-
Website
http://themoderatevoice.com/ -
Original page
http://themoderatevoice.com/45316/quote-of-the-day-where-is-americas-partisan-political-ugliness-heading/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
How does such stomping and finger-pointing move us away from the hyperbole?
In a word Polimom, yes. However, what's just as bad though is the moderate dogma that both Left and Right are equally culpable and that by virtue of it's anti-partisan nature "moderation" is supreme, which I think is a fallacy that needs to be abused out of existence.
So while on message threads we have the Itchy and Scratchy byplay, what's equally irritating is the tired, patronizing, cynical, "realist," moderate who comes down From On High to declare both political parties morally equivalent. Having bestowed his wisdom, the moderate can now rest. To me, that attitude is just as irritating.
I'm not pointing any fingers, and everyone knows how I love to jump in the mud too. But it's a warning how any position in "the middle" or from "moderation" can become a new chorus line with predictable attitudes and lyrics, or worse, be used deceitfully by people interested in advocating their position and views and the expense of others. Just because you're "moderate" doesn't dismiss partisan views and arguments automatically (and I agree with some conservatives that Joe does this a lot). That's why I think it's better and more honest to simply admit your influences and biases beforehand and to wear your heart on your sleeve.
I neither think I'm "on high" nor am I cynical. And it's a fact that both parties play the same equally stupid back and forth game. And I wear my heart on my sleeve: in declaring the stupidity and recklessness of the Big 2's constantly escalating rhetoric.
'Nuff said.
I don't think you are T-Steel. It's more of a warning that disgust with the Big 2 can be partisan attitude as well, as well as the dogma that Republican=Democrat, and moderate>>Democrat or Republican. It's not a bad dogma, I think it comes out of many peoples' desire for more than 2 parties. It's just that many, many on both the Right and Left MSM use "moderation" as a defensive shield to advocate their own views on an issue without fear of partisan reprisal, as if any response from a Democratic or Republican perspective is therefore invalid. If that's true, then we should probably all start flipping coins marked with Ds and Rs (or just vote for Bob Barr! lol jk T-Steel plz plz plz don't ban me).
Now, if you will excuse me, I have a modesty class to teach.
A couple of thoughts. Extremists on the Right are not conservertives; they are radical insurrectionists. Seccession, for example, is not a conservative principal. The same can be said for extremists on the Left; they are not progressives, but revolutionaries.
Second thought. We are becoming a nation that wants to go to the carnival and see the freak show. Reality TV anyone? Our entertainment-based, eyeball hungry, media deluge us with the sensational, rather than the contemplative. Thoughtfulness is, well, boring. Only by increaing the level of outrageousness, can one get the cameras to turn on, the producers to air and the editors to publish. That's our fault by the way, not theirs. Their ratings come from us, and by our fixating on the most baffoonish of behavior we instruct them that this is what will attract those coveted eyeballs.
We, all of us, have created this monster. Sadly, I don't know that we have the weapon to slay it.
I'm not saying that Obama should be allowed to be extremely partisan and ideological because Bush was, but I am saying that Obama is less partisan and ideological than his predecessor, and I am also saying that the GOP is a less mature and decent minority party than the DNC was, and that the people who are saying that Obama is too far from the center do not have a good record of being attuned to said center anyway.
There are very few right-wingers (and libertarians) left who have anything to stand on while complaining about progressives and liberals. Well, they can stand on the media.
Where are the reasonable, mature Republicans who can step forward and say "ENOUGH!" What the right does not seem to realize or care, is how they are alienating young people, and shaping tomorrow's political affiliations, many years into the future. The people acting out at town halls, and on television are for the most part, older, white and bitter. Earth to Republicans: the future is not going to look this way. You may win the battle, but you are losing the war in a profound way.
I call myself a moderate, but for the last fifteen years, the Republican party has gone so far to the right, it has become the party of nastiness, war and hatred. There is no way I would consider voting for ANY Republican, the way the party now stands. We have a two party system. Both of those parties need to be run by thoughtful, reasonable people. Right now, I see one party trying to make necessary changes, led by grown-ups, with reasonable rhetoric. And I see one party led by idealogues, frankly lying, refusing to negotiate, using rhetoric that is dangerous and immoral.
It doesn't have to be this way. But choices are being made, to allow the hate to proliferate. Someone on the right has got to stand up and represent true conservative ideals, and behavior. Otherwise, the Right is goin to implode in a morass of hatred and ignorance.
We need serious structural reform.
Oh, goody. Five words out of 222 I can agree with.
One third?? You're a wild spendthrift, Kathy. Cuba spends per capita less than 1/20th what we do and enjoys comparable life expectancy and other broad measures of health.
If those are the only things that matter, Cuba is a huge success story, testimony to the cost-shriveling power of socialized medicine. What's going wrong in Europe that makes it so much more expensive there?
Really?
Here's Bush's first year accomplishments.
1. Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops.
2. Cut federal spending on libraries by $39 million.
3. Cut $35 million in funding for doctors to get advanced pediatric training.
4. Cut funding for research into renewable energy sources by 50%.
5. Revoked rules that reduced the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water.
6. Blocked rules that would require federal agencies to offer bilingual assistance to non-English speaking persons. This, from a candidate who would readily fire-up his Spanish-speaking skills in front of would-be Hispanic voters.
7. Proposed to eliminate new marine protections for the Channel Islands and the coral reefs of northwest Hawaii (please see San Francisco Chronicle, April 6, 2001).
8. Cut funding for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks by 28%
9. Suspended rules that would have strengthened the government's ability to deny contracts to companies that violated workplace safety, environmental and other federal laws.
10. Approved the sending of letters by Interior Department appointee Gale Norton to state officials soliciting suggestions for opening up national monuments for oil and gas drilling, coal mining, and foresting.
11. Appointed John Negroponte -- an unindicted high-level Iran Contra figure to the post of United Nations Ambassador.
12. Abandoned a campaign pledge to invest $100 million for rainforest conservation.
13. Reduced by 86% the Community Access Program for public hospitals, clinics and providers of
care for people without insurance.
14. Rescinded a proposal to increase public access to information about the potential consequences resulting from chemical plant accidents.
15. Suspended rules that would require hardrock miners to clean up sites on public lands.
16. Cut $60 million from a Boy's and Girl's Clubs of America program for public housing.
17. Proposed to eliminate a federal program, designed and successfully used in Seattle, to help communities prepare for natural disasters.
18. Pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Treaty global warming agreement.
19. Cut $200 million of work force training for dislocated workers.
20. Eliminated funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, which encourages farmers to maintain wetlands habitat on their property.
21. Cut program to provide childcare to low-income families as they move from welfare to work.
22. Cut a program that provided prescription contraceptive coverage to federal employees (though it still pays for Viagra).
23. Cut $700 million in capital funds for repairs in public housing.
24. Appointed Otto Reich -- an un-indicted high-level Iran Contra figure -- to Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs.
25. Cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by $500 million.
26. Proposed to curtail the ability of groups to sue in order to get an animal placed on the Endangered Species List.
27. Rescinded the rule that mandated increased energy-saving efficiency regulations for central air conditioners and heat pumps.
28. Repealed workplace ergonomic rules designed to improve worker health and safety.
29. Abandoned campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide, the waste gas that contributes to global warming.
30. Banned federal aid to international family planning programs that offer abortion counseling with other independent funds.
31. Closed the White House Office for Women's Health Initiatives and Outreach.
32. Nominated David Lauriski -- an ex-mining company executive --- to post of Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
33. Approved a controversial plan by Interior Secretary Gale Norton to auction oil and gas development tracts off the coast of eastern Florida.
34. Announced intention to open up Montana's Lewis and Clark National Forest to oil and drilling.
35. Proposes to re-draw boundaries of nation's monuments, which would technically allow oil and gas drilling outside of national monuments.
36. Gutted the White House AIDS Office.
37. Renegotiated a free trade agreement with Jordan to eliminate workers' rights and safeguards for the environment.
38. Will no longer seek guidance from The American Bar Association in recommendations for the federal judiciary appointments.
39. Appointed recycling foe Lynn Scarlett as Undersecretary of the Interior..
40. Took steps to abolish the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
41. Cut the Community Oriented Policing Services program.
42. Allowed Interior Secretary Gale Norton to shelve citizen-led grizzly bear re-introduction plan scheduled for Idaho and Montana wilderness.
43. Continues to hold up federal funding for stem cell research projects.
44. Makes sure convicted misdemeanor drug users cannot get financial aid for college, though convicted murderers can.
45. Refused to fund continued cleanup of uranium-slag heap in Utah.
46. Refused to fund continued litigation of the government's tobacco company lawsuit.
47. Proposed a $2 trillion tax cut, 43% of which will go to the wealthiest 1 % of Americans.
48. Signed a bill making it harder for poor and middle-class Americans to file for bankruptcy, even in the case of daunting medical bills.
49. Appointed a Vice President quoted as saying, lf you want to do something about carbon dioxide emissions, then you ought to build nuclear power plants (Meet the Press)
50. Appointed Diana Roth to the Council of Economic Advisers. (There is no gender gap in pay, Boston Globe, March 28, 2001.)
51. Appointed Kay Cole James, an opponent of affirmative action, to direct the Office of Personnel Management.
52. Cut $15.7 million earmarked for states to investigate cases of child abuse and neglect.
53. Helped kill a law designed to make it tougher for teenagers to get credit cards.
54. Proposed elimination of the Reading is Fundamental program that gives free books to poor children.
55.1s pushing for development of small nuclear arms to attack deeply buried targets and weapons. This would violate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
56. Proposes to nominate Jeffrey Sutton, the attorney responsible for a recent case weakening the Americans with Disabilities Act, to federal appeals court judgeship.
57. Proposes to reverse regulation protecting 60 million acres of national forest from logging and road building.
58. Eliminated funding for the We the People education program which taught school children about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and citizenship.
59. Appointed John Bolton, who opposes nonproliferation treaties and the UN, to Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.
60. Nominated Linda Fisher, an executive with Monsanto, for the number-two job at the Environmental Protection Agency.
61. Nominated Michael McConnell, leading critic of the separation of church and state, to a federal judgeship.
62. Nominated Terrence Boyle, an ardent opponent of civil rights, to a federal judgeship.
63. Canceled 2004 deadline for automakers to develop prototype high mileage cars.
64. Nominated Harvey Pitts, a lawyer for a teen sex video distributor, to head SEC.
65. Nominated John Walters, a strong opponent of prison drug treatment programs, to be Drug Tsar. (Washington Post, May 16, 2001.)
66. Nominated J. Steven Giles, an oil and coal lobbyist, for Deputy Secretary of the Interior.
67. Nominated Bennett Raley, who advocates repealing the Endangered Species Act, for Assistant Secretary for Water and Science
68. Is seeking the dismissal of class-action lawsuit filed in the US against Japan by Asian women forced to work as sex slaves during WWII.
69. Earmarked $4 million in new federal grant money for HIV and drug abuse prevention programs to go only to religious groups and not secular equivalents.
70. Reduced the Low Income Home Assistance Program by 40%; it aided low-income individuals who need assistance paying energy bills.
71. Nominated Ted Olson, who has repeatedly lied about his involvement with the Scaiffe-funded Arkansas Project to bring down Bill Clinton, for Solicitor General.
72. Nominated Terrance Boyle, a foe of civil rights, to a federal judgeship..
73. Proposes to ease permit process, including environmental considerations, for refinery, nuclear and hydroelectric dam construction. (Washington Post, May 18, 2001.)
74. Proposes to give government the authority to take private property through eminent domain for power lines.
75. Proposes that $1.2 billion in funding for alternative renewable energy come from selling oil and gas lease tracts in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve.
76. Plans on serving genetically engineered foods at all official government functions.
77. Forced out Forest Service chief Mike Dombeck and appointed a timber industry lobbyist.
Now what exactly has Obama done, or even specifically proposed that justifies the idiocy we are seeing among many on the right exactly?
Too bad we can't all be reasonable and see things your way, Kathy!
The fact is that nearly half the country didn't vote for Obama and a portion of those who did were either voting against the GOP or were hoping that Obama really was going to change the tone of debate. The people in those categories are the ones who are losing 'hope'.
The fact is that nearly half the country didn't vote for Obama and a portion of those who did were either voting against the GOP or were hoping that Obama was going to change the tone of debate.
Well, here are some thoughts, in no particular order:
1. Obama has done headstands and turned himself inside out and into the shape of a pretzel trying to change "the tone of the debate." It's not Obama who has said NO! to every single item on Obama's agenda w/o any ideas of their own. It's not Obama who has sworn to vote against hcr even if the public option is taken out, and no matter what Obama does. It's not Obama who said that non-profit co-ops are a trojan horse for single-payer. It's not Obama who has welcomed the most vile individual in talk radio -- a man who, among many other achievements, said that Obama was Hitler and his admin was the Third Reich -- to be their putative leader. It's not Obama who has made up, out of whole cloth, the most outrageous lies about Democratic health care reform proposals. It's not the Dems who have set themselves up as the wrecking crew, with the job of tearing down whatever the Dems try to build with no interest in putting anything up of their own. Republicans are not interested in governance. That's not the Dems' fault.
2. The fact is that in 2000, more than half the country voted for the candidate who did NOT occupy the Oval Office for the next eight years. If YOU feel that Obama isn't listening to the almost half of the electorate that didn't vote for Obama, etc., you can at least comfort yourself with the knowledge that Obama did win with a healthy majority of the popular vote and a HUGE majority of the electoral vote. Imagine how WE have felt for the last eight years. I am not exaggerating when I say that for much of the last eight years, I have wanted to slit my wrists thinking about who was in the White House. I thought the nightmare would never end. Although it sounds mean, Christine: Now you know how I, and millions of other Americans felt, for so very, very, very long.
3. Oh, and a final thought: It's a shame that those voters who voted against the GOP did not get an acknowledgment from the GOP of how profoundly and royally they screwed up everything they touched. Republicans are in love with the idea of personal responsibility, but never the reality of it. It would be lovely if even one single Republican leader were to acknowledge how they messed up the economy, national security, and our country's standing in the world and displayed a little humility in the tone they took toward the new president who has been stuck trying to clean up their mess.
I know that Bush did not get a majority of the popular vote. In that light, it's perfectly understandable that the people who did not vote for him took issue with a number of his policies right from the start, such as the list that Davebo gave. However, in overall scope, those were not transformative policies. At most, I'd grant him (her?) that a number of the complaints involve environmental policies and represented an incremental erosion of previous pro-environmental policies. Still though, in that first year, we weren't seeing an overall lurch in policy.
After 9/11, as Dr. J aptly points out, there was a general feeling of unity and goodwill which allowed Bush to implement some sweeping changes, with a compliant Congress. I've said before here at TMV (probably before you were around) that I think the unity feeling was a mirage- I think that most people did 'feel' unified but as soon as it came down to crafting legislation in response to the terrorist attacks, people's divisions quickly became apparent again. That's because our 'partisanship' isn't just based on team mentality and tribalism, but also is rooted in actual philosophical differences.
In that sense, the backlash against Bush is completely understandable, and if he'd wanted to avoid it he'd have had to build consensus for the new security measures based on a more thorough debate and not passing things through quickly before the 'unity' feel died down.
I see Obama now acting similarly. The economic crisis starting last year at this time, coupled with his personal popularity, are being used as the selling points for sweeping legislative changes- again, instead of taking the harder route of really convincing opponents of how this legislation is the best option to deal with a problem. And that's part of the problem that some independents and moderates have with him now- I think they believed that a better legislative package would come from a process with a pragmatic Obama at the helm.
So with Bush after the 9/11 unity faded, we saw the same thing that we're now seeing with Obama. Then, it was the >50% who didn't vote for him who became polarized against his policies, and now, it's the <50% plus some additional people who did vote for Obama but expected something different. (As a side note, I certainly don't understand why those people expected different- after he was elected I hoped that he wouldn't be as liberal and as divisive as I believed he'd be, but I definitely didn't think the odds were in favor of that outcome.)
As for the part about not listening to rude, boorish, or physically threatening people, I pretty much agree but just as conservatives previously felt that way about GWB's opponents, you (and many other people) are similarly painting Obama's opponents with that broad brush. And the reason I keep harping on this is because in hindsight, I realized that I was ignoring some legitimate complaints with GWB's policies when I ignored all of the rude, boorish, and physically threatening people on the left who were making those complaints.
Maybe you could take a cue from Ezra Klein, who explains the real reasons that the president/Congressional healthcare reform plans are floundering, instead of blaming it on the conservative opposition.
Except that he is not acting similarly. Pres. Bush implemented sweeping legislative changes affecting civil liberties and other constitutional protections as the result of a catastrophic event that happened eight months after he took office. He had not campaigned on making these kinds of changes. He had not proposed or discussed or called for rewriting (in effect) whole sections of the Constitution. We now know (and have known for some time) that a group of individuals within the Bush admin who had served together in several Republican administrations -- Dick Cheney most notable among them -- had wanted to implement these changes for many, many years, and 9/11 gave them the cover to do so.
That is why Democrats, liberals, and other supporters of the Bill of Rights were so angry with Bush's sweeping legislative changes. There is simply no legitimate or logical comparison to be made between that, and Pres. Obama's health care reform agenda. As I've written here innumerable times (or it feels like it!), Barack Obama actively, explicitly, and openly campaigned on the health care reform issue. That was one of the centerpiece issues of his entire run for the presidency. The argument that there was no, or not enough, discussion, is totally w/o merit. Obviously, that is not to say that some people (the entire Republican membership of Congress?) do not agree with Obama's concept of health care reform. These are people who will never agree, because they are fundamentally opposed to any health care reform that actually changes the status quo in any meaningful way. That's not hyperbole; it's truth. And if that's the case, then fine -- Republicans are doing their job, being the opposition party. The opposition party's job is to oppose. They're doing that. But don't come and tell us that Obama is trying to ram through health care reform with no discussion, because that's just purely the stuff you find walking near the cow pasture.
ADDED:
As for Ezra Klein, if you can get behind this:
then it seems we agree more than either one of us thought we did.
Except that he is not acting similarly. Pres. Bush implemented sweeping legislative changes affecting civil liberties and other constitutional protections as the result of a catastrophic event that happened eight months after he took office. He had not campaigned on making these kinds of changes. He had not proposed or discussed or called for rewriting (in effect) whole sections of the Constitution. We now know (and have known for some time) that a group of individuals within the Bush admin who had served together in several Republican administrations -- Dick Cheney most notable among them -- had wanted to implement these changes for many, many years, and 9/11 gave them the cover to do so.
That is why Democrats, liberals, and other supporters of the Bill of Rights were so angry with Bush's sweeping legislative changes. There is simply no legitimate or logical comparison to be made between that, and Pres. Obama's health care reform agenda. As I've written here innumerable times (or it feels like it!), Barack Obama actively, explicitly, and openly campaigned on the health care reform issue. That was one of the centerpiece issues of his entire run for the presidency. The argument that there was no, or not enough, discussion, is totally w/o merit. Obviously, that is not to say that some people (the entire Republican membership of Congress?) do not agree with Obama's concept of health care reform. These are people who will never agree, because they are fundamentally opposed to any health care reform that actually changes the status quo in any meaningful way. That's not hyperbole; it's truth. And if that's the case, then fine -- Republicans are doing their job, being the opposition party. The opposition party's job is to oppose. They're doing that. But don't come and tell us lies about how Obama is trying to ram through health care reform with no discussion, because that's just purely the stuff you find walking near the cow pasture.
He did indeed. And he promised very sensible things like reducing costs. He's not delivering.
That makes no sense in theory and is repeatedly disproved in practice. Medicare isn't controlling costs (and doesn't even appear to be trying). European health care costs are rising just as steadily as ours.
The best way to control costs is the way we do it in every other industry: competition.
So I don't know what I can say to you, Dr J. I don't think more links are going to help.
Which was not quite my statement. I said *if* we had a truly competitive system, it would be better at controlling costs than single-payer. Today our system is scoring the same zero as everyone else.
"European health care costs rising just as steadily as ours, even if it's true, is not relevant to which system is best at controlling costs overall."
Not relevant? Rising costs are the entire issue, Kathy. This the whole reason we have millions of uninsured: the rising tide of costs has been putting more and more people underwater.
What's not relevant is that the water level is a bit lower in Europe today. The fact is we're wealthier than Europeans, so we spend more on many things. When it comes to health care we have bigger problems and higher expectations, for example about how much we're entitled to and our freedom to sue if we don't like it. Even if we could adopt Sweden's system wholesale and it worked as well for us as it does for them, we would buy ourselves only a few years before we'd be as deep underwater as we are today.
We need serious structural reform.
The fact is that over half the country didn't vote for Bush.
Yeah... but some of us are still trying to hang in there.
:-)
Maybe this time you'll comment on the link.
The list overall is way too broad and covers too much ground for me to comment on, and on some of the major stuff I've certainly weighed in (ARRA, the budget) and some of the bills are shams (oversight of TARP), while the House policies have been abysmal in terms of how she's handling ethics.
Thanks!
Where does it come from? What is the root?
fundamentalism
Who are the fundamentalist?
The Biters
The Birthers
The Conservatives
The Liberals
The Libertarians
The Right Wing
The Left Wing
Supreme Court Justices (ones that say things like Anothony Scalia. . ." "We are fools for Christ's sake. We must pray for the courage to endure the scorn of the sophisticated world.")
Managment and Labor
Religious
Athesis
The Shock Jocks
The MeMeMe's
The Wasters of the Environment
The Enviromentalist
and the list could go on an on. . .
all of us who cannot allow a middle ground. . .
all of us that have gone deaf and can only hear our own echo
all of us who feel impotent as we gaze at the face of the monster we have created
all of us that have not learned basic life skills of honor and respect
Are we watching the great American suicide? Historically don't most countries destroy themselves?
And what is the antidote to fundamentalism?
Education
Go figure. . . Now what was Obama's message to the children. . .
Reprint of J Spencer first comment for this post. . .
"This article, more than anything else, points up the need for and importance of education, especially the need for an electorate that has learned how to think critically - for itself. The alternative is a continued descent into a culture where people like Beck have a growing flock."
sparrow chewing nails this morning. . .
just my two cents
dr.e
That would require true leadership and character, meaning the strength of character required to break away from A.) unworthy loyalties and B.) the clarity of vision to understand what is happening here.
As for the false equivalence re: Bush, we've seen it all before, and it's proponents, in order to buy into that argument (such as it is) need to dispense with the idea that matters of degree do matter.
And btw, I don't believe we are headed for any sort of civil war. Not even close.
Right?
Despite Davebo's laundry list, I still don't agree that the complaints there during Bush's first year in office are "sweeping" in the same way that the current agenda is. I mean, just recently I was at a dinner party with a European social Democrat (a Swede who currently lives here) who said he couldn't believe how fast the Dems are currently moving, and he was very concerned about the unsustainable deficit spending.
I'm not asking you go "toe to toe". I'm asking you to support your claim.
And yes, it's fine to decline.
It's the political equivalent of porn- it's always been around (and always will be) but the internets have made it more pervasive, addictive for some people, and probably more vile and harmful to society.
I feel sorry for kids today, who are apparently becoming protest tools and dragged into partisan hatred. I guess they don't make em like they used to. Parents that is. My parents hated President Kennedy, but never, ever did they try to make me hate him or encourage me to be anything but respectful and to honor the American system--to consider our President and our representatives, regardless of political party, as my elders and just like any adult, to be spoken to and about with politeness and respect.
I guess I had no idea how good I had it. The parents who would keep their kids from school and miss what really is a special moment in a child's life, dishonor not only the President, but the school and their own children.
Sad.
Woodrow Wilson was on TV?
(sorry couldn't resist)
Democratic anger over the 2000 election? Unjustified.
Angry over the Patriot Act and DHS? Traitor.
Angry over the Iraq War? BDS.
Angry over gov't response to Katrina? Bush bashing.
Republican anger at Obama winning the election? A noble patriotic effort by deep thinking luminaries eager to water the tree of liberty.
Angry over the health care reform? A true fiscal conservative and/or moderate.
Worried that Obama is socialist and is going to zap the children through the TV with his evil red commie eyes? Let's get you on TV as quickly as possible.
Hear, hear, jchem.
However these parents are now teaching their children that it is perfectly acceptable to disrespect the president (and any others they happen to disagree with) and perfectly acceptable to not to even listen to what he has to say. This value (and it is a value) is being ingrained in children during their formative years and won't go away.
Many of us did say that...and teach it to our children...even when we disagreed with policy issues of the Bush administration. Specific example: My wife and I disagreed from day one (actually three months before day one when it became obvious what was happening) with the Iraq invasion. But, when Bush went forward, we prayed for victory and the well being of our troops...and supported "our" President, hoping he knew more than we did in making that decision. We wanted our President, and our country, to succeed. Same with Obama. I disagreed strongly with the "Stimulus" package and the Continuing Resolution and disagree with many parts of health care reform, but he's still the President and the office deserves respect.
I know - I am speaking rhetorically, not individually.
Oh please, AR. We DID hear that during the GW administration. I also know your old enough to remember "My president is Charlton Heston" bumper stickers during the Clinton years.
I don't remember anyone claiming that Bush wasn't their President. Can you show me quotes?
How many school districts refused to show Regan or the first Bush's speech? How many parents kept their children home when they hear GW was going be reading My Pet Goat to a group of children?
I'll admit there was plenty of hate coming from the far left.
Sorry, I have nothing that can convince the willfully stupid, and won't bother, except to point out a simple Google of 'Bush is not my President' results in 30,300,000 matches.
What bothers me more than the people now who say "Obama is not my president" is the parents who want to keep their children from having any contact at all with ideas, opinions, and values different from theirs.How are children going to become independent thinkers if they're being told what to think, and led to believe that the whole wide world thinks the same way?
Thanks for admitting the truth. But neither side should say it, and I haven't commented on the actual fact of Obama wanting to speak to schoolchildren, and the reaction against it.
The speaking itself is admirable, and I fail to see why the commotion. The original lesson plans for teachers was a little slanted, but not even this 'I believe that Obama uses socialist governing techniques' person thinks the scale of the reaction is warranted.
To paraphrase one of the great American philosophers, 'sometimes a speech to children is just a speech'.
Back in by school days, I was very good at "playing the dozens" (going head-to-head in a improvised competition of often good-natured, ribald trash talk; taking turns insulting each other until someone couldn't "come back"). Oh it was fun until the good-natured portion would get dropped if an insult crossed the line. And then a fist would fly. Luckily this wasn't common but it happened. Right now, elements of the Left and the Right are "playing the dozens" with bad intentions on a large scale. And frankly, it stinks, sucks, and is stupid.
I applaud the president for telling kids to stay in school, study hard, and graduate. That message cannot be stated enough. But when the Department of Education clearly uses the speech to engender partisanship - that is wrong.
No reason to get hysterical about it and keep kids home. But it is perfectly legitimate for the political opposition to call "foul" when the president's agenda is promoted as the only alternative to solving our problems.
Ah Rick... if only the screeching were limited to calling "foul". I don't know where you live, but in my state (Texas) the over-the-top reaction has been nothing short of astounding.
If people here who are moderates are truly concerned about the levels of vitriole that they're seeing from the right, consider that your attempts to point out how whacked out these people are, to date, have not had a positive effect on dampening the anger- in fact just the opposite, you're stoking the flames.
I know that's not your intent, for instance, PM- but when you imply that it doesn't matter if there's a core validity to the concern of the DOE's attempt to politicize Obama's speech to kids because the people who are reacting against it are 'over the top', your reaction doesn't calm people, it makes them more angry and unhinged.
To read a lot of the blogposts here, you'd think that there's nothing in Obama's agenda, rhetoric, and political tactics so far that in any way explains the reaction he's getting from a large portion of the populace- instead, this is all driven by the talk radio culture.
You'd also think that there's nothing coming from the other side that's outraging people, even though we are seeing massive astroturfing by unions which are sometimes using heavy handed tactics, and just yesterday we heard about a conservative protester getting a finger bitten off. Bitten off. Stop and think about that for a moment, and consider that here at TMV there were people saying it was justified because the other guy started the fight. I have (surgically) disarticulated digits, and believe me, they don't detach easily. I can't even fathom how someone could be driven to that level of animal violence, to use one's teeth to amputate another person's finger. It's obscene, and I was revolted when people weren't willing to denounce it without playing the blame game about who started it.
I'm long-since on record with my own concerns about some of Obama's domestic agenda, but you've introduced something I've been curious about for some time. What rhetoric are you ascribing to Obama? Which tactics of Obama's, specifically, are the problem?
I'm serious with my question -- because from where I sit, much of the divisive rhetoric and tactics are coming from Congress (and specifically, or most obviously, from the House). Now, one can make the case (as someone did in a discussion on exactly this last night) that because he's the 'captain of the political ship', he's just flat-out responsible for what the ham-handed Dems are doing.... and there's certainly some validity to that. But that doesn't seem (to me) to suit what your comment suggested.
But the way I see it is that he appears to stay above the fray but Gibbs and Emmanuel are extremely divisive, and it's unlikely that they're acting that way in contradiction to Obama's wishes. And then there are glimpses of Obama himself being a partisan baiter, when he's speaking to a friendly audience (the speech where he said that those who caused the problems need to be quiet now, etc, for one example) and the campaign arm website that still bears his name is extremely partisan/divisive. He also fails to reign in Pelosi and others when they call townhall participants terrorists, and his close association with Organizing for America, and calling on SEIU to mobilize to the townhalls, etc, is troubling. In short, I'd hoped that his campaign rhetoric about being postpartisan was genuine but I no longer can see it in that light, at all. He uses his cool demeanor to appear to be above the fray but it's clear from who he's staffed up with and how he's using them that it's a ruse, as far as I'm concerned.
I find this truly inexplicable. I agree that Rahm Emanuel is divisive, but it's in favor of the Republicans, not the Democrats' progressive base. Rahm Emanuel is the one who bargained away single-payer in negotiations with the insurance companies in exchange for their promise not to work to defeat a public option, and when they worked to defeat a public option anyway, Emanuel is in the camp that's pressing Obama hard to drop the public option. Rahm Emanuel has been nothing less than heaven-sent for both the GOP and the insurance companies.
As for Obama failing to "rein in" Pelosi when she called townhall participants "terrorists," did anyone in the GOP leadership "rein in" John Boehner when he approvingly commented on the screaming and disruptiveness of many anti-hcr townhall participants by saying it was going to be a "long, hot summer"? And I do hope you know what that particular phrase means, what it references. John Boehner knows.
Kathy, what are you talking about? What, exactly, is it that you and John Boehner know? Cuz I don't.
Kathy -- I was afraid you were going to say that. I'm sorry, but I see this interpretation as a weak attempt to play the race card. I myself used a very similar phrase in a very recent post, and not a single person thought I was referring to anything other than hot days and heated tempers. August is hot. Days are long. Why does there have to be something insidious and racist to it?
It reminds me of one of the post-Katrina arguments that I had. After being told that Kanye was satan incarnate for saying what he did about W. at the awards show and how this smeared the Repub party unfairly I noted that they are still using the Southern Strategy to win votes. Which to me is like the Dems crying that they are being painted as people that want to take away our guns. The gun thing is going away but that is due not to people screaming "stop saying such things" but because they as a party have decided to stay away from it and let it go. That is a very long way of me saying if you do not like the Repubs being painted as racists or being reacted to like they are racists the best strategy is to stop acting like it. Currently they are actively reverse race baiting(the habit that began in the 80's of showing how racism is much worse against white people) this is not a strategy to end the label that they have but to extend it. David Duke actually invented it when he re-branded the KKK as a civil rights organization for white people to show pride in their race. This is way off topic but the historical context is important to any possible knee jerk reaction.
Doesn't that in itself argue for the perspective that Boehner probably WASN'T making a racially loaded threat? Either you accept the words at face value or you're basically saying he's too dumb to know that this is a losing strategy (and well, I'm no fan, so maybe he is that dumb, but I have no reason to think that he was being stupid or overly provocative in making a prediction that the Dems were going to face heat from their constituents during the August recess.)
The problem with your logic about how the GOP should just stop making these references- is that no one but you guys knows what the references are. Every comment is parsed as though they're dog whistles, even though much of the time the people who are supposed to have the audible range to hear these things don't hear them that way at all.
But that is exactly what he did say. That was the clear and plain meaning of his tweet. Only he didn't say "face heat." That would not have packed the punch he obviously wanted. He said that this was the Dems' "long, hot summer." He was not talking about the weather.
And I still maintain your explanation made no sense. You agreed that you were characterizing his statement as a dog whistle, and then explained that people like yourself were the only ones who would understand the context to 'hear' the whistle. But dog whistles are comments that are meant to be understood by some people but not heard by others- so it makes no sense for someone to purposely make a statement that is not understood by the people that would need to understand it, in order for this to have been a call to violent action by opponents of HR 3200.
Acting like it does not exist though makes you sound either sheltered or defensive though. I think he should have been more careful while they are supposedly trying to attract minority voters. How exactly did that offend your sensibilities? Boehner is not a bad guy, just an old partisan but if memory serves he has a history of insensitive gaffs, and no not the race baiting types but what always seemed to me to be mistakes. I will say though that any Southern Strategy type ad for any candidate that I see is an instant deal breaker for my vote. I was raised in the 70's/80's and saw them as racist ads at the time, now that I am old enough to vote I will use my vote to ensure that strategies like it are not condoned and not forgotten. Oh yea and I am neon white just in case you think I am being hyper sensitive because of a personal trauma. My only trauma was reading Nixon and Lee Atwater's campaigning habits.
I don't know which "similar" phrase you used or the context you used it in, so I can't really comment on that. But in the context Boehner used that specific phrase, it's pretty clear that's what he meant. It strains credulity to imagine that he was referring to the weather when he sent out this Tweet: "Dems' Long, Hot Summer: Americans Express Growing Opposition to Dems' Job-Killing Plans on Energy, Health Care: .. http://bit.ly/mVnAL" Here is the link, Polimom. That is about as blatant as it can be. And irresponsible only begins to describe it. In my view, it's despicable. YMMV.
As far as "playing the race card," Polimom, that particular activity has a very, very long history in this country, but it's only when it's done in reverse (pointing out racist language or behavior as opposed to speaking or behaving in a racist fashion) that many people will notice it.
"Ahhh... August. The hot, steamy, heart of summer -- that time of year when violent crime goes up as fuses grow short. Truly, it's a difficult time for heated debate -- and the town halls that have been going on around the country this month have, if nothing else, been heated."
What Boehner initially said on July 30th was " they’re likely to have a very, very hot summer.” His site (he?) re-emphasized his initial prediction that Dems were likely to have a difficult August with a second release on his site after the initial heated town halls. In context, Kathy, I conclude that he meant it exactly the way I did. And I wasn't talking about weather, either.
Also: "As far as "playing the race card," Polimom, that particular activity has a very, very long history in this country, but it's only when it's done in reverse (pointing out racist language or behavior as opposed to speaking or behaving in a racist fashion) that many people will notice it."
I call BS here, Kathy. It gets called out with great regularity on all sides.
No, it doesn't. And it isn't.
If I said to you that Americans are having a long, dark night of the soul, would that seem at all similar in meaning to saying that it's September, nights are getting longer, and soon the cold will chill my soul right to the marrow?
And I don't know what you mean by Boehner's "site" and what he said on it. The Twitter site does not belong to John Boehner; he just gets to register for a page on the site where he can post brief thoughts of 140 characters or less. And what he wrote on his Twitter page was "Dems' Long, Hot Summer: Americans Express Growing Opposition to Dems' Job-Killing Plans on Energy, Health Care." What is going to make it such a "long, hot summer" for the Dems? Well, those Americans out there at those meetings are getting *really* angry at those Dems who want to kill their jobs. I mean, VERY angry. Like, maybe so angry that screaming, disrupting, and throwing chairs just isn't enough to get the anger out. Know what I mean? It's going to be a long, hot summer for those Dems. We've seen those kinds of long, hot summers before, yes we have. Those Dems must be feeling a mite nervous just about now.
And again, John Boehner knew what he was doing. That's obvious from the tweet. He did not just happen to choose those words by chance. I even heard a well-known Republican strategist comment on it on tv at the time -- and of course I can't remember the name of the person, but if I do or can find it, I'll post it here. He said that Boehner knew what he was saying and that it was incredibly irresponsible.
LOL, Christine. I guess it's like a joke, even though it's no joke. Either you get it or you don't, and you clearly don't, and it just feels ridiculous to explain it, so forget it.
I agree with DLS.
But I would note that the concept of perpetual campaigning didn't evolve over the last 9 or so months. It defined the Bush administration. His own staffers explained the concept. Most of Bob Woodward's books, and all of Ron Suskind's books describe the concept well. "The Price of Loyalty" was fairly revealing in that regard. Richard Clarke's books were fairly supporting of that concept as well.
And I have a difficult time trying to reconcile that opening statement with warrant-less wiretapping, if we want to get specific about inappropriate reach-extending into private lives of Americans.
By the way, totally OFF-TOPIC, but I'm thinking of getting another dog. A small dog, preferably a mini-doxie. I just have to convince my daughter to feel okay about it, because she made me promise I would not get another dog while I have these two cats because she doesn't want them to be upset (esp. one of them, who is extremely alpha).
I have a simple technique that has worked every time for me. Don't force it, and don't get involved, even when they chase, hiss, and even fight a little. They are establishing their ground rules for each other, and always seem to figure out for themselves within a week or two.
Let us know what you decide (and what you end up getting, because it sounds to me like you HAVE decided!)
:)
http://www.google.com/search?q=Bush+is+not+my+P...
And as using Google properly IS too hard for you, here is a cut and paste from the result screen:
Results 1 - 10 of about 30,300,000 for Bush is not my President. (0.22 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rl...
If my search term is entered in Google and then the Advanced search option is clicked it shows you that my term appears in the box labeled this exact wording or phrase:. Your search term turns into one in the box labeled all these words:. In terms of search results it makes a world of difference. Not so sorry to ruin your snark.
Bush Not My President receives 30,100,000 hits on a google search
Obama Not My President receives 57,500,000
So in 9 months, actually shy of 9 months Obama is receiving more hate(by around 27,000,000) than Bush did after 8 years. Anyone want to take back the equivalence they have been speaking of?
Well, you've already informed us that he's been pretty busy in his first seven months so let's give him a little time shall we?
1. Polls show that moderates, independents and centrists are not monolithic. 2. When someone from the left or right (and sometimes they believe only they are the center) about a post or a site not being moderate or centrist it usually means there is a post or idea they don't agree with or don't like so that means the other person can't be moderate. 3. This mantra that starts up (it happens on posts we have that may be more to the center right, center left or flat out center) is usually a diversionary flourish: rather than address the issue in the post, someone decides to try and turn it into a debate about the writer or a website (not just TMV). In fact, the issues are the issues in this post and over 100 comments show that most people are debating the issues or raising new ones related to the post. That is what we love to see in comments..
4. TMV has a ton of writers and we also run guest voices from the right or left (READ the description of the site at the top). And if some people don't like us running a viewpoint or giving an honest take, then that's life. But we will continue to give our honest take on events. Turning threads into discussions about whether a post fits someone who veers left or right's opinion of what a real moderate is (i.e. how THEY view something) is really not what comments are all about -- and doesn't reflect the reality of polls that show that, yes, moderates, centrists and independent voters do not all vote alike and to be a moderate does not mean you talk or sound like a CSPAN host.
But the bottom line is that when that starts up it's a sign that someone has either run out of arguments or is trying to put a writer on the defensive. It's quite old, a cliche by now and will not impact us offering our honest takes on events and running a variety of content and Guest Voices on TMV.
Thanks for the link.
Since DaveBo posted the "achievements " of Bush during his first twelve months in office, it might be appropriate to post the legislation signed by Obama and passed by the House during Obama's first seven months in office. Because of space restrictions (and to comply with TJ's wishes, I am leaving out executive oders, presidential appointments, etc., etc signed by Obama.and descriptions of the legislation) Hopefully some of this legislation had GOP support
SIGNED INTO LAW
LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT, H.R. 11
HEALTH CARE FOR 11 MILLION CHILDREN,H.R. 2
DIGITAL TELEVISION DELAY, S. 352
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT, H.R. 1
2009 APPROPRIATIONS BILLS, H.R. 1105
OMNIBUS PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT ACT 0F 2009,
EDWARD M. KENNEDY SERVE AMERICA ACT,
STRENGTHENING OVERSIGHT OF TARP,S. 383
HELPING FAMILIES SAVE THEIR HOMES ACTH.R. 1106
FIGHTING MORTGAGE AND CORPORATE FRAUD & CREATING COMMISSION ON CAUSES OF CRISIS,HR. 386
MILITARY PROCUREMENT REFORM,S. 454
CREDIT CARDHOLDERS BILL OF RIGHTS, H.R. 627
PASSED BY HOUSE
TARP ACCOUNTABILITY AND PAY FOR PERFORMANCE ACT, TARP Accountability (H.R. 384)
Pay for Performance Act (H.R. 1664) Passed April 1, 2009
CAMPUS SAFETY,H.R. 748
STOPPING ABUSE IN TEEN PROGRAMS, H.R. 911
WATER QUALITY INVESTMENT ACT,H.R. 1262 ,
HOMELAND SECURITY BILLS, including the Reducing Over-Classification Act, H.R. 553; the Fair, Accurate, Secure, and Timely (FAST) Redress Act, H.R. 559; and the National Bombing Prevention Act, H.R. 549.
BONUS RECOUPMENT, H.R. 1586
EMERGENCY WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION, H.R. 1404
VETERANS BILLS, to provide earned benefits and crucial services to our veterans, who have served with honor and bravery. These measures provide a cost of living increase for veterans’ disability benefits, expand employment services for homeless veterans, and fully reimburse veterans for emergency care.H.R. 1513, H.R. 1171, and H.R. 1377 Passed March 30, 2009
PUBLIC HEALTH BILLS, in recognition of Public Health Week, the House passed eight key public health bills.
Passed March 30 and 31, 2009
FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, H.R. 985 Passed March 31, 2009
REDUCING MILITARY FAMILIES TAX, which currently unfairly penalizes the 55,000 surviving spouses of military personnel who died as a result of their service-connected injuriesH.R. 1804 Passed April 1, 2009
BUDGET BLUEPRINT, . Con. Res. 85 Passed April 2, 2009
FDA REGULATION OF TOBACCO, H.R. 1256
ENVIRONMENTAL BILLS, H.R. 1580 and H.R. 957
PUTTING 50,000 COPS ON THE BEAT, H.R. 1139
WATER RESEARCH AND EVELOPMENT,.H.R. 1145
HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT, h.R. 1913
MORTGAGE REFORM AND ANTI-PREDATORY LENDING, H.R. 1728
GREEN SCHOOL MODERNIZATION, H.R. 2187
JOB CREATION THROUGH ENTREPRENEURSHIP,H.R. 2352 R>
WAR SUPPLEMENTAL BILL, to provide funds for the remainder of FY 2009 to provide our troops in harm’s way with what they need, implement the President’s plans for winding down the war in Iraq and changing strategy in Afghanistan, require a report on progress, and fund pandemic flu response
SHE DIDN'T DO THAT.
SHE DIDN'T DO THAT.
You may be right, Kastanj- I actually believe that it was Obama's Organizing for America website that referred to protesters as 'right wing terrorists' before someone caught it and it went down the rabbit hole.
I'm pretty sure Pelosi did say "unAmerican" though, and called the protests astroturf.
As far as the rest of your assertion, I don't see that, at least not YET. The main problem with the health care proposal, that I can see, is that they left too much of it to Congress, and haven't strongly backed any one proposal. They have spent too much time arguing amongst themselves and trying to negotiate with the other side of the aisle, that was not negotiating in good faith. Major mistake. Back a bill and put it up for a vote. If the Republicans want to filibuster, that is their right and they should do it. And then the American people can see who has their best interests at heart. This needing 60 votes in the Senate is nonsense.
I've been reading your comments for a very long time, and I definitely think that you are generally reflexively defensive toward the right -- your implication here that "over-the-top criticisms" describes liberals'/Democrats' response to the rights' behavior rather than that behavior itself, being one example.
My comment about 'over the top criticisms' refers to general criticisms of the right, starting several years ago, at TMV. And it's not surprising that you might not agree with me that the general tone here has been over the top in that regard, since you are one of the people that I often take issue with.
My point is, don't be all "OH NOES HYPERBOLE SHRIEK!" Both sides use it; both sides ignore it when their side uses it; and hell, even JOE, Mr. Uber-moderate, uses it in this article and in his imagery.
And since we're probably treading pretty close to violating comment policy by reviewing the bloggers, I'll leave it at that and hope that I haven't crossed the line.
I do think the blogs are fueling it just like talk radio is though which is why I am pulling away from most blogs, this and Beyond the Beltway and fivethirtyeight being exceptions to that.
I'm a Republican. George Bush wasn't ever my first choice for president, but he gave every appearance, throughout his eight years as President, of being an essentially nice guy, with a good moral foundation buttressing some well-thought-out choices that he had to make during his tenure.
And, for eight years, I watched as your cohorts vilified him, lied about him continuously, called him Hitler, ran horrid doctored photos of him that made him look evil or clownish or stupid, . . . . No, I won't even try to list it all - you know perfectly well what I'm talking about, and your feigned amazement now that people might be impolite to your president merely strengthens my firm conviction that y'all have no honor left at all.
For several decades in this country, the left has abandoned all moral restraint in public discourse, while the right gave away the store to you by staying quieter. While you rioted in the streets (ask me about getting to work in a city hosting the RNC), we wrote letters and talked on the radio. About six years into Bush's presidency, many of us finally said, screw that, we'll deal with them in their own chosen fashion.
And you don't like it very much, do you?
The Supreme Court only recently got around to recognizing that The Constitution expressed a strong preference that people be allowed to do so. Prior to Heller, they would have been dragged off and jailed. (For context, though, note that the four main networks, made up of an employee base that runs about 85% liberal, has actually moved on from simply spinning things to a pro-liberal slant, all the way to actively misreporting and lying about happenings such as this. They report three or four "guns at the meetings" stories, all of which turn out to have taken place blocks away or hours earlier or later. They cut out a black man's skin from a film clip, show the clothes and the gun, and use it as an entre' to discuss white racists there to kill Obama.
"And I don't recall fearing for Bush's life in anything outside of the normal sense that President's have to endure.
Similarly, Obama strikes me as being relatively safe from physical harm. I've seen no attempts, no plots, and certainly no threats in excess of what Bush saw.
"And I don't recall talk radio hosts screaming for hours a day . . .
Neither do I, historically or recently. who listens to talk radio? Not me. Not my friends or acquaintances.
" . . . inciting violence and hateful rhetoric, and revolutionary ideas."
No! No! Not . . . not . . . . "revolutionary ideas! (Gasp!) Oh, please. Go read this and then try again: http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621
"That, whether you will be honest and admit it, is solely the provenance of the Right."
Not by dint of some evil lurking in our hearts that liberals don't have - Franken and company proved we have radio because y'all are just so damn boring at it. But, seeing as you have the TV networks (except FOX, now), the newspapers, the late-night comedians, the movie directors, the actresses with the biggest breasts, and Tootsie, I'd say we're still way behind in the public dissemination of froth and spittle.
("Froth and Spittle". Cool name for a band!)
I am probably in the minority as I do not believe kids should be exhorted to participate in community service. It's hard enough being a kid already. I want my children to work hard in school and their chores at home, then go enjoy their childhood. If Obama's speech contains things I don't agree with I'd like to know that so I can discuss them beforehand.
Regardless, I remember seeing the president speak at least a couple of times every year when I was in school. Our last president was in schools all the time. I have no idea why this is suddenly a new concept.
And it should be no surprise that there will be fury on the left; that historically, the left can do their share of lashing out as well. And it will happen if the provocation goes on. Bitten finger? Good gosh. I'm more afraid of someone on the left grabbing one of the religious-right toting assault rifles (you know, the ones they bring to town hall meetings) and opening up on a school of birthers before one of the other birthers takes him out.
I consider that the political right, especially the neo-con religious right, may indeed have their way someday: if not able to rule people through government, then make the government and those who would govern as dysfunctional as possible--sow distrust, demonize the "unpatriotic" and distinguish the "real Americans," shout "U-S-A" if you disagree with a candidate (let's make this a football game pep rally,) say "Hitler" as many times as is humanly possible during a conversation, invoke "Reagan" as many times as is humanly possible, and if these things aren't enough, be sure and mention "abortion" a few times, "communism" more than once, and add a dash of "liberty", "tyranny," and "Constitution" or "Declaration of Independence" to make a partisan point.
If escalation is what people want, they might just accomplish their wish. If dialogue is what is needed, it might behoove people to realize that Rush Limbaugh makes 10s of millions of dollars a year telling people exactly what they want to hear. He's laughing all the way to the bank (probably one that didn't need bailout.)
Informed people, the real critical thinkers, already know what's at issue here regarding the speech and more.
http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/academic/bts.html
No, the federal government is not Everything, and Obama is not our Father as well as our Teacher, etc..
How low can the lowly go? Here is one lowly example.
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/5730
I guess if the (normal) public doesn't need a federal "teachable moment," the children could use one.
Don't hype things to ridiculous extremes, as Stickings psychotically does.
It's no surprise that the Dems' divisiveness and misconduct are not being sheepishly accepted (when not admired, with personality-cult delight, instead) as a routine (and expected?) matter by everyone.
It's no surprise that the Republicans' divisiveness and misconduct are being sheepishly accepted (even admired, with personality-cult delight, instead) as a routine (and expected) matter by everyone.
Fixed.
The MOST vitriol that we have seen in this country has come from the left...but you think you are correct and enlightened so no matter....
The right wing crazies are so ideologically blinkered that they continue not only to do what they complain the other side is doing, they are planning to do things they will attribute to their ideological enemies in advance. I don't see how this isn't heading towards some kind of civil unrest with the caveat that fat, old, uneducated people can't sustain armed conflict for very long. This latest delusional reverie is only another escalation by an anti-constitutional minority rebelling against lawful authority and pushing for anarchy or fascism, just like the brownshirts of Germany, blackshirts of Italy, and silver shirts of the US of A.
I like to make lemonade from lemons. It isn't often you can line one duck up in a row. How ironic if future history books wrote that from our nation's insistence in protecting one traitorous, malignant narcissist's love affair with his own voice over the radio waves brought an entire nation of 250 million to its knees.
Freedom of speech stops at inciting riotous behavior.
The "campaign" phenomenon may have been in effect in earlier years (by Bush people, notably) insofar as terrorism and security were exploited (the traditional view of Dems as weak against our foes, whatever foes, that was in the public's mind and exploited as such, during the 2004 elections), and in the Drug War efforts, etc., but is nothing like what we're seeing now. (Most of us were annoyed at the low level of gimmicky legal game-playing the Bush adminstration started doing to deliberately antagonize Congress.)
Obama has "advanced" campaigning well beyond anything else so far. (Why?) The same is true of his school speech, addressing children directly (and indirectly, their parents) prior to addressing both houses of Congress, no doubt to be broadcast to the public. (Why?) This, in addition to the campaign trips to support bad legislation and ally himself with the lib Dems run amok in Congress, and the staged town hall meetings and staged press conferences that even fellow liberals have decried. (Why?) He is going beyond campaigning also in that he and his supporters have continued to exploit the personality cult (or be his groupies) that has continued, or been maintained, long after the election. (Why?)
Opposition to the increasingly-misbehaving Congressional Dems, and Obama, who has not only allied himself with the divisive liberal Dems and their bad, controversial legislation, but has been divisive himself, such as when he insulted the decent, intelligent public nation-wide over the Gates affair -- something that should only have been a local event -- as a "teachable moment" [the same phrase being used to describe the opportunity the children will have after Obama's school speech, interestingly), may have taken several forms, but "lemon-picking" the worst (less bad than what was done against Bush, and Reagan before Bush) to mischaracterize all opposition as has been the case (it's not merely sensationalism, but is related to the attitude of "denouncement" and informants who were sought by the administration when public opposition to the health care overreach began to materialize) not only fails, but is backfiring, increasingly.
No, Washington is not the Rousseauian "general will" of "the people," we are not (yet) a one-party Democratic nation (no more elections, no more need to steal any that are lost) in the process of being (all) yanked much farther left than the "safe and sane" prediction we were promised (as if we all believed it!), all unified under Washington, with Obama as our Father as well as our Savior. That may be too provocative (politically incorrect!) to those who want to be led in a herd, maybe, but such is reality.
Wasn't that why Karl Rove was in the White House for most of President Bush's two terms?
Klein is like Broder and other DC-centered people and "DC fixtures," in this light. It's as if he still wishes with all his heart that it's still the 1960s or 1970s and the 1930s-onward liberal Democratic "boat" is still not being "rocked."
Since the 1980s, it hasn't been only a liberal nation or liberal government, and both major political parties and general ideologies have exchanged possession of power in Washington. The liberal and Democratic elements have resented 1980 and been reactionary as well as defensive since then (no more monopoly; dissent or opposition can be substantial rather than superficial or negligeably token). The libs will press their advantage whenever they get it (left of the mainstream). The public is no longer as it was in the 1960s or 1970s (or expected to be); alternatives to the liberal networked media were found (and Fox later chose to fill the great vacancy that liberal orthodoxy had created).
Hence the red and blue tents, red and blue smoke signals, red and blue war drums and war dances, and so on.
Horsey is deliberately provocative (and deliberately slanted and more -- he angers many), but a good illustrator with a knack for definitely liberal depiction of "things."
http://www.seattlepi.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?...
http://www.seattlepi.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?...
http://www.seattlepi.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?...
http://www.seattlepi.com/horsey/popupV2.asp?sub...
http://www.seattlepi.com/horsey/popupV2.asp?Sub...
The speech, and one or both lesson plans, were to have been revised (to emphasize educational goals specifically rather than the more general "what you can do to help the President," et cetera).
So far, there's no text of the speech -- they're still working on it, probably. No easy Labor Day holiday?
The current lesson plans are:
("The U.S. Department of Education provides resources for educators who may choose to use the president’s address as a teachable moment.")
http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/prek-6.pdf
http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/7-12.pdf
Damn I sound like my grandma...
Thinking about this situation more and looking back on US History:
1. Is this level of polarization unique, historically speaking?
2. Are both parties tactically equivalent with regards to rhetoric?
3. Is there a way to reverse the trend of American political theater?
4. Are these trends due to the internet, the 24 hour news cycle, the Presidency devolving into Actor-in-Chief, or some other factor?
I welcome everyone's thoughts.
1. Historically, we have had other periods of hyper-partisanship. FDR brought that out as did Andrew Jackson, to name two. Clinton also engendered very personal partisan attacks. The difference is, those examples tended to come down to a few items, whereas now it seems all encompassing.
2. My perception (others differ) is that both parties are tactically equivalent, though the tactics are different. The Right is in-your-face rude. The Left, more subtly, suggests that any opposition is populated by imbeciles. The styles are different, but their is a tactical equivalence. I would make one exception to that which is the not-so-veiled threat of violence coming more from the far Right at this point in history.
3. If I knew of a way to reverse the trend of current American political theatre, I would be shouting it from the rooftops. I don't, but as jchem and t_steel point out above, we could start here with respectful, thoughtful comments (without name calling) and see if it catches on.
4. Yes, I thought jchem made a great point about the internet and blogs.
Not among your questions, I think this goes beyond politics. Fixating on the bizarre, particularly the cruel obsession with demeaning others (eating live insects, violent incidents, others being injured in dangerous stunts, et al) has become a disease that permeates our social fabric. It should be no surprise that it spills over into politics...or perhaps the political has spilled over into other areas. But, there is a real cruelty, a meanness of spirit, to all of this that diminishes us.
I'm not sure it is a "sickness" within society but more of an addiction due to overabundance. It's akin to weight gain in America; I don't think people are consciously TRYING to get fat, it's due to an overabundance of calories everywhere you look, and now to be "thin" you have to have discipline and time to exercise, eat right, etc. when there was no incentive or need to do so before. I think it's the same with partisan thinking and polarization. People aren't TRYING to be polarized, but there's an overabundance of things to be outraged about from any and all political perspective. Instead of eating our "broccoli" news of the 3 major networks, we're now eating the rich Oreo Cream Pies of cable news constantly, with no respite.
Is there a way to reverse the trend? Again, I don't know. Part of the problem is we constantly have these circular arguments. "Could you imagine if <insert name> did this?" or "Where was the outrage then?" Basically what it boils down to is that two wrongs always seem to make a right in politics. Most partisans excuse bad behavior just because the other side did it before. Perhaps the trend could be reversed if we all got above that.
And I think the trends can be due to a combination of the things you mention. But also, if we look at the last election, voter turnout was just over 60%. Perhaps the other 40% is now finally waking up from their slumber and directing a lot of anger at the current party in power. It's pretty easy to be mad at the party in power just because they are in charge.
All this "civil war" talk is alarmist and BS. America as a fading empire, yes, I agree with, but our culture is much more homogenized than it was before. If nothing else, we'd have to suspend the Great Republican vs Democrat civil war whenever football season rolled around.
But the culture of polarization and hate is what is SELLING currently. No one is being sold on agreement or compromise. I stand by my belief that Rush, Beck, Hannity, Gore, Moore, and Olbermann and a whole host of others are in it simply for the moo-la-la. Somehow, we need to remove that financial incentive. Perhaps massive tax breaks for the network that runs shows on consensus?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/...
Signing off--have a great day Americans!
While it appears the President’s speech will focus on the value of education and personal responsibility, federally-directed lesson plans set a concerning precedent for the government’s role in education. Education analyst Frederick Hess writes at the American Enterprise blog that the lesson plans “were developed with federal funds, devised on taxpayer time, and made available on the Department of Education’s website” and “might be construed as an invitation to engage in advocacy rather than instruction”.
The most cursory poke at google, though, implies that this particular ship has long-since sailed. (link)
While it may well be that the administration wants all Labor Day weekend at hand to work on the revisions (to the speech but also to the lesson plans, don't forget), I suspect it's being released Monday so it's as close as possible before the speech, and also on a holiday when fewer will be occupied with this fact.
What was amusing to me (but not surprising) was how MSNBC described it, Matthews-Maddow-style.
(Did Chuck Todd get his text from the White House, too?)
"The White House is releasing the full text of the president's speech to students on Monday -- a full 24 hours before President Obama delivers the speech live at noon ET a local Arlington, VA, high school. Obviously, this means parents and teachers will have plenty of time to read the text of the speech and decide for themselves about the content."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/...
Lightning rods and doing the dirty work...
He has, that's the point. Bush did very little during that first year in office, and then enjoyed a respite from the partisan vitriole in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. I think you're the one who's drawing a false equivalence to say that Obama's opponents should keep their powder dry, when the beginning of his administration has been far more active than GWB's was. I realize that a lot of Obama's (and Pelosi/Reid's) agenda is in response to current problems, but that doesn't mean that people have to agree with the solutions they're putting forth. And when it appears that the Dem leadership's goals have been to ride the crest of Obama's popularity to push sweeping legislation through very quickly (before 2010 can potentially bring a shift in power), there are very valid reasons for pushing back rather than reserving judgement on the current administration and Congress.
Isn't that what the Bush administration did after 9/11 when they were riding a high tide of popularity?
The same cannot be said of the sweeping legislation pushed through Congress after 9/11. It was not a matter of "going too far, too fast." It was a matter of using the tragedy of 9/11 and the reflexive support that the White House was getting from a very frightened public to implement draconian policy and legal changes that could not be justified under any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, and the effect of which was deeply harmful to our individual liberties and political freedom. And anyone who uttered a peep of criticism at that time was labeled unpatriotic or worse.
Since Obama has not used his mandate to reverse a lot of the policies that you say "could not be justified under any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution", I'd say that point is highly debatable and not all unanimously agreed upon.
What I just can't figure out, though (scratching my head here) is how, or why, you can see that it's a matter of opinion and perspective with regard to the sweeping legislation that the Bush admin put through after 9/11and of course it's just a matter of how you look at it, and nothing to do with whether Bush's legislation was objectively way too much too soon and too sweeping and ramming it through with no public discussion --but when you are commenting on health care reform under Pres. Obama, we get stuff like this: "And when it appears that the Dem leadership's goals have been to ride the crest of Obama's popularity to push sweeping legislation through very quickly (before 2010 can potentially bring a shift in power), there are very valid reasons for pushing back rather than reserving judgement on the current administration and Congress."
Where, oh where is the nuance NOW, Christine? I mean, don't you realize that those "very valid reasons" you refer to are only "very valid" to you and people who share your views, and that to others they may not be valid at all?
/end snark
So no, I don't "realize that those 'very valid reasons'" I referred to are only 'very valid' to myself and the people who share my opinion, and I don't think that the opinions of people on the left are only valid to them. I can acknowledge that people who have valid concerns should be heard, and then I can consider their points and decide if I agree with some or all of them. Most often, of course, I end up disagreeing with a lot but sometimes I agree with some (the Bush example concerning civil liberties is a good example- I think they went too far in some instances but not to the degree that you feel they did.)
For sure, but "giving people their say" does not imply -- or shouldn't imply -- rude, offensive, boorish, and even physically threatening behavior. And such behavior cannot be excused by saying that people are "upset" for "valid reasons" and that's how it comes out.
So no, I don't "realize that those 'very valid reasons'" I referred to are only 'very valid' to myself and the people who share my opinion, and I don't think that the opinions of people on the left are only valid to them. I can acknowledge that people who have valid concerns should be heard, and then I can consider their points and decide if I agree with some or all of them.
Okay, so then would I be correct in thinking that you would find the following statement:
"And when it appears that the Bush administration's goals have been to ride the crest of Bush's post-9/11 popularity to push sweeping legislation through very quickly (and without any real public discussion or debate in Congress), there are very valid reasons for pushing back rather than reserving judgement on the current (Bush) administration and Congress."
just as reasonable and just as fair -- even if you don't agree with it -- as the statement you wrote, repeated below?
"And when it appears that the Dem leadership's goals have been to ride the crest of Obama's popularity to push sweeping legislation through very quickly (before 2010 can potentially bring a shift in power), there are very valid reasons for pushing back rather than reserving judgement on the current administration and Congress."
"He has the three things that are necessary to establish an authoritarian government [a national police force, gun control and control over the press]. And so we need to be ever-vigilant, because freedom is precious."
I can't even have contempt for people like that. Mostly because I'm just fresh out at this stage. Meanwhile, armchair centrists are saying that this is comparable to BDS.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_...
http://www.topix.com/city/glendale-co/2009/06/o...
Yes, indeed.
1980s. Anti-Reagan-USA-and-West, child-exploiting "Nuclear education," "peace education," etc., as well as other, similar exploitation of children by "progressives" and related operatives in the schools.
It's not a surprise (once again, as with health care) that there is a substantial historical basis for concern, as well as concern arising from the nature and politics of the current lib Dems in the executive branch as well as in Congress, and in this case involving Obama's personality cult (which nobody has refuted), and an unending campaign (like "revolutions" elsewhere that never end) that features scripted, staged "town hall" appearances, as well as staged press conferences this year.
As I've posted elsewhere: Don't be surprised if Arne Duncan's department and others in the Obama administration become involved with, say, Educators for Social Responsibility and we see curricula changes in the future. What was done with "nuclear war" could be reapplied to "global warming," as we've already seen with the latter as with guns, and earlier with nuclear war, as a "public health" problem involving medical education as well as elementary and secondary education of children.
(Nobody sane, after what the Dems have done this year, would fail to be concerned if changes to curricula were discussed later, in order to achieve "consistency" or "uniformity" or "standards," and "effectiveness" along with, say, "appropriateness," nation-wide. These people raise concerns.)
he, who has been other than fully honest with Americans, and his administration sought to have the susceptible or collaborative among the public behave as informers or "denouncers" of dissent, after choosing to join the lib Dems in madly rushing to pass bad legislation. Reins are long, long overdue.
Even suggesting that the crazily cascading logs are overdue for a flume, to set basic limits, is un-PC.
We've been discussing health care for how many months now? And it's STILL going too fast for you?
And I'm sure you reflexively bemoaned of the unseemly haste Bush and Congress acted with after 9/11, and tax cuts? Just sayin'.
But the statement was so ludicrous I felt it needed some push back.
The anti-meat folks won't like it.
* * *
" And it's STILL going too fast for you?"
I'm not the one (nor on the side) that's not up to speed historically and politically about the subject.
* * *
"How do you think that should have been worded?"
Not "snould," but "should not." At the very least, "Obviously, ... plenty of time" was ridiculous.
Boehner was not threatening riots in the streets.
Here's the ONE SENTENCE reply she gave a reporters questionFactCheck looked into it and they posted a video with protesters "carrying swastikas and the like". Their conclusion to this intentional misinformation campaign is:
As the list of Obama accomplishments was too long, I tried to edit it, cut it down, and eventually even delete major parts of it, but "the system" didn't let me, especially all the blank space at the end.
Please feel free to delete. I think the point has been made
Thanks
Dorian
"That the bills have nice sounding names doesn't prove a thing- even a lot of GOP bills that I disagree with would have pleasant, sometimes Orwellian, names so that listing them by title doesn't allow people to form an opinion one way or another on the content or effect of the bill."
OK, let's then agree that the list of Bush's "achievements" also had nice sounding names...
By the way, the link provided takes you to a place that gives a short description of the various bills.
"Sorry, I have nothing that can convince the willfully stupid, and won't bother, except to point out a simple Google of 'Bush is not my President' results in 30,300,000 matches"
I don't remember that one, AR. But I do remember all the controversy of when googling "failure" one was taken to Bush's White House web site, or something like that :) (Did I do the smile ok?)
How is your daughter doing?
Dorian
I guess you missed the update I gave the other day (here is a link to the original update), and there is another now.
She has received her orders, and will be home on September 10th.
YEAH!!!
Thanks so much for inquiring.
Thanks. I did read your great news about five days ago and I believe I commented then. I just wanted to know if there had been any more developments since then.
Dorian
Yes, I went back and realized you did. I wasn't sure at the moment as I received a lot of very nice comments, yours included, and a simple check on my part would have found yours.
Thanks again, and this Thursday is going to be a wonderful day at the Roth household.
btw - on an interesting side note, Vicki found out that while they are flying her back to Texas, they will not provide her transport to the airport! She is on her own for that.
Does it have something to do with your daughter? Is she coming home?
Yes, she is coming home Thursday!!
YEAH!!
And If you didn't catch the initial update from a few days ago (the one I referenced to Dorian) here it is - Victoria update.
BTW - when does your new doggie come home?
;)
So no one ever saw Code Pink try to throw fake blood on Condi Rice as she gave testimony, or camped outside Bush's Crawford ranch; no saw the marchers carrying posters of a big fist punching Sarah Palin's tooth out, captioned MILP - Mother I'd Like to Punch; no one saw the Sarah Palin and John McCain posters with fangs dripping blood; or the assassination porn movies, or the Snipers Wanted caption over Bush's face? Stone throwing protesters chanting "Bush is a terrorist" and trying to disrupt his motorcade in Portland? Innumerable protest signs featuring variations of "Kill Bush Bomb His F____ House", "I'm Here to Kill Bush Shoot Me?" etc. etc.? An artist doing a series of stamps depicting Bush's assassination?
How about the posters from any peace protest - there were lots of them, I promise - at any time between 2002 and 2008?
Does any of this ring any bells?
No? Nothing?
Now on the other side we have a guy that has been in office around 9 months and is trying to pass healthcare which was part of the platform he ran on and people are showing up at his rallies with guns and calling him and anyone linked to him communist nazis(nazi is far right and communist is far left and they do not mix as the ideologies are opposites). So the question again since you obviously did not read the comment string is what are they so freaked out about? I have your answer, they are afraid of the projections fueled by right wing media(the other side was afraid of the projections of left wing blogs). Now would you like to make a point now that you are caught up?
Why not?
I think there is indeed a lot of projection going on here.
And BTW - I too had huge problems with Bush's assault on civil liberties and his relentless expansion of Presidential powers. None of which Obama has done anything to remedy or curtail and, indeed, has only expanded (FISA, "post-acquittal" imprisonment, presidential signing statements, and I know that you know that Gitmo will not be closed a year from now, or a year after that). The Democrats objected to the imperial presidency only until a Democrat became President.
The concern is due to the people carrying guns to political rallies which of course would not be an issue if he used free speech zones like Bush did but unlike you I actually see that our current president seems to have some respect for the constitution. I of course would like him to go further but seeing as how he has already done more on my oh so special if only I could get a president that would talk this way or do this thing list that I am giving him some time on the rest. You have to understand the first president I could have voted for was H.W. Bush so the current guy has a whole lot of rope to hang himself with because we are grading on a curve. Why you ask? Because if you do not grade on a curve we have not had a good president with any morals since the 1950's or before and that is incredibly sad and I refuse to accept it. Every president is just worse than the last, the good news is that if that holds true we will not even have a country in a few years but at least no one will tell me that cutting taxes would fix it all.
Or maybe it's just youth. I believed a hell of a lot of silly things at your age myself.
Second watch the coverage from day one not from the election day one(the media picks their favored person and that person always wins, it was true from Reagan on and continues to be true. This may go back further but I have no clue.)
Third when a scandal or issue starts on the fringe does the media listen and investigate?
From the last twenty years of paying attention I have found that a republican president gets the benefit of the doubt until right before an election and the Dem gets investigated just after the election
This could be due to a media that is overcompensating(which would still mean a right leaning bias)
This could be due to a media that is socially liberal enough to scare people but are economically conservative trying to "even the playing field" a bit
This could be due to all Dems being evil and all Repubs being saints but I have my doubts about that.
I missed out on the 70's, all that lived through it see commies everywhere but they are missing from my experience. My media has always looked liberal but they do love those tax cuts and media consolidation not to mention those fun little Repub wars that helps out the media companies military industrial complex contracts. I think the media was liberal pre-80's, but that changed slowly with the ad revenue and media consolidation.
So for scandal investigations we have
Reagan-Iran Contra (its okay he doesnt remember)
Bush Sr-No new taxes pledge hit him just before the election
Clinton-Flowers/White Water/Lewinsky/Pardons (I actually do not remember a time when the media was not investigating him on something and they, like the GOP always came up empty or nearly so(thinking of Lewinsky). THis could be part of my problem constant investigations under Clinton made me think it was the norm so when no oversight nor journalism was done under Bush to me it looks like playing favorites especially considering the guy did have a lot to investigate.
Bush Jr.-Torture/fraudulent evidence for war in Iraq/Bungled 911/close personal ties to the family of the leader of the group that attacked us(sorry if this was Obama Fox would be nuclear by now)/Meyer's and Harriet Meyer's was the only thing the media would touch until right before the election AND they still held the warrentless wiretapping stories until after the 2004 election
Obama-Health care/birth cert/anti Obama protesters/Shorts gate/the Cheney fiasco...I am sure there is more and I just have tried to forget.
I do not listen to talk radio nor do I watch opinion journalism so I may have missed the "liberal" in the media but I think more than anything people that lived through the 70's really think the media is now how it once was and it is a much more classically corporate marketing entity now, news included.
Failed to sell his agenda to the public. Mr. Bush had it much easier, since 9/11 handed him not only a crisis but broad public support for hawkish policies.
And no one was calling for Mr. Obama's head after a very questionable stimulus package.
He is now in trouble for selling the Democratic health care reform as a way to control runaway costs, exactly like Mr. Bush got in trouble selling the Iraq war as a way to control dangerous weapons. The promised cost savings have eluded the inspectors as completely as Saddam's anthrax, and people are now feeling uncomfortable and even swindled with a "reform" package that just buys more of the same runaway costs that got us into this mess.
What I liked about Mr. Obama when I voted for him, and what I still believe in, is his ability to learn and adapt. I think it was a big mistake to delegate implementation of his post-partisan vision to Nancy Pelosi on some of these huge measures. I'm interested to see what strategic shifts 2010 will bring.
Too busy creating tin-foil hats?
It's not a dog whistle, it's not a call to arms, it's not a reminder of racial discord. It's an overused cliche.
I'm still not sure if this answers your question, but I'm trying.
I'm merely reapplying the same reasoning I keep hearing from you and others: Health care in Europe costs less than America for outcomes that are at least as good, therefore there's no rational argument for not adopting their system. By those standards, Cuba looks not only a little better than Europe but a lot better. So why shouldn't we adopt their system wholesale, whatever it is?
Their health care system looks better, not their political system. I really and truly am not understanding your logic here, Dr J, and even though I could not disagree more with your worldview, I have never understood you to be silly, or a crackpot.
And in terms of health care systems, Cuba's has much to recommend it. Government pays 90.7% of all health care costs, more than any country in Europe (though Luxembourg at 90.6% is a close second). The mortality rate due to cancer is 129 per 100,000 people, compared to 134 in the US, 141 in Germany, 143 in Spain. Life expectancy at birth is 68, only 7% behind Sweden. Their infant mortality rate is the same as the UK's. They have 59 doctors per 10,000 people, more than twice the US's 26. Yet they spend only 7.1% of GDP on health care, less than any western European country and only half as much as the US.
Cuba's system isn't perfect, but the outcome numbers look pretty good, and the cost numbers look phenomenal. These numbers say it's a great position for us to build from--especially since we have so many more resources to apply to the job.
Yet whereas you regard importing a European system based on cost and outcome numbers to be the only rational choice, importing the Cuban one based on the same analysis is silly and crackpot? There's a stark contradiction here. What's making you balk at the Cuban option?
Read the update, I definitely had not seen that before. And it's such great news. If I'm remembering correctly, this is much more and faster progress than you had dared to hope for initially. I'm very happy for all of you.
As for doggie, it'll be a while, still. I'm being extremely careful about my choice this time, because I made some hasty, heart-overrules-head decisions in the past. Of course, I was on the rebound then, but still, I want to be cautious and realistic about what dog qualities and characteristics will fit my lifestyle and physical limitations.
I talked to Maggie (my daughter) about it, she is still leery, but here is one funny comment she made: "Mommy, what are you going to do when it's icy outside? You know how much trouble you have keeping your balance on the ice even w/o a dog!"
The sad part is, she's right. :-(
I just have to find a small dog, gentle, walks well on leash, and gets along with cats. It is surprisingly hard to find all of those in one dog. But here is a leading candidate:
http://www.petfinder.com/petnote/displaypet.cgi...
As for doggie, I don't have one yet, but here is a leading candidate:
http://www.petfinder.com/petnote/displaypet.cgi...
I have no inclination or disinclination for the Cuban system. I have not studied the Cuban system, know nothing about the Cuban system, and never thought about the Cuban system. I'm not balking at it, I'm not jumping at it. What I know is that you are trying to play some kind of game with me here about Cuba's health care system or political system or social system or economic system or SOMETHING. And I still don't know exactly what it is, but I'm getting tired of it. Stop trying to maneuver me and manipulate me into giving you some answer that you have in mind which you can then use to prove whatever point it is that you have in mind, if indeed you do have one.
I don't have the patience of a saint, Dr J, and you are starting to SERIOUSLY annoy me. As my father used to say, piss.or.get.off.the.pot.If you have something to say, SAY.IT.
You are right, of course, but my rhetorical hope is to establish some common ground between us.
It's perfectly reasonable for you to eye Cuba warily--it's a third-world country with 1/300th of our GDP, a completely different culture, and a totalitarian government that engineers its own weird reality. Though it musters some surprisingly good health outcomes, you're right that importing their system is a crackpot idea. Behind each of those nice-sounding stats probably lurks 10 drawbacks we don't know about. And we are so different from Cuba in so many ways that it's virtually guaranteed that programs that work in Cuba wouldn't scale up to our giant, multicultural, non-totalitarian country.
What I've been hoping you'll say is "maybe there's more to it than just these outcome and cost stats" because that would establish our common ground. I balk at importing Europe's health care system on the basis of those stats, for similar reasons. Quick summaries of outcome statistics don't do justice to what I'm sure is a complex reality, and to be frank I haven't seen any single-payer champions go much deeper than "Europe is better! At half the cost!" European countries are much smaller than ours--more comparable to one of our states. They're poorer, and they're more culturally homogeneous. Though governments don't tend to be totalitarian, citizens have a different history and different relationship with the government than we do.
I suspect the extra money we spend on health care buys us benefits that don't show up in simple life expectancy stats--such as freedom to sue, for example. And I suspect that solutions that work well in small, homogeneous European countries wouldn't scale up well to ours. Is that sounding more rational?
Nice try, Dr J. I don't eye Cuba warily. I eye YOU warily. And clearly with good reason.
I suspect the extra money we spend on health care buys us benefits that don't show up in simple life expectancy stats--such as freedom to sue, for example. And I suspect that solutions that work well in small, homogeneous European countries wouldn't scale up well to ours. Is that sounding more rational?
No. It sounds more honest -- a straightforward statement of your beliefs as opposed to trying to trap me into giving an answer when I don't know the question -- but it does not sound more rational.