Ron Paul thinks the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) should be eliminated. He and his colleagues for the Republican presidential nomination are on the record promising to dismantle as much of Washington's power and, in particular, to eliminate every federal regulation possible. They claim the regulations kill jobs and are ineffectual and intrusive. Then along comes Irene. Irene arrived in the shadow of the 6th anniversary of Katrina. The response to these two hurricanes contrast dramatically and represent the different governing philosophies which will be on display in 2012 and the clear differences have serious ramifications for the future.
In 2001, President Bush, reflecting a similar regressive bent as the Paul/Bachman/Perry wing of his party, demoted the director of FEMA and downgraded the agency. He appointed "brownie" to run it and we all know the end of the story. President Clinton had raised the profile and efficiency of FEMA and received high marks for the government's response to emergencies. Bush tore it down because he listened to those who attack any agency or program originating in Washington. The people in New Orleans were given a real time opportunity to see how regressive philosophy affected their lives and homes.
We have watched a summer of historic natural disasters throughout our land. The flooding along the Mississippi, Red and Missouri rivers, tornadoes which cut a murderous swath across parts of the South and Midwest, unprecedented droughts in Oklahoma and Texas, wildfires in Arizona and New Mexico and more. Not once, during all of this carnage has anyone criticized the federal government's response. Contrast this with Katrina or contrast it with Japan. They are about to get a new prime minister because of the failure of the last one to adequately respond to the earthquake and tsunami, which so devastated that nation. More importantly, or maybe ironically, the same "" red " states which produce and support the Perry’s, Paul’s, McCain’s and Palin's are the same states who welcome billions of dollars of federal aid. The day after a tornado destroyed a good portion of Joplin, Missouri, FEMA was on the ground setting up centers and beginning the cleanup. (The biggest complaint at the time was the failure of the government to better warn people about dangerous tornadoes in a timely manner.) Along the Mississippi, it was the Corps of Engineers, implementing a plan developed in 1937 by the Roosevelt Administration, which blew a hold in a levy and opened spillways to divert hundreds of millions of gallons of water to farmland in order to protect states like Mississippi and Louisiana from being inundated. The Republican governors of those states certainly didn't complain about Washington interference at that point.
It is hard to stomach the hypocrisy. They want to run against Washington and proclaim how useless and oppressive federal regulations are, until some disaster happens and then they have their hands out and will scream bloody murder if they don't get every ounce of money available.
I know I sound like a broken record when I remind you about what de-regulation has done to this country. The list is endless. From the weakening and elimination of financial regulations leading to the Depression of 2008, to the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, to salmonella and E.coli outbreaks, the common denominator is weak or non-existent oversight. The deregulation of the energy market in California has California ratepayers paying some of the highest electricity rates in the nation for the foreseeable future. Anytime you hear someone advocating getting rid of regulations, they are usually toadies for the rich and the powerful businesses in the nation.
The latest target, according to the Wall Street Journal, is the Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA) It is the favorite whipping boy on the Republican stump these days. The same politicians who live and work near the Potomac, a river so polluted humans weren't allowed to swim in it or eat anything they caught out of it, and which has now been cleaned up almost back to its more pristine shape, all due to federal environmental regulations, are the same people demanding the agency by neutered out of existence. Do you really want to go back to an environment before the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act? Would you want to return to the days of lead paint and lead in your fuel? Today, energy companies are pumping toxic chemicals into the ground to free up natural gas. Do you want to trust them when they say there is no danger to the aquifer and water supplies? Do you trust P.G.& E. when they tell you Diablo Canyon is perfectly safe from a large earthquake? Why are Americans seduced by this anti-regulation rhetoric? Average, gum-chewing working Americans are the beneficiaries of regulations, which hold the avarice of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (the most evil organization in the nation) and its members in check. Moderates and independents should applaud the Obama Administration's attempts to beef up the EPA, SEC, National Labor Relations Board, and numerous other government agencies gutted by Bush and Cheney.
So, here is my proposal. President Obama cuts off federal aid to any state with a Republican governor or legislature. Perry and Paul say states are too dependent on the federal government. Ok, cut 'em off. Obama can justify this by claiming he is just following the will of the people and their leaders in those states. They won't get a dime of federal aid for roads, bridges, education, health care, law enforcement, unemployment or to help recover from disasters. No small business loans or disaster loans at low interest rates. Military and other government bases would be closed. The estimate is Irene did about $7 billion in damages. The federal government is prepared to pick up about 75% of the tab. Wouldn't you love to be in the executive mansions in Mississippi, Louisiana, Virginia, New Jersey and other red states when they receive the bill for services rendered?
PS Michele Bachman say the recent spate of natural disasters and the earth quake on the east coast were signs of God's disapproval of the moral climate in this country. She better hope she is wrong about God or she may be in for a very warm reception when they eventually meet. President Bachman...really?
Rick Perry says he wants to do for America what he has done for Texas. Houston is the most polluted city in the nation. The oil and gas industries are virtually unregulated by his state. Worker safety and environmental oversight are a joke. Imagine him and the damage he could do if he was in charge of the EPA, FDA, Agriculture Dept., Interior Dept, etc
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
GOODNIGHT IRENE...
Ron Paul thinks the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) should be eliminated. He and his colleagues for the Republican presidential nomination are on the record promising to dismantle as much of Washington's power and, in particular, to eliminate every federal regulation possible. They claim the regulations kill jobs and are ineffectual and intrusive. Then along comes Irene. Irene arrived in the shadow of the 6th anniversary of Katrina. The response to these two hurricanes contrast dramatically and represent the different governing philosophies which will be on display in 2012 and the clear differences have serious ramifications for the future.
In 2001, President Bush, reflecting a similar regressive bent as the Paul/Bachman/Perry wing of his party, demoted the director of FEMA and downgraded the agency. He appointed "brownie" to run it and we all know the end of the story. President Clinton had raised the profile and efficiency of FEMA and received high marks for the government's response to emergencies. Bush tore it down because he listened to those who attack any agency or program originating in Washington. The people in New Orleans were given a real time opportunity to see how regressive philosophy affected their lives and homes.
We have watched a summer of historic natural disasters throughout our land. The flooding along the Mississippi, Red and Missouri rivers, tornadoes which cut a murderous swath across parts of the South and Midwest, unprecedented droughts in Oklahoma and Texas, wildfires in Arizona and New Mexico and more. Not once, during all of this carnage has anyone criticized the federal government's response. Contrast this with Katrina or contrast it with Japan. They are about to get a new prime minister because of the failure of the last one to adequately respond to the earthquake and tsunami, which so devastated that nation. More importantly, or maybe ironically, the same "" red " states which produce and support the Perry’s, Paul’s, McCain’s and Palin's are the same states who welcome billions of dollars of federal aid. The day after a tornado destroyed a good portion of Joplin, Missouri, FEMA was on the ground setting up centers and beginning the cleanup. (The biggest complaint at the time was the failure of the government to better warn people about dangerous tornadoes in a timely manner.) Along the Mississippi, it was the Corps of Engineers, implementing a plan developed in 1937 by the Roosevelt Administration, which blew a hold in a levy and opened spillways to divert hundreds of millions of gallons of water to farmland in order to protect states like Mississippi and Louisiana from being inundated. The Republican governors of those states certainly didn't complain about Washington interference at that point.
It is hard to stomach the hypocrisy. They want to run against Washington and proclaim how useless and oppressive federal regulations are, until some disaster happens and then they have their hands out and will scream bloody murder if they don't get every ounce of money available.
I know I sound like a broken record when I remind you about what de-regulation has done to this country. The list is endless. From the weakening and elimination of financial regulations leading to the Depression of 2008, to the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, to salmonella and E.coli outbreaks, the common denominator is weak or non-existent oversight. The deregulation of the energy market in California has California ratepayers paying some of the highest electricity rates in the nation for the foreseeable future. Anytime you hear someone advocating getting rid of regulations, they are usually toadies for the rich and the powerful businesses in the nation.
The latest target, according to the Wall Street Journal, is the Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA) It is the favorite whipping boy on the Republican stump these days. The same politicians who live and work near the Potomac, a river so polluted humans weren't allowed to swim in it or eat anything they caught out of it, and which has now been cleaned up almost back to its more pristine shape, all due to federal environmental regulations, are the same people demanding the agency by neutered out of existence. Do you really want to go back to an environment before the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act? Would you want to return to the days of lead paint and lead in your fuel? Today, energy companies are pumping toxic chemicals into the ground to free up natural gas. Do you want to trust them when they say there is no danger to the aquifer and water supplies? Do you trust P.G.& E. when they tell you Diablo Canyon is perfectly safe from a large earthquake? Why are Americans seduced by this anti-regulation rhetoric? Average, gum-chewing working Americans are the beneficiaries of regulations, which hold the avarice of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (the most evil organization in the nation) and its members in check. Moderates and independents should applaud the Obama Administration's attempts to beef up the EPA, SEC, National Labor Relations Board, and numerous other government agencies gutted by Bush and Cheney.
So, here is my proposal. President Obama cuts off federal aid to any state with a Republican governor or legislature. Perry and Paul say states are too dependent on the federal government. Ok, cut 'em off. Obama can justify this by claiming he is just following the will of the people and their leaders in those states. They won't get a dime of federal aid for roads, bridges, education, health care, law enforcement, unemployment or to help recover from disasters. No small business loans or disaster loans at low interest rates. Military and other government bases would be closed. The estimate is Irene did about $7 billion in damages. The federal government is prepared to pick up about 75% of the tab. Wouldn't you love to be in the executive mansions in Mississippi, Louisiana, Virginia, New Jersey and other red states when they receive the bill for services rendered?
PS Michele Bachman say the recent spate of natural disasters and the earth quake on the east coast were signs of God's disapproval of the moral climate in this country. She better hope she is wrong about God or she may be in for a very warm reception when they eventually meet. President Bachman...really?
Rick Perry says he wants to do for America what he has done for Texas. Houston is the most polluted city in the nation. The oil and gas industries are virtually unregulated by his state. Worker safety and environmental oversight are a joke. Imagine him and the damage he could do if he was in charge of the EPA, FDA, Agriculture Dept., Interior Dept, etc
In 2001, President Bush, reflecting a similar regressive bent as the Paul/Bachman/Perry wing of his party, demoted the director of FEMA and downgraded the agency. He appointed "brownie" to run it and we all know the end of the story. President Clinton had raised the profile and efficiency of FEMA and received high marks for the government's response to emergencies. Bush tore it down because he listened to those who attack any agency or program originating in Washington. The people in New Orleans were given a real time opportunity to see how regressive philosophy affected their lives and homes.
We have watched a summer of historic natural disasters throughout our land. The flooding along the Mississippi, Red and Missouri rivers, tornadoes which cut a murderous swath across parts of the South and Midwest, unprecedented droughts in Oklahoma and Texas, wildfires in Arizona and New Mexico and more. Not once, during all of this carnage has anyone criticized the federal government's response. Contrast this with Katrina or contrast it with Japan. They are about to get a new prime minister because of the failure of the last one to adequately respond to the earthquake and tsunami, which so devastated that nation. More importantly, or maybe ironically, the same "" red " states which produce and support the Perry’s, Paul’s, McCain’s and Palin's are the same states who welcome billions of dollars of federal aid. The day after a tornado destroyed a good portion of Joplin, Missouri, FEMA was on the ground setting up centers and beginning the cleanup. (The biggest complaint at the time was the failure of the government to better warn people about dangerous tornadoes in a timely manner.) Along the Mississippi, it was the Corps of Engineers, implementing a plan developed in 1937 by the Roosevelt Administration, which blew a hold in a levy and opened spillways to divert hundreds of millions of gallons of water to farmland in order to protect states like Mississippi and Louisiana from being inundated. The Republican governors of those states certainly didn't complain about Washington interference at that point.
It is hard to stomach the hypocrisy. They want to run against Washington and proclaim how useless and oppressive federal regulations are, until some disaster happens and then they have their hands out and will scream bloody murder if they don't get every ounce of money available.
I know I sound like a broken record when I remind you about what de-regulation has done to this country. The list is endless. From the weakening and elimination of financial regulations leading to the Depression of 2008, to the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, to salmonella and E.coli outbreaks, the common denominator is weak or non-existent oversight. The deregulation of the energy market in California has California ratepayers paying some of the highest electricity rates in the nation for the foreseeable future. Anytime you hear someone advocating getting rid of regulations, they are usually toadies for the rich and the powerful businesses in the nation.
The latest target, according to the Wall Street Journal, is the Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA) It is the favorite whipping boy on the Republican stump these days. The same politicians who live and work near the Potomac, a river so polluted humans weren't allowed to swim in it or eat anything they caught out of it, and which has now been cleaned up almost back to its more pristine shape, all due to federal environmental regulations, are the same people demanding the agency by neutered out of existence. Do you really want to go back to an environment before the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act? Would you want to return to the days of lead paint and lead in your fuel? Today, energy companies are pumping toxic chemicals into the ground to free up natural gas. Do you want to trust them when they say there is no danger to the aquifer and water supplies? Do you trust P.G.& E. when they tell you Diablo Canyon is perfectly safe from a large earthquake? Why are Americans seduced by this anti-regulation rhetoric? Average, gum-chewing working Americans are the beneficiaries of regulations, which hold the avarice of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (the most evil organization in the nation) and its members in check. Moderates and independents should applaud the Obama Administration's attempts to beef up the EPA, SEC, National Labor Relations Board, and numerous other government agencies gutted by Bush and Cheney.
So, here is my proposal. President Obama cuts off federal aid to any state with a Republican governor or legislature. Perry and Paul say states are too dependent on the federal government. Ok, cut 'em off. Obama can justify this by claiming he is just following the will of the people and their leaders in those states. They won't get a dime of federal aid for roads, bridges, education, health care, law enforcement, unemployment or to help recover from disasters. No small business loans or disaster loans at low interest rates. Military and other government bases would be closed. The estimate is Irene did about $7 billion in damages. The federal government is prepared to pick up about 75% of the tab. Wouldn't you love to be in the executive mansions in Mississippi, Louisiana, Virginia, New Jersey and other red states when they receive the bill for services rendered?
PS Michele Bachman say the recent spate of natural disasters and the earth quake on the east coast were signs of God's disapproval of the moral climate in this country. She better hope she is wrong about God or she may be in for a very warm reception when they eventually meet. President Bachman...really?
Rick Perry says he wants to do for America what he has done for Texas. Houston is the most polluted city in the nation. The oil and gas industries are virtually unregulated by his state. Worker safety and environmental oversight are a joke. Imagine him and the damage he could do if he was in charge of the EPA, FDA, Agriculture Dept., Interior Dept, etc
Sunday, August 14, 2011
ODDS 'N ENDS
--Arnold Schwarzenegger’s daughter told a magazine she escaped to London to get some perspective on the scandal and divorce of her parents. "It isn't as big a story over here," Katherine Schwarzenegger said. She goes on to say, "...I've always been way closer to my mother." Ouch. No matter what he has been through so far, hearing comments like that has to be crushing. One of my biggest fears, was my actions would cause my children to disown or pull away from me out of anger and embarrassment. I was lucky. We are still close and love each other. I hope Arnold can repair this. To lose the love of one's children is a fate I wish for no one.
---Michele Bachman says she is a "submissive" wife. She is alluding to her brand of fundamentalist Christianity that quotes St. Paul telling wives to be submissive to their husbands. We already know she suffers from migraines which her staff says have rendered her unable to work for days on end and now we face a possible president who has to check with hubby to make sure he approves of her decisions. Too harsh or reason to worry?
---This is the hottest July and most probably August in Texas' history. They are in the middle of an historic draught. We have had the worst tornados in over 100 years wreaking havoc in the mid west and south to go along with floods of biblical proportions throughout the center of the country. Glaciers are melting at rates unseen in the last century and a Northwest Passage has opened for ships. Yet, 47% of Americans say they don't believe the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change.
---In San Francisco, Mayor Ed Lee became mayor because he promised not to run for a full term. Now, he says he changed his mind and is going to run. Are you surprised a pupil of Willie Brown would go back on his word? Does it matter? Did he lie or con the people who appointed him or the people in the City? Can you think of a politician who has ever been punished for going back on his word? Don't we get the elected officials we deserve?
---Is anyone watching Keith Olbermann on his new network? Is he increasing the ratings? Is the show better or worse?
---Obama takes a lot of heart over his lack of negotiating skills. Has anyone looked at Biden lately? Perhaps it's catching or they are two peas in a pod. He goes to Congress to negotiate on the debt ceiling and doesn't get tax increases. He talks Democrats into supporting an extension of the Bush tax cuts. He doesn't get any agreement to close tax loopholes and gives in on changing Medicare and yet somehow comes out of all this unscathed with Obama taking the blame. Did Biden find Reagan's Teflon suit?
---Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin proposed a budget plan, which the House passed with only Republican votes. The GOP cited it as proof they had ideas too and said it was a blueprint for what they wanted to do when they gain control of Congress and the White House. Among other things, Ryan's budget would privatize Medicare out of existence and shred the nation's social safety net. Yet, when nominees for the debt ceiling "super" committee were revealed, the fair-haired golden boy was conspicuously missing. Is his name and plan that toxic a political liability now for the GOP?
---If you go to the Iowa straw poll, GOP presidential hopefuls will pay the $30 entry fee, feed you, entertain you, even provide air conditioned tents to get you to vote for them. How is this not bribery or vote buying and is it legal? (Sorry, I tried to use legal and Republican in the same sentence. My bad.)
---In Britain, they are trying to figure out why people engaged in days of rioting and looting and stealing what they could not buy or get in any other way. In America, Goldman Sachs is trying to figure out how to recruit the best of the looters.
---Michele Bachman says she is a "submissive" wife. She is alluding to her brand of fundamentalist Christianity that quotes St. Paul telling wives to be submissive to their husbands. We already know she suffers from migraines which her staff says have rendered her unable to work for days on end and now we face a possible president who has to check with hubby to make sure he approves of her decisions. Too harsh or reason to worry?
---This is the hottest July and most probably August in Texas' history. They are in the middle of an historic draught. We have had the worst tornados in over 100 years wreaking havoc in the mid west and south to go along with floods of biblical proportions throughout the center of the country. Glaciers are melting at rates unseen in the last century and a Northwest Passage has opened for ships. Yet, 47% of Americans say they don't believe the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change.
---In San Francisco, Mayor Ed Lee became mayor because he promised not to run for a full term. Now, he says he changed his mind and is going to run. Are you surprised a pupil of Willie Brown would go back on his word? Does it matter? Did he lie or con the people who appointed him or the people in the City? Can you think of a politician who has ever been punished for going back on his word? Don't we get the elected officials we deserve?
---Is anyone watching Keith Olbermann on his new network? Is he increasing the ratings? Is the show better or worse?
---Obama takes a lot of heart over his lack of negotiating skills. Has anyone looked at Biden lately? Perhaps it's catching or they are two peas in a pod. He goes to Congress to negotiate on the debt ceiling and doesn't get tax increases. He talks Democrats into supporting an extension of the Bush tax cuts. He doesn't get any agreement to close tax loopholes and gives in on changing Medicare and yet somehow comes out of all this unscathed with Obama taking the blame. Did Biden find Reagan's Teflon suit?
---Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin proposed a budget plan, which the House passed with only Republican votes. The GOP cited it as proof they had ideas too and said it was a blueprint for what they wanted to do when they gain control of Congress and the White House. Among other things, Ryan's budget would privatize Medicare out of existence and shred the nation's social safety net. Yet, when nominees for the debt ceiling "super" committee were revealed, the fair-haired golden boy was conspicuously missing. Is his name and plan that toxic a political liability now for the GOP?
---If you go to the Iowa straw poll, GOP presidential hopefuls will pay the $30 entry fee, feed you, entertain you, even provide air conditioned tents to get you to vote for them. How is this not bribery or vote buying and is it legal? (Sorry, I tried to use legal and Republican in the same sentence. My bad.)
---In Britain, they are trying to figure out why people engaged in days of rioting and looting and stealing what they could not buy or get in any other way. In America, Goldman Sachs is trying to figure out how to recruit the best of the looters.
IT'S A GIRL?
In its quest to control the population, China limited the number of children in a family. The result was conscious decisions to abort female fetuses in favor of males. In India, between 4.2 and 12.1 million abortions were performed due to the fact the gender was female. In many Middle Eastern and Islamic fundamentalist nations, similar preferences are expressed. We in the industrialized, first world, West are shocked and scandalized by such decisions and preferences and dismiss them as resulting from backward, primitive, sexist societies. We take smug satisfaction we have evolved beyond such things.
USA Today is reporting on a new technology that can tell pregnant women the sex of the baby they are carrying as early as 7 weeks into the pregnancy. This technology has been available in Europe and is about to be made available in this country. Women would know months earlier than ever before the gender of their baby. The technology will be invaluable for women with high-risk pregnancies where the baby could have genetic anomalies or diseases. However, ethicists are concerned parents could use the early knowledge to abort a fetus because it is the wrong gender.
Every so often, the values or morals which lead humans to make certain decisions totally elude my understanding. As long as the baby is as healthy as possible, what difference does it make what the gender is? Is it a valid concern to think American parents would choose to end a pregnancy because the baby would be female? There have been concerns for years genetic testing could be used to produce designer babies. Parents will want blond hair and blue eyes. They will want to control genes and effect weight and height and intelligence. Some scientists think you could control for sexual orientation. Aldus Huxley's Brave New World has arrived. I have not seen evidence to support a significant number of designer babies brought forth in this country. It wouldn't be the first time my naïveté has blinded me. Of all the reasons to control a pregnancy, or end it, the gender of the baby seems beyond the pale.
I know sexism is alive and well in America. Christine Craft calls it the invisible "ism", and says America decided to attack racism in electing Obama president, while leaving sexism, in the figure of Hillary Clinton, to be fixed another day. There are still glass ceilings and women at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, (the most evil organization in America today) are few and far between. Should ethicists really be concerned American parents will end a pregnancy because they don't want a female baby?
The "choice" about what to do about any pregnancy must be left up to the woman. I never cease to be amazed by the regressive rhetoric of government being too big, too intrusive, too powerful and yet they are quite willing to have the government tell a woman what she can do with her body and the kind of family she will create. The same principal that allows the government to "prevent" someone from having an abortion can also "require" someone to have an abortion. The problem with choice is that with freedom comes license and it means people can make choices some of us feel to be unethical or even immoral.
It saddens, worries and angers me to think someone would think so little of female life...value it so little...feel loss if their child will be a girl and decide based on gender alone to end it. So, I ask you. Do you think ethicists have reason to be concerned? Are we no different in our sexism than India and China? How valuable or respected is the female gender in this country? Will prospective American parents use this technology to produce fewer females? Would anyone end a pregnancy based on the knowledge the fetus was male?
There will be those who feel the pendulum has already swung away from males and now females are in the catbird seat in this country. They will cite statistics showing the majority of college graduates are female. Law school and medical school classes are also majority female. They will look at rates of high school graduation and other indicators to show women are no longer a downtrodden minority, and males are the ones suffering from the competition. Even with this evidence, or because of it, is it time to produce fewer females and more males? Could you ever see you and your partner deciding to end a pregnancy because you didn't prefer the gender of the baby?
I am not an innocent bystander in this debate. I have a dog in this hunt. I have two daughters and two sons. I love them all beyond reason. My daughters are sharp and funny and intelligent. They are witty, compassionate and full of life. My sons are warm and open and bright. They are empathetic, loving and spontaneous. I cannot imagine life without them. (I wish I had been a more responsible and loving parent in choices I made) We were excited and thrilled by the news of each pregnancy. Doesn't everyone feel the same way? If not, why not?
I will not bemoan this new technology. I choose to believe most Americans will use it the way it was intended. We have not reached that level of hubris yet which would lead us to believe we can "design" the perfect family. Choice means allowing shallow or venal decisions to be made, but the same freedom gives opportunities to rise above petty needs or prejudices to something better. Do you agree?
USA Today is reporting on a new technology that can tell pregnant women the sex of the baby they are carrying as early as 7 weeks into the pregnancy. This technology has been available in Europe and is about to be made available in this country. Women would know months earlier than ever before the gender of their baby. The technology will be invaluable for women with high-risk pregnancies where the baby could have genetic anomalies or diseases. However, ethicists are concerned parents could use the early knowledge to abort a fetus because it is the wrong gender.
Every so often, the values or morals which lead humans to make certain decisions totally elude my understanding. As long as the baby is as healthy as possible, what difference does it make what the gender is? Is it a valid concern to think American parents would choose to end a pregnancy because the baby would be female? There have been concerns for years genetic testing could be used to produce designer babies. Parents will want blond hair and blue eyes. They will want to control genes and effect weight and height and intelligence. Some scientists think you could control for sexual orientation. Aldus Huxley's Brave New World has arrived. I have not seen evidence to support a significant number of designer babies brought forth in this country. It wouldn't be the first time my naïveté has blinded me. Of all the reasons to control a pregnancy, or end it, the gender of the baby seems beyond the pale.
I know sexism is alive and well in America. Christine Craft calls it the invisible "ism", and says America decided to attack racism in electing Obama president, while leaving sexism, in the figure of Hillary Clinton, to be fixed another day. There are still glass ceilings and women at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, (the most evil organization in America today) are few and far between. Should ethicists really be concerned American parents will end a pregnancy because they don't want a female baby?
The "choice" about what to do about any pregnancy must be left up to the woman. I never cease to be amazed by the regressive rhetoric of government being too big, too intrusive, too powerful and yet they are quite willing to have the government tell a woman what she can do with her body and the kind of family she will create. The same principal that allows the government to "prevent" someone from having an abortion can also "require" someone to have an abortion. The problem with choice is that with freedom comes license and it means people can make choices some of us feel to be unethical or even immoral.
It saddens, worries and angers me to think someone would think so little of female life...value it so little...feel loss if their child will be a girl and decide based on gender alone to end it. So, I ask you. Do you think ethicists have reason to be concerned? Are we no different in our sexism than India and China? How valuable or respected is the female gender in this country? Will prospective American parents use this technology to produce fewer females? Would anyone end a pregnancy based on the knowledge the fetus was male?
There will be those who feel the pendulum has already swung away from males and now females are in the catbird seat in this country. They will cite statistics showing the majority of college graduates are female. Law school and medical school classes are also majority female. They will look at rates of high school graduation and other indicators to show women are no longer a downtrodden minority, and males are the ones suffering from the competition. Even with this evidence, or because of it, is it time to produce fewer females and more males? Could you ever see you and your partner deciding to end a pregnancy because you didn't prefer the gender of the baby?
I am not an innocent bystander in this debate. I have a dog in this hunt. I have two daughters and two sons. I love them all beyond reason. My daughters are sharp and funny and intelligent. They are witty, compassionate and full of life. My sons are warm and open and bright. They are empathetic, loving and spontaneous. I cannot imagine life without them. (I wish I had been a more responsible and loving parent in choices I made) We were excited and thrilled by the news of each pregnancy. Doesn't everyone feel the same way? If not, why not?
I will not bemoan this new technology. I choose to believe most Americans will use it the way it was intended. We have not reached that level of hubris yet which would lead us to believe we can "design" the perfect family. Choice means allowing shallow or venal decisions to be made, but the same freedom gives opportunities to rise above petty needs or prejudices to something better. Do you agree?
Sunday, August 7, 2011
WHO DO MEN SAY I AM?
I almost fell out of my chair when I saw a quote from Bill O'Reilly in which he contends the confessed assassin in Norway could not be considered a Christian. "...No one who believes in Jesus could kill like Anders Behring Breivik did." Either Bill and his ilk think their audience is stupid or ignorant or they just don't care whether what they say has any semblance of truth within it. It is fascinating to see the regressive Christian movement try to distance itself from this act of lunacy when the reality is Breivik acted well within the traditions and norms of fundamentalist Christianity.
Is O'Reilly ignorant? No. Is he well read? Yes. Did he know how surreal his statement sounded and how completely contrary to history it is? I suspect he, like Hanbaugh, Beck, Ingram, Coulter and company, is willing to say anything to deflect attention and criticism from a belief system which cannot hold up in the light of scripture and through which more harm has been done throughout the world than by any other religious system. No one who believes in Jesus would commit an act like this? He can't be a Christian, because true Christians don't act like this. Really? We don't have enough room to list all of the examples BillO and the rest ignore, but at least some need to be pulled forward for a re-examination.
Where to start...How about Manifest Destiny...it was the dominant Christian belief of the 19th century. God intended for the United States to own and control the entire continent. The movement to expand across the US was driven heavily by the belief it was what God intended. It was this religious fervor, which allowed, and then justified, the massacre of the native peoples who occupied the land God intended for the good white Anglo Protestants. These were heathens and God or Jesus had no problem with either wiping them out, or converting them. Americans went to church on Sunday and started Indian wars on Monday. Good Christians were the founders and charter members of the slave trade. How many thousands, some say millions, died on coffin ships during the trip from Africa to the West? Ironically, "Amazing Grace" was written by a slave ship captain who had finally seen the error of his ways. His fellow English Christians excoriated him and his beliefs. Germans went to war in World War II wearing belt buckles emblazoned with "Got mitt us". The Roman Catholic leaders in Austria and Hungary and Poland welcomed the Nazis with open arms and assisted and approved of their final solution concerning Jews. Good Christians were the foundation of Jim Crow and segregation throughout the South. Self proclaimed Christians blew up black churches and lynched and burned out those fighting for civil rights. Yes, Martin Luther King was a Christian, but go back and read what regressive fundamentalist Christians had to say about him and the attacks he endured because he proclaimed non-violence to be the central message of the Jewish carpenter from Nazareth.
What is perhaps the ultimate in hypocrisy is to hear these pseudo-Christians like O'Reilley and Ingram and Hanbaugh talk as if Jesus' teachings have some role in their lives. No communities in this nation more epitomize living out the Christian ethos than do the Amish and Mennonites along with the Catholic Worker movement and numerous others, and yet these are the very same groups which regressives, like the afore mentioned pundits, attack ceaselessly for their naïveté and foolishness and their lack of patriotism because their religious beliefs lead them to embrace pacifism and non-violence and to oppose American foreign policy. President Bush's church, the Methodists, as well as the American Catholic bishops, opposed the war in Iraq. Did their opinions affect Bush? Did good Catholics like Santorum and Gingrich and many others change their positions when their church declared the war to be immoral?
The dirty little secret is a fundamentalist Christian carried out the attacks in Norway. The same strain of fundamentalism is alive and well in this nation. The murders of doctors who perform abortions...the bombing of clinics like the ones in Georgia...the attack on the federal building in Oklahoma...violence against gays and lesbians...are from the same cloth. The nativism and jingoism expressed by the man in Norway is a mirror image to the rhetoric we read or hear on a daily basis in this country. Look at the immigration debate and try and deny the language is eerily similar. The criticisms of Islam and the opposition to mosques and community centers could have been written by the same man who produced 1,500 pages of tripe in Norway. Do BillO and the rest ever listen to themselves? Do they have such disdain for their audience they think we don't listen? A man tries to blow up his underwear, another his shoe, still another a car in Times Square and all claim to be Muslim. Does regressive talk radio make any distinction between them and the vast majority of Muslims who have never attacked anyone? Do they distinguish between fundamental Islam and the mainstream? Or do they lump all Muslims into the same batch and declare it to be a philosophy, which encourages violence. Could there be a more violent religion on earth than Christianity as practiced by the fundamentalists for whom Jesus is an excuse to kill anyone who disagrees with them and whose banner regressives proudly hold aloft?
What regressives and regressive corporate media are concerned about tamping down is a discussion about the difference between fundamentalism and the main stream in religion. Bachman, Cain, Romney, Pawlenty, Perry, Palin, and Gingrich, along with Fox, the Wall Street Journal and anything owned by Rupert Murdoch, The Weekly Standard and much of corporate media cannot afford to have real Christianity arise in this nation. Can you imagine a budget debate, immigration discussion, foreign policy decision made by Christians who read Matthew 25 or are committed to turning the other cheek, loving their enemies and forgiving an infinite number of times? What would our economy look like if consumers refused to buy the next great thing or gadget or go into debt to maintain the lifestyle fundamentalist Christianity touts?
Fundamentalist Christianity is anti-democratic, anti-pluralism, anti-intellectual, intolerant, and judgmental. It is un-American, pro-autocratic regimes and certainly opposes equality of the races or sexes. It is no different than fundamental Islam or fundamental Judaism. When you are right and everyone else is wrong, violence is an acceptable means to accomplish your end of everyone believing exactly like you or else. The tragedy in Norway is another wakeup call for all who oppose fundamentalism in any form to rise up and lend their voices to a campaign to address it wherever it rears its head including the media and politics in this country.
Do I think Anders Behring Breivik is a Christian? What do you think?
Is O'Reilly ignorant? No. Is he well read? Yes. Did he know how surreal his statement sounded and how completely contrary to history it is? I suspect he, like Hanbaugh, Beck, Ingram, Coulter and company, is willing to say anything to deflect attention and criticism from a belief system which cannot hold up in the light of scripture and through which more harm has been done throughout the world than by any other religious system. No one who believes in Jesus would commit an act like this? He can't be a Christian, because true Christians don't act like this. Really? We don't have enough room to list all of the examples BillO and the rest ignore, but at least some need to be pulled forward for a re-examination.
Where to start...How about Manifest Destiny...it was the dominant Christian belief of the 19th century. God intended for the United States to own and control the entire continent. The movement to expand across the US was driven heavily by the belief it was what God intended. It was this religious fervor, which allowed, and then justified, the massacre of the native peoples who occupied the land God intended for the good white Anglo Protestants. These were heathens and God or Jesus had no problem with either wiping them out, or converting them. Americans went to church on Sunday and started Indian wars on Monday. Good Christians were the founders and charter members of the slave trade. How many thousands, some say millions, died on coffin ships during the trip from Africa to the West? Ironically, "Amazing Grace" was written by a slave ship captain who had finally seen the error of his ways. His fellow English Christians excoriated him and his beliefs. Germans went to war in World War II wearing belt buckles emblazoned with "Got mitt us". The Roman Catholic leaders in Austria and Hungary and Poland welcomed the Nazis with open arms and assisted and approved of their final solution concerning Jews. Good Christians were the foundation of Jim Crow and segregation throughout the South. Self proclaimed Christians blew up black churches and lynched and burned out those fighting for civil rights. Yes, Martin Luther King was a Christian, but go back and read what regressive fundamentalist Christians had to say about him and the attacks he endured because he proclaimed non-violence to be the central message of the Jewish carpenter from Nazareth.
What is perhaps the ultimate in hypocrisy is to hear these pseudo-Christians like O'Reilley and Ingram and Hanbaugh talk as if Jesus' teachings have some role in their lives. No communities in this nation more epitomize living out the Christian ethos than do the Amish and Mennonites along with the Catholic Worker movement and numerous others, and yet these are the very same groups which regressives, like the afore mentioned pundits, attack ceaselessly for their naïveté and foolishness and their lack of patriotism because their religious beliefs lead them to embrace pacifism and non-violence and to oppose American foreign policy. President Bush's church, the Methodists, as well as the American Catholic bishops, opposed the war in Iraq. Did their opinions affect Bush? Did good Catholics like Santorum and Gingrich and many others change their positions when their church declared the war to be immoral?
The dirty little secret is a fundamentalist Christian carried out the attacks in Norway. The same strain of fundamentalism is alive and well in this nation. The murders of doctors who perform abortions...the bombing of clinics like the ones in Georgia...the attack on the federal building in Oklahoma...violence against gays and lesbians...are from the same cloth. The nativism and jingoism expressed by the man in Norway is a mirror image to the rhetoric we read or hear on a daily basis in this country. Look at the immigration debate and try and deny the language is eerily similar. The criticisms of Islam and the opposition to mosques and community centers could have been written by the same man who produced 1,500 pages of tripe in Norway. Do BillO and the rest ever listen to themselves? Do they have such disdain for their audience they think we don't listen? A man tries to blow up his underwear, another his shoe, still another a car in Times Square and all claim to be Muslim. Does regressive talk radio make any distinction between them and the vast majority of Muslims who have never attacked anyone? Do they distinguish between fundamental Islam and the mainstream? Or do they lump all Muslims into the same batch and declare it to be a philosophy, which encourages violence. Could there be a more violent religion on earth than Christianity as practiced by the fundamentalists for whom Jesus is an excuse to kill anyone who disagrees with them and whose banner regressives proudly hold aloft?
What regressives and regressive corporate media are concerned about tamping down is a discussion about the difference between fundamentalism and the main stream in religion. Bachman, Cain, Romney, Pawlenty, Perry, Palin, and Gingrich, along with Fox, the Wall Street Journal and anything owned by Rupert Murdoch, The Weekly Standard and much of corporate media cannot afford to have real Christianity arise in this nation. Can you imagine a budget debate, immigration discussion, foreign policy decision made by Christians who read Matthew 25 or are committed to turning the other cheek, loving their enemies and forgiving an infinite number of times? What would our economy look like if consumers refused to buy the next great thing or gadget or go into debt to maintain the lifestyle fundamentalist Christianity touts?
Fundamentalist Christianity is anti-democratic, anti-pluralism, anti-intellectual, intolerant, and judgmental. It is un-American, pro-autocratic regimes and certainly opposes equality of the races or sexes. It is no different than fundamental Islam or fundamental Judaism. When you are right and everyone else is wrong, violence is an acceptable means to accomplish your end of everyone believing exactly like you or else. The tragedy in Norway is another wakeup call for all who oppose fundamentalism in any form to rise up and lend their voices to a campaign to address it wherever it rears its head including the media and politics in this country.
Do I think Anders Behring Breivik is a Christian? What do you think?
Friday, August 5, 2011
THE DEBT CEILING PRAYER (with all due homage to Mark Twain)
It was reported a number of regressive Republican members of the House of Representatives retreated to the quiet confines of the House chapel to ask for divine guidance on how to vote on the upcoming debt-ceiling issue. A "highly" placed source has shed some golden light on the content of their prayer.
Heavenly Father we humbly gather here to ask You to give us the wisdom and courage to make the right decision on raising the debt ceiling. Oh great God, steel us and give us a way to preserve the wealth and power of our "job creator" supporters. Help us to beat back the Obama-led hordes jealously trying to undo Your will.
Eternal Triune God, we know those who have been blessed with success and power enjoy your approval. The most successful have taken advantage of all You have given them. They do Your will every day when they collateralize debt, monetize opportunities and securitize negotiable bonds. Their continued wealth is proof of how much You love them and how much You love and care for the United States of America. Now, however, there are dark and sinister forces trying to destroy Your kingdom. They do the "evil one's" bidding as they press for socialistic taxation and communistic equitable distribution of wealth and they spread the heresy of a rising tide which can lift all boats.
Blessed Lord, show us the way to defeat those who reward the weak and lazy, slow and plodding, those who have not been in your favor, and instead find themselves at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder because they refuse to acknowledge Your preference for a free, unregulated economy. Oh Great Protector, show us how to live up to your Son's command to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Help us to maintain the world in which Jesus admitted the poor will always be with us and help us oppose the devil's henchmen who hide behind programs to educate everyone, aid the poor, clothe the naked and feed the hungry knowing full well those are the very people You do not love and care for or they would be like us.
We face difficult decisions in the House where our opponents are led by a female Papist, and who want to tear down all you have accomplished in gated communities throughout this great land.
Oh Comforter, to Thee we cry...we know you agree Social Security, Medicare and all these other "social programs" are intended to thwart Your will and the natural order You have established on earth. We know you will reward us for protecting those who made this country great by following Your will against those who want to tear it down by advocating for the great unwashed. Please give us the grace to cut spending and end give-aways. Help us to vanquish all who would take from your favorites to help those who refuse to help themselves. We know Your Son would never be in favor of their efforts. Remember the rich young man who refused to sell all he had and follow Your Son? We are sure he went on to own more crops and property and have more slaves and workers for his vineyards just as You would want. Help us to make as courageous a decision as he did.
Thank You, gracious God, for listening to our prayer and guiding us to keep America the greatest, most blessed nation on earth for those who have the wealth to enjoy its bounty.
We ask this through Your Son Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, One God forever and ever.... AMEN
Heavenly Father we humbly gather here to ask You to give us the wisdom and courage to make the right decision on raising the debt ceiling. Oh great God, steel us and give us a way to preserve the wealth and power of our "job creator" supporters. Help us to beat back the Obama-led hordes jealously trying to undo Your will.
Eternal Triune God, we know those who have been blessed with success and power enjoy your approval. The most successful have taken advantage of all You have given them. They do Your will every day when they collateralize debt, monetize opportunities and securitize negotiable bonds. Their continued wealth is proof of how much You love them and how much You love and care for the United States of America. Now, however, there are dark and sinister forces trying to destroy Your kingdom. They do the "evil one's" bidding as they press for socialistic taxation and communistic equitable distribution of wealth and they spread the heresy of a rising tide which can lift all boats.
Blessed Lord, show us the way to defeat those who reward the weak and lazy, slow and plodding, those who have not been in your favor, and instead find themselves at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder because they refuse to acknowledge Your preference for a free, unregulated economy. Oh Great Protector, show us how to live up to your Son's command to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Help us to maintain the world in which Jesus admitted the poor will always be with us and help us oppose the devil's henchmen who hide behind programs to educate everyone, aid the poor, clothe the naked and feed the hungry knowing full well those are the very people You do not love and care for or they would be like us.
We face difficult decisions in the House where our opponents are led by a female Papist, and who want to tear down all you have accomplished in gated communities throughout this great land.
Oh Comforter, to Thee we cry...we know you agree Social Security, Medicare and all these other "social programs" are intended to thwart Your will and the natural order You have established on earth. We know you will reward us for protecting those who made this country great by following Your will against those who want to tear it down by advocating for the great unwashed. Please give us the grace to cut spending and end give-aways. Help us to vanquish all who would take from your favorites to help those who refuse to help themselves. We know Your Son would never be in favor of their efforts. Remember the rich young man who refused to sell all he had and follow Your Son? We are sure he went on to own more crops and property and have more slaves and workers for his vineyards just as You would want. Help us to make as courageous a decision as he did.
Thank You, gracious God, for listening to our prayer and guiding us to keep America the greatest, most blessed nation on earth for those who have the wealth to enjoy its bounty.
We ask this through Your Son Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, One God forever and ever.... AMEN
ETCH A SKETCH...
"...More than anyone, Mr. Cantor drew the House Republicans bright red line in the negotiations, which was that the final deal couldn't raise any taxes. Significantly, that line held in the end." (Gerald Seib...WSJ)
Is it possible in the debt ceiling "compromise" a similar observation could be made about President Obama's performance in the last months of the debate? Can you think of any bright red lines he established and held? A commentator on CNN said he would love too buy a car from Obama. "...He would demand $50,000, and I would offer $10,000 and he would say fine it's yours."
I listened to John Rothmann defending the President after the deal was closed. Obama was being hammered by callers with many saying they feel betrayed and will not consider voting for Obama again. John's defense was the Republicans are worse and Obama is better than one of " them" getting into the White House. If ever there was a definition of damning with feint praise. The bar has been lowered so far in relation to Obama, we are left with, "...well at least he's not as bad as they are." Now that is a campaign them to be proud of.
Of course, John is right. If a regressive, and all the GOP candidates are radically regressive, were to occupy the White House, whatever is left of the social safety net would dissolve. Obama has made two good appointments to the Supreme Court. He has ended "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and his justice department will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits same sex marriage. His appointees to the National Labor Relations Board have returned some balance to an entity that formerly rubber-stamped anything employers wanted to the detriment of working Americans. His health care reforms and financial services reforms could turn out to be landmark pieces of legislation, but they are in danger because of Obama's seeming aversion to fight for anything even as his opponents try to kill both measures through death by a thousand cuts. Recently, the big automakers agreed to fuel economy standards of over 54 miles per gallon by 2025. The EPA is about to issue new pollution rules aimed at dealing with climate change chemicals. There are more examples, but none of this would have occurred with a regressive in the White House.
It is just so painful to watch Obama in action. The pattern is so easy to see now. The other side stakes out extreme positions and Obama gives away much of the fight before it even starts, enabling the other side to control the terms of the debate. Once he abandoned the single payer concept for health care, the reform debate was doomed to niggling around the edges of any real reform and the health insurance companies were saved. In the debt ceiling debate, Obama did draw some lines in the sand. He said he would not accept a deal which did not raise new revenues and wouldn't accept a short-term solution. Once again, his lines in the sand are brushed away by one wave. In this "compromise" Obama gave much and got very little in return. The jury is still out on whether independent voters will reward him for being the only adult in the room come November 2012. It may not make any difference if his actions have so alienated his base they stay home like they did in 2010.
The corporate media says the extremes on either side of the political spectrum are upset with the deal. They have to portray the outcome this way to obfuscate the truth. Those of us who call ourselves progressive are not extreme and yet the deal abandons most progressive principles. In order to get our fiscal house in order, I am willing to accept a change in eligibility rates for Medicare and Social Security. The income cap on Social Security should be removed with the wealthy continuing to pay a percentage of their income into the system no matter how much they make. Requiring anyone who has health insurance to use it first before Medicare kicks in would be an idea worth looking at. Lowering corporate income taxes while raising personal income tax rates is also a viable idea. None of these are extreme positions. They are quite in the middle. However, because Obama refuses to control the debate...because Obama refuses to draw more extreme lines in the sand...because Obama seems incapable of fighting for hat he believes in, or more importantly what we elected him to believe in, these positions are labeled extreme by the very same people who voted for the Ryan budget which would have ended Medicare, made the Bush tax cuts for the uber-rich permanent, and would have shredded what was left of the social safety net. Talk about extreme.
How sad and dispiriting is the argument you must vote to re-elect the President because at least he isn't as bad as "they "are. One of the most glorious moments in 2008 must have been going into a polling booth and voting "for" someone rather than holding your nose and voting for the lesser of two evils. How often down that happen anymore in our elections? In 2012, you cannot afford to stay home or make a protest vote. You saw what happened in 2000. Does anyone believe President Gore would have left the nation in the shambles the way President Bush did?
There are still battles to fight. The President has been seduced into fighting for more trade deals with South Korea and Columbia, which will cost more Americans their jobs. This special congressional commission charged with finding another $1.2 Trillion in spending cuts will not increase taxes so cuts will fall on the middle class again unless you oppose it. (They don't want this commission to work because if it fails, "automatic" cuts occur while preserving the lowest personal income tax rates since 1950) AT&T cannot be allowed to merge with T-Mobile. It would destroy competition and drive cellular phone rates to the roof.
I don't get to vote. However, if I could I would vote to re-elect the President because the alternative would be a disaster. (Just say President Bachman or Romney out loud a few times). I am just sad President Obama has ended up resembling Bill Clinton and not Franklin Roosevelt.
Is it possible in the debt ceiling "compromise" a similar observation could be made about President Obama's performance in the last months of the debate? Can you think of any bright red lines he established and held? A commentator on CNN said he would love too buy a car from Obama. "...He would demand $50,000, and I would offer $10,000 and he would say fine it's yours."
I listened to John Rothmann defending the President after the deal was closed. Obama was being hammered by callers with many saying they feel betrayed and will not consider voting for Obama again. John's defense was the Republicans are worse and Obama is better than one of " them" getting into the White House. If ever there was a definition of damning with feint praise. The bar has been lowered so far in relation to Obama, we are left with, "...well at least he's not as bad as they are." Now that is a campaign them to be proud of.
Of course, John is right. If a regressive, and all the GOP candidates are radically regressive, were to occupy the White House, whatever is left of the social safety net would dissolve. Obama has made two good appointments to the Supreme Court. He has ended "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and his justice department will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits same sex marriage. His appointees to the National Labor Relations Board have returned some balance to an entity that formerly rubber-stamped anything employers wanted to the detriment of working Americans. His health care reforms and financial services reforms could turn out to be landmark pieces of legislation, but they are in danger because of Obama's seeming aversion to fight for anything even as his opponents try to kill both measures through death by a thousand cuts. Recently, the big automakers agreed to fuel economy standards of over 54 miles per gallon by 2025. The EPA is about to issue new pollution rules aimed at dealing with climate change chemicals. There are more examples, but none of this would have occurred with a regressive in the White House.
It is just so painful to watch Obama in action. The pattern is so easy to see now. The other side stakes out extreme positions and Obama gives away much of the fight before it even starts, enabling the other side to control the terms of the debate. Once he abandoned the single payer concept for health care, the reform debate was doomed to niggling around the edges of any real reform and the health insurance companies were saved. In the debt ceiling debate, Obama did draw some lines in the sand. He said he would not accept a deal which did not raise new revenues and wouldn't accept a short-term solution. Once again, his lines in the sand are brushed away by one wave. In this "compromise" Obama gave much and got very little in return. The jury is still out on whether independent voters will reward him for being the only adult in the room come November 2012. It may not make any difference if his actions have so alienated his base they stay home like they did in 2010.
The corporate media says the extremes on either side of the political spectrum are upset with the deal. They have to portray the outcome this way to obfuscate the truth. Those of us who call ourselves progressive are not extreme and yet the deal abandons most progressive principles. In order to get our fiscal house in order, I am willing to accept a change in eligibility rates for Medicare and Social Security. The income cap on Social Security should be removed with the wealthy continuing to pay a percentage of their income into the system no matter how much they make. Requiring anyone who has health insurance to use it first before Medicare kicks in would be an idea worth looking at. Lowering corporate income taxes while raising personal income tax rates is also a viable idea. None of these are extreme positions. They are quite in the middle. However, because Obama refuses to control the debate...because Obama refuses to draw more extreme lines in the sand...because Obama seems incapable of fighting for hat he believes in, or more importantly what we elected him to believe in, these positions are labeled extreme by the very same people who voted for the Ryan budget which would have ended Medicare, made the Bush tax cuts for the uber-rich permanent, and would have shredded what was left of the social safety net. Talk about extreme.
How sad and dispiriting is the argument you must vote to re-elect the President because at least he isn't as bad as "they "are. One of the most glorious moments in 2008 must have been going into a polling booth and voting "for" someone rather than holding your nose and voting for the lesser of two evils. How often down that happen anymore in our elections? In 2012, you cannot afford to stay home or make a protest vote. You saw what happened in 2000. Does anyone believe President Gore would have left the nation in the shambles the way President Bush did?
There are still battles to fight. The President has been seduced into fighting for more trade deals with South Korea and Columbia, which will cost more Americans their jobs. This special congressional commission charged with finding another $1.2 Trillion in spending cuts will not increase taxes so cuts will fall on the middle class again unless you oppose it. (They don't want this commission to work because if it fails, "automatic" cuts occur while preserving the lowest personal income tax rates since 1950) AT&T cannot be allowed to merge with T-Mobile. It would destroy competition and drive cellular phone rates to the roof.
I don't get to vote. However, if I could I would vote to re-elect the President because the alternative would be a disaster. (Just say President Bachman or Romney out loud a few times). I am just sad President Obama has ended up resembling Bill Clinton and not Franklin Roosevelt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)