 |
||
|
Blog |
||
Seeds
December 24, 2008
It pains me to see how rapidly the Democratic Party is factionalizing. Women groups care more about affirmative action in the Obama cabinet then the overall picture of how he intends to save our nation from possible extinction. I would like to see some cabinet members of French Canadian descent, but I'm not about to throw a tantrum because of it.
The vote against gay marriage was certainly a setback for civil rights for homosexuals. As long as they have civil unions, it was mostly a setback of semantics. Things change for the better slowly sometimes, and even fall back a step now and then. The important thing is that progress continues overall, and it is. Look how long it took for black Americans to secure the rights they have now, and they were in far worse shape.
It would be nice if we could have everything we want now. It would be nice if we could push a button and eliminate all prejudice. It just doesn't work that way. The very diversity everyone praises naturally means resistance.
We have seen how the Republican Party purposely used wedge issues to divide the nation. This did not carry us forward more rapidly. It did not bring anything good at all. In fact, it held us back, and is still holding us back. Democrats need to learn from this. Do not follow in the steps of conservatives. Secure the future first, educate people on what it means to be a real American, to love justice and fairness and equal opportunity, and then initate the kind of changes that assure civil rights for us all. Anything less, and you assure the viability of the opposition who will do far more damage in th efuture.
I advise patience less complaining, fewer temper tamtrums, more longterm vision, and lots of patience. Let's unite the nation first, as Obama seems to be doing, and proceed from there. Remember, part of the mission of progressives is to calm the irrational fears of conservatives, and let them understand that America stands for equality among us all.
We must never sell the good of the nation and the world for wedge issues that will work themselves out over time again.
December 13, 2008
I watch in amazement at how the National Republican Party has learned nothing from their recent election failures. Their strategists and radio mouthpieces still commit themselves to slash and burn tactics that expose how little they truly represent.
Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat, was recently caught trying to sell the senate seat of the president-elect to the highest bidder. Wiretaps from the FBI revealed that he was abusing his power in other ways as well, trying to shake down a children's hospital for money, and twisting arms of newspaper executives to get certain reporters fired. All-in-all, an unsavory man who should never have been elected to office, and deserves significant jail time as a warning to others. It was just the scandal the Republicans were waiting for.
They are doing their best to push guilt through association by tying Rod Blagojevich to Barack Obama. They have tried similar attempts over and over again during the campaign with other so-called scandals, and failed. This time, it is even more ridiculous, since Blagojevich is quoted in a phone conversation as saying that the only thing the Obama people were willing to give him for a particular Senate choice was their appreciation. It was also reported that Obama's chief-of-staff was the one who called the FBI's attention to Blagojevich. The prosecutor even went so far as to publicly state that there was no evidence of wrongdoing that led to the Obama camp.
The Republicans are, in effect, still advertising their gross disdain for facts, and how they much prefer innuendo and spreading their own separate reality. They know that their wild base of Rich Limbaugh and Sean Hannity addicts are always ready to tar and feather anyone they see as liberal, no matter what the reason or the consequences. In other words, they are still the party of angry madmen, hell bent on preventing anything good from happening. While they are betting that this kind of senseless negativity will somehow hurt Obama while gaining more power for themselves, it is more likely that they are rushing blindly to their own demise.
The American people are not static in their view of politics. More and more they see who is lying and unworthy of their support. They see what the National Republican Party has given them: failed policies, corruption, the likes of Tom Delay, needless war, a broken economy, an ineffective energy policy, numerous scandals of their own, negative campaigning, threats to our constitutional form of government, a president who proved himself entirely inadequate to the task, regional division, debt, and such intellectual embarrassments as Dan Quail and Sarah Palin.
The reputation of the United States has suffered because of all this. Republicans would have us suffer more, and one has to wonder why.
The answer lies in the the blind dynamics of partisanship. When indoctrinated partisans commit themselves to winning at all cost, no matter what the result, political horrors happen. Lying, cheating, even stealing become acceptable behavior. They would drag us to oblivion rather than concede that they were wrong, and that other policies might be better.
Anti-partisanship recognizes that political parties have every reason to purposely and maliciously perpetuate conflict and public division. No matter what the issue or how simple the solution, they will push ideological alternatives in order to identify themselves differently from the other party, and instill discord. This is so prevalent, that ideology becomes locked and unbending to the actual needs of reality. It becomes a religion based on quips, that ends up causing more damage than good. And yet still they continue like a rogue elephant, destroying everything in its path.
Blagojevich is an example of how politics attract the wrong kind of people on both sides of the aisle. It is important to keep his wrong-doings in perspective though. No doubt he will get his just punishment, but from what has been reported so far, he actually garnered few benefits for all his efforts. Someone like Tom Delay, however, set in place huge, corruptive changes that are still plaguing us, inviting lobbyists by the thousands directly into the legislative process for donations. No shame. No outrage. No punishment. The indictments against him were nothing compared to the damage he caused.
This is what the Republicans, in their mad thirst for power, offer us — whitewashing their own highly corrosive scandals while doing everything in their power to destroy their opponents. No positive direction. No realistic ideas to solve problems. When Democrats used the term "more of the same," they were right. Republicans seem to recognize nothing new under the sun. If something like deregulation fails, or makes things worse, they insist on doing more of it. If saving the American auto industry will prevent our nation's economy from heading into a national Depression, Republican legislators will vote against it.
They say they stand for freedom, yet have a very real history of resisting civil rights for minorities, women, and now gays.
They have interjected a new definition of what it means to be American. Small minded, closed to new ideas, distrustful of allies, international bullies, deniers of civil rights, enemies of reason.
That is not the Age of Enlightenment vision our founders had in mind.
We must hope that the Republican Party comes to its senses by seeing what excessive partisanship has done to them.
We must hope that the Democrats see how they contribute to excessive partisanship as well, and not make the same mistakes. Too often we see them trying to emulate dirty Republican tactics, which only degrades them.
It is time for the American people to stand up to the corrosive dynamics of partisanship, and inject our government with the kind of well-meaning integrity that it deserves. They need to make sure that their ranks are free from people like Blagojevich, who are not just bad seed, but traitors to ideals we believe in.
December 7, 2008
I am thoroughly amazed how pundits continue to speculate on Sarah Palin representing the future of the Republican Party. It this happens, it proves that Republican leaders have learned nothing from the last election. It they continue to want polarizing candidates of low intellectual capacity, whose main values are throwing cheap barbs and folksy humor, then they are in trouble.
I don't think Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan would be pleased how retrograde the party has become. I don't think that the majority of Republicans are pleased either. Democrats, on the other hand, are probably ecstatic.
On the other hand, there may be some kind of healing process going on here. Faith healing? Sarah Palin actually makes George W. Bush look good. Of the two, I'd vote for him.
December 6, 2008
A special message to the Religious RIght in their time of travail.
December 5, 2008
American auto industries are in deep trouble.
They have long committed themselves to producing vehicles that are more and more inappropriate to the needs of our times, all for short-term profits. Instead of leading the industry, they did their best to hold it back, relying on advertizing to reel in profits. The writing was on the wall, but they ignored it, as if rising oil prices, dependencies on troubled suppliers of the world, and serious pollution posed no serious threat. They not only embraced a mindset of denial, they actively struggled to bring us where we are today. They lobbied against CAFE standards, and the self-righteous politicians, who castigate them now, fell in line. The guilt does not end there. The people who purchased these vehicles, who were lured by thoughts of convenience and impressing their neighbors, despite the cost and environmental effects, are guilty as well. They felt no responsibility in making rational decisions that would prevent a host of backlashes.
Foolishness? Or madness? Perhaps neither. The undercurrent we see today almost looks like evil.
We are now caught in a difficult position. Do we save an industry that has, until now, been unwilling to save itself? Do we save millions of jobs of hard working people, so that industrial giants can continue on a course that impedes the safety and survival of our nation? The people who benefit most, those in charge, are the guiltiest of all. Have they learned their lesson? Can a bailout transform them into people who care about the world they live in, more than they care for their bank accounts? Will they turn into partners with the rest of us in saving the planet? I don't think so. Years of questionable habit and a constant obsession with greed do not disappear overnight. A bailout might encourage them to be worse. The gambler who keeps winning, has no reason to change.
Nevertheless, we must not be like them. We have to do something. Part of that response has to be a condemnation of the culture of greed that has been so invasive throughout the West. The speculators who pushed us into economic crisis, the CEOs who reaped millions in leading their investors astray, and politicians who sold their souls to lobbyists, don't need a bailout, they need rehabilitation. They need an epiphany that draws them into the light of sense.
We should not be afraid to call their actions what they are, morally criminal, and hold these people accountable in any way the law permits. But there are factors in our culture that feed into their behavior. These need to change too. Not by force, or even, necessarily, by law.
W e begin to change them by withholding our tacit support.
November 19, 2008
Republican elite, Newt Gingrich, recently predicted on the Bill O'Reilly Show that gay and secular fascists would soon use violence to force their views on the American people.
I thank him for his timely words. He happily proves how conservatives need to fixate their anger on some segment of our citizenry in order to generate the kind of popular fear that they thrive on. They cannot compete with ideas, since they really have none. They cannot compete with answers to our problems, since they are always two or three decades behind what the times call for.
So, now we have to watch out for mobs of gay people with whips and pitchforks. The brazen secularists have to be watched as well. They a wily bunch, and might take some lessons from conservative precedents, like the Ku Klux Klan, and start lynchings... who? Churchgoers?
I can see them now, gays on one side, secularists on the other, outflanking the benign conservative militia groups. No doubt militant gay splinter groups will fund their own version of conservative Tim McVeigh, and attack government buildings.
In swoops the devilish SecularMan, using his mighty powers to stop innocent, God-fearing, conservative fundamentalists from forcing their views on everyone else. The GaySwish will use his feminine wiles to seduce Republican legislators and fundamentalist preachers into sexual scandals that would mark them as hypocrites.
Gay men will jump innocent female victims on the street... and what? Restyle their hair?
Conservative gays will be forced out of the closets, utterly ruining their images. Sports heroes will be disrespected, getting their haired pulled and faces scratched. Lesbians will guard the concentration camps. Secularists will force conservative children to read books about Harry Potter.
Yep. The former Speaker of the House has reason to be afraid. As for Bill O'Reilly? His ratings might go up for a while, but eventually the gay Gestapo will come along and teach him how to make quiche.
In other wrods, Newt, get real.
November 18, 2008
November 17, 2008
Well, the automobile industry in America is now facing the consequences for past sins. Their CEOs have long looked ignored the pollution they were encouraging by building SUVs and monstrosities like Hummers, and set aside their responsibility for the world we live in so that they could grab one more yearly bonus, while holding their own finances risk-free. In light of global warming, if this is not evil incarnate, I don't know what is.
And now they are asking for the tax payers to compensate for their sins as their poorly planned strategies face insolvency. They suddenly care for their employees and the millions who would lose their jobs, and the shock on America's already faltering economy. Such concern is touching, but not very believable.
Politician's have little choice here, but some conservatives, always more loyal to their confining political taglines than to people, are ready to self-righteously let our last great manufacturing base sink into oblivion.
Self-righteous? They are as stained as the CEOs who put their own profits before the safety of the world. If these same politicians had implemented CEFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards years ago, forcing the Automotive industry to increase miles to gallon, and therefore sell more appropriate vehicles, the companies would not be facing insolvency now, and global warming would not be the problem it is today. Where was their political courage back then, when doing the right thing would have made a difference?
They should all bear their heads in shame, and never run for office again.
November 14, 2008
Last night, two Republican governors spoke on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer about the future of their party on the national scene. They concluded that the Republican Party has drifted from its premise of small government, lower taxes and reform. All very true, despite the recurrent mantra that none of them seem to follow. Their unarticulated vision, it seems consists of the most powerful country in the world having a smaller government, lots more debt and reforms that place creationism on par with evolution, but there you have it.
They attacked Barack Obama's experience in an interesting way: They used it as a diversion from Sarah Palin's lack of experience. After all, Republicans brought the issue up first, and then set it aside when their candidate chose Palin. Now they "cleverly" twist it into a backhands defense. These rhetorical defenses are so tiresome.
So, one more time:
Barack Obama has roughly the same political experience as Abraham Lincoln, one of our greatest presidents of the past. The fact that he leans away from conservatism means that we have a chance of changing our direction away from the policies of war and deregulation and disrespect for government that made the mess we are in now.
What really nullifies the Republican complaint about Obama's experience is simple. What he lacks in experience he more than makes up for with intelligence. The Republicans have no cute answer for that. In my lifetime, they have never produced an intellectual heavyweight for office, bringing instead the likes of Quail, W., and Palin, who were all, well, embarrassing. They pick people like that so they sound genuine for the backward policies they support. When half of their presidential candidates say they don't believe in evolution, we tend to think that the half who said they did are probably lying. When deregulation causes a financial crisis around the world, we are not surprised to hear them long for more. When we learn that war is not an answer to Middle East problems, they look at Iran with bombs flashing in their minds. Their answer to global warming is drill more at home. They want to fix our economy by giving tax breaks to the rich, who then invest overseas. They think that permanently and maliciously dividing red states from blue somehow makes the nation strong and good. Everything is backwards, and all their experience, our experience, teaches them nothing.
It must confuse conservatives that people around the world danced in the streets and parties when Obama won the election. Not one flag burning. At last we have a chance to be the nation we can be, instead of the throwback they seem they want.
If they don't see this, it does not reflect on their experience, but on what they failed to learn from the experience they've collectively dragged us threw.
November 8, 2008
GOP Failures
After the 2008 election, people are asking what the GOP did wrong. No doubt pundits and consultants will ponder that for a long time. Everyone wants to know the secrets of a winning strategy, and avoid the pitfalls of losing. It seems that strategy is more important than the people and policies that come along because of it.
The way I see it, the GOP remains shackled by tired refrains that people no longer respond to as they once did. Why? It's not so much that the message is bad. Lowering taxes and smaller government still has a certain appeal. The trouble is, people don't believe them anymore. Republicans have never delivered on their promises, bringing larger government instead, and tax relief only for those who need it least. One need only look at today's Bush administration. The previous Bush, and his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, also failed miserably in this regard. Under each of these presidents, government grew exponentially, the tax burden remained high, the economy suffered, the national debt increased, and foreign intrigue in the Middle East led to serious conflicts.
Under GOP rule the gulf between rich and poor has widened significantly. For a people who believe in freedom for all, having such a wide disparity of wealth has to result in inhibiting freedom among the masses. A small but wealthy percentage of people end up with far too much influence, while majority opinions are valued less and less. Vice-President Chaney made this clear when it was pointed out that the majority of Americans disagreed with Bush polices. His response was "So?" Because their power still lies in the hands of the electorate, when election time approaches, these same politicians result to insultingly obvious lies and empty rhetoric just to garner votes. Unfortunately for them, you can't fool all of the people, all of the time.
Conservative think tanks, which could be described more properly as conspiracy and propaganda factories, work full-time at twisting information so that the American people remain at best confused, and at worst subdued by fear and base political rhetoric.
Highly paid professional propagandists like Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc. (please note, they each present themselves as quitessential conservatives), use every rhetorical trick possible to distort liberalism. These people have become the most visible spokespersons for the Republican Party. They are the ones who garner support from their mesmerized followers for the likes of George W. Bush, even after his first term proved how dangerous his administration was. Dirty campaigning, their mainstay to power, was never not designed to disseminate truth, but to destroy opponents. Even a supposedly honorable man like John McCain was unable to avoid this kind of political tactic in his campaign, suggesting that Barack Obama was a socialist, or even a communist, for allowing the Bush tax reductions to end as they are scheduled to do.
The GOP is now suffering the consequences of their schemes. They have divided the union, insulted huge regions of the nation, catered to religious fanatics, weakened Congress, attacked the Supreme Court, strengthened the presidency beyond Constitution intent, spread paranoia, redefined liberalism into something it is not, instigated an unjust war, lied to the American people, blatantly showed disrespect for public opinion (they were supposed to represent the people, right?), and fed into a culture of greed while hypocritically feigning support for "family values." They have fought against equal rights, the environment, economic regulations (resulting in the fall of Wall Street), global warming, and relieving the tax burden of the middle and lower classes (i.e., 95% of all Americans). They have alienated us from our traditional allies and are responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives in Iraq.
One wonders what damage they will do next? That anyone votes for them at all is the result of a lot of hard work at manipulating people's minds. That's what think tanks and propagandists get paid to do. If spreading hate, or dividing the nation into blue and red states furthers their cause, at least temporarily, so be it. Nothing could be more unpatriotic.
That the GOP may be looking for a better strategy should frighten us all. What they should be doing is overhauling the aims of their entire philosophy for the future. They need to clean up their act by introducing intellectual integrity, and stop taking their lead from self-absorbed, bellicose Neanderthals like Rush Limbaugh.
Conservatism needs to take a more civilized place in our political culture, but not as it is today. It should be working to preserve what is best in our culture, and keep progress from running havoc with people's lives, not tearing it down for the sole reason of hoarding power and catering to the rich.
Despite all their rhetoric, conservatives have no vision for the future. Their philosophy is based on idealizing the past, resisting change and raising a nationalistic ardor that negates free thought. Where could that possibly lead? Their goals of lower taxes and smaller government have proven themselves over and over again to be a sham, producing nothing but an increase of national debt that will eventually tear the nation down completely. They have applauded the off-shoring of jobs, overseas investment, deregulation and wars of convenience.
Now that the problems are overwhelming and we look over the precipice to environmental disaster, they claim to be for energy independence and solving global warming. Should we believe this, when they then proceed to talk only about drilling oil in protected areas, as if draining the future's oil reserves will somehow solve everything.
It seems obvious that we dare not place the fate of our nation and the world in the hands of these people, and voters are finally seeing this. We need to respond to problems before they become too great to handle. President Reagan was lionized because he refuted the moral cautions and policy proposals of President Carter, propagating a blind optimism of consumerism in our culture that set the stage for everything we are facing today, including the culture of greed. Conservatives have since blamed liberals for everything that their own policies of greed made wrong.
Conservatives in Action,
Self-Destruction ModeMembers of the John McCain team are now spreading derogatory comments about Sarah Palin, more or less blaming her for the failure of their recent campaign. They accused her of not knowing which three nations are in North America, and thinking that the vast continent of Africa was a single country.
Carl Rove stated that Obama won the election because of his center right leanings — this after claiming he was a socialist. He does not even try to hide the fact that his previous accusations had to be lies. He thinks we are that stupid.
Conservative propagandists told gullible believers that Obama was a Muslim who palled around with terrorists.
A McCain commercial accused him of sponsoring comprehensive sex education courses for kindergarten age children.
The conservative rumor mill even had him born in Kenya!
McCain gave a wonderful concession speech after losing the election, and expects to be forgiven for all his dirty campaigning as if, after all, it were acceptable behavior.
Republican Elizabeth Dole not only accused her Senate opponent of being "godless," she went so far as to hire an actress to imitate her opponent's voice on television to incriminate her. That backfired, but the fact that she did it speaks volumes about Republican ethics, as do all of the above — and more. One recalls the shenanigans of the Bush administration pulling us into the unjust war in Iraq that drains our economy today.
How many of these potentially disastrous, dishonorable acts do conservatives think that they can pull off before being held accountable? At some point people are going to see beyond their fear-mongering lies and see who the real culprit is. Judging by the tipping of the balance, it may be happening now.
I was amazed during the campaign process to hear Sarah Palin repeating the same claims over and over again that had already been debunked as false. Truth did not matter to her at all, which means it did not matter to her consultants, speech writers, strategists and many of her supporters. The bridge to nowhere that she supposedly refused became the earmark to nowhere. She took the money and then claimed to be a champion against earmarks. Her chant of "thanks but no thanks" still rings in our memory. Today she complains that she has been treated unfairly. What gall!
I know that indoctrinated conservatives will close their minds to these words, or immediately try to blame liberals, or whatever — but the conservatism of the south and Midwestern states has discarded whatever integrity that conservatism had, and is now the greatest threat that the nation faces. We can stand up against terrorism, we can repair the economy, we can combat global warming and environmental hazards, but when the poison circulates inside us, crippling our minds and values, transforming religion itself into something bellicose and greedy, then this problem is far more serious and immediate than all the rest.
As a nation of free individuals, we have to take the time to think for ourselves, discard party loyalties in order to embrace a higher loyalty, one that can save us from the brink of ruin.
October 28, 2008
Redistribution of Wealth
John McCain has found another fixation to distort Barack Obama's candidacy with. Obama dared to use the familiar term: "redistribution of wealth," and this was immediately translated that he was about to impose something upon the nation that we don't already have. That, of course, allows McCain to label him with the dreaded title of "socialist," or as one commentator said, "a Marxist." Such terms are considered poison among conservatives and raise concerns from just about everyone else as well. It's a familiar conservative ploy, like accusing Obama of being the most liberal member of Congress. Just about every Democrat who runs for president inherits that title automatically. If it's repeated enough, the conservative base takes it for granted.
Right now, this very instant, we are living in a system that redistributes wealth to both rich and poor, and to some extent, everyone in between. Welfare at one extreme, corporate rewards on the other. Each side points to the other as if they were getting nothing, and does their best to get more. We see this when they confess who they want getting the tax breaks.
Liberals, influenced by the teachings of Christ (not Calvinism) and Age of Enlightenment ideals, would like to direct this redistribution to the poor. Conservatives, influenced by social Darwinism and Calvinist thought, prefer redistributing funds to those who "deserve it" - not out of need, but as a reward. Both sides expect the popular support of their special interests. Both try to take away support from the special interests of other side. It's a familiar and tiresome pattern, but many still believe in it.
We need to ask ourselves which of these redistributions supports equality and freedom, and which supports the privileges that come from financing economic division? These are the main questions, plain and simple, that no one likes to ask for some reason.
October 20, 2008
Colin Powell spoke on Face the Nation yesterday. I have only rarely heard anyone speak with such vision and honor—from either party.
Republicans would do well to listen to his words with an open mind. His words represent that last great hope for the Republican Party, that has been distorted by the likes of Tom Delay, Newt Ginrich, Rush Limbaugh, and all the others who want to divide the nation and tear down our governmental safeguards.
His words bravely and succinctly decribed how the Republican Party has sold itself to base ideas and un-American political tactics, throwing reason out the window and giving free rein to the likes of Sarah Palin, who will say anything for a grasp of power and the thrill of the limelight.
The Republican Party, in their stubbornly conservative resistance to change, is always at least one step behind the needs of the times. John McCain is one such example, still offering the same old formula and fear tactics that led to 8 years of the Bush administration, and all the prolems that they led us into with their belligerence, disregard to the middle class, lack of concern for the environment and global warming, deregulation built in faith in market dynamics (greed gone wild), weakening of the government's balance of power, etc., etc.
October 15, 2008
It just doesn't end.
Sarah Palin continues to brag about refusing the bridge to nowhere as if it were some kind of incredible accomplishment that makes her shine in the corrupt world of politics. Who cares if she refused the bridge to nowhere, if she took the money anyway and spent on other pet projects? She's still taking tax money from the people of Alabama, Minnesota, Utah and all the other states. Our money! How did we benefit from this? She turned the bridge to nowhere into the earmark to who knows where.
We keep hearing Republicans talk about how the government cannot solve the problems that we face, that government only makes things worse, and the bailout is wrong policy. They just love bad-mouthing the government we are supposed to cherish.
But where do they turn to when crisis hits? Wall Street? Wealthy corporations? CEOs?
Where do the people turn to?
It's easy for these conservatives to be critical now that the bailout is underway. What do they have to lose? No matter what happens, they can be proudly seen as contending with big, bad government action and thus profiting from it. But what would they put in its place? Instead of complaining about government inefficiency, they should grow up and make government efficient.
But that would take work, and it's far easier to complain.
October 14, 2008
Sarah Palin recently mistook the shouting of some of her supporters as protest. She responded by saying that she hopes that the protesters thank our troops for protecting their right to protest. A typical conservative shot to be sure, not unusual for Republicans.
Personally, I hope that Sarah Palin has the decency to thank our troops for fighting and dying in an unjust war so that she can make political cracks like that for her own benefit. I find that truly disgusting.
She later announced to reporters how pleased she was that she had been cleared of all ethical allegations regarding trooper-gate, when the final report from the investigation clearly says just the opposite.
The mindset that you can just deny obvious facts and change reality by doing so is not only infantile, but dangerous in the hands of a public leader.
October 13, 2008
It amazes me how Sarah Palin stands before a crowd and brags how she refused the bridge to nowhere, and returned oil penalty funds to the tax payers of Alaska, "because it was their money." But then her supporters don't seem to understand what she I saying. She may have refused the bridge to nowhere, once it had become a national scandal. But did she return the allocated money back to Washington? Our money? No. She transformed the bridge to nowhere into the earmark to nowhere. She too these federal funds without a twinge of conscience. That's money taken from Alabama, from Minnesota, from Florida, from Utah, and all the states, and for nothing in particular. She took it, and then took credit for implying just the opposite. And most of her supporters fail to see that.
When it comes to Sarah Palin for vice-president, I quote Sarah Palin herself: "Thanks, but no thanks."
October 11, 2008
It seems that John McCain may have seen some of the fruit of his tactical ambitions, and didn't like it. Attracting a bunch of intlerent hate-mongers to his rallies, he actually had to defend Barack Obama as an American, and he was booed. One crazy accused Obama of being an Arab, and McCain had to tell her that no, he was not.
While I credit his ability to alter his focus, this does not excuse the damage that he has done. Yes, he was playing to his base for a while, but why would a decent leader even want such a base, much less feed its ignorance and hatred?
This may be a twinge of conscience. It may just be that his polls are continuing to go down, showing that rabble-rousing is not the way to go this election.
Whatever his reasoning, I feel it is sad that any politician has such little foresight as to place his or her faith into the hands of "Rovian" advisors whose strategies go to such extremes that they lessen who we are as a people.
Ignorance is not a commodity to be cultivated and exploited, much less considered an indespensible virtue of family values and patriotism.
It is my sincerest hope that all American politicians get the message, and serve as messengers and defenders of truth instead of shallow, purveyors of self-interest.
October 10, 2008
I feel betrayed.
There was a time when I believed in John McCain. I turned away from him this election because of his stance on the war, but I still respected him.
What I see of him now makes me wonder if he was ever the man I thought he was. His negative campaining, verging on depravity, has reached new depths of dishonesty and bad will. He is trying to associate Barack Obama with terrorists in order to pull his opponent down, rousing groups of people to decry Obama as un-American. At this late date, McCain has to know these tactics won't save his candidacy. So, why is he doing it? Out of spite? For revenge? Is he trying to further the divide the nation?
Right now, he is doing his best to defame the man who will probably be our next president, and leave the nation in political turmoil. This is no patriot or American hero. Nor is he a man of honor. Perhaps he once was. But seeing how natural all this is, perhaps he never was. All I can see of him is an evil-intending rabble-rouser on par with Rush Limbaugh. Sarah Palin has shown herself in joyful league with his tactics, and has therefore lost my respect as well.
He still insists that negotiating with nations like Iran, without preconditions, is wrong, naive, a bad mistake.
Can anyone tell me when giving the nation the cold shoulder has ever solved anything? Ever???
Has it ever not made the situation worse? Think of Cuba. North Korea. Iraq.
McCain is not offering us the change we desperately need. He's trapped in old thinking.
We need a leader capable of thinking creativly, responding to new situations in new and effective ways. Someone who brings a new tenor to Washington, and works to unite the country, rather than divide it.
As for McCain, his legacy has no meaning to me anymore. He exemplifies the deepest problem of American politics, problems that we need to eradicate, while he attempts to make them worse.
October 7, 2008
It both saddens and amazes me how John McCain has committed himself to negative, personal attacks on Barack Obama, especially at this late stage of the game.
Now that he is losing in the polls by a substantial amount, the once honorable Senator has thrown away his previous integrity to raise non-iisues that failed to hurt Obama the first time around. McCain does not seem to be aware that the American people want something different than the Rove tactics of the past, that resulted in so much trouble. Just as Hillary's rating went down with negative ads, so is McCain's. And still he goes on.
This confused me quite a bit. Why should McCain sacrifice his integrity so. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Cynic that I am, I came to realize that there can be only one explanation. McCain must read the writing on the wall. Obama is winning. Why defame our next president?
Why? Because a defamed president, hated by the conservative base, will be a crippled president. McCain's partisan instincts are hoping that the Obama presidency fails, no matter what cost to the American people. Is that patriotism? An honorable man would bow out gracefully and repair what broken reputation he has left.
But McCain is committed to a very different path. He must know that he has no expertise in the economy, and that his choice of Sarah Palin proves that his discernment is muddled. He must also know that the Bush attitude of not speaking to one's enemies is a dead end street with proven failures every step of the way. So why not do what is eally best for the nation, and bow out gracefully?
Another example of Republican bile.
At least the people understand what's going on.
September 13, 2008
The questions boils down to this: Do you want a president who lies?
We all expected that this year's campaign would be different from the previous two. It would be based on truth and civility. The American people deserved it, we were told, and both candidates seemed honorable and committed.
Well, some political strategists in the McCain campaign obviously believe that we don't deserve it, and convinced their leader to adopt the same old strategies that negate any possibility that John McCain will be an agent of change. To pile shame upon shame for us all, the strategies are working.
As someone who once supported McCain, it wrenches my heart out that this once honorable man, who served his country with distinction, should now renege on everything he stood for. They say power corrupts, but so too does the lure to power. It seems that McCain will do or say anything to achieve his objective, that of winning the White House. That is not putting the country first. He is not the man we hoped for.
He promised us a campaign of truth. Does the word maverick mean lying is okay? A lot of people seem to think so.
Where is the man of honor he once was? I understand that people change as they get older, but the nature of his negative ads, which he makes sure to approve of, took me completely by surprise. A program to protect kindergarten child from sexual predators is not a sex education class. McCain knows this, yet he took it as an opportunity to distort Obama's reputation, and try to draw Obama to the kind of competing that makes a mockery of the American people. And he has no qualms about it. He continues saying it even though we know it's a lie.
The Obama people, of course, are responding in ways that insure their own destruction. They believe that the American people want change, but they translate that as change from the ways of George W. Bush. What they forget is that a large number of people actually wanted what Bush represented. They were dismayed at the incompetent way he went about things. With McCain taking his place, and someone young and feisty alongside him, they see the possibility of change going in that direction again. You know, smaller government (which McCain/Palin, or any Republian will never deliver), religion over science, emotion over reason, lowering taxes on the rich (which will somehow turn our economy around, even though they invest overseas), energy independence (new to Republicans, but always focusing on a boost for big oil).
And now lies!
While they tout that Palin rejected the bridge to nowhere, they ignore what amounts to be her earmarks to nowhere that she they kept. The money for the bridge was never returned. It was sucked up to build, among other things, a road that leads to where the bridge was supposed to go. Is that the kind of change we want? Sure sounds good when Sarah Palin does her "Thanks, but no thanks" chant, but it's really meaningless. What she's really saying is (I can almost hear her voice squeaking as she says it): "you know that money I picked from your pocket? Well, don't worry, I didn't spend it on that bridge you made fun of. Thanks again."
Obama supporters were quick to point this out, but they don't realize that it makes no difference. McCain's thirst to "win at all costs" has awakened the beast of Bush supporters, the irrational elements of conservative politics. The Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck crowd, who make money trashing liberalism in the grossest terms. Now that they sense the possibility of trumping liberals again, by hook or by crook, no matter how it hurts the country, they will fight for it. We've seen this before, and are suffering from the results right now.
The beast has wakened, and the excitement is overwhelming. Sarah Palin smiled, adding a pretty face, and conservatives responded. Can God be anywhere but just around the corner? (We've been expecting him for the last 8 years to somehow expiate the Bush policies, but it never happened. Maybe now we'll get another 8 years of disappointment.)
As an anti-partisan, I respect the caution of conservatism. I have no respect for its fanaticism. Repeatedly, almost religiously, it champions wrong causes. They were against civil rights, equal rights for women, Social Security, protecting the environment, energy independence, the kind of business regulations that would have protected us from the present day mortgage crisis (learning nothing from the Great Depression). They have never, and never will, create smaller government, as the last eight years testify. Their idea of tax cuts for the rich and unlimited spending are responsible for the huge national deficit that might just destroy our economy and power in the world.
Now here's the weird part. They usually come around to liberal ways of thinking! They now support civil rights, and all the rest, and, with Sarah Palin, are even flirting with feminism. Anyone who criticizes her is called a sexist, which is a very liberal concept.
But fanatics still rally behind a resistance to liberal ideas. Why? Because they don't want new ideas. They don't want change. They want to go back to the Gilded Age, where wealthy businesspeople ran the country. They don't trust democracy, because they don't trust people. Despite their Christian rhetoric, money is their main concern. Their philosophy is a mixture of Calvinism and social Darwinism, that completely rejects the idea of equality, preferring survival of the fittest, which they think they are despite a history of being on the wrong side.
Please forgive the vehemence of this rant, but it comes from outrage. The Conservative base appears to have found new champions who have no qualms about lying to the American people. Reality is not something you just make up everyday, and yet their followers seem to accept that it is.
The world is too dangerous, too complicated, to feed such a fantasy. We can't take the rick of placing our nation in the hands of ideologues once again.
September 10, 2008
I was once a McCain supporter. When he ran against Bush eight years ago, he seemed just the kind of man I could trust with the fate of the nation.
My respect for McCain continued during this present campaign season.
All that has changed as of yesterday evening.
Prior to yesterday, the use of negative ads by the McCain people disturbed me, but I excused them for typical election zealotry. When he chose Sarah Palin for a running mate, a woman who believes in creationism (as in the anti-intelligent Intelligent Design), that was a major warning bell. That, combined with the negative attacks, made me realize that he would do just about anything to get elected.
What clinched it for me, yesterday, was his ad accusing Obama of supporting sex education for children in kindergarten. He must have known that Obama was supporting a program to protect children against predators, and chose to lie it about it instead. The ad ends with McCain's voice approving this message.
It saddens me to see an honorable man become a dishonorable man. I can only think that the desire to win has changed him, as it changes many of us. The war hero, political gadfly, is now another puppet of the Carl Rove, scorched earth, mindset, and I will never trust him again. Never.
His support of the military surge in Iraq impresses me only so far as this: enough guns and enough killing eventually lead to a quieting down of insurgencies. This was no great victory, as he continue to claim. Iraq was never a threat to the United States, as our invasion proved. I take no pride in unworthy causes, especially when they divert our attention from the real enemy. Someone like Sean Hannity, with his predictably partisan sophist rhetoric, would immediately charge that I wanted Saddam Hussein in power then. That's ridiculous, of course. What I am saying is that I don't think killing Hussein was worth 4,000 American lives, and the countless deaths of innocent Iraqis. When I think of how our own government deceived us into this war, no matter what its intent, it makes me realize that our truest enemies of freedom and representative government are home grown, not overseas.
You might conclude that I mean President Bush and John McCain. If you do, you would be jumping to partisan conclusion. I mean ignorance, belligerence, a contempt for reason and a contempt for the American people and all we stand for. How dare they lie to us and divert us from the path of honorable victory, so they could have their little war with a nation state, and awe the world with American power. The trouble with that puerile approach is that it costs people lives, drains our national coffers, and makes us look like idiots around the world.
John McCain is trying to take this horrible mistake and blight upon our national honor and use it for political advantage. It makes me wonder if he would put us into another such war if he were president.
September 7, 2008
I must admit, that I get very upset when Republicans at their presidential convention still refer to "Northeastern Elites" is a derogatory manner. It seems that the only way they can continue ruining the nation is by ignoring those of us who stand up for separation of church and state, separate and equal branches of government, equality, government by the people instead of by a wealthy oligarchy—you know, the principles on which our nation was founded. They have shown over the last eight years what little respect they have for these essential American principles, and so they belittle those of us who support them.
They infer, by the word elitist, that being educated something to distrust and deride. I notice how many of those who speak against us are themselves college educated, and mostly lawyers! They just hide it well. Are these, then, southern or western elites? And it so, what makes them so special? Some club membership based on northern prejudice?
Guess what! Not everyone in the Northeast goes to Yale or Harvard. You have to be someone like George W. Bush to afford that. Of, that's right, his family hails from Connecticut. He's defiantly a Texan though.
Brothers and sisters in other regions of the nation, please remember, if it wasn't for New England, there would be no United States! It all started here.
If the Northeast is not given the respect it deserves, then maybe we should be taxed less by the federal government in compensation, or not at all. What's that? You need our money? So did the English, and we threw a Tea Party on their behalf.
So how about we stop all these derogatory comments. We could make a few of our own if we wanted to. Since JFK, all the presidents have been from elsewhere, except for Bush senior, and he trasnplanted elsewhere.
August 9, 2008
I am somewhat skeptical about John McCain's energy proposal.
While he touts alternative sources or energy, and conservation, he mostly talks about off-shore drilling in protected areas.
We've heard the same from President Bush. He mentioned alternative sources of energy and global warming during past State of the Union addresses, but it all comes down to wanting to drill only in places that are protected. No mention of drilling in other places, like the National Oil Reserve in Alaska, which is ready and able.
Sounds like politics as usual to me.
So does trying to paste the word celebrity on Obama. Someone at the strategy meeting came up with the word and the memo to use it went all to all. It will be used over and over to drill their strategy into the American psyche. Sort of like flip-flop from 4 years ago.
I'm very disappointed by McCain's campaign so far. He's listening to the wrong consultants, depending on old strategies, and ruining his image.
He was my man 8 years ago, but not today.
July 12, 2008
Now that I am slowly moving away from my part-time web site business, I should have more time for study and writing. The Chivalry-Now web site continues to grow, and the forum keeps adding members of quality to our ranks from around the world.
As of late I have been studying the real meaning of conservatism and liberalism. What I've discovered, quite frankly, is that much of the discord between the two is artificially generated, and that both ideologies, when seen properly, amount to two sides of the same coin than can benefit everyone. I am hoping that the shakeup caused by the Bush Administration will now open doors for both sides of the aisle to come together as siblings of freedom and work for the betterment of the nation, instead of the betterment of the parties.
With that in mind, I've penned two articles:
- Absurdity of Partisan Politics
- Conservatism vs. Liberalism (a brief historical overview for reconciliation)
I hope they contribute to healing the divide.
May 24, 2008
Let me get this straight — the Bush administration condemns President Carter for going to the Middle East and talking to "enemy" leaders hoping to bring peace.
Wasn't President Carter the one who used diplomacy to broker a treaty of peace between Egypt and Israel? Wasn't that the last major diplomatic success American can really boast about?
What has the Bush doctrine of refusing to talk to trouble spots in the world gotten us in the last 8 years, but more entrenched hostility?
President Bush, please let President Carter do what he does best, bring peace to the world, instead of war. I would ask you to do the same but, judging by the past, things would probably get worse.
When John McCain wooed the endorsement of Rev. Hagee, he was purposely wooing the mindset, ideology and people who Hagee represents — the same mindset, ideology and people who supported the Bush administration during the last two elections, and should be held accountable for the disastrous results. Hagee may not be McCain's minister or spiritual advisor, or even friend, but he is a symbol of intolerance, a symbol of conservative hubris that dares to speak as if he were a direct spokesman of God.
That's right. He, and others like him, do not discuss religious possibilities, or present what he claims as a possible interpretation of scripture. He dares to speak as if he were a prophet, speaking for God, as if he heard God's actual voice.
This type of preaching has done well in gathering and energizing the flock, usually to the preacher's monetary benefit, for a lot of preachers and televangelists. In this regard, he is just another in the line of prideful, power-hungry preachers who imitate old testament prophets who claim to know the mind of God, no matter how often their prophecies fail. Like his predecessors, each and every one, he will be proved wrong again, but not before damaging the lives and faith of many people.
This is the kind of religious leadership that John McCain has sought to align himself with. The religious base that shuns science, and sees evidence of the end of times everywhere they look, and hope to instigate it. Many of them reject the health of our environment, and insist on war over diplomacy. Their ignorant pride pushed our nation into the predicament we are in today. And in the name of the Prince of Peace, no less!
Rational, compassionate people need to stand up and say no. Enough of this fanaticism. The world is being plagued by fanaticism. Our problems are such that we dare not put our fate in their hands, no matter how they portray themselves as being messengers of God.
By the way, Rev. Hagee, the Zionist movement was well underway long before Hitler's rise to power. Hitler did more to thwart the Zionist movement than help bring about its success. Preaching wild accusations with an angry quiver in your voice may mesmerize your followers, but it does not change history or make your so-called prophecies any more correct. As a man, you should approach God with humility instead of clothing yourself as a prophet. The Rev. Wright controversy pales in comparison with what you promote and what John McCain hoped to capitalize on. I am sorely disappointed by his turning to you for the kind of support you have to offer. It was not for the benefit of the American people.
May 17, 2008
I think we are starting to see something different on the horizon, and it makes me cautiously hopeful.
When television Hardball commentator Chris Matthews, who makes his livelihood on political tension and controversy, condemns in no uncertain terms the usual lies and misleading sound-bites that are used in political marketing, we know something is changing.
He was referring to the political think tank word du jourappeasement. He compared it to the manipulative rhetoric that stops honest debate of the issues, like cut-and-run,
President Bush, in his not unusual distortion of the English language, recently made the word appeasement synonymous with diplomatic discussion —- and it was enough to throw Chris Matthews over the brink. All of a sudden he changed from political junky to become a real patriot and condemned the distortions of political shenanigans in no uncertain terms.
Why?
I think that the efforts of the Obama campaign not to play the usual games is reawakening some of the idealism that our nation was founded on.
We all know and accept the fact that most politicians will say and do anything to get elected. They often base their strategies on what worked I the past.
Well, people change. They learn from the past, as well as being shaped by it. They see the results of lying and corruption. Once their eyes are open to it, the old strategies that worked so well before now mark the candidates as being enemies to the state —- as they always were.
John McCain would do well to stop people like Carl Rove from marring his campaign with the old strategies. Hillary Clinton might have done better if she hadn't leaned toward that winning at all costs attitude that rings bells of warning in us all.
Change is not a empty word. If they treat it that way, the people know it.
Right now, Barack Obama seems to be ushering in a new integrity to politics, and that despite all the usual attacks thrown against him. We need to watch this with new eyes, and support him against the same old hypocrisy.
March 29, 2008
The Democratic Presidential Primary in the U.S. has Senators Obama and Clinton neck-to-neck in delegates, although Senator Obama enjoys a lead. The campaign has gotten a little nasty as of late, and many speculate if their rhetoric may be hurting the party’s chances of winning in the November election.
Governor Richardson of New Mexico recently endorsed Senator Obama, even though Richardson had previously worked for the Clinton administration. He also ran for president this year, but did not garner enough popular support.
James Carvel, an outspoken supporter of the Clinton campaign, responded to this endorsement by calling Gov. Richardson a traitor (to the Clintons), and went so far as to infer a reference to Judas Iscariot. When confronted by this remark later on, he did not apologize or soften his comment, but reinforced it.
While some people might admire this as hardball politics, and the media gleefully embraces it like outrageous, fresh meat gossip, Mr. Carvel’s comments are surely unacceptable.
There is no doubt he was looking at Gov. Richardson’s decision as a matter of loyalty to the Clinton’s. By doing so, he provides us with a perfect illustration of how the virtue of loyalty can be poorly utilized.
Mr. Carvel’s obvious commitment to a single candidate, which cannot be doubted, appears to have blinded him to the workings of the democratic system. Votes and endorsements are supposed to come from the individual’s decision as to whom would make the better candidate for president. It is a matter of conscience based on the good of the country, not some political cabal. Partisan loyalty or friendship or previous favors have nothing to do with it at all. Gov. Richardson deserves praise for his endorsement, no matter who he endorses, as long as it is well thought out and sincere.
The virtue of loyalty is often a two edged sword that can lead in the wrong direction. A healthy approach as to view loyalty according to a hierarchy of priorities. One can be loyal to a friend who is running for office, but that loyalty extends only so far when conscience points to another person. Loyalty to the good of the nation is too important. We have suffered enough from votes that were based on wedge issues or religious affiliation or party loyalty that have thrown our well-being to the lions.
The question of loyalty remains, however. The person who endorses someone based on previous debts, or friendship only, or blindly votes party line, displays and ethical disloyalty to the larger issues of the nation. Who takes the responsibility of citizenship more seriously? The person who votes his or her conscience, or the one who votes as he or she is expected by others? Who is the real traitor?
I actually feel bad for James Carvel. His political zeal and obvious talents have led his integrity astray, as zeal and talent often do. I feel worse, however, for the American people, who must endure a political climate that has lost its soul to the priorities of greed, competitiveness and special interests.
March 25, 2008
When Vice President Dick Cheney was recently told that two thirds of the American people didn't agree with his hardline position on the War in Iraq, he smirked and said "So?"
The news media and Democrats mildly picked up on this, hardly expecting anything less. The Bush administration has made it clear, over and over again in the last seven years, that they don't care about the opinions of the people they are supposed to represent. They don't represent us at all, although they expect us to confuse patriotism with backing up their special interests.
His arrogant response was taken for what it was, confirming what most of us already know.
But it wasn't his "let them eat cake" response that outraged me me when I heard it. It was his self-satisfied, almost devilish smirk of a man who feels himself untouchable while getting away with murder.
How can an elected leader smirk like that, while our soldiers are dying every day in Iraq, due to his twisted manipulations? How can President Bush dance around before reporters with the weight of 600,000 dead Iraqis on his shoulders? All part of bringing honor and dignity to the office?
And yet they do this with confidence built on years of moral neglect, with the support of people who refuse tot recognize the obscenity before their eyes.
It seems the only thing we can look forward to is cleaning the White House of their misrepresentation, and not making the same mistake again.
March 7, 2008
Watching the politics of a presidential election year is both amazing and frustrating.
I am amazed and frustrated by the lack of original thinking of the candidates and their campaigns. They hire campaign managers and consultants, who base their own ideas on lessons learned from past efforts, i.e.: what worked before and what didn't work. What we see, then, is an appeal from politicians based on the past, and not on present day needs. When people don't respond according to their expectations, they try to learn new lessons, which will only be passes the next time around.
I wish that politicians would just shed this coat of the archaic and find their genuine honesty and idealism. Unfortunately, the process is an uphill battle. Party loyalties force them into predictable and confining roles.
With that in mind, I offer the article: Two Party System.
