| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Lame-as-F@#k Congress | ||||
| ||||
December 14, 2010
So We Don't Forget What the Republicans Stand For...
Jon Stewart sums it up well. Giving an additional 3% tax break to the super rich is way too important, more than anything else on the agenda, so the Republicans blocked all legislative activities before they got their tax deal from Obama. The Dream Act, the repeal of the DADT, and even setting a fund to cover the health care expenses of the 9-11 first responders, all are secondary. Tsk, tsk.
December 8, 2010
Bernie Sanders Amazing Speech and the Plantation Mentality
Since Aristotle, it was understood that extremes of wealth and power is not good for a society--especially a society whose mission statement is to serve the people, that is, the majority of the people not the small elite.
Of course, there is a connection between wealth and power. The interests of the upper wealthy class are well represented in our government and we have an economic policy that reflects this. That's why even when the majority of the American people are against extending the very costly tax breaks to the top 2%, our government is held hostage to the narrow interests of the few.
Since, earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided that corporations can spend any amount of money on political speech, the cost of doing the business of democracy is going to go up, as if it's not in the stratosphere already. How are the voters to decide? Where do they get their information about important issues? The influence of big money could be made less of a dictator in our politics if the people had good, relevant, and timely information. But, this would also require that citizens are engaged, informed, and able to make rational decisions. We have a complicated system of government that promotes gridlock and lacks proper accountability.
Have you noticed that good journalism is diminishing? That media outlets are increasingly dominated by talking heads who blurb opinions without deference to the facts and the truth. There are few sources, like McClatchy News, and, of course, NPR and PBS. Concerned about the deficit, and believing that the truth has a liberal bias, Congressional Republicans want to completely eliminate subsidies to public media, because, they figure, who needs news organizations to inform the public....
When in comes to income inequality and distribution, we have left the company of the advanced, wealthy liberal democracies and are drifting closer to states where elites plunder their countries' resources and abuse their peoples. The plantation mentality is a way for the elites to keep the other classes from realizing their true condition. Controlling the narrative--the story telling, and the issues we discuss as a country--through the media and political leadership has been an effective method.
The video of Senator Bernie Sanders's is an eye-opener, and, I bet you, is news to most Americans. However, I don't expect it to reach the majority of our citizens. Sadly, too many people in the plantation only hear the stories that the elites have preselected for them, while others have bought into certain myths and now suffer from confirmation bias.
Of course, there is a connection between wealth and power. The interests of the upper wealthy class are well represented in our government and we have an economic policy that reflects this. That's why even when the majority of the American people are against extending the very costly tax breaks to the top 2%, our government is held hostage to the narrow interests of the few.
Since, earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided that corporations can spend any amount of money on political speech, the cost of doing the business of democracy is going to go up, as if it's not in the stratosphere already. How are the voters to decide? Where do they get their information about important issues? The influence of big money could be made less of a dictator in our politics if the people had good, relevant, and timely information. But, this would also require that citizens are engaged, informed, and able to make rational decisions. We have a complicated system of government that promotes gridlock and lacks proper accountability.
Have you noticed that good journalism is diminishing? That media outlets are increasingly dominated by talking heads who blurb opinions without deference to the facts and the truth. There are few sources, like McClatchy News, and, of course, NPR and PBS. Concerned about the deficit, and believing that the truth has a liberal bias, Congressional Republicans want to completely eliminate subsidies to public media, because, they figure, who needs news organizations to inform the public....
When in comes to income inequality and distribution, we have left the company of the advanced, wealthy liberal democracies and are drifting closer to states where elites plunder their countries' resources and abuse their peoples. The plantation mentality is a way for the elites to keep the other classes from realizing their true condition. Controlling the narrative--the story telling, and the issues we discuss as a country--through the media and political leadership has been an effective method.
The video of Senator Bernie Sanders's is an eye-opener, and, I bet you, is news to most Americans. However, I don't expect it to reach the majority of our citizens. Sadly, too many people in the plantation only hear the stories that the elites have preselected for them, while others have bought into certain myths and now suffer from confirmation bias.
December 3, 2010
GOP Deficit Hawks? More Like Peacocks.... They Have Money for the Rich But not for Needy Kids
The House passed the bill extending the tax cuts to people who make up to $250,000 a year--this includes the first 250,000 of all taxpayers that make more than that. But, the Senate Republicans are giggling because they won't allow this bill to pass the Senate unless the tax breaks include the rich. Now, why isn't this something Obama blurts out every time he opens his mouth these days?
The best way to infuse cash into the economy is to give it to people who'll spend it right away, not those who'll save it. The unemployed will spend those checks, the rich will save it--because they buy what they want anyway without waiting for the extra tax breaks to do so!
Now the White House is negotiating with Senate Repubs to extend the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy in exchange for extending unemployment benefits. It's crazy! The WH shouldn't be working behind the scenes but in front, pointing out that unemployment benefits are more necessary for boosting the economy (and giving relief to those who need relief) than the very expensive (and long-lasting) breaks to the affluent!
We expect more from Obama--not more than what he promised as a presidential candidate! We don't expect much from the conservatives and this Republican party, other than block any worthwhile bill--like the one to extend free healthy meals to kids! Oh, no, we don't have money for that, they said. But, we do have pocket money for the rich to buy more shrimp cocktails. [by the way, the $4.5 billion this healthy meals program needs is basically a re-allocation of money not extra spending.]
The best way to infuse cash into the economy is to give it to people who'll spend it right away, not those who'll save it. The unemployed will spend those checks, the rich will save it--because they buy what they want anyway without waiting for the extra tax breaks to do so!
Now the White House is negotiating with Senate Repubs to extend the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy in exchange for extending unemployment benefits. It's crazy! The WH shouldn't be working behind the scenes but in front, pointing out that unemployment benefits are more necessary for boosting the economy (and giving relief to those who need relief) than the very expensive (and long-lasting) breaks to the affluent!
We expect more from Obama--not more than what he promised as a presidential candidate! We don't expect much from the conservatives and this Republican party, other than block any worthwhile bill--like the one to extend free healthy meals to kids! Oh, no, we don't have money for that, they said. But, we do have pocket money for the rich to buy more shrimp cocktails. [by the way, the $4.5 billion this healthy meals program needs is basically a re-allocation of money not extra spending.]
November 19, 2010
Inequality in the US and the Priorities of the Republicans: Something's Trickling Down and It's Not Rain!
Extremes of power and wealth aren't good for a country that aspires to have a system and a government that serves the people, not the elites. Those who want to maintain such disparity of wealth distribution are buying off our government, but not without the help of millions of Americans who vote against their own economic interests when they can least afford it.
Alan Grayson may have lost his reelection bid earlier this month, but he will be remembered by the progressives because of moments like these:
This Nicholas Kristof editorial asks, what country do we aspire to be? Indeed:
Alan Grayson may have lost his reelection bid earlier this month, but he will be remembered by the progressives because of moments like these:
This Nicholas Kristof editorial asks, what country do we aspire to be? Indeed:
"Would we really want to be the kind of plutocracy where the richest 1 percent possesses more net worth than the bottom 90 percent?
Oops! That’s already us. The top 1 percent of Americans owns 34 percent of America’s private net worth, according to figures compiled by the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. The bottom 90 percent owns just 29 percent."
October 17, 2010
Predictions for the 2010 Elections: Looks Good for House Republicans
An outside observer may wonder how the Democrats, having won overwhelmingly in the last election, can be blamed for a bad economy and government inefficiency. The stimulus money failed to convince Americans that this expensive action was worth it. It's hard to easily demonstrate that things would be worse hadn't been if these monies hadn't been spent. As for the gridlock, well, you know which is the "party of NO."
However, in reality American politics are unique in many ways. One is, that under our system of checks & balances, the lack of (appropriate) accountability. The executive is separate from the legislative branch, hence the President does not control the actions of Congress. Throw into the mix a quirky tradition of the Senate--the filibuster--and you can have a small minority obstructing at will and with impunity.
Of course, the Republicans were never going to accept president Obama's legitimacy. It's no accident that there are so many "birthers" in the GOP Congressional delegation. Apparently they're poised to capitalize on the effects of a bad economy--one they helped to create--and weak presidential leadership.
Midterm elections traditionally are bad for the party in the White House. All else being equal, there are a couple factors. One, that the opposition is more energized while the core supporters stay home. Two, the 10-15% of floating non-ideologues and low information voters, who have left Obama's 2008 winning coalition and are generally frustrated with gridlock and lack of clear policy from the administration.
There's a consensus today, as a snapshot of the electoral mood that the Republicans (and their tea party allies) will win enough seats [218 need for majority] in the House to control it. That's unfortunate, but the White House and the Dems hopefully will get the correct message from this: Do not try to win the minds & hearts of those who didn't vote for you in 2008. They will never come over. Be true to what Obama the candidate ran on, as most of the country still supports that agenda. Show clear objectives and demonstrate strong leadership.
However, in reality American politics are unique in many ways. One is, that under our system of checks & balances, the lack of (appropriate) accountability. The executive is separate from the legislative branch, hence the President does not control the actions of Congress. Throw into the mix a quirky tradition of the Senate--the filibuster--and you can have a small minority obstructing at will and with impunity.
Of course, the Republicans were never going to accept president Obama's legitimacy. It's no accident that there are so many "birthers" in the GOP Congressional delegation. Apparently they're poised to capitalize on the effects of a bad economy--one they helped to create--and weak presidential leadership.
Midterm elections traditionally are bad for the party in the White House. All else being equal, there are a couple factors. One, that the opposition is more energized while the core supporters stay home. Two, the 10-15% of floating non-ideologues and low information voters, who have left Obama's 2008 winning coalition and are generally frustrated with gridlock and lack of clear policy from the administration.
There's a consensus today, as a snapshot of the electoral mood that the Republicans (and their tea party allies) will win enough seats [218 need for majority] in the House to control it. That's unfortunate, but the White House and the Dems hopefully will get the correct message from this: Do not try to win the minds & hearts of those who didn't vote for you in 2008. They will never come over. Be true to what Obama the candidate ran on, as most of the country still supports that agenda. Show clear objectives and demonstrate strong leadership.
October 8, 2010
Jackson Katz: Men, Masculinities, and Media. It's Time We Paid More Attention to How Abuse Occurs
In comparative politics an important variable and a good indicator is the status of women. If you don't know anything about a country, ask the question, what is the status of women in that society? The answer will give you a very good idea of how advanced this country is.
While the US is an advanced liberal democracy, we still have serious problems, like violence against women--a problem that often is wrongly labeled as "women's issue." It's an issue that should concern all of us, as it is all of us who have to work to solve this problem.
We are all here because of mothers, and despite having women in close proximity in our lives, treating them with respect and as equals leaves much to be desired. Honoring Mothers By Improving the Lives of Women, as I wrote back on Mother's Day, is the only enlightened course of action.
Yesterday, I attended a very interesting & informative speech by Jackson Katz [click on the link for useful resources] of MVP Strategies, an organization that provides gender violence prevention training. Most men instinctively would say that they're not abusers so they don't really need to know how not to abuse. Well, it's true, most men are decent human beings, but the question Mr. Katz raised was, if we are against abuse then why most men remain silent when they witness abuse or hear abusive language?
It has taken many, many years to make some common practices uncool because most people wouldn't tolerate them. We have to change our ways and elements of our collective culture when it comes to gender violence and verbal abuse. Many laws can say one thing but if society doesn't change, there's a crisis. Same with the civil rights movement, whereas the laws were on the books but states (and the majority of their citizens) refused to accept the good principles in the Bill of Rights, and adopt common decency towards every human being.
Being politicos as we are, and given this being a pivotal election season, we should closely examine the messages and statements of those who want to be elected to Congress. We have to ask the conservative religious candidates what do they mean by "a woman must submit to her husband"? What do they mean by "traditional ways"?
Also, what kind of culture and message does Linda McMahon bring to our discourse? Why haven't we seen her being challenged about the kind of message she was putting out while being the president of wrestling entertainment? Jackson Katz, I've heard, will remedy this soon. [check the Huffington Post this weekend] I've seen a preview of what WWE has been doing with women on its shows and it's ugly.
Stay tuned, and be alert!
While the US is an advanced liberal democracy, we still have serious problems, like violence against women--a problem that often is wrongly labeled as "women's issue." It's an issue that should concern all of us, as it is all of us who have to work to solve this problem.
We are all here because of mothers, and despite having women in close proximity in our lives, treating them with respect and as equals leaves much to be desired. Honoring Mothers By Improving the Lives of Women, as I wrote back on Mother's Day, is the only enlightened course of action.
Yesterday, I attended a very interesting & informative speech by Jackson Katz [click on the link for useful resources] of MVP Strategies, an organization that provides gender violence prevention training. Most men instinctively would say that they're not abusers so they don't really need to know how not to abuse. Well, it's true, most men are decent human beings, but the question Mr. Katz raised was, if we are against abuse then why most men remain silent when they witness abuse or hear abusive language?
It has taken many, many years to make some common practices uncool because most people wouldn't tolerate them. We have to change our ways and elements of our collective culture when it comes to gender violence and verbal abuse. Many laws can say one thing but if society doesn't change, there's a crisis. Same with the civil rights movement, whereas the laws were on the books but states (and the majority of their citizens) refused to accept the good principles in the Bill of Rights, and adopt common decency towards every human being.
Being politicos as we are, and given this being a pivotal election season, we should closely examine the messages and statements of those who want to be elected to Congress. We have to ask the conservative religious candidates what do they mean by "a woman must submit to her husband"? What do they mean by "traditional ways"?
Also, what kind of culture and message does Linda McMahon bring to our discourse? Why haven't we seen her being challenged about the kind of message she was putting out while being the president of wrestling entertainment? Jackson Katz, I've heard, will remedy this soon. [check the Huffington Post this weekend] I've seen a preview of what WWE has been doing with women on its shows and it's ugly.
Stay tuned, and be alert!
October 1, 2010
Some Simple Truths Must Be Clearly Communicated. Tax Cuts for the People? Which People?
Simplicity is not always possible when it comes to complicated issues, but without people being informed their impressions about reality affect their behavior, including how the vote--if they do--which is a problem for the Democrats this election.
Our president has the intellectual ability to grasp complicated issues but he needs to improve his message, because he doesn't speak to a captive audience in an academic auditorium. The noise by Fox, the Tea parties and the GOP paint Obama and the Congressional Dems as ineffective leaders. It's incredible, isn't it, that Superman hasn't fixed yet all the problems Republicans have helped to create over a decade, so, therefore, the GOP is asking to be put back in (more) control of the legislative agenda!
The video above is a clear, concise illustration of the issue of tax cuts and their effect on our budget. Such messages have to increase in frequency until the election, November 2nd. Of course, many races will be decided on local issues and personalities, but their effect will be felt nationally for many years to come.
As soon as we see good signs that the White House is coming out actively campaigning and refining a good message, we had both the prez and his veep chastising the Democratic base as whiners and too demanding. What the hell? The White House, instead, should take a good look at its failure to push through many elements of the progressive agenda candidate Obama promised and asked the country to support. He has disappointed much of his most active members--usually the ones who volunteer and come out to vote in midterm elections!
Obama should be saying that he'll try harder to lead the country in a more progressive direction. This was the message he ran on and the country responded enthusiastically. It was not just about voting down the incompetent, corrupt, and disastrous Republican rein, but it was about universal health care, end the wars, energy independence, immigration reform, controlling the excesses of Wall Street, etc. All these issues still have the majority support of the country. Maybe with the imminent departure of key high-level White House staff, the president will re-evaluate his strategy and message.
There are 4-5 weeks left during which things can change. The country still doesn't trust the Republicans and don't like their new (old) policy proposals. But, uncertainty about the future and present economic stagnation make voters uneasy. Some reminders and comparisons are necessary to be made soon. In politics one should always ask, what's the alternative?
Our president has the intellectual ability to grasp complicated issues but he needs to improve his message, because he doesn't speak to a captive audience in an academic auditorium. The noise by Fox, the Tea parties and the GOP paint Obama and the Congressional Dems as ineffective leaders. It's incredible, isn't it, that Superman hasn't fixed yet all the problems Republicans have helped to create over a decade, so, therefore, the GOP is asking to be put back in (more) control of the legislative agenda!
The video above is a clear, concise illustration of the issue of tax cuts and their effect on our budget. Such messages have to increase in frequency until the election, November 2nd. Of course, many races will be decided on local issues and personalities, but their effect will be felt nationally for many years to come.
As soon as we see good signs that the White House is coming out actively campaigning and refining a good message, we had both the prez and his veep chastising the Democratic base as whiners and too demanding. What the hell? The White House, instead, should take a good look at its failure to push through many elements of the progressive agenda candidate Obama promised and asked the country to support. He has disappointed much of his most active members--usually the ones who volunteer and come out to vote in midterm elections!
Obama should be saying that he'll try harder to lead the country in a more progressive direction. This was the message he ran on and the country responded enthusiastically. It was not just about voting down the incompetent, corrupt, and disastrous Republican rein, but it was about universal health care, end the wars, energy independence, immigration reform, controlling the excesses of Wall Street, etc. All these issues still have the majority support of the country. Maybe with the imminent departure of key high-level White House staff, the president will re-evaluate his strategy and message.
There are 4-5 weeks left during which things can change. The country still doesn't trust the Republicans and don't like their new (old) policy proposals. But, uncertainty about the future and present economic stagnation make voters uneasy. Some reminders and comparisons are necessary to be made soon. In politics one should always ask, what's the alternative?
September 20, 2010
Don't They Want the Public to Know How Well BP Cleans Our Beaches?
This situation provides an interesting point of discussion about the role of government. What should the government do before, during, and after a disaster like the 206-million-gallon leak in the Gulf. Seriously, should the government regulate and supervise certain economic actities? How is the public good being served? Assuming the government works in the interst of the public.
The video above demonstrates that government can have silly rules--like not filming or digging a few inches of sand in national parks, or that special & narrow interests have prevailed. It could be incompetence too. Why shouldn't the public know how well BP is cleaning up the spill on our beaches? And, shouldn't our government want to be transparent about such things?
The video above demonstrates that government can have silly rules--like not filming or digging a few inches of sand in national parks, or that special & narrow interests have prevailed. It could be incompetence too. Why shouldn't the public know how well BP is cleaning up the spill on our beaches? And, shouldn't our government want to be transparent about such things?
September 17, 2010
The Triumph of the Tea Parties + Republican Morass = More Dysfunctional Politics
It seems that the tea parties have some success in the Republican primaries this year, producing nominees that are way out of where most Americans are politically. The teabaggers may represent a growing movement but I think such reactionary and rather extreme groups don't have much lasting effect once crises subside. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is being pulled further to ultra-conservatism and to a political base that's small and shrinking.
Irresponsible leadership, careless rhetoric, and promoting crazy ideas eventually comes back to bite you. The GOP will not compete for control of the Senate this year because of the teabaggers. Moderate Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) said today that if the moderates are endangered in the GOP, the party cannot be a majority party. In the northeast, ME has the only Rep Senators, while in the House there are zero from New England, and only 2 if NY is included. This may change in this election and the next, but this region--and for that matter most of the country--is not moving in the GOP's direction.
Think of the major policies, ideological stances, and the candidates on the Republican side. Do you see the majority of Americans being attracted to them in the future? I want a modern Republican party, one that promotes science, is tolerant & cosmopolitan. If it promoted fiscal responsibility in an honest way, it could be helpful. Please, don't tell me about Repubs being for fiscal responsibility since Nixon.. All have been big spenders and deficit peacocks... all show but no substance.
The budget cannot be balanced by cuts alone. Revenue is needed too. And, giving a trillion dollar tax cut to the rich isn't right and won't help either. As long as the GOP runs on an anti-government platform, it should remain out of government. In a free and advanced country, the government is of-by-for the people. The "for" means the government serves the interests of the people not the elite's.
Did you hear about a country that 1 in 7 people live in poverty? Where the middle class wages have remained stagnant (adjusted for inflation) since 1973? Where almost 50 million people are still without or limited health care?... That's 1 in 6 with no health care insurance. Where infant mortality in some states is much higher than Cuba's and Iran's? Where the gap between the rich & every one else has increased and now it's bigger than the so-called Gilded Age?
Ah, freedom! It's a nice thing to have. But, it has to be connected to meaningful choices and opportunities.
Think of the major policies, ideological stances, and the candidates on the Republican side. Do you see the majority of Americans being attracted to them in the future? I want a modern Republican party, one that promotes science, is tolerant & cosmopolitan. If it promoted fiscal responsibility in an honest way, it could be helpful. Please, don't tell me about Repubs being for fiscal responsibility since Nixon.. All have been big spenders and deficit peacocks... all show but no substance.
The budget cannot be balanced by cuts alone. Revenue is needed too. And, giving a trillion dollar tax cut to the rich isn't right and won't help either. As long as the GOP runs on an anti-government platform, it should remain out of government. In a free and advanced country, the government is of-by-for the people. The "for" means the government serves the interests of the people not the elite's.
Did you hear about a country that 1 in 7 people live in poverty? Where the middle class wages have remained stagnant (adjusted for inflation) since 1973? Where almost 50 million people are still without or limited health care?... That's 1 in 6 with no health care insurance. Where infant mortality in some states is much higher than Cuba's and Iran's? Where the gap between the rich & every one else has increased and now it's bigger than the so-called Gilded Age?
Ah, freedom! It's a nice thing to have. But, it has to be connected to meaningful choices and opportunities.
September 3, 2010
What To Look Forward For in the November Elections
It's the economy, stupid. September has been good on Wall Street but no so good on Main Street. Anywhere between 25 and 35% of our working force has felt the effects of unemployment since the Republicans were in office in 2008. The latter are saying now that the Dems haven't fixed the problems of the Great Recession in 1.5 years that they created when they controlled the government.
Unfortunately there's a big percentage of Americans who have short memory and float from side to side and often decide elections. They are low information voters, moved by impressions of power and outcomes. For the life of me, I can't see why voters would return control of the House to the Republicans. The congressional GOP has one strategy: to frustrate any Dem initiatives and make Obama one-termer. The hell with the country. Controlling one chamber (the House) will produce more dysfunctional government. Indecision, delays, bad laws, inaction, and a protraction of the economic crisis all are bad for Obama in 2012 and the Dems.
We can consider ourselves a bit lucky that the biggest threat to the Republican party right now is the tea parties. If it weren't for the teabaggers wrestling control from key GOPers, the Dems would also lose the Senate this year. Take for example Dem Harry Reid in Nevada. He would be trailing by double digits today if his opponent wasn't such a nutcase. Instead he's ahead by a couple points.
Now, what has the Dem in the White House and those in Congress done? Not much. They have managed to alienate their most reliable and active base--the progressives and those groups that believed the country would finally get bold leadership to pull it our of the morass the conservatives had sunk us in. But, no such bold leadership came despite huge majorities, a huge electoral win, and high approval ratings when Obama took office in Jan. 2009.
I've written lots on this wasted opportunity and how the Dems have been incompetent in managing their good fortunes after the last general election. Let's look to the future now. But, in a democracy with popular elections there has to be some kind of strategy, good communication with the public, and, yes, a clear & bold policy. The president usually wins public fights with Congress if he knows how to play the game. He has to be out there every day saying articulating a clear policy while pointing to the obstructionists. The current president should see how Clinton played the Republicans when they shut down the government via their congressional leadership.
The economy will be a major factor in this election and it ain't getting much better between today and election day. But, from Labor Day on the voters pay more attention to politics and begin to form their opinions.
The bottom line is who can convince the voters that they can do a better job with the economy after the November election. In theory there should be no contest, but in reality... well, we're seeing it right now. I just think there's a small (and getting smaller) window for the Dems to stem their loses and retain control of the House. Yet, I wouldn't hold my breath on this one.
Unfortunately there's a big percentage of Americans who have short memory and float from side to side and often decide elections. They are low information voters, moved by impressions of power and outcomes. For the life of me, I can't see why voters would return control of the House to the Republicans. The congressional GOP has one strategy: to frustrate any Dem initiatives and make Obama one-termer. The hell with the country. Controlling one chamber (the House) will produce more dysfunctional government. Indecision, delays, bad laws, inaction, and a protraction of the economic crisis all are bad for Obama in 2012 and the Dems.
We can consider ourselves a bit lucky that the biggest threat to the Republican party right now is the tea parties. If it weren't for the teabaggers wrestling control from key GOPers, the Dems would also lose the Senate this year. Take for example Dem Harry Reid in Nevada. He would be trailing by double digits today if his opponent wasn't such a nutcase. Instead he's ahead by a couple points.
Now, what has the Dem in the White House and those in Congress done? Not much. They have managed to alienate their most reliable and active base--the progressives and those groups that believed the country would finally get bold leadership to pull it our of the morass the conservatives had sunk us in. But, no such bold leadership came despite huge majorities, a huge electoral win, and high approval ratings when Obama took office in Jan. 2009.
 | |
| Drildo. Many voters will be satisfied (one way or another) in November |
The economy will be a major factor in this election and it ain't getting much better between today and election day. But, from Labor Day on the voters pay more attention to politics and begin to form their opinions.
- Bigger than 5% points in polls by end of this month will be insurmountable by election day. Time to act is now.
- In a low turnout midterm election the more energized base produces huge advantage. Thus far, the Dem leadership has failed to energize its base. Why? Because, they shied away from legislation (jobs bills, tax breaks for the rich, immigration, etc) even if there are big majorities in favor of such bills. The Times has an article on college voters, here.
- Obama must set forth a clear agenda now and make a promise to implement it one way or another. He should establish clear objectives and send a clear message to the Republicans and Dems that he's going to be a stronger leader than he's been so far.
The bottom line is who can convince the voters that they can do a better job with the economy after the November election. In theory there should be no contest, but in reality... well, we're seeing it right now. I just think there's a small (and getting smaller) window for the Dems to stem their loses and retain control of the House. Yet, I wouldn't hold my breath on this one.
August 8, 2010
Don't Build that "World Trade Center" Mosque. But, Then, to be Fair, Remove all Churches from "Sensitive" Areas Too!
Is the US a Christian country? I mean it in a legal, constitutional sense, not that the majority of its citizens are Christians. According to our Constitution, and the intent of the founders, the US is a secular country that separates religion from the state, whereas the government cannot favor one religion over another, and that every person here can freely choose to take any religion or laugh & scorn all of them. This is a fundamental American right. Why should we turn it into a privilege?
If this country respects this principle, then a church, a mosque, or an altar to Zeus can be built. The same rules should apply to every religion, sect, or any fantastical organization--not only to the "privileged" ones who happen to be Christians. Muslims were among the victims of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Any Muslim, Christian, or Jew doesn't have to be in agreement or represented by those who act in the name of a religion. The Catholic Church, for example, was a collaborator of Nazi Germany, but many Catholics (priests included) resisted the Nazis. Likewise, I don't feel responsible for acts I have no control over--and no one asked me about them, like the horrible things whites have done to other races. Our own country has done horrible things in the past, but I don't think I should pay for them now.
I hear a lot about respect. That the Muslim center (which will include a mosque) is disrespectful to the victims of 9-11 by being built some 2 blocks away from the site. What is the rule here? I don't see the reason for objecting--other than our government shouldn't be subsidizing any religious organization by offering tax-free status. But this should apply to all religions.
You do know that all the main three Abrahamic religions (and most others) are mutually exclusive, right? Every single one of them professes to hold the absolute truth and the only way to salvation. All those outside this faith are condemned to go to hell. When any of those religions dominates the government it usually implements persecutions against the infidels and the non-believers. This isn't respect. It's dogmatic. Therefore, every religion a priori is against the others.
Interestingly enough, all three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) entertain the justification of guilt by association. Children could pay for the sins of their parents. Also, that God can deliver collective punishment. We were told by some popular American preachers that 9-11, and hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for the gays, feminists, ACLU, and the godless hedonists. So, yeah, collective punishment, because all are guilty of some kind of trespass....
I'm wondering whether the serious crimes some Christians have committed, some via the official Church establishment should prevent churches from being built near "sensitive" areas, like Jerusalem. The "offensive" principle should apply there too, no?
Even if I think that religion is adopting a belief system with certain obligations without reference to evidence or reason, many people do need religion so I have no problem people expressing their faith--as long as it does not being imposed on me. Fear and the need to be saved makes people behave. If hard-core criminals (many in prisons) find a god that makes them a better person, all the better for the rest of us too. If a believer gives more to charity or avoids law-breaking because he things God is watching, then it's just fine by me.
A Duke University study [link to the NYT article] just came out suggesting that contemporary mosques are a deterrent to terrorism! If it's true, then I'd say, built more of those damn things as fast as you can. Otherwise, young hot-headed Muslims may seek other venues, or may be more prone to be recruited by the jihadist fundamentalists.
When will the demonstrations outside the Pentagon will commence? What, you didn't know there's a mosque in there?!! Tsk.
Marxism needs to be revised. Religion isn't the "opium of the people" in that it may sedate reasoning but I think it's more like crack cocaine! It may make some people too excited as to do some crazy and stupid stuff.
If this country respects this principle, then a church, a mosque, or an altar to Zeus can be built. The same rules should apply to every religion, sect, or any fantastical organization--not only to the "privileged" ones who happen to be Christians. Muslims were among the victims of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Any Muslim, Christian, or Jew doesn't have to be in agreement or represented by those who act in the name of a religion. The Catholic Church, for example, was a collaborator of Nazi Germany, but many Catholics (priests included) resisted the Nazis. Likewise, I don't feel responsible for acts I have no control over--and no one asked me about them, like the horrible things whites have done to other races. Our own country has done horrible things in the past, but I don't think I should pay for them now.
I hear a lot about respect. That the Muslim center (which will include a mosque) is disrespectful to the victims of 9-11 by being built some 2 blocks away from the site. What is the rule here? I don't see the reason for objecting--other than our government shouldn't be subsidizing any religious organization by offering tax-free status. But this should apply to all religions.
You do know that all the main three Abrahamic religions (and most others) are mutually exclusive, right? Every single one of them professes to hold the absolute truth and the only way to salvation. All those outside this faith are condemned to go to hell. When any of those religions dominates the government it usually implements persecutions against the infidels and the non-believers. This isn't respect. It's dogmatic. Therefore, every religion a priori is against the others.
Interestingly enough, all three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) entertain the justification of guilt by association. Children could pay for the sins of their parents. Also, that God can deliver collective punishment. We were told by some popular American preachers that 9-11, and hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for the gays, feminists, ACLU, and the godless hedonists. So, yeah, collective punishment, because all are guilty of some kind of trespass....
 |
| Soon the discussion centered around whose hat was the best for the occasion |
I'm wondering whether the serious crimes some Christians have committed, some via the official Church establishment should prevent churches from being built near "sensitive" areas, like Jerusalem. The "offensive" principle should apply there too, no?
Even if I think that religion is adopting a belief system with certain obligations without reference to evidence or reason, many people do need religion so I have no problem people expressing their faith--as long as it does not being imposed on me. Fear and the need to be saved makes people behave. If hard-core criminals (many in prisons) find a god that makes them a better person, all the better for the rest of us too. If a believer gives more to charity or avoids law-breaking because he things God is watching, then it's just fine by me.
A Duke University study [link to the NYT article] just came out suggesting that contemporary mosques are a deterrent to terrorism! If it's true, then I'd say, built more of those damn things as fast as you can. Otherwise, young hot-headed Muslims may seek other venues, or may be more prone to be recruited by the jihadist fundamentalists.
When will the demonstrations outside the Pentagon will commence? What, you didn't know there's a mosque in there?!! Tsk.
Marxism needs to be revised. Religion isn't the "opium of the people" in that it may sedate reasoning but I think it's more like crack cocaine! It may make some people too excited as to do some crazy and stupid stuff.
August 6, 2010
Shameful! Blame the Dem Leadership in Congress for this.
The Dems are afraid to tackle the immigration issue before the Congressional election this November so they sacrifice decency and common sense to the even more ridiculous Republican demands. The House failed to pass a bill that would give health care benefits to the 9-11 responders. The bill received 255 votes for and 159 against. Shame to those 159 politicians who voted against giving benefits to people who rushed to the scene in NYC and later worked at the site for the rescue/recovery/clean up effort. The Bush EPA, told everyone that the air at the World Trade Center disaster zone was OK to breathe. The Giuliani City Hall, and the Pataki state government failed to give adequate protection and alert the workers & emergency responders.
But, wait a second. Isn't 255 a bigger number than 159? How come a bill that gets a majority like this fails to pass, you ask. Well, because the Dems brought it under a rule that required a 2/3 super majority to pass! Why? Because the Dems did not want to confront the issue the Repubs were raising: We should not pay for health benefits for any undocumented worker (I wonder how many there could have been) who without proper papers rushed to the scene to help out, got injured or breathed in the cancer-causing polluted air. Those bastards, they should die for helping out without having the proper visa!
Yeah, this is the absurd and obscene reason the Repubs used to oppose this bill. Oh, and to shield big business from paying taxes in the US. The bill was to be funded by ..ending the tax loopholes the multinational pharmas use to avoid paying US taxes!
What a shame, shame, shame!
But, wait a second. Isn't 255 a bigger number than 159? How come a bill that gets a majority like this fails to pass, you ask. Well, because the Dems brought it under a rule that required a 2/3 super majority to pass! Why? Because the Dems did not want to confront the issue the Repubs were raising: We should not pay for health benefits for any undocumented worker (I wonder how many there could have been) who without proper papers rushed to the scene to help out, got injured or breathed in the cancer-causing polluted air. Those bastards, they should die for helping out without having the proper visa!
Yeah, this is the absurd and obscene reason the Repubs used to oppose this bill. Oh, and to shield big business from paying taxes in the US. The bill was to be funded by ..ending the tax loopholes the multinational pharmas use to avoid paying US taxes!
What a shame, shame, shame!
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| I Give Up - 9/11 Responders Bill | ||||
| ||||
July 21, 2010
Those Inglourious Basterds and Their Government Benefits
It seems that economists agree on the need to extend the unemployment benefits not only to help millions of Americans who can't find a job but also stimulate the economy by putting money into the hands of people who are going to spend it on necessities. Of course, there are some who abuse the availability of this government assistance as it happens everywhere when people can exploit loopholes. The greater benefit has to taken into account.
Also, it's easier to see the abuse of the people who play the system. Yet, the larger abuse or the sweet deals that are struck behind closed doors are hidden from public view. The image of a lazy drunkard who's on public assistance alienates and creates a personal experience that makes the public skeptical about the need for certain social programs. But, who knows that just 2% of the taxpayers (yeah, those super rich) got a tax break under president Bush that cost the US Treasury $678 billion? That's OK, while $33 billion to extend unemployment benefits is not? Who needs what?!
I'm fed up with the deficit peacocks--who are supposedly concerned about the national deficit--and they keep arguing for more tax cuts and services. There is no way the deficit can be eliminated by cutting services, unless we become like Somalia. [see the video on this blog's sidebar]. Revenue comes from taxes, either from the taxpayer or from taxing goods and services. On the national stage at least, it's been the Republicans who have created huge deficits by giving the store away to the wealthy & powerful.
One more thing about cutting services. Yes, there's waste and inefficiency, and corruption in the government & its various functions. The important question here is, who needs those services? Who needs the government of, by, for the people? And, guess what... It's the big players that go to the government to cap their liabilities, weaken consumer protection, kill competition, maintain low wages, privatize profits and socialize the risks of doing business.
No country can be strong if it has poor financial practices, but the sane thing is to be prudent. While the times are good, it should save and invest, but when there's a need, then it should spend. When I'm healthy and productive, I save and I invest, but when I'm sick or out of a job, I run a deficit. It's this simple.
Also, it's easier to see the abuse of the people who play the system. Yet, the larger abuse or the sweet deals that are struck behind closed doors are hidden from public view. The image of a lazy drunkard who's on public assistance alienates and creates a personal experience that makes the public skeptical about the need for certain social programs. But, who knows that just 2% of the taxpayers (yeah, those super rich) got a tax break under president Bush that cost the US Treasury $678 billion? That's OK, while $33 billion to extend unemployment benefits is not? Who needs what?!
I'm fed up with the deficit peacocks--who are supposedly concerned about the national deficit--and they keep arguing for more tax cuts and services. There is no way the deficit can be eliminated by cutting services, unless we become like Somalia. [see the video on this blog's sidebar]. Revenue comes from taxes, either from the taxpayer or from taxing goods and services. On the national stage at least, it's been the Republicans who have created huge deficits by giving the store away to the wealthy & powerful.
One more thing about cutting services. Yes, there's waste and inefficiency, and corruption in the government & its various functions. The important question here is, who needs those services? Who needs the government of, by, for the people? And, guess what... It's the big players that go to the government to cap their liabilities, weaken consumer protection, kill competition, maintain low wages, privatize profits and socialize the risks of doing business.
No country can be strong if it has poor financial practices, but the sane thing is to be prudent. While the times are good, it should save and invest, but when there's a need, then it should spend. When I'm healthy and productive, I save and I invest, but when I'm sick or out of a job, I run a deficit. It's this simple.
July 5, 2010
Stay The Course? The Continuation of the Afghanistan War Is Obama's Choosing
The ridiculous Republican chair, Michael Steele, has put his foot in his mouth when he said that the Afghanistan War is something the current president initiated. However, it is the sitting president that makes the decision to keep or disengage the US from this conflict. Obama seems to want to pursue a very costly war with no end in sight, and no real chance for turning Afghanistan into a stable country.
Fareed Zakaria raises some very important questions in this video. I agree with the basis of his argument, that this expensive US war involvement should end, sooner than later.
Fareed Zakaria raises some very important questions in this video. I agree with the basis of his argument, that this expensive US war involvement should end, sooner than later.
July 3, 2010
The Essense of Patriotism
As we celebrate Independence Day with fireworks and lots of displays of our national flag, patriotism, obviously, is emphasized. Besides the emotions of love and pride, patriotism should include other rational and practical aspects.
"Love it or leave it" is a moronic statement uttered too often by the "ultra-patriots"... who are usually not progressive beings. Summarily stated, no change would have ever occurred if people lived by that motto. The Pew Center's recent poll on patriotism shows some interesting views among Americans.
We have to remember that patriotism is not blind devotion whereas reasonable criticism, evaluation, and corrective action are absent. The flag represents certain values, above all the rights and privileges we enjoy in this country. But, we didn't arrive here by divine ordinance--we got here after a long trek filled with trials & tribulations, and because many people fought for those rights. Of course, the journey continues as there are still strong forces for regression, prejudice, and willful ignorance.
For all the advancements and great achievements the US has managed, we are not the freest country, the most educated, the healthiest, the richest (per capita), nor do our people report one of the highest happiness levels. We're stressed, have too much poverty, too much suffering (health care included), too much militaristic, too wide income disparity, and too much violence.
So, clearly there's much to be done. This country was built on rugged individualism but also on the strength of our secular institutions embedded in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights included. During times of crisis, the national makeup of a country is revealed. The choices the people make are paramount.
Ancient Athens became too powerful, too rich, and too arrogant. As Athenians believed they were invincible, they overextended themselves. The defeats came, and crises ensued. This, in turn, challenged the confidence of the citizens and their democracy. As things worsened, Athenians gave up all those values and practices that had made their city-state great.
The US must avoid the same path. American exceptionalism must be checked, and the neo-cons who exaggerate it must be defeated. The Tea Parties [as we now know are basically groups of conservative Republicans and other extremists] lack the characteristics of the protest movements of the 1960s & 70s. The former are for a minimal government that's impotent to help the less powerful in our society, while the "radical" movements of the past were more altruistic--about civil rights, gender and racial equality, and an end to imperialism.
Enjoy the holiday weekend and enjoy life in general. Just remember, we can't be tourists in our own country. We have to help progress continue.
We have to remember that patriotism is not blind devotion whereas reasonable criticism, evaluation, and corrective action are absent. The flag represents certain values, above all the rights and privileges we enjoy in this country. But, we didn't arrive here by divine ordinance--we got here after a long trek filled with trials & tribulations, and because many people fought for those rights. Of course, the journey continues as there are still strong forces for regression, prejudice, and willful ignorance.
For all the advancements and great achievements the US has managed, we are not the freest country, the most educated, the healthiest, the richest (per capita), nor do our people report one of the highest happiness levels. We're stressed, have too much poverty, too much suffering (health care included), too much militaristic, too wide income disparity, and too much violence.
So, clearly there's much to be done. This country was built on rugged individualism but also on the strength of our secular institutions embedded in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights included. During times of crisis, the national makeup of a country is revealed. The choices the people make are paramount.
Ancient Athens became too powerful, too rich, and too arrogant. As Athenians believed they were invincible, they overextended themselves. The defeats came, and crises ensued. This, in turn, challenged the confidence of the citizens and their democracy. As things worsened, Athenians gave up all those values and practices that had made their city-state great.
The US must avoid the same path. American exceptionalism must be checked, and the neo-cons who exaggerate it must be defeated. The Tea Parties [as we now know are basically groups of conservative Republicans and other extremists] lack the characteristics of the protest movements of the 1960s & 70s. The former are for a minimal government that's impotent to help the less powerful in our society, while the "radical" movements of the past were more altruistic--about civil rights, gender and racial equality, and an end to imperialism.Enjoy the holiday weekend and enjoy life in general. Just remember, we can't be tourists in our own country. We have to help progress continue.
May 22, 2010
God, Gays, and Guns... and, the Role of Government
Remember Bobby Jindal's response to president Obama's first State of the Union address? Why do we spend millions of taxpayer money to monitor volcanoes, he asked, and that there's nothing Americans can't do on their own! Then a volcano erupted... I'm sure you've heard of the recent oily mess off the coast of several states whose voters think Jindal's view of an impotent state is right on the money.The conservatives keep saying that the marketplace can take care of the bad actors in it. Yeah, right. They say that bad, unsafe practices will be punished by the consumers and the court system. Of course, this doesn't happen because we know it hasn't! Bad practices, including illegalities aren't necessarily bad for business. Especially BIG business. Wall Street gambles, screws up, and what happens? Too big to fail comes to my mind.
The people in charge of making decisions are rewarded with huge bonuses and golden parachutes. Their companies are "too big to fail" we're told. Often the end result is: privatizing the profit and socializing the risk. Capitalism for most of the people, socialism for the rich.
The government should be the expression of the public will and it should act in the interest of the people not the few elites. Guess what? The conservative rhetoric has managed to disorient too many Americans who believe "government takeover" means less freedom! Obviously, government is not the solution to everything. Nor, that the government cannot be abusive. Yes, it can.
Who should protect the public interest in the month-long ecological & economic disaster of the BP oil leak? Guess whose interests are served when the government regulators are absent. Or, that the law (passed with the help of lobbyists) limits the oil industry's liabilities to a few million dollars? And, why did the oil industry got huge tax breaks (while the government failed to collect royalties for it) while it was making record profits?
The T-baggers are angry at government in general--and some of their anger is justified--but their anger is only matched by their misunderstandings & misconceptions. We need better government that serves the commonwealth, not the interests of those who have lots and want more.
By the way, who's going to protect me from the gun-totting tots who want to walk around and go into coffee shops, restaurants and bars professing their Second Amendment rights? I thought we left behind the Old West lawless frontier, and we decided that a civil society has found other means to protect itself than having everyone carry guns everywhere.
Yeah, God, Gays, and Guns... {who said this?...}
May 12, 2010
God Forbid...
"As a Christian and as a public servant, I have never wavered in my belief that this world and everything in it is a masterpiece created by the hands of God. As a member of the Alabama Board of Education, the record clearly shows that I fought to ensure the teaching of creationism in our school textbooks." Republican gubernatorial candidate in Alabama
In the race for governor of Alabama, one Republican is accusing another for supporting the theory of evolution! Alabama will most likely elect one of these 2 idiots as its next governor, who in collaboration with the other ignoramuses in the state legislature will make sure students will get their best education...
I'm happy that the Olympian Gods will get their recognition as Zeus will be restored to his glory of being the god of gods! What? Not that creationism theory? Why not?
I see something positive from this race in Alabama, that conservatives openly define themselves as creationists and that liberals are for the theory of evolution and the scientific method. It may take a few more years for the good people of Alabama to reach the 21st century, but I hope that our country is moving away (albeit too slowly) from the nuttery of the conservatives.
Unfortunately, the US Republican party is being reactionary and seems to becoming even more conservative. This is either because it's shrinking political base is more conservative or that the wingnuts have taken over the party.
Ah, no "mavericks" in the GOP any more... Sarah Palin for 2012! I'm rooting for her.
UPDATE (5/12/2010): Wait, it gets better. The Republican party in Maine has been taken over by... Well, judge for yourself. Here's from the newly adopted platform (as reported by the blog, Maine Politics):
>>An overwhelming majority of delegates to the Maine Republican convention tonight voted to scrap the the proposed party platform and replace it with a document created by a group of Tea Party activists.
The official platform for the Republican Party of Maine is now a mix of right-wing fringe policies, libertarian buzzwords and outright conspiracy theories.
The document calls for the elimination of the Department of Education and the Federal Reserve, demands an investigation of "collusion between government and industry in the global warming myth," suggests the adoption of "Austrian Economics," declares that "'Freedom of Religion' does not mean 'freedom from religion'" (which I guess makes atheism illegal), insists that "healthcare is not a right," calls for the abrogation of the "UN Treaty on Rights of the Child" and the "Law Of The Sea Treaty" and declares that we must resist "efforts to create a one world government."<<<
May 9, 2010
Honoring Mothers By Raising the Status of Women
Sunday, May 09, 2010, is Mother's Day. Everywhere in the world a mother is giving birth right now, some by choice, some by virtue of being kept as chattel. In Africa there's a good chance the mother is infected with HIV/AIDS. It's not here fault, because it's her husband that most likely infected her. And, she's told by her religious leaders that condoms are worst than disease itself.In Niger, a mother has an average of 8 children, and in much in the poorest countries women spend most of their lives being pregnant and/or caring for little children. In parts of Alabama and Mississippi infant mortality is higher than in Iran. More than one million little children go to bed hungry every night in the US.
Celebrating motherhood has to be more than the activities of one day in the year. We all had mothers, so it would be nice if we could make their lives better. Take a look at the UN Millennium Development Goals and you'll see that every step we take to fulfilling those goals is a meaningful improvement in the lives of mothers--poverty & hunger, education, gender equality, combat HIV/AIDS, maternal health, etc.
Honoring motherhood begins with treating women better.
The following is from my last year's post, but I think it's worth repeating:
Motherhood cannot be separated from the condition of women in the world today.
UK's The Independent has a great article about that condition. The British government in cooperation with human rights groups have found some very disturbing facts:
- Two-thirds of the world's 800 million illiterate adults are women as girls are not seen as worth the investment, or are busy collecting water or firewood or doing other domestic chores.
- Two million girls aged from five to 15 join the commercial sex market every year.
- Domestic violence kills and injures more people in the developing world than war, cancer or traffic accidents.
- Seventy per cent of the world's poorest people are women.
- Violence against women causes more deaths and disabilities among women aged 15 to 44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents or war.
- Women produce half the world's food, but own less than two per cent of the land.
- Of the more than one billion people living in extreme poverty, 70 per cent are women.
- Almost a third of the world's women are homeless or live in inadequate housing.
- Half of all murdered women are killed by their current or former husbands or partners.
- Every minute a woman dies as a result of pregnancy complications.
- Women work two-thirds of the world's working hours, yet earn only a tenth of its income.
- One woman in three will be raped, beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime.
- 43 million girls are not able to go to school.
- In 2007, one million HIV-positive women died of AIDS-related illnesses because they could not get the drugs they needed.
- Human Rights Watch, in reports on 15 countries including Afghanistan, Brazil, Morocco, Papua New Guinea, Togo and South Africa, has identified violence against schoolgirls, child domestic workers and those in conflict with the law as on the rise.
- Women across the developing world are the victims of systematic abuse.
April 7, 2010
The Changing Demographics and the Backpedaling of Conervatives
Certain Rhetoric Often Leads to Violence
I read just recently that for the first time ever we're about to have more non-white babies born in the US. It can happen this year, or the next few, but the fact is that the demographics of this country have changed and will change more. Is this politically significant?
There's lots of speculation about the prospects of the Democrats in the upcoming election in November. Some Repubs are salivating, believing that they could capture the House, at least. They point to the MA special Senate election where a Repub (Scott Brown) took over Kennedy's seat. There may be a big Repub gain but I'm willing to say it now, way in advance. Assuming there's no new war or terrorist attack, the election will hinge on the state of the economy.
The conservatives and their loud mouthpieces are creating a lot of noise by being against president Obama and Congressional Dems. They have no new ideas besides worn rhetoric about "freedom" ,"states' rights", security, etc. And, they want to repeal what the Dems have passed through Congress since 2009. A recession or a bad economy with high unemployment isn't good for any incumbent. There will be loses for the Dems, but they may not be catastrophic.
The conservative base is much more excited right now. The doom and gloom--including rhetoric that can lead to violence--can serve them politically in the short term. It's not a good long-term strategy.
Campaigns do the following. Energize the party loyalists, bring home the voters that have supported the party before, discourage the opposition from voting, and, most importantly, make connections between the voters' preconceived notions and the candidate or the party.
Here's a fact: Most people don't change their minds during a campaign. They may look for reasons to vote in a particular way, but being educated about the issues and then rationally deciding what to vote for is a myth we like to tell about our citizenry. A masterful campaign is to make connections between voters' preferences and the candidate.
Here's another interesting fact: There is more partisanship in the US that we're being told. Even the majority of "independents" have strong leanings. They may occasionally vote for the other party but they tend to identify more with one that they frequently vote for. Some of the INDs are true swingers and often decide elections. They are low-information voters and can be undecided right up to the election if they're exposed to a balanced bombardment from the two sides!
INDs and Swingers have another trait: they tend to prefer a strong leader who may be wrong to a weak leader who may be right! This is why many of us have been extremely critical of Obama for wasting a whole year trying to be a ..community organizer from the White House.
Ah, I almost forgot about the demographics. Can you identify any main plank in the Republican platform and core policy proposals that has a long-term future with the changing demographics? Also, if other advanced democracies provide some kind of an example, can you identify those US conservative stances that will be adopted by the majority of Americans in the near (or distant future)? Things like outlawing of abortion, more theocracy, no regulation of the marketplace, no social safety net, military might over diplomacy, environmental issues, climate change, immigration, rejection of science and the scientific method? Just wonderin'
There's lots of speculation about the prospects of the Democrats in the upcoming election in November. Some Repubs are salivating, believing that they could capture the House, at least. They point to the MA special Senate election where a Repub (Scott Brown) took over Kennedy's seat. There may be a big Repub gain but I'm willing to say it now, way in advance. Assuming there's no new war or terrorist attack, the election will hinge on the state of the economy.
The conservatives and their loud mouthpieces are creating a lot of noise by being against president Obama and Congressional Dems. They have no new ideas besides worn rhetoric about "freedom" ,"states' rights", security, etc. And, they want to repeal what the Dems have passed through Congress since 2009. A recession or a bad economy with high unemployment isn't good for any incumbent. There will be loses for the Dems, but they may not be catastrophic.
The conservative base is much more excited right now. The doom and gloom--including rhetoric that can lead to violence--can serve them politically in the short term. It's not a good long-term strategy.
What is the Impact of Political Campaigns?
Campaigns do the following. Energize the party loyalists, bring home the voters that have supported the party before, discourage the opposition from voting, and, most importantly, make connections between the voters' preconceived notions and the candidate or the party.
Here's a fact: Most people don't change their minds during a campaign. They may look for reasons to vote in a particular way, but being educated about the issues and then rationally deciding what to vote for is a myth we like to tell about our citizenry. A masterful campaign is to make connections between voters' preferences and the candidate.
Here's another interesting fact: There is more partisanship in the US that we're being told. Even the majority of "independents" have strong leanings. They may occasionally vote for the other party but they tend to identify more with one that they frequently vote for. Some of the INDs are true swingers and often decide elections. They are low-information voters and can be undecided right up to the election if they're exposed to a balanced bombardment from the two sides!
INDs and Swingers have another trait: they tend to prefer a strong leader who may be wrong to a weak leader who may be right! This is why many of us have been extremely critical of Obama for wasting a whole year trying to be a ..community organizer from the White House.
The Future Has Begun
Ah, I almost forgot about the demographics. Can you identify any main plank in the Republican platform and core policy proposals that has a long-term future with the changing demographics? Also, if other advanced democracies provide some kind of an example, can you identify those US conservative stances that will be adopted by the majority of Americans in the near (or distant future)? Things like outlawing of abortion, more theocracy, no regulation of the marketplace, no social safety net, military might over diplomacy, environmental issues, climate change, immigration, rejection of science and the scientific method? Just wonderin'
March 25, 2010
Tea Party Moments & Their Hosts
Oh, those memories of the Tea Baggers' movement... and their advocates on the Fox Network. Watch and laugh.
Even though their noise is amplified by Fox, they are a force that should be taken seriously by the ..Republicans. I think they pose a greater threat to the moderate Republicans--the most endagered political species today. It is unfortunate that the GOP is sliding into an (even more) extreme place in American politics.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| On Topic: Scandal-List - Tea Bagging | ||||
| ||||
Even though their noise is amplified by Fox, they are a force that should be taken seriously by the ..Republicans. I think they pose a greater threat to the moderate Republicans--the most endagered political species today. It is unfortunate that the GOP is sliding into an (even more) extreme place in American politics.
March 24, 2010
Toxic Politics Encouraged by the Republican Party and Conservative Talking Heads
It's not about free speech--a principle we must defend. It's not about the right to hold any opinion. It's about time to put an end to stupidity and ignorance. Our polity doesn't improve if we remain silent about the fear mongering, the peddling of superstition, and bigotry.
This is an excellent editorial by Bob Herbert in the NYT. Here are some excerpts:
At some point, we have to decide as a country that we just can’t have this: We can’t allow ourselves to remain silent as foaming-at-the-mouth protesters scream the vilest of epithets at members of Congress — epithets that The Times will not allow me to repeat here.
It is 2010, which means it is way past time for decent Americans to rise up against this kind of garbage, to fight it aggressively wherever it appears. And it is time for every American of good will to hold the Republican Party accountable for its role in tolerating, shielding and encouraging foul, mean-spirited and bigoted behavior in its ranks and among its strongest supporters.
For decades the G.O.P. has been the party of fear, ignorance and divisiveness. All you have to do is look around to see what it has done to the country. The greatest economic inequality since the Gilded Age was followed by a near-total collapse of the overall economy. As a country, we have a monumental mess on our hands and still the Republicans have nothing to offer in the way of a remedy except more tax cuts for the rich.
This is the party of trickle down and weapons of mass destruction, the party of birthers and death-panel lunatics. This is the party that genuflects at the altar of right-wing talk radio, with its insane, nauseating, nonstop commitment to hatred and bigotry.
Glenn Beck of Fox News has called President Obama a “racist” and asserted that he “has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.”
Mike Huckabee, a former Republican presidential candidate, has said of Mr. Obama’s economic policies: “Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff.”
The G.O.P. poisons the political atmosphere and then has the gall to complain about an absence of bipartisanship.
A party that promotes ignorance (“Just say no to global warming”) and provides a safe house for bigotry cannot serve the best interests of our country.
This is an excellent editorial by Bob Herbert in the NYT. Here are some excerpts:
At some point, we have to decide as a country that we just can’t have this: We can’t allow ourselves to remain silent as foaming-at-the-mouth protesters scream the vilest of epithets at members of Congress — epithets that The Times will not allow me to repeat here.
It is 2010, which means it is way past time for decent Americans to rise up against this kind of garbage, to fight it aggressively wherever it appears. And it is time for every American of good will to hold the Republican Party accountable for its role in tolerating, shielding and encouraging foul, mean-spirited and bigoted behavior in its ranks and among its strongest supporters.
For decades the G.O.P. has been the party of fear, ignorance and divisiveness. All you have to do is look around to see what it has done to the country. The greatest economic inequality since the Gilded Age was followed by a near-total collapse of the overall economy. As a country, we have a monumental mess on our hands and still the Republicans have nothing to offer in the way of a remedy except more tax cuts for the rich.
This is the party of trickle down and weapons of mass destruction, the party of birthers and death-panel lunatics. This is the party that genuflects at the altar of right-wing talk radio, with its insane, nauseating, nonstop commitment to hatred and bigotry.
Glenn Beck of Fox News has called President Obama a “racist” and asserted that he “has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.”
Mike Huckabee, a former Republican presidential candidate, has said of Mr. Obama’s economic policies: “Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff.”
The G.O.P. poisons the political atmosphere and then has the gall to complain about an absence of bipartisanship.
A party that promotes ignorance (“Just say no to global warming”) and provides a safe house for bigotry cannot serve the best interests of our country.
March 22, 2010
A Historic Day for the US: The Dems Affirm that Health Care is a Right Not a Privilege!
Finally, a very important step in making the US a more compassionate, rational, and progressive country. Watching this old video gave me goosebumps. Ted Kennedy summed it up eloquently in his speech back in 1978! Yes, it's been a very long journey while many of our fellow citizens died and suffered unnecessarily.
Obama was elected on a ray of hope. This is one of many important pieces of legislation he promised. A slow start, but maybe he's learned that leadership won't happen if he seeks collaboration with, and support from the conservatives who think they're in the Dark Ages and act accordingly.
Obama was elected on a ray of hope. This is one of many important pieces of legislation he promised. A slow start, but maybe he's learned that leadership won't happen if he seeks collaboration with, and support from the conservatives who think they're in the Dark Ages and act accordingly.
March 18, 2010
It's a Simple Question: Is Health Care a Right or a Privilege?
I can understand why certain special interests are against it, but how can so many of our fellow citizens have fallen for crap like "government takeover," "socialism" and whatever nonsense circulates out there. Yet, the more stunning discovery for me was the answer to this question: Is health care a right or a privilege? I was shocked to hear so many people saying it's a ..privilege!
The GOP and all the nuts from various organizations like the Tea Party, Americans for Prosperity, etc, have nothing meaningful to propose for reform that would make health care affordable, provide universal coverage, end the death panels (insurance agents who decline coverage), and reduce the unsustainable costs.
Watch this video and see Chris Matthews making excellent points. I wan to add: if I had no insurance, in need of treatment I couldn't afford, I'd welcome my government taking care of me. The other option would be to die.
The GOP and all the nuts from various organizations like the Tea Party, Americans for Prosperity, etc, have nothing meaningful to propose for reform that would make health care affordable, provide universal coverage, end the death panels (insurance agents who decline coverage), and reduce the unsustainable costs.
Watch this video and see Chris Matthews making excellent points. I wan to add: if I had no insurance, in need of treatment I couldn't afford, I'd welcome my government taking care of me. The other option would be to die.
March 15, 2010
Public Safety and Consumer Protection IS the Job of Our Government
One way to reduce the government is through deregulation, but when regulation is about ensuring the public safety and consumer protection, then it's necessary. All liberal democracies try to balance equality with freedom. Maximum freedom is desirable unless it's damaging to others and the commonwealth.
When we talk about equality in this country, we usually mean equality of opportunity not outcome. Also, equality under the rule of law. Having the opportunity to be fleeced by this bank or that bank isn't much of a choice. Credit cards are absolutely necessary in our society. For years I was using only my debit card and paid cash for my transactions, but, guess what, when I began the process of applying for a mortgage I was told that my score had suffered! Never mind that I didn't have any debts. I wasn't using credit! So, now I use my credit card a lot more frequently, and paying the whole balance at the end of my billing period.
I was disgusted by the practice of banks that could charge any rate for interest and change at will at any time, apply unreasonable fees, have universal fault clause, and have bill due dates on days without mail delivery. I was fed up. Of course, I welcome regulation that prevents consumer abuse by the banks.
There are attempts at reforming the banking system but the industry is lobbying against it and the Republicans are, well, shills for it. Please follow what long-time consumer advocate, Elizabeth Warren, has been saying on this subject of consumer protection.
The main difference between the progressives and the reactionaries is that the former want to use government, when necessary, to protect and empower the people. The tea baggers are angry folks who may be justified in certain criticisms of the government but totally wrong as to the solution. The solution is not to get rid of our government but to reclaim it.
When we talk about equality in this country, we usually mean equality of opportunity not outcome. Also, equality under the rule of law. Having the opportunity to be fleeced by this bank or that bank isn't much of a choice. Credit cards are absolutely necessary in our society. For years I was using only my debit card and paid cash for my transactions, but, guess what, when I began the process of applying for a mortgage I was told that my score had suffered! Never mind that I didn't have any debts. I wasn't using credit! So, now I use my credit card a lot more frequently, and paying the whole balance at the end of my billing period.
I was disgusted by the practice of banks that could charge any rate for interest and change at will at any time, apply unreasonable fees, have universal fault clause, and have bill due dates on days without mail delivery. I was fed up. Of course, I welcome regulation that prevents consumer abuse by the banks.
There are attempts at reforming the banking system but the industry is lobbying against it and the Republicans are, well, shills for it. Please follow what long-time consumer advocate, Elizabeth Warren, has been saying on this subject of consumer protection.
The main difference between the progressives and the reactionaries is that the former want to use government, when necessary, to protect and empower the people. The tea baggers are angry folks who may be justified in certain criticisms of the government but totally wrong as to the solution. The solution is not to get rid of our government but to reclaim it.
March 10, 2010
Note to Obama: They'll Never Let You in the Car... They're Just Messing With You.
It has become more than obvious that it's a waste of time to try to negotiate with someone who has nothing good to give you. Obama's effort to be a team player has fallen on deaf ears because the Republicans aren't interested in being on the same team, not even support the positions they had recommended before!
They will keep calling Obama a "socialist" even though the most money he has given so far has gone to the banks, Wall Street, and big business!
Here's a great clip from the Rachel Maddow show on the hypocrisy of Republicans titled, "They Are Not Embarrassed."
They will keep calling Obama a "socialist" even though the most money he has given so far has gone to the banks, Wall Street, and big business!
Here's a great clip from the Rachel Maddow show on the hypocrisy of Republicans titled, "They Are Not Embarrassed."
March 9, 2010
Sara Palin's Irony.
Tea Party darling Sarah Palin just admitted that she and her family received frequent socialized medicine in Canada. What a brave woman she is to risk the death panels and socialism! Yes, Sarah, it is ironic.
We do have the best medical system in the world... we're told by the Republicans. After all, there are so many foreigners who come here to get the best treatment. Can you imagine if we passed comprehensive health care reform and made it accessible to all? Those Canucks would freeload on us.
We do have the best medical system in the world... we're told by the Republicans. After all, there are so many foreigners who come here to get the best treatment. Can you imagine if we passed comprehensive health care reform and made it accessible to all? Those Canucks would freeload on us.
March 5, 2010
Welcome
If this country was a company, wouldn't be reasonable to assume that management should act in the interests of the shareholders?
The government is of, by, and for the people. Let's not forget this.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
