the past thirty years: in the wilderness, unable to compete. But the Dems were in the wilderness because they couldn't overcome the stagecraft, the talking points, the propaganda, the advertising slogans - the outward trickery - of the Republicans.
The Republicans, on the other hand, are in the wilderness because they have no ideas, because Ronald Reagan no longer captivates younger voters, and because they think all they have to do is imitate the outward appearances of the Democrats.
The difference, of course, is that the Democrats are sincere in their embrace of minorities and women for public office, and in their search for real ideas. Republican ideas, which once seemed fresh, have all failed.
All they can do now is play "me-too."
One thing that can be said of Reagan is that he was an original. That, more than anything is what captured the imagination of the American public.
Ever since then, however, much less original and less talented Republicans politicians have relied on tricks to stay in power. These tricks have included carefully crafted, focus group tested words and talking points, clever advertising, their own television network, and dominance of the talk radio market with propaganda.
For years, Democrats have been flustered with the success of politicians they consider wrong headed in terms of policies that are bad for the majority of Americans. And so Dems have tried to hire better advertising firms. They tried to jump ahead with technology. They started their own think tanks and tried to put together their own buzz words and talking points and they even ventured unsuccessfully into talk radio. None of this really worked. Even Bill Clinton wouldn't have been elected had it not been for the entrance of Ross Perot into the race and the recession that George H. W. Bush ignored. Bill Clinton may have been a good president, but he didn't interrupt the Republican machine.
Then along came Barack Obama, the most unique and original politician since Ronald Reagan, to capture the imagination and the trust of the American people. Sure he had good advertising companies making good commercials. And he had good speechwriters and good policy proposals. But more than anything else Barack Obama was a unique and new person on the political stage when the American people were ready for change. As for the Republicans - their old reliance on the ghost of Ronald Reagan to carry them to success one more time didn't work. The voters are younger now and many don't even remember Ronald Reagan, whose ghost has finally been exorcised.
So now the Republicans are humorously engaging in "me-tooism." Or at least some of them are. A group of them is engaging in wing-nuttery this weekend at the CPAC conference in Washington D.C., talking about revolution. But the mainstream of the Republican Party has, for the past year or so, engaged in "me-tooism," trying to imitate the appearance of the leaders of the Democratic Party.
Seeing the popularity of Hillary Clinton in the presidential primary, even though she lost, they decided to imitate the Dems by nominating a woman to be their vice presidential candidate. Somehow they thought this would woo over all the women in the Democratic Party, angry that their candidate lost. What it did instead, because Democratic women are smarter than that, was make them angry and determined to vote Democratic. Democratic women looked at Sarah Palin, and to paraphrase Lloyd Bentson, said "Governor, you're no Hillary Clinton."
Then Republicans elected Michael Steele to be their national chairman. Steele, a rare African American Republican, immediately said he was going to woo all those hip hop voters and prove to them how cool the GOP could be. Republicans not only think a woman is a woman is a woman, they also think a black man is a black man is a black man. Apparently they must believe the only reason people voted for Barack Obama is because of the color of his skin. That would be akin to saying the only reason people voted for Reagan was because he was an actor. It would be denying the talent of the politician and the message he represents.
Finally, me-tooism was evident in the response to the president's address to Congress by Bobby Jindal. The set imitated the White House press conference venue, and the choice of a dark-skinned speaker was their way of saying "See, we have a blackish guy too."
The Republicans are where the Democrats were for the past thirty years: in the wilderness, unable to compete. But the Dems were in the wilderness because they couldn't overcome the stagecraft, the talking points, the propaganda, the advertising slogans - the outward trickery - of the Republicans.
The Republicans, on the other hand, are in the wilderness because they have no ideas, because Ronald Reagan no longer captivates younger voters, and because they think all they have to do is imitate the outward appearances of the Democrats.
The difference, of course, is that the Democrats are sincere in their embrace of minorities and women for public office, and in their search for real ideas. Republican ideas, which once seemed fresh, have all failed.
All they can do now is play "me-too."
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Creeps
There is a true story I like to tell that is a perfect metaphor for Republican behavior.
When I was a teenager we lived next door to a couple, their twelve year old son, and a grandmother. I often spent the afternoon in my bedroom doing homework, where my window looked out on the side yard of our neighbors.
One afternoon as I was struggling with some algebra equations, I heard a commotion next door. The grandmother was struggling with the side gate that had some off its hinges and was falling on her. She cried for help to her grandson whose bedroom also looked out on the yard, and he came to the window and yelled "You broke it, you fix it."
Ultimately, a neighbor helped, but I will never forget that little 12 year old creep of a grandson.
This is the story I thought of as I watched the Republican nonsense this week in refusing to support the president's stimulus bill. No Republican House members voted for it, and only three Senators crossed over to support it. Even with three Republicans supporting it in the Senate, however, the Dems were one short of the sixty they needed. Even though they should have 59 senators, meaning they would only need one Republican vote, when the vote was taken there were three senators absent. Al Franken is not yet seated as Norm Coleman continues to challenge an election he has lost, only to cripple the Democratic Party and the president's agenda. Ted Kennedy is in Florida, fighting brain cancer (he came back for the first vote but had to return for treatment), and Sherrod Brown was at his mother's funeral.
Ultimately, Sherrod Brown returned after the funeral, just to vote, then got on a plane and returned to be with his family, which is what people want to do when they are grieving.
Not one Republican senator offered to vote "yes" so Senator Brown could stay with his family and mourn. Not one offered to vote in Ted Kennedy's stead. Not one showed any compassion, when they knew they would lose anyway. Their actions were the equivalent of "you broke it, you fix it" except to be accurate they would have to say "we broke it, but you fix it."
Party before helping the American people.
Party before bipartisanship.
Party before humanity.
Every one of the Republican Senators who could have lent a hand and didn't, who forced Senator Brown to leave his family when he was in mourning, is in my opinion just as much a creep as that twelve year old former neighbor of mine.
May they all get what they deserve!
When I was a teenager we lived next door to a couple, their twelve year old son, and a grandmother. I often spent the afternoon in my bedroom doing homework, where my window looked out on the side yard of our neighbors.
One afternoon as I was struggling with some algebra equations, I heard a commotion next door. The grandmother was struggling with the side gate that had some off its hinges and was falling on her. She cried for help to her grandson whose bedroom also looked out on the yard, and he came to the window and yelled "You broke it, you fix it."
Ultimately, a neighbor helped, but I will never forget that little 12 year old creep of a grandson.
This is the story I thought of as I watched the Republican nonsense this week in refusing to support the president's stimulus bill. No Republican House members voted for it, and only three Senators crossed over to support it. Even with three Republicans supporting it in the Senate, however, the Dems were one short of the sixty they needed. Even though they should have 59 senators, meaning they would only need one Republican vote, when the vote was taken there were three senators absent. Al Franken is not yet seated as Norm Coleman continues to challenge an election he has lost, only to cripple the Democratic Party and the president's agenda. Ted Kennedy is in Florida, fighting brain cancer (he came back for the first vote but had to return for treatment), and Sherrod Brown was at his mother's funeral.
Ultimately, Sherrod Brown returned after the funeral, just to vote, then got on a plane and returned to be with his family, which is what people want to do when they are grieving.
Not one Republican senator offered to vote "yes" so Senator Brown could stay with his family and mourn. Not one offered to vote in Ted Kennedy's stead. Not one showed any compassion, when they knew they would lose anyway. Their actions were the equivalent of "you broke it, you fix it" except to be accurate they would have to say "we broke it, but you fix it."
Party before helping the American people.
Party before bipartisanship.
Party before humanity.
Every one of the Republican Senators who could have lent a hand and didn't, who forced Senator Brown to leave his family when he was in mourning, is in my opinion just as much a creep as that twelve year old former neighbor of mine.
May they all get what they deserve!
Saturday, February 7, 2009
The Republican Party: a party without a heart
Nobody says it better than Bob Herbert:
It’s been clear for years that the G.O.P. is a party without a heart. But its pointless obstructionism, its overall lack of any serious response to what is a clear national economic emergency, seems to indicate it’s also a party without a brain.
Republicans in Washington have behaved like a milling crowd standing in the way of firefighters trying to respond to a devastating blaze. The best that can be said for the party is that a few senators seem to have been able part the crowd enough to let the rescuers begin to inch forward.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Republican hypocrites
Why aren't those hypocritical republican lawmakers and party members screaming their heads off about this insane woman who just gave birth to octuplets?
First of all she's a single woman who had six children previously. Single pregnant woman are usually condemned by republicans.
Secondly, she had in vitro fertilization with all of her pregnancies. In vitro is very expensive. How did she pay for it? Is this part of why our health insurance premiums are so high?
Third, she claims she was implanted with six embryos each time she got pregnant. Either she is lying about that regarding this pregnancy or some embryos divided and she had some twins. Even so, leaving aside this pregnancy, she has had five other pregnancies (she previously had one set of twins) and that means thirty embryos were implanted in her. Obviously, twenty-four of them did not implant, so in her quest to be a mother, twenty-four embryos were lost, aborted, wasted, or "killed" in the words of anti-abortion fanatics. Why is this not considered wrong?
Why are republicans not opposed to in vitro fertilization, in which embryos are created but have no chance at life, but completely opposed to using other embryos, which also have no change at life, to find cures for devastating disease like diabetes, Parkinson's Disease, and other terrible illnesses?
First of all she's a single woman who had six children previously. Single pregnant woman are usually condemned by republicans.
Secondly, she had in vitro fertilization with all of her pregnancies. In vitro is very expensive. How did she pay for it? Is this part of why our health insurance premiums are so high?
Third, she claims she was implanted with six embryos each time she got pregnant. Either she is lying about that regarding this pregnancy or some embryos divided and she had some twins. Even so, leaving aside this pregnancy, she has had five other pregnancies (she previously had one set of twins) and that means thirty embryos were implanted in her. Obviously, twenty-four of them did not implant, so in her quest to be a mother, twenty-four embryos were lost, aborted, wasted, or "killed" in the words of anti-abortion fanatics. Why is this not considered wrong?
Why are republicans not opposed to in vitro fertilization, in which embryos are created but have no chance at life, but completely opposed to using other embryos, which also have no change at life, to find cures for devastating disease like diabetes, Parkinson's Disease, and other terrible illnesses?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Give him a chance for god's sake
This morning on Morning Joke they were doing it again - bashing Obama for not being able to get a (Republican approved) stimulus plan passed. Obama has been in office for just two weeks and already they are saying the honeymoon is over (except there really never was one from these folks) and that the Republican are re-moralized and the stimulus package from the House is nothing but pork.
Geez - these are the same people that attacked Obama every day of his campaign and now all of a sudden they are disappointed that he is not a miracle worker?
Here's how I see it:
1. The press - especially right wing nut jobs like Joke Scarborough - have been after Obama for two years. These are the same geniuses that spent weeks trashing Obama because of Jeremiah Wright, predicting it would lead to his political demise. Time after time they underestimated him. Time after time they didn't get how he operated. Time after time they predicted disaster only to have Obama prove them wrong. He will do it again this time because he moves forward towards his goal regardless of how the press reacts. When will they finally figure that out?
2. As the saying goes, legislation is like making sausage. You may like the end product, but you don't want to watch it being made. The legislative process is messy. The House usually provides a broad and often unwieldly partisan product but the Senate refines it and makes it more bipartisan. I expect the same to happen this time. The Senate hasn't even begun debating the bill and already the right wing press is pronouncing Obama's "honeymoon" over.
3. The right wing press really does not see that Obama is different. He is like a problem solver who thinks out loud and the press is like the listener who judges each thought as an independent thing. Obama, unlike Bush, learns from mistakes as well as successes and he makes adjutments. Bush thought compromise and adjustments were a sign of weakness and the press seemed to agree. But Obama truly does represent change. He is willing to admit mistakes, willing to learn and change as needed. The thing he keeps in mind always is that the American people need help and he is determined to bring it to them.
4. There will be a stimulus bill and it may or may not be successful in helping the American people. That's part of the problem. No one knows for sure what will help. But at least we have in the White House someone who is not so rigidly ideological that it has to be his way or the highway. I have no doubt that Obama will work this entire four years to improve things. If it doesn't happen with a first attempt, he will work to find another. That's the big difference he has with Bush. Bush made mistakes, refused to admit them, allowed them to be compounded by more mistakes, and then did nothing as he simply waited out the clock. Conservatives hate change. They will hold onto what they believe whether it works or not because they hold onto their beliefs regardless of the evidence that refutes those beliefs. Progressives like Obama, on the other hand, are not afraid to try new things, because they know if something doesn't work they can always try something else.
I'm hoping Obama's stimulus package makes things better, but I'm willing to give him several chances. I think we all should.
Geez - these are the same people that attacked Obama every day of his campaign and now all of a sudden they are disappointed that he is not a miracle worker?
Here's how I see it:
1. The press - especially right wing nut jobs like Joke Scarborough - have been after Obama for two years. These are the same geniuses that spent weeks trashing Obama because of Jeremiah Wright, predicting it would lead to his political demise. Time after time they underestimated him. Time after time they didn't get how he operated. Time after time they predicted disaster only to have Obama prove them wrong. He will do it again this time because he moves forward towards his goal regardless of how the press reacts. When will they finally figure that out?
2. As the saying goes, legislation is like making sausage. You may like the end product, but you don't want to watch it being made. The legislative process is messy. The House usually provides a broad and often unwieldly partisan product but the Senate refines it and makes it more bipartisan. I expect the same to happen this time. The Senate hasn't even begun debating the bill and already the right wing press is pronouncing Obama's "honeymoon" over.
3. The right wing press really does not see that Obama is different. He is like a problem solver who thinks out loud and the press is like the listener who judges each thought as an independent thing. Obama, unlike Bush, learns from mistakes as well as successes and he makes adjutments. Bush thought compromise and adjustments were a sign of weakness and the press seemed to agree. But Obama truly does represent change. He is willing to admit mistakes, willing to learn and change as needed. The thing he keeps in mind always is that the American people need help and he is determined to bring it to them.
4. There will be a stimulus bill and it may or may not be successful in helping the American people. That's part of the problem. No one knows for sure what will help. But at least we have in the White House someone who is not so rigidly ideological that it has to be his way or the highway. I have no doubt that Obama will work this entire four years to improve things. If it doesn't happen with a first attempt, he will work to find another. That's the big difference he has with Bush. Bush made mistakes, refused to admit them, allowed them to be compounded by more mistakes, and then did nothing as he simply waited out the clock. Conservatives hate change. They will hold onto what they believe whether it works or not because they hold onto their beliefs regardless of the evidence that refutes those beliefs. Progressives like Obama, on the other hand, are not afraid to try new things, because they know if something doesn't work they can always try something else.
I'm hoping Obama's stimulus package makes things better, but I'm willing to give him several chances. I think we all should.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Oh happy day!
One glorious day! One day of triumph and hope and new beginnings.
Does it make up for eight years of hell? Was the suffering, death, trashing of the Constitution worth it?
No and no.
But it is a new beginning. Obama has much to do, not just with his plans to move the country forward, but with the much needed repair work of the damage that has been done by his predecessor.
If anyone can do it, he can, with our help.
Yes, he can.
Yes, we can.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Conservatives swoon over Obama, Brooks admits conservatives were wrong, and I get to say "I told you so"
It is a time of hope and history, and the disgraced and vanquished Republicans want to be part of it.
And so two nights ago when Barack broke bread with some conservative commentators at the home of George Will, they swooned and are now claiming bragging rights, even saying "he likes us best" because they had dinner with him while the next day liberal commentators met in his office and were only offered water.
Their bragging only shows them for the losers they are. And poor ones at that.
But Barack is bigger than that. Unlike Bush, who only wanted to be president of warmongers and neoconservatives and preachy moralists, Barack wants to be the president of the entire country. And he is willing to meet with them and share ideas.
To be fair, a few conservatives are humbled with the recent economic meltdown, some realizing that conservative ideology has failed. In David Brooks column today, for instance, he talks about the failure of the Republican belief that people behave rationally when it comes to business and financial decisions and that in fact human behavior is far more complicated and involves a certain amount of "mental chaos."
So David Brooks has finally admitted what Democrats have always known - that life is messy, people are imperfect, and sometimes radical freedom leads to disaster.
I wrote about this six years ago in an essay titled "Why I am not a Republican." The article is long, but if I were to write it today, I would add one other reason to the three I outlined. I am not a Republican because they only learn the hard way. Democrats are more progressive. They look ahead and try to prevent problems, while Republicans are faith and ideology based and refuse to consider that they might be wrong or they might not be addressing real problems. Only when disaster strikes are they forced to admit they were wrong, and often it is far too late.
I said of Republicans:
Of Democrats, I said:
And so two nights ago when Barack broke bread with some conservative commentators at the home of George Will, they swooned and are now claiming bragging rights, even saying "he likes us best" because they had dinner with him while the next day liberal commentators met in his office and were only offered water.
Their bragging only shows them for the losers they are. And poor ones at that.
But Barack is bigger than that. Unlike Bush, who only wanted to be president of warmongers and neoconservatives and preachy moralists, Barack wants to be the president of the entire country. And he is willing to meet with them and share ideas.
To be fair, a few conservatives are humbled with the recent economic meltdown, some realizing that conservative ideology has failed. In David Brooks column today, for instance, he talks about the failure of the Republican belief that people behave rationally when it comes to business and financial decisions and that in fact human behavior is far more complicated and involves a certain amount of "mental chaos."
This mental chaos explains how people can respond so quickly and intuitively to so many different circumstances. But it also entails a decision-making process that is more complicated and messy than previously thought.
So David Brooks has finally admitted what Democrats have always known - that life is messy, people are imperfect, and sometimes radical freedom leads to disaster.
I wrote about this six years ago in an essay titled "Why I am not a Republican." The article is long, but if I were to write it today, I would add one other reason to the three I outlined. I am not a Republican because they only learn the hard way. Democrats are more progressive. They look ahead and try to prevent problems, while Republicans are faith and ideology based and refuse to consider that they might be wrong or they might not be addressing real problems. Only when disaster strikes are they forced to admit they were wrong, and often it is far too late.
I said of Republicans:
Republicans have a very black and white view of the nature of man. On the one hand, when promoting their economic policies, they appear to be stubborn believers in man's innate goodness. Their promotion of radical free markets, unregulated business, less governmental aid to the poor, lower taxes and privatizing social security, among other policies, is evidence of that. They insist that capitalism, left to itself, will be beneficial to all. Trickle down economics and radical individualism are republican mantras that assume that everyone has an equal shot at the "American Dream," that the wealthy will take care of the poor that didn't get trickled down on, and unregulated business can be trusted to do what's right. Republicans simply expect people to be good.
Of Democrats, I said:
Democrats, in my opinion, are more realistic about the nature of man. While democrats profess the belief that people CAN be good, and while they continue to
hope for the best, they accept that humans are ultimately flawed creatures, frequently selfish, weak and easily tempted to do wrong, especially when they get together in corporate board meetings. Because democrats do not expect people to be perfect, they understand the need for some governmental regulation. Sometimes, they think, man must be protected from himself - or more accurately, people must sometimes be protected from each other.
Thus, democrats believe in the importance of governmental oversight, especially of businesses that all citizens are dependent upon - like energy companies and the media. They also believe in the importance of protecting labor against unscrupulous management practices and so traditionally it has been the democratic party that has championed labor unions. Democrats are not so naive as to believe governments or unions always do the right thing, but they believe that these organizations are strengthened with the power of many voices and can hammer out reasonable and balanced policies as long as negotiations aren't done in secret.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Community vs. Individualism
When in the company of conservative Republicans I often hear the refrain that Barack Obama is going to raise their taxes. Raising taxes, of course, is anathema to Republicans, and Republican legislators and political pundits have successfully convinced Americans that even if Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire, as they are intended to do, that is a tax hike by Democrats.
What differentiates this liberal Democrat from those conservative Republicans is the idea that there is more to life than "what's in it for me." When I hear conservative Republicans, especially wealthy or very, very comfortable ones, whine about taxes I want to ask them just how much money they need, because the reality is a small tax hike would not hurt them at all when it comes to their needs. Sure, they might not be able to go on three vacations a year, or buy that second or third house, or that fifth car or that new wardrobe, but is that the measure of good public policy or a healthy society - how much the wealthy get to keep to spend on items they don't really need?
I honestly have never been able to understand this mentality that the wealthy have a right to get even wealthier and if the poor don't pull themselves up to be successful, too bad! They have only themselves to blame. This makes no sense to me. The poor don't have themselves to blame. They are kept down by ponzi schemes and tax codes and historical prejudice and legislation that favors the wealthy. They have few opportunities for either education or jobs that might get them out of the endless cycle of failure and poor health and poverty that comes from the deck being stacked against them by decades of public policy that deprives them of basic needs and then blames them for their poverty.
We have developed in this country an ethic of individualism, which preaches the ideology that anyone can make it, anyone can overcome misfortune, anyone can go from rags to riches and the reality is that this ideology is a myth. Here in the United States, regardless of evidence to the contrary, we think people are responsible only for and to themselves and to no one else and we feel very little obligation to reach out to others.
I have felt this profoundly as I have tried desperately to care for two ailing parents, one with a terminal disease, and one with a progressive neurological disease. As an only child, with no relatives nearby, I have felt more alone than I have ever felt in my life. No one offers to help. No government services are available. Even the medical profession makes life difficult with the many hurdles that we must all jump through just to get help.
We simply don't live in a society where we believe we are our brother's or our sister's keeper. We live in a society where the rule is to "look out for number one" and "what's in it for me?"
Conservative Republicans have the same mindset in foreign policy. "America right or wrong." "We're number one." "You're with us or against us." The Republican view is that America can do what it wants around the world because America can do no wrong. It doesn't matter what other countries want or need, it is only America's needs and wants that count.
Liberal Democrats would like to see a shift to a more communitarian outlook - one that says we're all in this together and unless the poorest among us have a chance, we will all be the worse for it. We would like to see the poor, the jobless, the uninsured be given a chance to feed their families and get medical care and live in decent housing. And if that means the wealthy or the relatively more well-off have to pay a few more bucks in taxes, so what? Are the wealthy really that selfish? And we would like to see more community service and more reaching out to those who need assistance, either in taking care of their ill relatives or in caring for their children while they go to work.
And no, having a communitarian outlook, one that says we thrive and prosper as individuals only when we assure that all of us are cared for, does not mean we are communists. I wish conservative Republicans could get over that - it's ignorant, narrow minded, and uninformed, not to mention unkind. But then, I have never seen conservative Republicans as possessing an abundance of kindness or open-mindedness.
What differentiates this liberal Democrat from those conservative Republicans is the idea that there is more to life than "what's in it for me." When I hear conservative Republicans, especially wealthy or very, very comfortable ones, whine about taxes I want to ask them just how much money they need, because the reality is a small tax hike would not hurt them at all when it comes to their needs. Sure, they might not be able to go on three vacations a year, or buy that second or third house, or that fifth car or that new wardrobe, but is that the measure of good public policy or a healthy society - how much the wealthy get to keep to spend on items they don't really need?
I honestly have never been able to understand this mentality that the wealthy have a right to get even wealthier and if the poor don't pull themselves up to be successful, too bad! They have only themselves to blame. This makes no sense to me. The poor don't have themselves to blame. They are kept down by ponzi schemes and tax codes and historical prejudice and legislation that favors the wealthy. They have few opportunities for either education or jobs that might get them out of the endless cycle of failure and poor health and poverty that comes from the deck being stacked against them by decades of public policy that deprives them of basic needs and then blames them for their poverty.
We have developed in this country an ethic of individualism, which preaches the ideology that anyone can make it, anyone can overcome misfortune, anyone can go from rags to riches and the reality is that this ideology is a myth. Here in the United States, regardless of evidence to the contrary, we think people are responsible only for and to themselves and to no one else and we feel very little obligation to reach out to others.
I have felt this profoundly as I have tried desperately to care for two ailing parents, one with a terminal disease, and one with a progressive neurological disease. As an only child, with no relatives nearby, I have felt more alone than I have ever felt in my life. No one offers to help. No government services are available. Even the medical profession makes life difficult with the many hurdles that we must all jump through just to get help.
We simply don't live in a society where we believe we are our brother's or our sister's keeper. We live in a society where the rule is to "look out for number one" and "what's in it for me?"
Conservative Republicans have the same mindset in foreign policy. "America right or wrong." "We're number one." "You're with us or against us." The Republican view is that America can do what it wants around the world because America can do no wrong. It doesn't matter what other countries want or need, it is only America's needs and wants that count.
Liberal Democrats would like to see a shift to a more communitarian outlook - one that says we're all in this together and unless the poorest among us have a chance, we will all be the worse for it. We would like to see the poor, the jobless, the uninsured be given a chance to feed their families and get medical care and live in decent housing. And if that means the wealthy or the relatively more well-off have to pay a few more bucks in taxes, so what? Are the wealthy really that selfish? And we would like to see more community service and more reaching out to those who need assistance, either in taking care of their ill relatives or in caring for their children while they go to work.
And no, having a communitarian outlook, one that says we thrive and prosper as individuals only when we assure that all of us are cared for, does not mean we are communists. I wish conservative Republicans could get over that - it's ignorant, narrow minded, and uninformed, not to mention unkind. But then, I have never seen conservative Republicans as possessing an abundance of kindness or open-mindedness.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Barack the Outlier
For the past month I've been sick - first a terrible upper respiratory infection complicated by bronchitis, then last week a stomach virus which knocked me out for a couple of days. Those things cripple your ability to write or even care about much that is going on.
But, knock on wood, I think I'm finally better and yesterday I wrote an article on my website OUTRAGED CITIZEN about the history that will be made tomorrow. Check it out.
During much of the past month, not being able to do many of the things I normally do (including helping my ailing parents) I had the opportunity to catch up on some reading. I finished Barack Obama's first book: Dreams from my Father. I started Malcolm Gladwell's latest book: Outliers. I highly recommend them both.
The interesting thing about these two books is that they complement each other. Gladwell's thesis in the book is that successful people are not individuals who have enormously high IQs or who pull themselves up by their bootsraps by sheer determination. Instead, he shows how time after time there are forces at work that give the successful person unusual access or opportunities that others, with just as much determination or just as much intelligence, simply do not have. For instance, Bill Gates was the son of a successful Seattle attorney and a wealthy mother who sent him to a prestigious prep school, Lakeside, where the mothers raised enough money to purchase a computer that connected to a mainframe computer in downtown Seattle. Here's how Gladwell summarizes the opportunities Gates had:
Gladwell also says that highly successful people have spent enormous amounts of time practicing their craft or skill, be it computer programming, musical performance, or athletics. The amount of time it takes for someone to become top of his field, a real expert at something, Gladwell estimates to be 10,000 hours or ten years. By the time Gates had dropped out of Harvard, he had accumulated that many hours.
In reading about Gladwell's thesis I see how well it applies to Barack Obama. With Obama, the 10,000 hours of practice would be in dealing with other people and learning to navigate in a world of diversity, a world in which he constantly had to adjust and shift to get along. And what better skill is their for politics than the ability to relate to people and get them to relate to you?
In Gladwell style, let me try to summarize the opportunities Obama had.
Opportunity number one was that Obama was born to brilliant parents of two different races. Opportunity number two, Obama was raised mostly in the diverse state of Hawaii. Opportunity number three, Obama's mother married an Indonesian man and took him to live there for four years where he went to school with both Christians and Muslims. Opportunity number four, schooling was limited in Indonesia so Obama's mother sent him back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents where his grandfather's contacts allowed the middle class family to send their grandson to a prestigious prep school. Opportunity number five, Obama was accepted at Occidental College in Southern California where he met students of all races but learned to embrace his African-American heritage and became active in the anti-apartheid movement. Opportunity number six, Obama was accepted at Columbia University in New York and learned to navigate the tough neighborhood where he lived. Opportunity number seven, Obama applied to be a community organizer in Chicago and worked there for three years, failing at several projects in this on-the-job-training before he began to achieve small successes. Opportunity number eight, Obama was accepted to Harvard Law School. Opportunity number nine, prior to law school Obama traveled to Kenya, the land of his father, and met hundreds of relatives who had all heard of him, and learned what a real community was. And opportunity number ten, Obama became editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review where he formed relationships with both conservative and liberal students and scholars and made many connections that would serve him well in his future political career.
By the time he was in his late twenties, Obama had learned the skills of listening, debate, compromise, negotiation, and consensus building. He had developed the "no drama Obama" style through years of dealing with people who were different from him, and people he had to introduce himself to. Very few people of his intellect and ability have the experience with people that Obama had and these experiences make him uniquely qualified to be our first African American president.
But, knock on wood, I think I'm finally better and yesterday I wrote an article on my website OUTRAGED CITIZEN about the history that will be made tomorrow. Check it out.
During much of the past month, not being able to do many of the things I normally do (including helping my ailing parents) I had the opportunity to catch up on some reading. I finished Barack Obama's first book: Dreams from my Father. I started Malcolm Gladwell's latest book: Outliers. I highly recommend them both.
The interesting thing about these two books is that they complement each other. Gladwell's thesis in the book is that successful people are not individuals who have enormously high IQs or who pull themselves up by their bootsraps by sheer determination. Instead, he shows how time after time there are forces at work that give the successful person unusual access or opportunities that others, with just as much determination or just as much intelligence, simply do not have. For instance, Bill Gates was the son of a successful Seattle attorney and a wealthy mother who sent him to a prestigious prep school, Lakeside, where the mothers raised enough money to purchase a computer that connected to a mainframe computer in downtown Seattle. Here's how Gladwell summarizes the opportunities Gates had:
Opportunity number one was that Gates got sent to Lakeside. How many high schools in the world had access to a time-sharing terminal in 1968? Opportunity number two was that the mothers of Lakeside had enough money to pay for the school's computer fees. Number three was that, when that money ran out, one of the parents happened to work at C-Cubed, which happened to need someone to check its code on the weekends, and which also happened not to care if weekends turned into weeknights. Number four was that Gates just happened to live within walking distance of the University of Washington. Number six was that the university happened to have free computer time between three and six in the morning. Number seven was that TRW happened to call Bud Pembroke. Number eight was that the best programmers Pembroke knew for that particular problem happened to be two high school kids. And number nine was that Lakeside was willing to let those kids spend their spring term miles away, writing code.
Gladwell also says that highly successful people have spent enormous amounts of time practicing their craft or skill, be it computer programming, musical performance, or athletics. The amount of time it takes for someone to become top of his field, a real expert at something, Gladwell estimates to be 10,000 hours or ten years. By the time Gates had dropped out of Harvard, he had accumulated that many hours.
In reading about Gladwell's thesis I see how well it applies to Barack Obama. With Obama, the 10,000 hours of practice would be in dealing with other people and learning to navigate in a world of diversity, a world in which he constantly had to adjust and shift to get along. And what better skill is their for politics than the ability to relate to people and get them to relate to you?
In Gladwell style, let me try to summarize the opportunities Obama had.
Opportunity number one was that Obama was born to brilliant parents of two different races. Opportunity number two, Obama was raised mostly in the diverse state of Hawaii. Opportunity number three, Obama's mother married an Indonesian man and took him to live there for four years where he went to school with both Christians and Muslims. Opportunity number four, schooling was limited in Indonesia so Obama's mother sent him back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents where his grandfather's contacts allowed the middle class family to send their grandson to a prestigious prep school. Opportunity number five, Obama was accepted at Occidental College in Southern California where he met students of all races but learned to embrace his African-American heritage and became active in the anti-apartheid movement. Opportunity number six, Obama was accepted at Columbia University in New York and learned to navigate the tough neighborhood where he lived. Opportunity number seven, Obama applied to be a community organizer in Chicago and worked there for three years, failing at several projects in this on-the-job-training before he began to achieve small successes. Opportunity number eight, Obama was accepted to Harvard Law School. Opportunity number nine, prior to law school Obama traveled to Kenya, the land of his father, and met hundreds of relatives who had all heard of him, and learned what a real community was. And opportunity number ten, Obama became editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review where he formed relationships with both conservative and liberal students and scholars and made many connections that would serve him well in his future political career.
By the time he was in his late twenties, Obama had learned the skills of listening, debate, compromise, negotiation, and consensus building. He had developed the "no drama Obama" style through years of dealing with people who were different from him, and people he had to introduce himself to. Very few people of his intellect and ability have the experience with people that Obama had and these experiences make him uniquely qualified to be our first African American president.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Lunatic Watch
New feature on the blog: lunatic watch, where I note stories and articles highlighting the worst of the worst of the soon to be former Bush administration as well as legislators and other elected officials who do insane and destructive things.
First entry: a blog on Daily Kos simply reporting the administration in their own words, with appropriate (and sometimes disturbing) pictures.
First entry: a blog on Daily Kos simply reporting the administration in their own words, with appropriate (and sometimes disturbing) pictures.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Innocent faces
These are the innocent faces of my three grandchildren as they enjoyed viewing the Rose Parade floats.
Over 100 children just as innocent as these were killed by Israel over the past few days.
New Year, same old violence
Happy New Year!
We started out the New Year learning that Israel was bombing the Palestinian territory of Gaza, where unemployment is fifty percent, blockades have made food and supplies in short supply for months, and people live in crowded homes often without sewers and other necessities of life. After the bombing, Israel began a ground invasion. They claim they are hunting for the leaders and weapons of Hamas, to make Israelis safe.
So why have they killed over 100 children?
This is war. This is always war. No matter how a country may justify it, no matter how intellectuals around the world may say it is appropriate, no matter how the warring parties try to avoid civilian casualties, there are always children who pay the ultimate price, children who never have the chance to grow up.
In the small territory of Gaza, there is a record of how many children have been killed. How many children have we killed in the much larger countries of Iraq and Afghanistan? It could be in the tens of thousands but we will never know. We don't keep track.
We started out the New Year learning that Israel was bombing the Palestinian territory of Gaza, where unemployment is fifty percent, blockades have made food and supplies in short supply for months, and people live in crowded homes often without sewers and other necessities of life. After the bombing, Israel began a ground invasion. They claim they are hunting for the leaders and weapons of Hamas, to make Israelis safe.
So why have they killed over 100 children?
This is war. This is always war. No matter how a country may justify it, no matter how intellectuals around the world may say it is appropriate, no matter how the warring parties try to avoid civilian casualties, there are always children who pay the ultimate price, children who never have the chance to grow up.
In the small territory of Gaza, there is a record of how many children have been killed. How many children have we killed in the much larger countries of Iraq and Afghanistan? It could be in the tens of thousands but we will never know. We don't keep track.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)