I went to visit my daughter and grandchildren yesterday.
During the 90 minute drive, there were no slowdowns, which was very unusual. Before gasoline became so expensive, it used to take me anywhere from two to three hours, depending on the time of day, to drive there.
Yesterday, I left at the usual time: 8:00 a.m., a time which in the past always entangled me in some rush hour traffic. Not yesterday. It was smooth 70 m.p.h. driving all the way. And I started home at 6:00 p.m. In the past, if I wanted to avoid stop and go traffic, I had to leave before 3:00 or after 7:00.
Not sure what that might mean except that, perhaps, people really aren't driving unless they absolutely have to.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Arrogant religious groups and intolerant religious leaders do damage to our democracy
One of the most damaging developments in politics over the past two decades has been the effort on the part of religious GROUPS to insert themselves into political ELECTIONS.
I'm not saying that INDIVIDUALS should not vote according to their consciences, nor am I saying religion is destructive when it is part of political discourse. What I do assert is that, in a religiously pluralistic society, it is dangerous to democracy when religious GROUPS insert themselves into ELECTIONS and endorse or condemn candidates, leading their members to believe they can only remain in favor with God if they vote according to their leaders' dictates. It is also extremely dangerous when leaders of one religion imply that America was founded in conformity with, and thus must adhere to, their dogmas.
Religious people have always and will always vote at least partially according to their values, and that is their right. But when religious leaders tell people whom to vote for, either directly or indirectly, or when they smear candidates, or when they blackmail candidates, or raise money for candidates, or falsely accuse candidates of persecuting them, in order to gain political advantage, they are crossing a line that the Founding Fathers did not want crossed.
When Karl Rove harnessed the power of churches and pastors to register voters to vote for a specific candidate, and hand out voting guides that instructed church members for whom to vote, he was crossing a line, as were tax exempt churches which legally must refrain from this sort of thing. When some bishops in the Catholic Church said they would deny communion to candidates who did not want to criminalize abortion, even though those candidates were personally opposed to the practice, and threatened excommunication to voters who voted for those candidates, they were crossing a line as well.
Two years ago, Barack Obama gave a speech in which he reached out to religious voters, but said we must find ways to create policy and agree on issues that go beyond religious arguments, because many American voters will not be receptive to such arguments. He said:
These words of Obama reflect something I have been thinking for years. As someone who abhors the huge numbers of abortions in this country, and regrets the casual approach some have to the procedure, I share the values of some "pro-life Christians." But I don't share their solution, which is to overturn Roe V. Wade and criminalize abortion. There are many reasons for that, which I will not belabor now, but what I realize about the abortion debate is that it will not be solved with either the NARAL approach or the "right to life" approach.
Religious people want to argue on the basis of religious beliefs and secular people will never be persuaded by religious arguments. Even if the pro-life movement were to succeed in overturning Roe V. Wade and banning abortion, at least one half of the country would not be convinced. And the fight would continue. Obama is saying we need to find another way to discuss these things, and use both science and reason to find a compromise that will not be perfect, but might be better than continuing this endless animosity the two sides have for each other.
Today, James Dobson is using this two year old speech of Obama's to attack him and say he is "dragging Biblical understanding through the gutter" and has a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution. Dobson is particularly irate about Obama using the example of abortion to call for a different kind of political discourse. Dobson is one of those who will not support a political candidate unless he professes the exact beliefs that Dobson and his followers do. As such, Dobson supported Bush, but abhors McCain. Even though McCain is "pro-life," he isn't conservative enough for Dobson, nor sufficiently anti-abortion. McCain would like to see Roe overturned, but he wants to return the choice of whether abortion should be legal back to the states. This isn't good enough for Dobson, who will not be satisfied until abortion is a crime everywhere.
Obama isn't just being attacked by the "Christian" Dobson, however. Muslim groups are also unhappy with Obama because he has not visited a mosque and is reluctant to publicly embrace Muslim voters. To those of us who have watched as the Republican smear machine, with a little assist from some Hillary supporters, have either pushed the lie that Obama was a Muslim or allowed people to falsely believe it, know how tricky this territory is for Obama. If he visits a mosque, pictures will circulate all over the internet "proving" that Obama is a Muslim.
Those Americans who are rational and educated know Islam is an ancient and honorable religion, but in this post 9/11 world, when millions of people have decided, with help from Dobson and the like, that the religion of Islam (and not just a radical sect of Islam) is an evil force that is responsible for killing Americans, Barack cannot do anything to allow this misunderstanding to continue, no matter how much he respects Muslims and wants them to support him.
Of course, if church and state remained completely separate, this might not be such dangerous territory. Barack's problems with those who drag religion into the public square is not limited to the internet rumor that he is a Muslim, nor critiques of his call for a dialogue that does not cater to fundamentalist Christians. As we have seen today, he is being attacked by a fellow "Christian" not just because some assert he is not the right kind of Christian, but also because he is apparently, not the right kind of American. (Groups like Focus on the Family have intertwined their brand of Christian orthodoxy with their brand of American orthodoxy.) Even though he is a Constitutional law professor, according to Dobson he has a "fruitcake" understanding of the Constitution, whatever that means.
And as we saw just a few months ago, Barack's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, was all the proof that the right wing smear machine needed to prove Barack was the wrong kind of Christian, one who sat in a respected Christian Church whose pastor dared to challenge the morality of some aspects of American governmental policy, a pastor who got a little too worked up, a little too emotional, a little too angry at what has been done to black Americans at the hand of the American government and the many southern "Christians" who used scripture to justify the horrifying treatment of African Americans.
Obama is in a no-win situation here, all because religion has become way too intertwined with politics and too many rigidly orthodox religious leaders don't seem to want to accept Obama's view that Americans of all religions and no religion must learn to talk with each other in a different way. Each religious group wants to be catered to in exactly the way they think they should be catered to. Each religious group believes its tenets alone are the word of God. Each believes America must conform to their interpretation of the Bible, which in turn colors their interpretation of the Constitution.
And herein lies the problem: since America is made up of peoples who profess many different faiths, many different versions of the various faiths, as well as people who profess no faith, all of whom are equal under the law and each of whom can cast only one vote, the citizens of America must learn to speak to each other in a common language, and that language cannot be the language of the Bible, the Torah, the Quran or any other religious text.
Once Obama takes the oath of office next January 20th, I hope he will follow through on the vision he offered in his speech two years ago. I hope his presidency is one in which the radical right religious leaders can be tamed and learn that it will be good for America, and good for them as well, if we can all learn how to speak to each other, not as people of God vs. people of the world, not as religious vs. secular, not as fundamentalists vs. modernists, not as conservatives vs. liberals, but simply as Americans, concerned not about implementing one or another interpretation of the Bible, the Torah, or the Quran in our laws, but about implementing the COMMON GOOD.
In such a world, perhaps we could stop criticizing and attacking each other, stop arrogantly insisting we alone know the real truth, and start finding ways to live in peace, with love and acceptance of all people, and with real "liberty and justice for all," no matter what faith anyone professes, or what anyone believes.
How on earth could God take issue with that?
I'm not saying that INDIVIDUALS should not vote according to their consciences, nor am I saying religion is destructive when it is part of political discourse. What I do assert is that, in a religiously pluralistic society, it is dangerous to democracy when religious GROUPS insert themselves into ELECTIONS and endorse or condemn candidates, leading their members to believe they can only remain in favor with God if they vote according to their leaders' dictates. It is also extremely dangerous when leaders of one religion imply that America was founded in conformity with, and thus must adhere to, their dogmas.
Religious people have always and will always vote at least partially according to their values, and that is their right. But when religious leaders tell people whom to vote for, either directly or indirectly, or when they smear candidates, or when they blackmail candidates, or raise money for candidates, or falsely accuse candidates of persecuting them, in order to gain political advantage, they are crossing a line that the Founding Fathers did not want crossed.
When Karl Rove harnessed the power of churches and pastors to register voters to vote for a specific candidate, and hand out voting guides that instructed church members for whom to vote, he was crossing a line, as were tax exempt churches which legally must refrain from this sort of thing. When some bishops in the Catholic Church said they would deny communion to candidates who did not want to criminalize abortion, even though those candidates were personally opposed to the practice, and threatened excommunication to voters who voted for those candidates, they were crossing a line as well.
Two years ago, Barack Obama gave a speech in which he reached out to religious voters, but said we must find ways to create policy and agree on issues that go beyond religious arguments, because many American voters will not be receptive to such arguments. He said:
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."
These words of Obama reflect something I have been thinking for years. As someone who abhors the huge numbers of abortions in this country, and regrets the casual approach some have to the procedure, I share the values of some "pro-life Christians." But I don't share their solution, which is to overturn Roe V. Wade and criminalize abortion. There are many reasons for that, which I will not belabor now, but what I realize about the abortion debate is that it will not be solved with either the NARAL approach or the "right to life" approach.
Religious people want to argue on the basis of religious beliefs and secular people will never be persuaded by religious arguments. Even if the pro-life movement were to succeed in overturning Roe V. Wade and banning abortion, at least one half of the country would not be convinced. And the fight would continue. Obama is saying we need to find another way to discuss these things, and use both science and reason to find a compromise that will not be perfect, but might be better than continuing this endless animosity the two sides have for each other.
Today, James Dobson is using this two year old speech of Obama's to attack him and say he is "dragging Biblical understanding through the gutter" and has a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution. Dobson is particularly irate about Obama using the example of abortion to call for a different kind of political discourse. Dobson is one of those who will not support a political candidate unless he professes the exact beliefs that Dobson and his followers do. As such, Dobson supported Bush, but abhors McCain. Even though McCain is "pro-life," he isn't conservative enough for Dobson, nor sufficiently anti-abortion. McCain would like to see Roe overturned, but he wants to return the choice of whether abortion should be legal back to the states. This isn't good enough for Dobson, who will not be satisfied until abortion is a crime everywhere.
Obama isn't just being attacked by the "Christian" Dobson, however. Muslim groups are also unhappy with Obama because he has not visited a mosque and is reluctant to publicly embrace Muslim voters. To those of us who have watched as the Republican smear machine, with a little assist from some Hillary supporters, have either pushed the lie that Obama was a Muslim or allowed people to falsely believe it, know how tricky this territory is for Obama. If he visits a mosque, pictures will circulate all over the internet "proving" that Obama is a Muslim.
Those Americans who are rational and educated know Islam is an ancient and honorable religion, but in this post 9/11 world, when millions of people have decided, with help from Dobson and the like, that the religion of Islam (and not just a radical sect of Islam) is an evil force that is responsible for killing Americans, Barack cannot do anything to allow this misunderstanding to continue, no matter how much he respects Muslims and wants them to support him.
Of course, if church and state remained completely separate, this might not be such dangerous territory. Barack's problems with those who drag religion into the public square is not limited to the internet rumor that he is a Muslim, nor critiques of his call for a dialogue that does not cater to fundamentalist Christians. As we have seen today, he is being attacked by a fellow "Christian" not just because some assert he is not the right kind of Christian, but also because he is apparently, not the right kind of American. (Groups like Focus on the Family have intertwined their brand of Christian orthodoxy with their brand of American orthodoxy.) Even though he is a Constitutional law professor, according to Dobson he has a "fruitcake" understanding of the Constitution, whatever that means.
And as we saw just a few months ago, Barack's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, was all the proof that the right wing smear machine needed to prove Barack was the wrong kind of Christian, one who sat in a respected Christian Church whose pastor dared to challenge the morality of some aspects of American governmental policy, a pastor who got a little too worked up, a little too emotional, a little too angry at what has been done to black Americans at the hand of the American government and the many southern "Christians" who used scripture to justify the horrifying treatment of African Americans.
Obama is in a no-win situation here, all because religion has become way too intertwined with politics and too many rigidly orthodox religious leaders don't seem to want to accept Obama's view that Americans of all religions and no religion must learn to talk with each other in a different way. Each religious group wants to be catered to in exactly the way they think they should be catered to. Each religious group believes its tenets alone are the word of God. Each believes America must conform to their interpretation of the Bible, which in turn colors their interpretation of the Constitution.
And herein lies the problem: since America is made up of peoples who profess many different faiths, many different versions of the various faiths, as well as people who profess no faith, all of whom are equal under the law and each of whom can cast only one vote, the citizens of America must learn to speak to each other in a common language, and that language cannot be the language of the Bible, the Torah, the Quran or any other religious text.
Once Obama takes the oath of office next January 20th, I hope he will follow through on the vision he offered in his speech two years ago. I hope his presidency is one in which the radical right religious leaders can be tamed and learn that it will be good for America, and good for them as well, if we can all learn how to speak to each other, not as people of God vs. people of the world, not as religious vs. secular, not as fundamentalists vs. modernists, not as conservatives vs. liberals, but simply as Americans, concerned not about implementing one or another interpretation of the Bible, the Torah, or the Quran in our laws, but about implementing the COMMON GOOD.
In such a world, perhaps we could stop criticizing and attacking each other, stop arrogantly insisting we alone know the real truth, and start finding ways to live in peace, with love and acceptance of all people, and with real "liberty and justice for all," no matter what faith anyone professes, or what anyone believes.
How on earth could God take issue with that?
The military and the cost of gasoline
Gasoline in California costs over $4.50 a gallon now. It's less in other locations, but over $4.00 everywhere. People are beginning to curtail their driving. Demand for hybrids is up. I see fewer Hummers on the road (though I still see some in my town where they used to be everywhere), and truckers are parking their rigs and staying home as they are losing money by working.
For the first time since my first grandchild was born seven and a half years ago, I have to stop and think about whether I can afford to drive the sixty miles to go visit for the day. I'm visiting a lot less than I used to.
No one can claim to know all the reasons for this predicament of oil shortages and high prices, though it is interesting that the much maligned former president Jimmy Carter tried to warn us about this thirty years ago. His proposed solutions may not have been appropriate, but he was smart enough to see a train wreck coming. He ought to get credit for that.
Some say speculators are to blame, others point a finger at the oil companies or oil producers, or the ever-increasing demand from developing countries like India and China. Others say Detroit should have been creating new kinds of cars decades ago, cars that used alternate fuels. All these may be true, but I would like to ask one question that I have not heard asked. Perhaps it is irrelevant, but I want to know how much oil the United States millitary is using in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Surely, those gigantic warships, jet fighters, bombers, Humvees, tanks, etc. are using a lot of gasoline that would not be used had this president not gone to war in Iraq. And now that we know without a doubt we were lied into a war that was completely unnecessary, is anyone angry about the amount of oil that is being wasted there? Could some of this wasted oil be adding to the shortages that are now costing truckers their livelihoods?
Just wondering...
For the first time since my first grandchild was born seven and a half years ago, I have to stop and think about whether I can afford to drive the sixty miles to go visit for the day. I'm visiting a lot less than I used to.
No one can claim to know all the reasons for this predicament of oil shortages and high prices, though it is interesting that the much maligned former president Jimmy Carter tried to warn us about this thirty years ago. His proposed solutions may not have been appropriate, but he was smart enough to see a train wreck coming. He ought to get credit for that.
Some say speculators are to blame, others point a finger at the oil companies or oil producers, or the ever-increasing demand from developing countries like India and China. Others say Detroit should have been creating new kinds of cars decades ago, cars that used alternate fuels. All these may be true, but I would like to ask one question that I have not heard asked. Perhaps it is irrelevant, but I want to know how much oil the United States millitary is using in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Surely, those gigantic warships, jet fighters, bombers, Humvees, tanks, etc. are using a lot of gasoline that would not be used had this president not gone to war in Iraq. And now that we know without a doubt we were lied into a war that was completely unnecessary, is anyone angry about the amount of oil that is being wasted there? Could some of this wasted oil be adding to the shortages that are now costing truckers their livelihoods?
Just wondering...
Monday, June 23, 2008
John McCain sells his soul - to big oil
So first John McCain thinks giving a "gas tax holiday" to Americans will be a winner in the presidential campaign. Apparently, he thinks the American people are so stupid that they believe his inauguration will be on July 1st, in time to get a gas tax holiday bill passed so they can drive to the beach, or the Cape, or the Grand Canyon, this summer. He also thinks they don't understand that a gas tax holiday would: a) rob the government of funds needed to repair roads and bridges and thus b) cause hundreds of Americans who work on the nation's highways to lose their jobs and c) probably not save them any money as the oil companies would keep the price high so they can get a bigger profit.
When he realized this idea didn't help Clinton beat Obama, he came up with another brilliant idea, one his buddy Bush also suggested: opening up the coasts of American to even more drilling. (Currently there is a moratorium on new drilling.) Apparently, his estimation of the intelligence of the American people has not changed. He still thinks they will fall for this even though a) the oil companies are not extracting oil in places where they are already allowed to drill; b) it will take ten years or more to extract oil from new locations; and c) the price of a gallon of gas is controlled by far more complicated things than how many oil platforms we can erect in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the Gulf. (Among other things, the oil companies and the oil cartels are gaming the system - anybody remember Enron? - to keep the price of gasoline high.)
McCain is supposed to be the Maverick, the one who bucks the big lobbyists (even though lobbyists are running his campaign), the one who once (but no longer) favored progressive taxation, the one who opposed coastal drilling but has now changed his mind, the one who isn't like Bush, except he is.
McCain is also supposed to be the one Republican who cares about the environment, but this ridiculous proposal, which oilmen Bush and Cheney love, would hurt the environment and the economy in many ways.
It will put America's coasts at risk of oil spills and hazardous waste destroying pristine beaches. This in turn will kill wildlife and destroy tourism, the basis of many coastal economies. And for what? For something that will do nothing to lower the cost of gasoline this year, or next year, or ten years from now?
Even more importantly, though, it will do nothing to get us away from our dependence on oil, and very little to end our dependence on "foreign" oil, which apparently is now all McCain and Bush care about. As long as what McCain is proposing is something that won't have any effect in the short term, as long as it will take a decade or more to get to any of that oil, why doesn't he propose a long term solution that will not only end our dependence on foreign oil, but end our dependence on oil, period? Answer – it would piss off big oil.
Right now, all of our investment should be in renewable and environmentally safe energy, but neither McCain nor Bush are going there with any vigor. Why? Because Bush is an oil man, and McCain is dependent on oil money for his campaign. Once again, all Republicans care about is the giant corporation, because that's the source of the money that gets them into office. They can't depend on millions of people making small donations to their campaign, the way Barack Obama can, because the people will not benefit from a McCain presidency. The giant corporations, especially the big energy companies, will.
McCain is willing to make this pitch to the people because he thinks the people are stupid enough to fall for it. He knows we won't actually do more drilling along the coasts, because his proposal allows the states to make the final decision, and coastal states will not go for it. But by making the proposal, he panders to the oil companies, who will give him more campaign funds, and he thinks he is fooling the people into believing come November, gasoline prices will go down.
I really don't think the people will fall for it this time.
When he realized this idea didn't help Clinton beat Obama, he came up with another brilliant idea, one his buddy Bush also suggested: opening up the coasts of American to even more drilling. (Currently there is a moratorium on new drilling.) Apparently, his estimation of the intelligence of the American people has not changed. He still thinks they will fall for this even though a) the oil companies are not extracting oil in places where they are already allowed to drill; b) it will take ten years or more to extract oil from new locations; and c) the price of a gallon of gas is controlled by far more complicated things than how many oil platforms we can erect in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the Gulf. (Among other things, the oil companies and the oil cartels are gaming the system - anybody remember Enron? - to keep the price of gasoline high.)
McCain is supposed to be the Maverick, the one who bucks the big lobbyists (even though lobbyists are running his campaign), the one who once (but no longer) favored progressive taxation, the one who opposed coastal drilling but has now changed his mind, the one who isn't like Bush, except he is.
McCain is also supposed to be the one Republican who cares about the environment, but this ridiculous proposal, which oilmen Bush and Cheney love, would hurt the environment and the economy in many ways.
It will put America's coasts at risk of oil spills and hazardous waste destroying pristine beaches. This in turn will kill wildlife and destroy tourism, the basis of many coastal economies. And for what? For something that will do nothing to lower the cost of gasoline this year, or next year, or ten years from now?
Even more importantly, though, it will do nothing to get us away from our dependence on oil, and very little to end our dependence on "foreign" oil, which apparently is now all McCain and Bush care about. As long as what McCain is proposing is something that won't have any effect in the short term, as long as it will take a decade or more to get to any of that oil, why doesn't he propose a long term solution that will not only end our dependence on foreign oil, but end our dependence on oil, period? Answer – it would piss off big oil.
Right now, all of our investment should be in renewable and environmentally safe energy, but neither McCain nor Bush are going there with any vigor. Why? Because Bush is an oil man, and McCain is dependent on oil money for his campaign. Once again, all Republicans care about is the giant corporation, because that's the source of the money that gets them into office. They can't depend on millions of people making small donations to their campaign, the way Barack Obama can, because the people will not benefit from a McCain presidency. The giant corporations, especially the big energy companies, will.
McCain is willing to make this pitch to the people because he thinks the people are stupid enough to fall for it. He knows we won't actually do more drilling along the coasts, because his proposal allows the states to make the final decision, and coastal states will not go for it. But by making the proposal, he panders to the oil companies, who will give him more campaign funds, and he thinks he is fooling the people into believing come November, gasoline prices will go down.
I really don't think the people will fall for it this time.
The immorality of the Bush administration
Over at Daily Kos, Hunter addresses the one thing he will remember most about the Bush administration: its complete immorality, even as its leader claims to be in direct contact with God. It's worth reading the entire post, but here's a taste:
I will remember the Bush administration not for any bold speeches, but for an unending sequence of snide, guttural croaks in front of podiums, in which the latest blasphemy against mankind or God is uttered with perfect assurance, or with a dismissive sneer, or with ominous opines on the motivations of those that think differently.
There were those that considered "preemptive" war an abomination; they were considered naive, and dismissed as artifacts of an earlier time with shamefullyrigid thinking.
There were those that thought bombing the cities of Iraq, regardless of the viciousness and corruption of their leader, under the confused banner of maybe al Qaeda or something was too high a price for an uninvolved civilian population to pay, regardless of the actions of that leader. An opinion like that was taken as evidence of secret sympathies for that leader.
There were those that thought the Geneva Conventions should apply; they were dismissed as rubes. There were those who thought those that were turned in to United States forces as terrorists should have, at some point, a trial: the larger voice howled of the danger of giving any voice to those people, whether innocent or not.
There were those that thought that, even casting aside evidence that torture does not work, even casting aside laws against it, even casting aside the impossibility of
separating guilty from innocent in front of the teeth of a barking dog or using water and a rag, torture is immoral; for speaking such thoughts, the speakers become hated.At the same time, we were lectured on the will of God from those that see hurricanes as divine judgement against tolerance; we were told that intolerance is the moral position. We were told that if there is even "a one percent" chance that someone is a terrorist, granting them doubt or mercy was a fool's game.
We were told, in short, that calculated brutality was a requirement of government. In the end, the greatest condemnation of the Bush administration is not that they believe that, but that they have almost managed to get us to believe it.
If it were merely the war on terrorism, that would be something different, though not necessarily better, but in every aspect of governance we continually have been told that the ethical position is the stupid, foolish one, or that being offended at corruption is the childish position.
No news outlets demanded answers, when the Justice Department was staffed with those loyal to party, not country; it was considered expected. The outing of a CIA agent as payback was politics as normal; the urgings to prosecutors to prosecute Americans differently according to party affiliation was for a long while presumed merely one of the perks of power. The task of rebuilding Iraq was considered secondary to staffing it with die-hard conservatives, even if they had not even the slightest bit of expertise towards the job. Scientific reports by the government were either quashed or the findings changed in order to fit The Approved Version Of Reality; it barely resulted in whimpers. Forget the difficult or controversial decisions, even the most basic ones were reduced to simple equations of party advantage and
ideological loyalty.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Thoughts on the past week
I took the week off last week - mostly because it was my birthday and I felt like paying attention to other things - but a lot happened while I was contemplating my advancing age.
Barack Obama chose not to opt into the public financing system for his campaign and to continue to rely on individual donors to help him win the election. McCain is screaming that this means Obama is untrustworthy and a flip-flopper and therefore shouldn't be allowed to become president. Considering that no one has fip-flopped more than McCain - on the Bush tax cuts, on statements about Iraq, on illegal immigration, etc. - the flip-flopping charge is silly. As for the meaning of Obama's decision - it means one thing: he wants to win, and the more money he has the better his chances. If McCain had the donors Obama does, he would do the same thing. And considering how the Republicans are so fond of smear campaigns, and are threatening an "October surprise," Obama will need all the cash he can get to counter their atacks. He's doing the only thing a responsible Democrat can do - be prepared for the lies, distortions, and smears by having the kind of war chest that will go to battle in every media outlet to defeat these tactics.
Newsweek has Obama up by fifteen points over John McCain. No other poll has him up by this much and as everyone says, it's still a long time until November. But this is a good indication of the mood of the country, and barring another terrorist attack, an effective swiftboating of Obama, or some other unforeseen event that changes the public's mind, it looks like the country wants the change candidate, the younger candidate, the candidate who knows how to use a computer. Of course, the press still isn't focusing a great deal on McCain's mistakes and gaffes, but as the campaign goes on and the stress builds, we are likely to see more of them. The election could be a Democratic blow out.
Large sections of the Midwest are under water and I wonder if scientists believe global warming has something to do with it, as they determined with Katrina and the disaster in New Orleans. Some of the areas that flooded are considered to be prone to flooding every 100 years, but the last time there was severe flooding along the Mississippi was in 1993, just 15 years ago. I heard that new levees are being built each year along the Mississippi, and considering how frequently the river rises in this era of climate change, and how often these levees fail, this seems absurd. When will we humans stop living in areas that are prone to flooding, and stop thinking levees - or God - will protect us?
The House of Representatives passed the "FISA Compromise," Barack Obama released a statement saying he would support it, and the progressive community is pissed. I haven't read the bill and wonder how many in Congress have. I do know that it gives immunity to telecom companies for their cooperation with the Bush administration in its illegal wiretapping program, portions of which the Congress has now agreed to make legal. It does, apparently, give Bush most of what he wants, which to progressives is always a bad thing, as progressives do not think this president does anything unless it helps his buddies or himself, and believe most of what he does violates the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution. I agree, and I wish Obama would have stood up to the president. More than that, I wish the Congress would stand up to the president. Maybe someday we will know the real reason why they didn't. But progressives shouldn't condemn Obama for this decision. As a legislator, he sees the writing on the wall, and knows the bill will most likely pass. As a presidential candidate, he doesn't want to give the Republicans ammunition to call him "soft on terrorism," and as a future president, he wants to have sufficient powers to fight terrorism. We can hope, however, that as a president he won't abuse those powers. The way I see it, the passage of this bill is even more reason to support Obama. Can you imagine a President McCain with these powers?
Tim Russert was buried. I had mixed feelings about Tim Russert as moderator of Meet the Press. Sometimes (mostly when he was grilling someone I didn't respect) I liked him. Other times (when he grilled one of my guys) I didn't. I stopped watching him for a while, especially when he spent a full hour with each of the primary candidates, as I just couldn't listen to an entire hour of spin and deception. When he died a week ago, unexpectedly at the age of 58, while working at the NBC studios, I felt sadness for his family, and after days of tribute, for his colleagues as well. But what struck me most about the tributes I heard is that they painted a picture of a really good man, a man who was always available for his friends, always there to lend a hand, always ready to offer encouragement. More than a great bureau chief, or host of a popular television program, Tim Russert was an example of a really good and decent person, a devout Irish Catholic with a great sense of humor, who loved sports as much as he loved work, but who mostly just loved the people around him, all of whom he considered family. MSNBC was criticized for its non-stop coverage of his death and funeral - which lasted from Friday afternoon until the funeral on Wednesday - but after hearing the stories about how he was always the first to help a friend in need, I can understand why they couldn't stop talking about him. NBC will find a new Washington bureau chief, and a new moderator of Meet the Press - no one is indispensable in that respect - but those close to him will not find a replacement for the great role model and friend they lost.
Barack Obama chose not to opt into the public financing system for his campaign and to continue to rely on individual donors to help him win the election. McCain is screaming that this means Obama is untrustworthy and a flip-flopper and therefore shouldn't be allowed to become president. Considering that no one has fip-flopped more than McCain - on the Bush tax cuts, on statements about Iraq, on illegal immigration, etc. - the flip-flopping charge is silly. As for the meaning of Obama's decision - it means one thing: he wants to win, and the more money he has the better his chances. If McCain had the donors Obama does, he would do the same thing. And considering how the Republicans are so fond of smear campaigns, and are threatening an "October surprise," Obama will need all the cash he can get to counter their atacks. He's doing the only thing a responsible Democrat can do - be prepared for the lies, distortions, and smears by having the kind of war chest that will go to battle in every media outlet to defeat these tactics.
Newsweek has Obama up by fifteen points over John McCain. No other poll has him up by this much and as everyone says, it's still a long time until November. But this is a good indication of the mood of the country, and barring another terrorist attack, an effective swiftboating of Obama, or some other unforeseen event that changes the public's mind, it looks like the country wants the change candidate, the younger candidate, the candidate who knows how to use a computer. Of course, the press still isn't focusing a great deal on McCain's mistakes and gaffes, but as the campaign goes on and the stress builds, we are likely to see more of them. The election could be a Democratic blow out.
Large sections of the Midwest are under water and I wonder if scientists believe global warming has something to do with it, as they determined with Katrina and the disaster in New Orleans. Some of the areas that flooded are considered to be prone to flooding every 100 years, but the last time there was severe flooding along the Mississippi was in 1993, just 15 years ago. I heard that new levees are being built each year along the Mississippi, and considering how frequently the river rises in this era of climate change, and how often these levees fail, this seems absurd. When will we humans stop living in areas that are prone to flooding, and stop thinking levees - or God - will protect us?
The House of Representatives passed the "FISA Compromise," Barack Obama released a statement saying he would support it, and the progressive community is pissed. I haven't read the bill and wonder how many in Congress have. I do know that it gives immunity to telecom companies for their cooperation with the Bush administration in its illegal wiretapping program, portions of which the Congress has now agreed to make legal. It does, apparently, give Bush most of what he wants, which to progressives is always a bad thing, as progressives do not think this president does anything unless it helps his buddies or himself, and believe most of what he does violates the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution. I agree, and I wish Obama would have stood up to the president. More than that, I wish the Congress would stand up to the president. Maybe someday we will know the real reason why they didn't. But progressives shouldn't condemn Obama for this decision. As a legislator, he sees the writing on the wall, and knows the bill will most likely pass. As a presidential candidate, he doesn't want to give the Republicans ammunition to call him "soft on terrorism," and as a future president, he wants to have sufficient powers to fight terrorism. We can hope, however, that as a president he won't abuse those powers. The way I see it, the passage of this bill is even more reason to support Obama. Can you imagine a President McCain with these powers?
Tim Russert was buried. I had mixed feelings about Tim Russert as moderator of Meet the Press. Sometimes (mostly when he was grilling someone I didn't respect) I liked him. Other times (when he grilled one of my guys) I didn't. I stopped watching him for a while, especially when he spent a full hour with each of the primary candidates, as I just couldn't listen to an entire hour of spin and deception. When he died a week ago, unexpectedly at the age of 58, while working at the NBC studios, I felt sadness for his family, and after days of tribute, for his colleagues as well. But what struck me most about the tributes I heard is that they painted a picture of a really good man, a man who was always available for his friends, always there to lend a hand, always ready to offer encouragement. More than a great bureau chief, or host of a popular television program, Tim Russert was an example of a really good and decent person, a devout Irish Catholic with a great sense of humor, who loved sports as much as he loved work, but who mostly just loved the people around him, all of whom he considered family. MSNBC was criticized for its non-stop coverage of his death and funeral - which lasted from Friday afternoon until the funeral on Wednesday - but after hearing the stories about how he was always the first to help a friend in need, I can understand why they couldn't stop talking about him. NBC will find a new Washington bureau chief, and a new moderator of Meet the Press - no one is indispensable in that respect - but those close to him will not find a replacement for the great role model and friend they lost.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Gripe of the day: the invisibility of the elderly
I remember once seeing on the cover of Oprah Winfrey's magazine that it was published for women ranging from their twenties to the age of fifty-nine. I remember thinking, as I was approaching sixty, how insulting it was that between the ages of fifty-nine and sixty, something happened to you as a woman that made Oprah's magazine no longer relevant to you. As I have now passed sixty, I see more and more that everything in the popular culture is geared to people under sixty or even fifty: television shows, fashion, music, cars, etc. The older you get, the more invisible you are to advertisers, and in fact, to the culture at large.
However bad it may be for sixty year olds, however, it is worse for octogenarians. My parents are both eighty two, and both in ill health. Nothing except Medicare is geared to them. And even Medicare can't provide them with everything they need. For instance, my dad has difficulty with his vision. I have looked around for good magnifying glasses to help him and they are hard to find. I finally found one with a light on it, but the light it provides is disappointing. I can't imagine that my dad is alone in his need for vision aids, but his needs are not the concern of coroprate America.
Even for those who don't have the severe vision problems of my dad, older Americans have trouble reading the fine print on things, or even reading the print on over the counter medicine bottles. One would think since older Americans use the most medicine, including non-prescription medicines, that the pharmaceutical companies would figure out a way to make the print readable to an older person. But they don't.
The same is true for things like contracts and discount offers from companies. My mom, who orders many things from catalogues because she can't really do much shopping these days, recently got a forty percent off coupon for the Penney's catalogue. She made out her list of items (underwear for my dad, a pair of shoes for her, a nitegown, etc.) and called in the order. She had figured out how much it would cost by deducting the forty percent. When the woman on the phone gave her the total it was a far higher amount. When she reminded the woman of her coupon, she was told that the things she ordered were not included in the coupon offer. "Didn't you read the fine print?" the woman asked. "Honey, I can't read fine print," my mother replied in anger, and then cancelled the entire order. I would imagine a lot of women of my mother's generation shop through the Penney's catalogue. You would think the company might consider helping them out a bit by not sending them misleading offers and making the "fine print" not so fine. But they don't.
My mom has been fighting leukemia. Every aspect of her treatment is controlled by whether or not Medicare will approve payment, but no consideration is given to the fact that she must find transportation (she has been advised not to drive because of her low blood counts) to the lab twice a week, the doctor once a week, and the hospital periodically for transfusions. There is no public transportation system here, so she must find a ride either from me or a neighbor. In addition, there are very few handicapped spaces, and in one instance, they are quite far away from the entrance to the medical building. You would think a medical system that really wanted to help seniors like my mother, might make it easier to access treatment with transportation assistance or at least an adequate and well placed number of handicapped spaces, but they don't.
This consumer oriented, profit motivated world is the world of Oprah - geared to those below sixty who still have good eyesight, are able to read the fine print, can still drive themselves to the store and to their medical treatment. If the over-sixties can survive in an under sixty world, more power to them. If not, too bad. Helping them is not profitable, and in our society, that is the most important measure of what we do and don't do for our citizens.
Ultimately, whether we are talking about Oprah's magazine, Penney's discount offer, or the medical system, we live in a consumer culture where what matters is how corporations can gain access to your money, how they can keep you distracted from what matters by offering you newer and better must-have products. What this consumer culture does not much care about are those who have gotten beyond the prime age of consumers. The health and well being of the elderly does not matter to corporate America, to whom our senior citizens are invisible. This is why we must find a way to protect Medicare, keep Social Security solvent as a government program and not allow it to be privatized.
And it is also one of the many reasons why we ought to begin creating a society in which the bottom line is not always money, but instead the health and well-being, within caring communities, of all of its members, even the ones that are now invisible to the culture.
However bad it may be for sixty year olds, however, it is worse for octogenarians. My parents are both eighty two, and both in ill health. Nothing except Medicare is geared to them. And even Medicare can't provide them with everything they need. For instance, my dad has difficulty with his vision. I have looked around for good magnifying glasses to help him and they are hard to find. I finally found one with a light on it, but the light it provides is disappointing. I can't imagine that my dad is alone in his need for vision aids, but his needs are not the concern of coroprate America.
Even for those who don't have the severe vision problems of my dad, older Americans have trouble reading the fine print on things, or even reading the print on over the counter medicine bottles. One would think since older Americans use the most medicine, including non-prescription medicines, that the pharmaceutical companies would figure out a way to make the print readable to an older person. But they don't.
The same is true for things like contracts and discount offers from companies. My mom, who orders many things from catalogues because she can't really do much shopping these days, recently got a forty percent off coupon for the Penney's catalogue. She made out her list of items (underwear for my dad, a pair of shoes for her, a nitegown, etc.) and called in the order. She had figured out how much it would cost by deducting the forty percent. When the woman on the phone gave her the total it was a far higher amount. When she reminded the woman of her coupon, she was told that the things she ordered were not included in the coupon offer. "Didn't you read the fine print?" the woman asked. "Honey, I can't read fine print," my mother replied in anger, and then cancelled the entire order. I would imagine a lot of women of my mother's generation shop through the Penney's catalogue. You would think the company might consider helping them out a bit by not sending them misleading offers and making the "fine print" not so fine. But they don't.
My mom has been fighting leukemia. Every aspect of her treatment is controlled by whether or not Medicare will approve payment, but no consideration is given to the fact that she must find transportation (she has been advised not to drive because of her low blood counts) to the lab twice a week, the doctor once a week, and the hospital periodically for transfusions. There is no public transportation system here, so she must find a ride either from me or a neighbor. In addition, there are very few handicapped spaces, and in one instance, they are quite far away from the entrance to the medical building. You would think a medical system that really wanted to help seniors like my mother, might make it easier to access treatment with transportation assistance or at least an adequate and well placed number of handicapped spaces, but they don't.
This consumer oriented, profit motivated world is the world of Oprah - geared to those below sixty who still have good eyesight, are able to read the fine print, can still drive themselves to the store and to their medical treatment. If the over-sixties can survive in an under sixty world, more power to them. If not, too bad. Helping them is not profitable, and in our society, that is the most important measure of what we do and don't do for our citizens.
Ultimately, whether we are talking about Oprah's magazine, Penney's discount offer, or the medical system, we live in a consumer culture where what matters is how corporations can gain access to your money, how they can keep you distracted from what matters by offering you newer and better must-have products. What this consumer culture does not much care about are those who have gotten beyond the prime age of consumers. The health and well being of the elderly does not matter to corporate America, to whom our senior citizens are invisible. This is why we must find a way to protect Medicare, keep Social Security solvent as a government program and not allow it to be privatized.
And it is also one of the many reasons why we ought to begin creating a society in which the bottom line is not always money, but instead the health and well-being, within caring communities, of all of its members, even the ones that are now invisible to the culture.
It's easy to be a Republican
When you step back for a minute and think about it, you realize it's much easier to be a Republican politician than it is to be a Democratic one.
All a Republican has to do is talk about "personal responsibility," as in "anyone who took out one of those sub-prime mortgages should have known better and been more responsible." By making the sub-prime crisis merely a failure of personal responsibility, nothing in the mortgage, banking, and securities industries needs to change. No regulation necessary, no accountability required of big corporations, run by people with multiple college degrees, that preyed on people too uneducated to even understand what was going to happen down the road.
All a Republican has to do is wave the flag, wear a flag pin, and insist that any war America fights is an honest and just war that requires the support of all the American people. No need to question the decision of the president to go to war. No need to question America's foreign policy. Just assume America is always right, and America's enemies are always evil. No need to strain your brain and study a little history, or insist that your leaders tell you the truth.
All a Republican has to do is blame the government for everything that is wrong in America. Taxes are too high and the bureaucracy too big. Elect me and I'll make life better by lowering your taxes, eliminating federal programs, and giving you more freedom to spend your own money. Never mind that I've promised this before and have not delivered. Never mind that Republican administrations always bring on recessions and massively increase federal debt. Never mind that Republicans are even bigger porkers than Democrats. This time will be different. This time, I'll lower taxes, balance the budget, eliminate pork and lower the deficit.
All a Republican politician has to do is say they are "pro-life," which of course means they are against abortion and want fetuses to have legal rights. Saying one is "pro-life" is a great way to seem compassionate and civilized, as well as godly, but still be able to enact all kinds of policies that hurt the living. If one says they protect the life of the fetus, one can be forgiven for not funding programs for the already born like the Children's Health Care Initiative, or refusing to give all citizens access to health care, or sending men and women off to die in an immoral and unnecessary war, or sending those who survive back again and again, pushing many of them to commit suicide, or allowing people to drown in New Orleans, or linger for days in a sports stadium without food or water.
The bottom line is this: Democrats believe in the power of government to assist people with the necessities of life like health care, roads and bridges, retirement security, disaster relief, and schools, especially during tough economic times, or when no matter how hard you work you simply can't make ends meet. Democrats believe that only government can regulate industries so that they don't prey on the citizens and take away their ability to support themselves and get ahead. This kind of governance requires leaders who are wise and thoughtful, who don't view government as evil, and who work hard to get the balance right between personal responsibility and government responsibility.
Republicans don't have to do this. Since Republicans want to reduce the federal government so that all it does is keep a strong military, they don't have to feel bad about not helping hurricane victims, the elderly, the young, or the poor. They can insist people work hard to purchase their own health insurance (even when health insurance has become unaffordable for many), de-fund the public school system by allowing the private sector to make education into a for-profit industry, allow roads and bridges to be the responsibility of state and local governments, which can't afford them, reduce the Social Security trust fund by allowing young workers (whose payments into the system are what allows it to keep going) to opt out and create private accounts, and let private groups, like non-profits including churches, provide meager disaster relief for hurricane victims.
Anyone who suffers as a result of these policies, according to Republicans, have only themselves to blame. Seniors who didn't - or couldn't - save for retirement were foolish. Children whose parents can't afford private schools will be stuck in the remnants of a defunded education system. Homeowners who lose their homes because of deceptive loans, should have read the fine print and known they couldn't afford these loans. And people who get sick and don't have health insurance are just too lazy and irresponsible to earn the money to pay for it.
You don't have to be exceptionally intelligent to be a Republican politician. All you have to do is spout a few talking points about the evils of taxes, abortion, America's enemies, and the federal government and insist your well being, your education, your health care, is totally up to you.
You don't have to be very bright to be a Republican voter. You don't have to think. You can let Rush Limbaugh do your thinking for you. And you can vote for a presidential candidate simply because he says he's "born again," or because he seems like a guy you'd want to have a beer with, or because he claims he's a "maverick," or is considered a "war hero," or likes to call you "my friends."
The only good thing about Republicans is that there don't seem to be as many of them this year.
All a Republican has to do is talk about "personal responsibility," as in "anyone who took out one of those sub-prime mortgages should have known better and been more responsible." By making the sub-prime crisis merely a failure of personal responsibility, nothing in the mortgage, banking, and securities industries needs to change. No regulation necessary, no accountability required of big corporations, run by people with multiple college degrees, that preyed on people too uneducated to even understand what was going to happen down the road.
All a Republican has to do is wave the flag, wear a flag pin, and insist that any war America fights is an honest and just war that requires the support of all the American people. No need to question the decision of the president to go to war. No need to question America's foreign policy. Just assume America is always right, and America's enemies are always evil. No need to strain your brain and study a little history, or insist that your leaders tell you the truth.
All a Republican has to do is blame the government for everything that is wrong in America. Taxes are too high and the bureaucracy too big. Elect me and I'll make life better by lowering your taxes, eliminating federal programs, and giving you more freedom to spend your own money. Never mind that I've promised this before and have not delivered. Never mind that Republican administrations always bring on recessions and massively increase federal debt. Never mind that Republicans are even bigger porkers than Democrats. This time will be different. This time, I'll lower taxes, balance the budget, eliminate pork and lower the deficit.
All a Republican politician has to do is say they are "pro-life," which of course means they are against abortion and want fetuses to have legal rights. Saying one is "pro-life" is a great way to seem compassionate and civilized, as well as godly, but still be able to enact all kinds of policies that hurt the living. If one says they protect the life of the fetus, one can be forgiven for not funding programs for the already born like the Children's Health Care Initiative, or refusing to give all citizens access to health care, or sending men and women off to die in an immoral and unnecessary war, or sending those who survive back again and again, pushing many of them to commit suicide, or allowing people to drown in New Orleans, or linger for days in a sports stadium without food or water.
The bottom line is this: Democrats believe in the power of government to assist people with the necessities of life like health care, roads and bridges, retirement security, disaster relief, and schools, especially during tough economic times, or when no matter how hard you work you simply can't make ends meet. Democrats believe that only government can regulate industries so that they don't prey on the citizens and take away their ability to support themselves and get ahead. This kind of governance requires leaders who are wise and thoughtful, who don't view government as evil, and who work hard to get the balance right between personal responsibility and government responsibility.
Republicans don't have to do this. Since Republicans want to reduce the federal government so that all it does is keep a strong military, they don't have to feel bad about not helping hurricane victims, the elderly, the young, or the poor. They can insist people work hard to purchase their own health insurance (even when health insurance has become unaffordable for many), de-fund the public school system by allowing the private sector to make education into a for-profit industry, allow roads and bridges to be the responsibility of state and local governments, which can't afford them, reduce the Social Security trust fund by allowing young workers (whose payments into the system are what allows it to keep going) to opt out and create private accounts, and let private groups, like non-profits including churches, provide meager disaster relief for hurricane victims.
Anyone who suffers as a result of these policies, according to Republicans, have only themselves to blame. Seniors who didn't - or couldn't - save for retirement were foolish. Children whose parents can't afford private schools will be stuck in the remnants of a defunded education system. Homeowners who lose their homes because of deceptive loans, should have read the fine print and known they couldn't afford these loans. And people who get sick and don't have health insurance are just too lazy and irresponsible to earn the money to pay for it.
You don't have to be exceptionally intelligent to be a Republican politician. All you have to do is spout a few talking points about the evils of taxes, abortion, America's enemies, and the federal government and insist your well being, your education, your health care, is totally up to you.
You don't have to be very bright to be a Republican voter. You don't have to think. You can let Rush Limbaugh do your thinking for you. And you can vote for a presidential candidate simply because he says he's "born again," or because he seems like a guy you'd want to have a beer with, or because he claims he's a "maverick," or is considered a "war hero," or likes to call you "my friends."
The only good thing about Republicans is that there don't seem to be as many of them this year.
Friday, June 13, 2008
New feature: Cracking the McCain Code
Today in a town hall meeting, John McCain said:
This is code for:
I do not and will not privatize Social Security. It is a government program and it's necessary ...but I would like younger workers - younger workers only - to have the opportunity to take a few of their tax dollars and maybe put them into an account with their name on it...We will make sure - I will commit - that present day retirees will get the benefits that they have earned.
This is code for:
My goal is to end Social Security by slowly privatizing retirement accounts, but nobody likes that term so I won't use it. By letting younger workers (anyone under retirement age, as I am only committing full benefits to "present day retirees") put some of their money in private accounts, we will soon drain the Social Secuity fund and there will be no choice but to end the program. In other words, I'm not going to "privatize" the government program that exists to help present day retirees, I'm just going to end the program for future retirees.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Losing Republicans always resort to smear campaigns
Election after election, republicans who are trailing their Democratic (or sometimes Republican) rivals - because Republican policies are bankrupt and Republican politicians have no solutions for the horrendous problems facing this country - resort to smear tactics, innuendo, personal attacks and fear-mongering.
Al Gore was attacked in 2000 by the Bush campaign for supposedly lying about "inventing the internet," when that isn't what he claimed, and of wanting to ban the Bible, which was ridiculous. Furthermore, he was connected to the disgraced Bill Clinton at every turn, but what Bush did to Gore was nothing compared to what he did to his primary rival John McCain. Push polls were conducted in South Carolina and fliers distributed that accused McCain of fathering an illegitimate black baby, and of being mentally disturbed because of his time as a POW. His wife was accused of being mentally unstable and a drug addict. Ultimately, Bush had to steal the election, his campaign conducting a smear campaign against Gore for wanting a Florida recount, distributing signs to campaign staffers posing as ordinary citizens holding signs that read "Sore Loserman," which was a play on Gore/Lieberman."
The 2000 elections was child's play compared to the 2004 election, however, when Bush, the war president who escaped going to Vietnam with the help of his father's friends who got him into the Texas Air National Guard, found himself up against the Vietnam War hero John Kerry. Bush was both an empty suit and a coward, so he accused Kerry of being a "Masachusett's liberal" (which has coded racial implications) and smeared Kerry's hero status. The latter task fell to the well funded Swift Boat Veterans for truth who simply made shit up about Kerry's war record. Bush had nothing good to offer the American people, and his wartime behavior could not compare to that of Kerry, so the Bush campaign simply lied, and for good measure, ramped up the fear rhetoric with non-stop terror alerts, which magically ended once Bush won the election.
So here we are in the midst of another presidential election, and the Republicans know they have absolutely nothing to offer except the guy they smeared eight years ago, a 71 year old former POW, married to a millionaire heiress eighteen years younger who appears to be channeling TV moms from the fifties, who fell into the nomination because every other Republican seemed too much like Bush. With an enormously unpopular president, and a recent trouncing in Congressional elections, the Republicans turned to someone whom the press calls a "maverick." He was the only hope they had against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
It has been obvious since March that Obama would be the nominee, in spite of Hillary Clinton's hopes for a miracle and optimistic speeches to her supporters, and so the Republican smears against the very popular Obama began months ago on talk radio and FOX News. Now that Barack is the official nominee, the attacks have gone nuclear, not only against Obama, but also against his wife.
For weeks now there has been an internet rumor, started by Larry Johnson, that there was a very damaging tape out there with Michelle Obama saying something racist against whites. Johnson promised to produce the tape, or at least more solid information about it, but we have seen nothing. But the Republicans have learned that the rumor is enough to cause problems. The right wing radio shows are smearing Michelle with this rumor, and now FOX News has joined in with its own ugly racist approach.
So now McCain, once the victim of typical Republican smear tactics, is allowing his surrogates to use such attacks against his opponent. Why? Because there is no way he can win against this incredibly popular, intelligent, youthful, and historical candidate unless he makes him completely unacceptable to white America. He has to paint Obama - and if not Obama, then his wife - as a dangerous black person, someone not to be trusted, someone who is not "one of us." McCain is old, increasingly forgetful or confused, and is supporting failed policies and failed wars. Unless he can appeal to the covert racism in many voters, and make Barack and Michelle Obama into suspicious and un-American characters, he will lose. So the wingnuts on FOX and right wing radio are beginning the campaign.
Fortunately, some websites are fighting these smears, including one started by the Obama campaign. Here they are:
Fight the smears
Politifact
Snopes.com
Al Gore was attacked in 2000 by the Bush campaign for supposedly lying about "inventing the internet," when that isn't what he claimed, and of wanting to ban the Bible, which was ridiculous. Furthermore, he was connected to the disgraced Bill Clinton at every turn, but what Bush did to Gore was nothing compared to what he did to his primary rival John McCain. Push polls were conducted in South Carolina and fliers distributed that accused McCain of fathering an illegitimate black baby, and of being mentally disturbed because of his time as a POW. His wife was accused of being mentally unstable and a drug addict. Ultimately, Bush had to steal the election, his campaign conducting a smear campaign against Gore for wanting a Florida recount, distributing signs to campaign staffers posing as ordinary citizens holding signs that read "Sore Loserman," which was a play on Gore/Lieberman."
The 2000 elections was child's play compared to the 2004 election, however, when Bush, the war president who escaped going to Vietnam with the help of his father's friends who got him into the Texas Air National Guard, found himself up against the Vietnam War hero John Kerry. Bush was both an empty suit and a coward, so he accused Kerry of being a "Masachusett's liberal" (which has coded racial implications) and smeared Kerry's hero status. The latter task fell to the well funded Swift Boat Veterans for truth who simply made shit up about Kerry's war record. Bush had nothing good to offer the American people, and his wartime behavior could not compare to that of Kerry, so the Bush campaign simply lied, and for good measure, ramped up the fear rhetoric with non-stop terror alerts, which magically ended once Bush won the election.
So here we are in the midst of another presidential election, and the Republicans know they have absolutely nothing to offer except the guy they smeared eight years ago, a 71 year old former POW, married to a millionaire heiress eighteen years younger who appears to be channeling TV moms from the fifties, who fell into the nomination because every other Republican seemed too much like Bush. With an enormously unpopular president, and a recent trouncing in Congressional elections, the Republicans turned to someone whom the press calls a "maverick." He was the only hope they had against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
It has been obvious since March that Obama would be the nominee, in spite of Hillary Clinton's hopes for a miracle and optimistic speeches to her supporters, and so the Republican smears against the very popular Obama began months ago on talk radio and FOX News. Now that Barack is the official nominee, the attacks have gone nuclear, not only against Obama, but also against his wife.
For weeks now there has been an internet rumor, started by Larry Johnson, that there was a very damaging tape out there with Michelle Obama saying something racist against whites. Johnson promised to produce the tape, or at least more solid information about it, but we have seen nothing. But the Republicans have learned that the rumor is enough to cause problems. The right wing radio shows are smearing Michelle with this rumor, and now FOX News has joined in with its own ugly racist approach.
So now McCain, once the victim of typical Republican smear tactics, is allowing his surrogates to use such attacks against his opponent. Why? Because there is no way he can win against this incredibly popular, intelligent, youthful, and historical candidate unless he makes him completely unacceptable to white America. He has to paint Obama - and if not Obama, then his wife - as a dangerous black person, someone not to be trusted, someone who is not "one of us." McCain is old, increasingly forgetful or confused, and is supporting failed policies and failed wars. Unless he can appeal to the covert racism in many voters, and make Barack and Michelle Obama into suspicious and un-American characters, he will lose. So the wingnuts on FOX and right wing radio are beginning the campaign.
Fortunately, some websites are fighting these smears, including one started by the Obama campaign. Here they are:
Fight the smears
Politifact
Snopes.com
While I and many others in this country are appalled by this tactic of Republicans, and are concerned about the added factor of race that will be used as a weapon against the Obamas, I have a feeling that just maybe the American people (or at least a majority) are tired of this. I think it's possible that all of this will backfire, especially as Americans realize they fell for this nonsense in the last two elections and they ended up with a moron in the White House, who couldn't win on the issues.
We want our country back from the warmongers, liars, cheats, corporatists, and hateful scandalmongers. We want a good and decent country. We want to restore our reputation in the world. We want our soldiers to come home, our gas prices to come down, our home values to go up, and our jobs to pay more. The Republicans cannnot offer any of this to the American people. All they can offer are attacks against a good and decent wife, mother, and career woman who is a stunning example of working hard and achieving the American dream.
I don't think that will be enough this year. I believe the American people have had it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)