One premise is that not everyone disgusted by almost all Democrats and Republicans will agree on a third direction in which to go.
Another premise is that third political parties or movements often achieve unintended consequences: Perot helped get Clinton elected; Gene McCarthy helped put Nixon in office; Kennedy's spat with Carter helped Reagan; Roger Ailes and Karl Rove have taken over the Tea Party, for all practical purposes; and so on.
A final premise is that although we will never agree on all points, we can agree on a few, and that it is in our interest to push these few points collectively even as we push others in other political areas of our lives.
So I propose a Third Force, not a Party. Parties have to reach more or less total consensus, they have to indulge in group-think, and they have to have formal structures. A Force simply (or not so simply) has to push for a few points representing common ground, not consensus, and no one in the Force has to agree about everything with anyone else in the Force.
I suggest that a Third Force promote the following points:
1. Cut defense spending. The defense budget is surrealistically massive, more than the total of all defense budgets worldwide. It's the one large area of the budget we can afford to cut.
2. Achieve universal coverage for healthcare. What does this mean? If you get sick, you get to see a doctor and get medicine, and the money will come from a common pool of all Americans. The bigger the insured group, the more money is available. So make the sum total of all adults in the U.S. (with their dependents covered, of course) the insured group.
By the way, what "universal healthcare" looks like doesn't matter to me as long as it really works and as long as insurance companies don't profit from illness. If, for example, private insurers want to break even and remain in the game, cool; it would at least be free advertising for all their other insurance products, and it would cost them nothinig (hence the term break even). Doctors and hospitals may remain private concerns and not work for the government--as is the case in Sweden, that allegedly "socialist" country. I know. I went to a doctor there. I paid him a reasonable fee, and he got some more money from a fund overseen by the government--from what is essentially a not-for-profit insurance fund. You're telling me the Swedes can pull this off and the U.S. can't? Have Americans really become such impractical losers as that?!
3. Make it illegal for insurance companies to make a profit on health insurance. They can make a profit on all other kinds of insurance. One doesn't have to buy a car or a house, but everyone gets sick, and it's silly to have companies profit on that because then it is in their interest to charge too much and reject some people. The motive for health insurance and health care should be to care for people's health well and efficiently. The added motive of profit should not be there.
4. Pass a federal law which states that corporations are not persons--just as zoos are not animals. Can a corporation, as opposed to a person representing a corporation, sign its name, utter a word, or wiggle a bodily appendage? If not, it is not a person. Of course, any individual who works for a corporation retains all rights under the Constitution. It's just that the obvious phantom, "corporate person-hood," is banished.
5. Never privatize Social Security.
6. Insist that all ballot machines leave a paper trail. Pass a federal law that requires same.
7. Retain Internet neutrality.
That's it for now. A genuinely modest list. It is practical and pragmatic in nature. Although, arguably, it may reveal some kind of ideology, it is not ideological in spirit. There is no attempt to convince anyone of a theory of government. All the proposals are based on common sense and empirical experience. For example, what if social security had been privatized before the 2008 crash? Would you allow your bank not to provide a paper trail for transactions if you asked for a paper trail? Does no one get sick? Is a corporation a person--I mean, in reality, not in some kind of legal fantasy?
Even if one believes we need a strong military, one does not have to concur that the extraordinary size of our military budge is appropriate, especially given our deficits and inability to fund programs. Try this experiment: Come up with a reasonable cost of universal healthcare--reasonable, not loaded according to a predisposition for or against universal healthcare. Deduct that number from the current defense budget. Look at the remainder, compare it to the total of all military budgets worldwide, and ask yourself if that number is still enough to fund a military adequately. Isn't universal healthcare the best kind of "national security"?
A final premise is that a modest list like this is more likely to establish common ground. There will be a great temptation to add to the list. I suggest resisting that temptation for now, especially as anyone may actively promote other ideas in other venues. Let us call these, with tongue in cheek, the Magnificent Seven, and cue the theme song.
To the extent we have any leverage, we all will simply ask anyone running for a pertinent office to pledge to support the magnificent seven but not simply give lip service. Cuts have to be significant, and no fudging on universal health-care.
Finally, to re-iterate: we are all free to disagree about any other point beyond the magnificent seven.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Collected Wisdom
*
*
*
Collected Wisdom
I bring you an empty thimble
containing my collected wisdom
gathered from my allotted years
of isdom. Yes, I know what
what a thimble is, have worn
one on my finger, but let's not
linger in Arcania. I don't have
any advice for you you haven't
already ignored. If you are
in general bored, however, I will
suggest that it's your fault. Get
interested. Or not. Your call.
That's it. That's all.
Copyright Hans Ostrom
*
*
Collected Wisdom
I bring you an empty thimble
containing my collected wisdom
gathered from my allotted years
of isdom. Yes, I know what
what a thimble is, have worn
one on my finger, but let's not
linger in Arcania. I don't have
any advice for you you haven't
already ignored. If you are
in general bored, however, I will
suggest that it's your fault. Get
interested. Or not. Your call.
That's it. That's all.
Copyright Hans Ostrom
Sports Article: A Poem
*
*
*
Sports Article: A Poem
The Babylon Ghosts defeated
the Atlantis Efforts yesterday
in a game of mythical angularities
that featured a record number
of dilemmas. The final score
was (and still is, being final)
122 to 14 divided by seven.
"I wish I had more time to
read novels," said Babylon
coach Velnar Phase after
the game. The victory allowed
the Ghosts to capture first
place in the Illusory Division
of the Rhomboid Conference.
Atlantis will face itself next
week, while Babylon travels
to the Steppes of Central Asia.
Copyright 2010 Hans Ostrom
*
*
Sports Article: A Poem
The Babylon Ghosts defeated
the Atlantis Efforts yesterday
in a game of mythical angularities
that featured a record number
of dilemmas. The final score
was (and still is, being final)
122 to 14 divided by seven.
"I wish I had more time to
read novels," said Babylon
coach Velnar Phase after
the game. The victory allowed
the Ghosts to capture first
place in the Illusory Division
of the Rhomboid Conference.
Atlantis will face itself next
week, while Babylon travels
to the Steppes of Central Asia.
Copyright 2010 Hans Ostrom
In Defense (Gasp!) of Obama--Thesis: He Likes to Win
It's so fashionable among self-identified progressives to be anti-Obama that I assume that position to be wrong. Just kidding about the latter part. I'm as disappointed as the next person, although I don't know who the next person is. I have been "in dialogue" with friends who are highly miffed at the President. I now blog in defense of him chiefly to play devil's advocate--with myself!
But first, we should probably review the particulars, and I'll phrase them from the p.o.v. of his detractors (on the Left)--no particular order:
1. He "caved" on single-payer healthcare.
2. He not only hasn't withdrawn from Afghanistan, but he has also sent more troops.
3. His attorney general has not investigated potential war crimes and crimes of torture.
4. He gave too much money to Wall Street and not enough to jobs-stimulus.
5. He hasn't ended "Don't Ask/Don't Tell."
6. His stance on gay marriage is at least unhelpful.
7. He "caved" on the new Israeli settlements.
8. He "caved" on the tax-cuts for the rich.
9. He's done nothing to revive manufacturing.
10. He's corporatist.
I missed plenty, but these are some highlights.
My devil's-advocate is two-fold (and remember, I agree with most and close to all of the above):
1. Obama is the same Obama we saw in the campaign; he is the Obama who likes to win--strategically, not tactically.
2. Progressives often forget that to do anything in mainstream politics, you have to win. Okay, maybe they don't forget, but they're often quick to trade winning for anger-expressed or dissent.
One of my favorite radio hosts, Norman Goldman, pleasantly attacks the President and the Democrats for squandering a majority in both Houses. Let's grant that the Dems probably could have had more victories. However:
1. Truth to tell, they didn't have a majority in both Houses because of conservative democrats. Kent Conrad: "There never were enough votes for single-payer healthcare." Conrad would know. He's essentially a Republican. Obama had no leverage with which to force the conservadems to change. He didn't have LBJ's long list of IOU's, etc. Could he have used the bully pulpit more? Yes. Would it have worked? I doubt it: because the constituents in the conservadems districts/states opposed single-payer. So Obama made a deal. It wasn't a total victory, but it got a big foot in the door of "universal" healthcare, and it essentially kept the game alive (read "Finite and Infinite Games") for another day, WHILE getting millions more insured eventually. Millions.
2. Could he have pressed Harry Reid to get rid of filibusters, etc.? Sure. But what about when the GOPers take over the Senate? Don't you want the Dems to have the filibuster option? I do. If you want to say Obama "caved" on healthcare, that's fine, but a truth is that the Senate Democrats controlled the game from the beginning--not the president.
3. Afghanistan. I think we should get out now, too. There are the obvious political points to make about Obama looking weak on "national defense" (whatever) in 2012, but I still think we should get out. Is this enough for me not to vote for him in 2012? No. I prefer any Democrat over any Republican. Why? Two words: "Supreme Court." If you want to back Kucinich in 2012, fine. The most that will do is express anger and dissent, split the Dems, and possibly elect a Republican. Kucinich is less electable than Palin. Do you prefer Palin to Obama? I don't. (Remember, I'm mostly asking myself these questions.) I think Obama has bought the argument about fighting Al Queda "over there," and I think he's afraid to look weak in 2012. That is, he wants to win.
4. He gave too much money to Wall Street and not enough to job stimulus. The Krugman thesis. Okay, agreed. But for the most part, he played the recession and Bush's catastrophe right down the middle of the fairway. He did "cash for clunkers" to flush the massive inventory of unsold cars; consequently, GM and Ford are doing well. He propped up GM: good move. Good jobs. Lots of them. He propped up banks. He had to. No choice. Basically, he had to walk into a barn full of horse-shit and shovel it out. Not glamorous and easy to criticize, but it's what Bush left him. A typical Bush II move: mess up any undertaking and let someone else clean it up.
5. I agree with Obama that Congress should end Don't Ask/Don't Tell, but if they don't by December 1, then he should end it as Commander in Chief. The parallel is to Roosevelt, who in fact chose NOT to desegregate the armed forces.
6. Gay marriage is a states' issue--it just is. That's who gives out the licenses to marry. But I think Obama should drop the claim that marriage is only between a man and a woman, he should endorse gay marriage, and then he should say, "It's up to the states: get it done." But he can't do it alone and never could.
7. He caved on tax-cuts to the rich. Believe it or not, I believe his explanation, and I almost never believe ANY politician's explanation. He traded tax cuts for the rich for extended unemployment. But as Norman Goldman points out, these u. benefits still don't cover everybody. But at least he bought a year for millions of unemployed. The alternative, at leas as I see it (and I probably see it badly) was a stalemate. I think he wanted to win something, so he won what he could.
8. His attorney general should investigate potential war crimes and torture crimes. Agreed. Still, I have to break out in a chorus of "Will a Republican president investigate same?"
9. He's a corporatist. Absolutely. So was Lincoln. So was Roosevelt.
10. He caved on Israeli settlements. Well, he gave up, and I don't blame him. Unless the U.S. wants seriously to withdraw funds from Israel, there's no leverage. Zip. And if any president suggests withdrawing funds, he or she commits political suicide. Progressives themselves are horribly divided on the issue, and everybody knows that. Me, I find it refreshing that he essentially admitted the U.S. (not him, but he U.S.) has no leverage. He's not a magician. He can't invent leverage. Concerning Palestine/Israel, what president has? And this is even assuming you're a progressive who opposes the settlements. The chances are excellent that you support them. So Obama's supposed to heal the progressive rift? Please.
So in this argument with myself, I say, "Self, would you rather have Obama or Hillary Clinton in the White House?" On some days, I'd prefer Hillary. But guess what? She couldn't even win a campaign. Her staff was horrific. Obama beat her in a fair match.
Self, would you rather have Obama in a second term or a Republican in a first term in 2012 (2013)? Obama. Two words: "Supreme Court." There are other reasons, but these two words are enough.
What's a progressive to do, then, bucko? First, do no harm. Don't work for Kucinich or anyone else in the primaries. I've seen enough of the McCarthy/Humphrey, Kennedy/Carter replays of progressive self-defeat, thanks very much. I did not, in fact, prefer Nixon to Humphrey or Reagan to Carter.
Second, DON'T WORK AGAINST OBAMA; WORK ON HIM. Pressure, pressure, pressure from below (as it were) and from within. Giant labor meetings. Well attended but smart anti-war rallies--not chaotic messes that the GOPers can use in the political spectacle (see Murray Edelman on the political spectacle, please). African Americans, poverty-advocates, homeless advocates, etc. should meet with him and his cabinet. Progressive money-bags should horse-trade with him (mixed metaphors): I'll give your campaign this much cash if you do X for cause Y. Above all, workers and professionals need to organize. Some workers need to stop taking the Republican bait(s) regarding race, taxes, "big government," and so on. What have Republicans ever done for working people? Seriously.
Take a page out of the "Tea Party's" plan. Look how they pushed their (Republican) Party. They thwarted McConnell in his own state and thwarted Rove in the Carolinas. But they did not say "off with McConnell's head" or "I'm working for Larry Craig!" To the extent they were a legitimate grassroots group (they've been taken over), they worked from below and within.
Have I convinced myself? Well, almost.
But first, we should probably review the particulars, and I'll phrase them from the p.o.v. of his detractors (on the Left)--no particular order:
1. He "caved" on single-payer healthcare.
2. He not only hasn't withdrawn from Afghanistan, but he has also sent more troops.
3. His attorney general has not investigated potential war crimes and crimes of torture.
4. He gave too much money to Wall Street and not enough to jobs-stimulus.
5. He hasn't ended "Don't Ask/Don't Tell."
6. His stance on gay marriage is at least unhelpful.
7. He "caved" on the new Israeli settlements.
8. He "caved" on the tax-cuts for the rich.
9. He's done nothing to revive manufacturing.
10. He's corporatist.
I missed plenty, but these are some highlights.
My devil's-advocate is two-fold (and remember, I agree with most and close to all of the above):
1. Obama is the same Obama we saw in the campaign; he is the Obama who likes to win--strategically, not tactically.
2. Progressives often forget that to do anything in mainstream politics, you have to win. Okay, maybe they don't forget, but they're often quick to trade winning for anger-expressed or dissent.
One of my favorite radio hosts, Norman Goldman, pleasantly attacks the President and the Democrats for squandering a majority in both Houses. Let's grant that the Dems probably could have had more victories. However:
1. Truth to tell, they didn't have a majority in both Houses because of conservative democrats. Kent Conrad: "There never were enough votes for single-payer healthcare." Conrad would know. He's essentially a Republican. Obama had no leverage with which to force the conservadems to change. He didn't have LBJ's long list of IOU's, etc. Could he have used the bully pulpit more? Yes. Would it have worked? I doubt it: because the constituents in the conservadems districts/states opposed single-payer. So Obama made a deal. It wasn't a total victory, but it got a big foot in the door of "universal" healthcare, and it essentially kept the game alive (read "Finite and Infinite Games") for another day, WHILE getting millions more insured eventually. Millions.
2. Could he have pressed Harry Reid to get rid of filibusters, etc.? Sure. But what about when the GOPers take over the Senate? Don't you want the Dems to have the filibuster option? I do. If you want to say Obama "caved" on healthcare, that's fine, but a truth is that the Senate Democrats controlled the game from the beginning--not the president.
3. Afghanistan. I think we should get out now, too. There are the obvious political points to make about Obama looking weak on "national defense" (whatever) in 2012, but I still think we should get out. Is this enough for me not to vote for him in 2012? No. I prefer any Democrat over any Republican. Why? Two words: "Supreme Court." If you want to back Kucinich in 2012, fine. The most that will do is express anger and dissent, split the Dems, and possibly elect a Republican. Kucinich is less electable than Palin. Do you prefer Palin to Obama? I don't. (Remember, I'm mostly asking myself these questions.) I think Obama has bought the argument about fighting Al Queda "over there," and I think he's afraid to look weak in 2012. That is, he wants to win.
4. He gave too much money to Wall Street and not enough to job stimulus. The Krugman thesis. Okay, agreed. But for the most part, he played the recession and Bush's catastrophe right down the middle of the fairway. He did "cash for clunkers" to flush the massive inventory of unsold cars; consequently, GM and Ford are doing well. He propped up GM: good move. Good jobs. Lots of them. He propped up banks. He had to. No choice. Basically, he had to walk into a barn full of horse-shit and shovel it out. Not glamorous and easy to criticize, but it's what Bush left him. A typical Bush II move: mess up any undertaking and let someone else clean it up.
5. I agree with Obama that Congress should end Don't Ask/Don't Tell, but if they don't by December 1, then he should end it as Commander in Chief. The parallel is to Roosevelt, who in fact chose NOT to desegregate the armed forces.
6. Gay marriage is a states' issue--it just is. That's who gives out the licenses to marry. But I think Obama should drop the claim that marriage is only between a man and a woman, he should endorse gay marriage, and then he should say, "It's up to the states: get it done." But he can't do it alone and never could.
7. He caved on tax-cuts to the rich. Believe it or not, I believe his explanation, and I almost never believe ANY politician's explanation. He traded tax cuts for the rich for extended unemployment. But as Norman Goldman points out, these u. benefits still don't cover everybody. But at least he bought a year for millions of unemployed. The alternative, at leas as I see it (and I probably see it badly) was a stalemate. I think he wanted to win something, so he won what he could.
8. His attorney general should investigate potential war crimes and torture crimes. Agreed. Still, I have to break out in a chorus of "Will a Republican president investigate same?"
9. He's a corporatist. Absolutely. So was Lincoln. So was Roosevelt.
10. He caved on Israeli settlements. Well, he gave up, and I don't blame him. Unless the U.S. wants seriously to withdraw funds from Israel, there's no leverage. Zip. And if any president suggests withdrawing funds, he or she commits political suicide. Progressives themselves are horribly divided on the issue, and everybody knows that. Me, I find it refreshing that he essentially admitted the U.S. (not him, but he U.S.) has no leverage. He's not a magician. He can't invent leverage. Concerning Palestine/Israel, what president has? And this is even assuming you're a progressive who opposes the settlements. The chances are excellent that you support them. So Obama's supposed to heal the progressive rift? Please.
So in this argument with myself, I say, "Self, would you rather have Obama or Hillary Clinton in the White House?" On some days, I'd prefer Hillary. But guess what? She couldn't even win a campaign. Her staff was horrific. Obama beat her in a fair match.
Self, would you rather have Obama in a second term or a Republican in a first term in 2012 (2013)? Obama. Two words: "Supreme Court." There are other reasons, but these two words are enough.
What's a progressive to do, then, bucko? First, do no harm. Don't work for Kucinich or anyone else in the primaries. I've seen enough of the McCarthy/Humphrey, Kennedy/Carter replays of progressive self-defeat, thanks very much. I did not, in fact, prefer Nixon to Humphrey or Reagan to Carter.
Second, DON'T WORK AGAINST OBAMA; WORK ON HIM. Pressure, pressure, pressure from below (as it were) and from within. Giant labor meetings. Well attended but smart anti-war rallies--not chaotic messes that the GOPers can use in the political spectacle (see Murray Edelman on the political spectacle, please). African Americans, poverty-advocates, homeless advocates, etc. should meet with him and his cabinet. Progressive money-bags should horse-trade with him (mixed metaphors): I'll give your campaign this much cash if you do X for cause Y. Above all, workers and professionals need to organize. Some workers need to stop taking the Republican bait(s) regarding race, taxes, "big government," and so on. What have Republicans ever done for working people? Seriously.
Take a page out of the "Tea Party's" plan. Look how they pushed their (Republican) Party. They thwarted McConnell in his own state and thwarted Rove in the Carolinas. But they did not say "off with McConnell's head" or "I'm working for Larry Craig!" To the extent they were a legitimate grassroots group (they've been taken over), they worked from below and within.
Have I convinced myself? Well, almost.
Analyzing a Viral Op-Ed: "I'm Tired of . . ."
I've seen different versions of the following essay, which is attribute to one Robert Hall, and which is sometimes referred to as a "viral op-ed"; it certainly seems to be popular in right-wing cyberspace. I thought I'd take the time to analyze it, and then maybe I'll fashion (a much shorter) response--later. The piece, with my comments (in bold following each section):
I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.
The rhetorical model is established here: the person is not really "tired" but exasperated, and he asserts that he is being told things, but one wants to ask, "by whom, exactly?" Yes, national and state governments take money and then spend it on things like inspecting food, building and maintaining interstate highways, funding a military that is more expensive than all other nations' militaries combined, enforcing labor-laws, gathering intelligence, providing emergency assistance after national disasters, and so on. To assert that one is being told about this seems silly; the government has always worked this way. "People too lazy to earn it"? Really? What percentage of the 10% out of work are "too lazy"? Later the person identifies himself as a Christian. Isn't part of Christianity the willingness to help others in need, partly because of the spiritual gifts the helper gets from the helped?
I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money.
Much too skewed. One may argue with the decision to keep banks afloat after the bubble burst, but the evidence seems to suggest that if they weren't kept afloat, a consequence would have been Depression, not recession. Also, some people may have bought what they couldn't afford, but many were trapped in adjustable loans that weren't fully explained. One may go ahead and try to blame Congress, but why only "left-wing" Congress? Fannie and Freddie weren't the main problem and were less of a problem than de-regulation, which is a right-wing obsession but not really a "conservative" one; if you are conservative, you are prudent, and prudence dictates that where there is a lot of money, there will be cheating, so it's best to have someone watching things. Also, no one was told he or she had to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." We were told that some of our tax money had to be used to prop up large financial institutions--run by wealthy people who are "too lazy" or too craven not to cheat. Also, TARP was a Bush plan, not that of left-wing critters. Also, most of the TARP money has been paid back, and the GM strategy helped recover a major manufacturing unit that employs many people who are not, in fact, too lazy to work.
I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros, and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for Christian people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela .
Ad hominem. Attack a symbolic man, Michael Moore, but not his ideas. I'd like to suggest that the deception of "trickle-down" economics and the refusal even to discuss cutting the military budget are as harmful to the economy as anything. No organization attempts to protect free speech more than the ACLU (you could look it up, as Casey Stengel used to say), but the ACLU is of course much loathed by "conservatives" who aren't conservative. I'm sorry--I see almost no intolerance toward Christian people in the U.S. (I'm a Catholic.) I see lots of intolerance toward non-Christian beliefs, and I see a desire to make the U.S. government officially Christian: look at the influence of Focus on the Family, the Moral Majority, etc. Let's flip the scenario: "I'm tired of being told how bad government is by rich people like the Bushes who spend their lives in government."
I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives, and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.
Christians murder their relatives and rape and intrude on the personal lives of women all the time, but I assume this man doesn't ascribe their misdeeds to Christianity. And there are the glaring examples of slave-holding Christians (among them our founding fathers), of Christian members of the terrorist organization, the KKK, and of Tim McVeigh. And do the math: what percentage of the total number of Muslims worldwide are terrorists? Less than 1 per cent, no doubt. Any religion is only as peaceful as each of its followers. Bush, a Methodist, attacked Iraq without provocation, or with what has been documented as fabricated provocation. Was this a Christian act? And don't confuse the question with "we're better off without Saddam Hussein": that is a separate question. Is torture "Christian"? I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I just wish our black President was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less arrogantly of an all-knowing, all-intrusive federal government.
The first part is condescending. "Condi" Rice supported an unprovoked war and illegal, immoral torture. Name one way in which Obama has been more intrusive than previous presidents. He didn't compose the intrusive Patriot Act. The FBI, CIA, and NSA were there before he was. His attorney general has done nothing--not one thing--to jeopardize "gun rights." Unlike several right-wing politicians, he didn't have thugs beat up dissenters at his campaign rallies. Identify one concrete example of how Obama has been more intrusive than Clinton, Bush I and II, Reagan, Nixon. "Arrogantly" is a tip-off. It carries the whiff of "uppity." Obama is more arrogant than Bush II? Please.
I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful; that thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress; that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his; that slammed Palin, with two years as governor, for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever. Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004. Red herring. Most of the inaugural expenses for any president come from private sources. Well, at least Kerry had a 'war record.' Why didn't Bush II ever fly in Viet Nam? This is not a rhetorical question. Palin wasn't slammed for being inexperienced. She was slammed for saying she could see Russia from Alaska and for not being able to cite one magazine she read (etc.) Also, she quit as governor.
I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.
I'm sorry, but if you pay somebody something for a product, that money then belongs to that someone. If you don't want to buy Saudi Arabian oil, then ban American oil companies from doing business there. And/or support the development of alternative energy sources. It's not out of "tolerance" that we buy the oil; it's out of a need to fill our gas-tanks. Please.
I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight man-made global warming, which no one is allowed to discuss or debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Albert Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough. People are allowed to discuss and debate the issue all the time, as in this op-ed. Also, the Republican House has decided to disband the committee on global warming, so precisely who is shutting down debate here? Gore = ad hominem. And ironically, the person has followed his complaint about Saudia Arabian oil with an attack on an issue that has spurred the U.S. at least to consider non-petrol energy sources.
I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think gay people choose to be gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.
I don't know anyone who's been harrassed for not "tryinig" marijuana, but I'm willing to try to belief this man has. Precisely who has told this man that he must support drug-treatment? Most treatment places are not-for-profit (501-C-3) or private and for-profit. True, some state and municipal agencies dispense methadone, but that seems like money well spent, considering the heroin addiction costs states and cities even more money. I smell another red herring here.
I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or a life of crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person, who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record, and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military ... Those are the citizens we need.
"Undocumented worker" is a more precise term than "illegal alien." They're not aliens. They're human beings. If you want to play the euphemism game, how about linking warrantless wire-taps to something called a "Patriot Act." What is un-Constitutional is, arguably, unpatriotic. Or how about Fox News and "fair and balanced"? Or how about the famous "mission accomplished"? Nonetheless, I fully support the argument for "fast-tracking" some people from other countries. . . . And by the way, weren't Catholics among the original "illegal aliens" who invaded "the New World"? Did the Aztecs put the Spanish on a fast-track for citizenship?
I'm tired of latte liberals and self-absorbed journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people than themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years and still are? Not even close. So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims, who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.
This is a good place to assert the both/and vs. either/or argument. All torture is bad; both "American" and "Muslim" (so-called) torture are bad: so why pit them against each other? I don't know one journalist, liberal or otherwise, who wasn't appalled by what happened to Pearl, a journalist. All torture rooms are bad, so close all the ones you have control over. At some point, all troops in all wars commit atrocities. Want to trade insults? I'll match your "latte liberal" with your liquored-up Vice President who never served in the armed forces and who shot his friend in the face with a shotgun. Chicken-hawks? Try Bush II, Rumsfeld, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly.
I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers; bums are bipartisan. And I'm tired of people telling me that we need bipartisanship. I live in Illinois, where the " Illinois Combine" of Democrats has worked to loot the public for years. Not to mention the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet. I just don't believe he's been told that one party has a corner on virtue. Bums are not necessarily bipartisan, but they do come from both (all) parties: on that we can agree. Well, if one is sick of one party dominating, why wouldn't one be in favor of bipartisanship? It's only logical.
I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or middle-class or poor. Well, I suspect we're all tired of hearing about such mistakes, except when we make such mistakes. It's that cast-the-first-stone thing. Also, the rhetoric of this piece springs from an entitled viewpoint that licenses the speaker to assert that he's "tired." I'm tired of his being tired. And wasn't once purpose of the Constitution to set out rights and privileges to which some are entitled (but not African Americans, who were relegated to slavery and 3/5ths humanity in the original Article One of the Constitution. You could look it up.
Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, plasma color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have these things in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the tax dollars flowing to their causes. Well, plasma TV wasn't available in 1970, so I have to grant that point. Personally, I miss the days when we could get just one channel in black-and-white in the Sierra Nevada. I will assert, however, that one may BOTH live in poverty AND have an air-conditioner. (And have a job, I might add: the working-poor.) I don't know what he means by "poverty pimps." I do know what a lobbyist pimp, an insurance-corporation pimp, and a tobacco-company pimp are, however, and many have served in Congress (from both parties).
I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems.
Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making for the rest of us. I'm just sorry for my young, beautiful granddaughter. I'm tired of "conservatives" who claim to be against government but serve in it, who claim to want to reduce the deficit but then reduce in the influx of money from people who can afford to pay taxes (millionaires and billionaires), who don't allow themselves to be investigated for corruption (Cheney/Enron) or for shooting a friend in the face with a shotgun. And who are "these people"? We have seen the enemy, and he or she is us. In a bipartisan way, let's agree to close the chasm between rich and poor, to make health-insurance not-for-profit, to make sure the government has to get a warrant before tapping a phone, to stop rendition and torture, and to stop the race-baiting rhetoric of TV and radio "talkers."
I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.
The rhetorical model is established here: the person is not really "tired" but exasperated, and he asserts that he is being told things, but one wants to ask, "by whom, exactly?" Yes, national and state governments take money and then spend it on things like inspecting food, building and maintaining interstate highways, funding a military that is more expensive than all other nations' militaries combined, enforcing labor-laws, gathering intelligence, providing emergency assistance after national disasters, and so on. To assert that one is being told about this seems silly; the government has always worked this way. "People too lazy to earn it"? Really? What percentage of the 10% out of work are "too lazy"? Later the person identifies himself as a Christian. Isn't part of Christianity the willingness to help others in need, partly because of the spiritual gifts the helper gets from the helped?
I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money.
Much too skewed. One may argue with the decision to keep banks afloat after the bubble burst, but the evidence seems to suggest that if they weren't kept afloat, a consequence would have been Depression, not recession. Also, some people may have bought what they couldn't afford, but many were trapped in adjustable loans that weren't fully explained. One may go ahead and try to blame Congress, but why only "left-wing" Congress? Fannie and Freddie weren't the main problem and were less of a problem than de-regulation, which is a right-wing obsession but not really a "conservative" one; if you are conservative, you are prudent, and prudence dictates that where there is a lot of money, there will be cheating, so it's best to have someone watching things. Also, no one was told he or she had to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." We were told that some of our tax money had to be used to prop up large financial institutions--run by wealthy people who are "too lazy" or too craven not to cheat. Also, TARP was a Bush plan, not that of left-wing critters. Also, most of the TARP money has been paid back, and the GM strategy helped recover a major manufacturing unit that employs many people who are not, in fact, too lazy to work.
I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros, and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for Christian people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela .
Ad hominem. Attack a symbolic man, Michael Moore, but not his ideas. I'd like to suggest that the deception of "trickle-down" economics and the refusal even to discuss cutting the military budget are as harmful to the economy as anything. No organization attempts to protect free speech more than the ACLU (you could look it up, as Casey Stengel used to say), but the ACLU is of course much loathed by "conservatives" who aren't conservative. I'm sorry--I see almost no intolerance toward Christian people in the U.S. (I'm a Catholic.) I see lots of intolerance toward non-Christian beliefs, and I see a desire to make the U.S. government officially Christian: look at the influence of Focus on the Family, the Moral Majority, etc. Let's flip the scenario: "I'm tired of being told how bad government is by rich people like the Bushes who spend their lives in government."
I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives, and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.
Christians murder their relatives and rape and intrude on the personal lives of women all the time, but I assume this man doesn't ascribe their misdeeds to Christianity. And there are the glaring examples of slave-holding Christians (among them our founding fathers), of Christian members of the terrorist organization, the KKK, and of Tim McVeigh. And do the math: what percentage of the total number of Muslims worldwide are terrorists? Less than 1 per cent, no doubt. Any religion is only as peaceful as each of its followers. Bush, a Methodist, attacked Iraq without provocation, or with what has been documented as fabricated provocation. Was this a Christian act? And don't confuse the question with "we're better off without Saddam Hussein": that is a separate question. Is torture "Christian"? I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I just wish our black President was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less arrogantly of an all-knowing, all-intrusive federal government.
The first part is condescending. "Condi" Rice supported an unprovoked war and illegal, immoral torture. Name one way in which Obama has been more intrusive than previous presidents. He didn't compose the intrusive Patriot Act. The FBI, CIA, and NSA were there before he was. His attorney general has done nothing--not one thing--to jeopardize "gun rights." Unlike several right-wing politicians, he didn't have thugs beat up dissenters at his campaign rallies. Identify one concrete example of how Obama has been more intrusive than Clinton, Bush I and II, Reagan, Nixon. "Arrogantly" is a tip-off. It carries the whiff of "uppity." Obama is more arrogant than Bush II? Please.
I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful; that thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress; that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his; that slammed Palin, with two years as governor, for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever. Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004. Red herring. Most of the inaugural expenses for any president come from private sources. Well, at least Kerry had a 'war record.' Why didn't Bush II ever fly in Viet Nam? This is not a rhetorical question. Palin wasn't slammed for being inexperienced. She was slammed for saying she could see Russia from Alaska and for not being able to cite one magazine she read (etc.) Also, she quit as governor.
I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.
I'm sorry, but if you pay somebody something for a product, that money then belongs to that someone. If you don't want to buy Saudi Arabian oil, then ban American oil companies from doing business there. And/or support the development of alternative energy sources. It's not out of "tolerance" that we buy the oil; it's out of a need to fill our gas-tanks. Please.
I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight man-made global warming, which no one is allowed to discuss or debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Albert Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough. People are allowed to discuss and debate the issue all the time, as in this op-ed. Also, the Republican House has decided to disband the committee on global warming, so precisely who is shutting down debate here? Gore = ad hominem. And ironically, the person has followed his complaint about Saudia Arabian oil with an attack on an issue that has spurred the U.S. at least to consider non-petrol energy sources.
I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think gay people choose to be gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.
I don't know anyone who's been harrassed for not "tryinig" marijuana, but I'm willing to try to belief this man has. Precisely who has told this man that he must support drug-treatment? Most treatment places are not-for-profit (501-C-3) or private and for-profit. True, some state and municipal agencies dispense methadone, but that seems like money well spent, considering the heroin addiction costs states and cities even more money. I smell another red herring here.
I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or a life of crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person, who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record, and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military ... Those are the citizens we need.
"Undocumented worker" is a more precise term than "illegal alien." They're not aliens. They're human beings. If you want to play the euphemism game, how about linking warrantless wire-taps to something called a "Patriot Act." What is un-Constitutional is, arguably, unpatriotic. Or how about Fox News and "fair and balanced"? Or how about the famous "mission accomplished"? Nonetheless, I fully support the argument for "fast-tracking" some people from other countries. . . . And by the way, weren't Catholics among the original "illegal aliens" who invaded "the New World"? Did the Aztecs put the Spanish on a fast-track for citizenship?
I'm tired of latte liberals and self-absorbed journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people than themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years and still are? Not even close. So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims, who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.
This is a good place to assert the both/and vs. either/or argument. All torture is bad; both "American" and "Muslim" (so-called) torture are bad: so why pit them against each other? I don't know one journalist, liberal or otherwise, who wasn't appalled by what happened to Pearl, a journalist. All torture rooms are bad, so close all the ones you have control over. At some point, all troops in all wars commit atrocities. Want to trade insults? I'll match your "latte liberal" with your liquored-up Vice President who never served in the armed forces and who shot his friend in the face with a shotgun. Chicken-hawks? Try Bush II, Rumsfeld, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly.
I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers; bums are bipartisan. And I'm tired of people telling me that we need bipartisanship. I live in Illinois, where the " Illinois Combine" of Democrats has worked to loot the public for years. Not to mention the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet. I just don't believe he's been told that one party has a corner on virtue. Bums are not necessarily bipartisan, but they do come from both (all) parties: on that we can agree. Well, if one is sick of one party dominating, why wouldn't one be in favor of bipartisanship? It's only logical.
I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or middle-class or poor. Well, I suspect we're all tired of hearing about such mistakes, except when we make such mistakes. It's that cast-the-first-stone thing. Also, the rhetoric of this piece springs from an entitled viewpoint that licenses the speaker to assert that he's "tired." I'm tired of his being tired. And wasn't once purpose of the Constitution to set out rights and privileges to which some are entitled (but not African Americans, who were relegated to slavery and 3/5ths humanity in the original Article One of the Constitution. You could look it up.
Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, plasma color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have these things in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the tax dollars flowing to their causes. Well, plasma TV wasn't available in 1970, so I have to grant that point. Personally, I miss the days when we could get just one channel in black-and-white in the Sierra Nevada. I will assert, however, that one may BOTH live in poverty AND have an air-conditioner. (And have a job, I might add: the working-poor.) I don't know what he means by "poverty pimps." I do know what a lobbyist pimp, an insurance-corporation pimp, and a tobacco-company pimp are, however, and many have served in Congress (from both parties).
I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems.
Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making for the rest of us. I'm just sorry for my young, beautiful granddaughter. I'm tired of "conservatives" who claim to be against government but serve in it, who claim to want to reduce the deficit but then reduce in the influx of money from people who can afford to pay taxes (millionaires and billionaires), who don't allow themselves to be investigated for corruption (Cheney/Enron) or for shooting a friend in the face with a shotgun. And who are "these people"? We have seen the enemy, and he or she is us. In a bipartisan way, let's agree to close the chasm between rich and poor, to make health-insurance not-for-profit, to make sure the government has to get a warrant before tapping a phone, to stop rendition and torture, and to stop the race-baiting rhetoric of TV and radio "talkers."
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)