I must admit that sometimes I am mystified by presidential advisers.
Like today, I saw two economic advisers from the Obama Administration on TV and they were both saying that Obama made a good deal when he compromised on the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Then they said that they didn't like that particular part of the deal, but that it would be easier in two years, right after the 2012 election, to get rid of the tax cuts for wealthy. Why? Because they said it would then be clear that it didn't help the economy. So, then it would be an easy cut.
Hmmmm. Now, I am no economic wizard, but doesn't that imply that in order for the tax cuts for the wealthy to be seen as unsuccessful, then also it means that the economy (or the employment rate) doesn't improve? Do they think the economy and employment rate won't improve in two years? Wow! I hope not. Because that means none of their ideas (or the least the few that they have) were successful and so they haven't worked. Wow, I sure hope this economy improves in two years.
But wouldn't it also be true that if the economy improves, the proponents of the tax cuts for the wealthy could point to it as one of the reasons for economic improvement and thus make the case even more than now that those tax cuts need to be kept in place? And then that would mean an extension of the extension of the tax cuts of the wealthy.
Wouldn't it be just better to eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthy now, which should reduce the national debt, and then to work like a busy FDR to improve the economy...and then show that the tax cuts for the wealthy weren't needed?
The Obama advisers mystify me. But maybe they have to say something and put as much of a happy face on it as possible, considering that they made such a goofy mistake.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Grace, disgrace, jellyfish politics, and journalism resources...
Some random thoughts on the news of our times...
It is certainly sad to hear of the death of Elizabeth Edwards, a health care activist and political leader in her own right. She died of cancer yesterday. Though she played a supportive role in her husband's campaigns, she would have been the better candidate. She had the passion and also the integrity. Through her illness and the scandal of her husband's affair, she showed spirit, resilience, and grace. She was inspirational and will be greatly missed by an America with so many needs for activists and courageous voices.
As a journalist and educator, I believe that the best resources that American journalists now have number six in general terms. They are: 1). The First Amendment; 2). The U.S. Supreme Court decision of New York Times v. Sullivan; 3). The Freedom of Information Act; 4). Shield laws when they are strong; 5). Sunshine laws for meetings and records; and 6). WikiLeaks, which comes new just this year to my list.
The jellyfish experts and the spelunkers were right. President Obama caved and sold-out to compromise with a Republican minority once again for some bewildering reason. This time concerning his willingness to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. That would be $60 billion per year that goes to the top 2 percent of income holders in America while the nation can't afford it. That amount of money is equal to what the U.S. could provide if it wanted to provide free college for students or $500 per American in a check rebate, according to a recent New York Times list of possibilities. If either political party were truly serious about reducing the budget deficit, this was the best first sacrifice to start the national effort going. Instead, President Obama gets rolled over again, like a bowling pin. Any new suggestion of where the budget should be cut now--usually aimed at the middle-class or people below the poverty line--would be a cruel and ridiculous joke. I do believe that it is essential that a candidate from the left emerge to challenge Obama in 2012. Perhaps Russ Feingold, Howard Dean, or others. Someone who is a real, actual progressive who isn't likely to dump a principle for a quick compromise. Obama appears to be weak and spineless. That won't be difficult to run against. I don't think Obama will win the 2012 election, so the Democratic Party is crazy if it provides him with the nomination. We expected FDR and we got Hoover who likes the banks. We were hoping for Harry Truman and instead got Bill Clinton and the love of the middle ground that always seems to be farther to the right and to satisfy the Republicans most of all. The middle-class desperately needs to have a better choice for the future.
President Obama's presidential slogan in 2008 was "Yes, We Can." Well, for his next presidential campaign for 2012, for accuracy it probably should be "Yes, We Cave." (My brother noted that phrase and I just had to use it here.)
I recently told PayPal to take me off their e-mail list as I don't intend to use that service, especially in light of their response to the WikiLeaks controversy. PayPal said it was intimidated by the U.S. State Department. Well, that's too bad...and I won't miss their promotional e-mails. I also recently asked to be taken off the Organizing for America e-mail list by the Obama campaign. Enough of that, too.
It is certainly sad to hear of the death of Elizabeth Edwards, a health care activist and political leader in her own right. She died of cancer yesterday. Though she played a supportive role in her husband's campaigns, she would have been the better candidate. She had the passion and also the integrity. Through her illness and the scandal of her husband's affair, she showed spirit, resilience, and grace. She was inspirational and will be greatly missed by an America with so many needs for activists and courageous voices.
As a journalist and educator, I believe that the best resources that American journalists now have number six in general terms. They are: 1). The First Amendment; 2). The U.S. Supreme Court decision of New York Times v. Sullivan; 3). The Freedom of Information Act; 4). Shield laws when they are strong; 5). Sunshine laws for meetings and records; and 6). WikiLeaks, which comes new just this year to my list.
The jellyfish experts and the spelunkers were right. President Obama caved and sold-out to compromise with a Republican minority once again for some bewildering reason. This time concerning his willingness to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. That would be $60 billion per year that goes to the top 2 percent of income holders in America while the nation can't afford it. That amount of money is equal to what the U.S. could provide if it wanted to provide free college for students or $500 per American in a check rebate, according to a recent New York Times list of possibilities. If either political party were truly serious about reducing the budget deficit, this was the best first sacrifice to start the national effort going. Instead, President Obama gets rolled over again, like a bowling pin. Any new suggestion of where the budget should be cut now--usually aimed at the middle-class or people below the poverty line--would be a cruel and ridiculous joke. I do believe that it is essential that a candidate from the left emerge to challenge Obama in 2012. Perhaps Russ Feingold, Howard Dean, or others. Someone who is a real, actual progressive who isn't likely to dump a principle for a quick compromise. Obama appears to be weak and spineless. That won't be difficult to run against. I don't think Obama will win the 2012 election, so the Democratic Party is crazy if it provides him with the nomination. We expected FDR and we got Hoover who likes the banks. We were hoping for Harry Truman and instead got Bill Clinton and the love of the middle ground that always seems to be farther to the right and to satisfy the Republicans most of all. The middle-class desperately needs to have a better choice for the future.
President Obama's presidential slogan in 2008 was "Yes, We Can." Well, for his next presidential campaign for 2012, for accuracy it probably should be "Yes, We Cave." (My brother noted that phrase and I just had to use it here.)
I recently told PayPal to take me off their e-mail list as I don't intend to use that service, especially in light of their response to the WikiLeaks controversy. PayPal said it was intimidated by the U.S. State Department. Well, that's too bad...and I won't miss their promotional e-mails. I also recently asked to be taken off the Organizing for America e-mail list by the Obama campaign. Enough of that, too.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
The difference between conservative and liberal environments...
I can tell that Americans live in a conservative environment socially and politically, thanks to politicians and media, based upon the issues that are framed as provocative or controversial.
In liberal environments, social and political issues tend to lack a provocative nature because freedom, width, breadth, and diversity allow for a lot. If it is done, it is tolerated, it is accepted, it is part of the fabric of the society, its controversy is diminished, if not erased. In conservative environments, on the other hand, provocative and controversial issues are widespread because they are far beyond the norm, the allowed, the legal, the narrowness.
Since about every feature or concept can usually be framed to accommodate the conservative mind or the liberal mind, it then rests on who's doing the framing. Usually those are the people in power, which includes generations-old senators and rich media personalities.
So, for example, the American media might refer to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks as an anarchist because he believes in the transparency of government, even if it means publishing governmental secrets, while the same media wouldn't use the same word to describe Rand Paul, the senator from Kentucky who ran on the platform of opposing government.
It is like with the silliness about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the U.S. military. What a non-issue, if the environment were Sweden, Norway, France, Canada. But, of course, in the conservative environment of America, it is agonized over, debated endlessly, and senate committees waste time on its focus. Gay soldiers are already in the U.S. military and always have been. The recent survey of soldiers noted that most wouldn't have a problem with the repeal of the policy, which is discriminatory. Most straight soldiers probably are insulted by the idea that they couldn't handle it. The percentage of support for repeal is way greater than when President Truman ordered the end to military segregation of white and black soldiers.
Nonetheless, a stern Marine commander, who has higher percentage figures from his military branch to support the continued discrimination, tells a senate committee that the change would impact cohesiveness. Of course, there are no one polls to see how many bigots are in the Marines or other branches of the service and how that might affect cohesiveness. No, leave the bigots in there because we need them to fight. Apparently, most U.S. soldiers must have adjusted and adapted to the fact that some of their buddies are likely ignorant bigots and/or otherwise insecure about sexuality. Thus, the cohessive issue isn't about mind-set, especially if the mind-set, such as prejudice, comes from within a conservative culture.
About every political or social issue, from God to book-banning, also could be framed narrowly or widely depending upon whether the environment is conservative or liberal. The conservatives see it narrowly and thus any views beyond the status quo are seen as provocative and controversial. Liberals see it broadly. They see no need for stress and they accept the range.
People in other countries where liberalism isn't seen as horrifying must look at America and sometimes shake their heads in wonder. Of course, at least America has Iran, Iraq, and other also conservative societies beat...At least, thank goodness for that.
In liberal environments, social and political issues tend to lack a provocative nature because freedom, width, breadth, and diversity allow for a lot. If it is done, it is tolerated, it is accepted, it is part of the fabric of the society, its controversy is diminished, if not erased. In conservative environments, on the other hand, provocative and controversial issues are widespread because they are far beyond the norm, the allowed, the legal, the narrowness.
Since about every feature or concept can usually be framed to accommodate the conservative mind or the liberal mind, it then rests on who's doing the framing. Usually those are the people in power, which includes generations-old senators and rich media personalities.
So, for example, the American media might refer to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks as an anarchist because he believes in the transparency of government, even if it means publishing governmental secrets, while the same media wouldn't use the same word to describe Rand Paul, the senator from Kentucky who ran on the platform of opposing government.
It is like with the silliness about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the U.S. military. What a non-issue, if the environment were Sweden, Norway, France, Canada. But, of course, in the conservative environment of America, it is agonized over, debated endlessly, and senate committees waste time on its focus. Gay soldiers are already in the U.S. military and always have been. The recent survey of soldiers noted that most wouldn't have a problem with the repeal of the policy, which is discriminatory. Most straight soldiers probably are insulted by the idea that they couldn't handle it. The percentage of support for repeal is way greater than when President Truman ordered the end to military segregation of white and black soldiers.
Nonetheless, a stern Marine commander, who has higher percentage figures from his military branch to support the continued discrimination, tells a senate committee that the change would impact cohesiveness. Of course, there are no one polls to see how many bigots are in the Marines or other branches of the service and how that might affect cohesiveness. No, leave the bigots in there because we need them to fight. Apparently, most U.S. soldiers must have adjusted and adapted to the fact that some of their buddies are likely ignorant bigots and/or otherwise insecure about sexuality. Thus, the cohessive issue isn't about mind-set, especially if the mind-set, such as prejudice, comes from within a conservative culture.
About every political or social issue, from God to book-banning, also could be framed narrowly or widely depending upon whether the environment is conservative or liberal. The conservatives see it narrowly and thus any views beyond the status quo are seen as provocative and controversial. Liberals see it broadly. They see no need for stress and they accept the range.
People in other countries where liberalism isn't seen as horrifying must look at America and sometimes shake their heads in wonder. Of course, at least America has Iran, Iraq, and other also conservative societies beat...At least, thank goodness for that.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Changing the dynamics of world secrecy...
I like the idea of the WikiLeaks website changing the dynamics of world secrecy. I hope it continues to provide transparency concerning governments.
In the past, all that journalists had to praise for opening governmental secrets on a national level was the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and we all felt good when some 20- or 30-year-old secret, usually shameful, finally came to light about what the government, including its agencies such as the FBI and CIA, had done. Now, with WikiLeaks, that has changed. The release of secrets is pretty immediate. No decades to wait. No lingering darkness to accommodate the cobwebs of history.
While the government, through many presidents, tends to whine about national security being breached, I haven't seen much evidence that past revelations have done harm. There are people who say the release of documents endangers lives. Well, where is the evidence of that? It is a big claim, easy to inflate. But where is the proof?
It has been entertaining to watch the American TV networks handle the WikiLeaks story. Their reporters will say that WikiLeaks did the leaking--it's their fault--and then will go ahead and tell everyone listening about what was leaked. If the TV networks don't like the process of the leak, why don't they refrain from providing the information about what was leaked in the first place? U.S. journalists can blame WikiLeaks and then have their cake and eat it, too. The news is then reported. U.S. journalists also would probably have reported everything that WikiLeaks provided if they'd been first to have the source. That's how the profession works.
The New York Times printed the leaked history of the Vietnam War called the Pentagon Papers, despite the Nixon Administration's attempt at prior restraint. The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue, with a verdict that favored the New York Times. Then Woodward and Bernstein used a source of leaks known as Deep Throat who happened to turn out to be the second highest official in the FBI. Though the Washington Post editors demanded that additional sources be found for verification of what Deep Throat said, the source was still a crucial part of the Watergate scandal story. Without him, who knows if the Watergate scandal story would have ever seen the light of day.
Julian Assange, the Australian founder of WikiLeaks, is currently entangled in a scandal relating to alleged sex crimes in Sweden. He says it is a smear campaign. Regardless of whether that aspect of the WikiLeaks story is true or fabricated, one man surely doesn't keep the website going. Nor does it mean that the mission of the website isn't worthy of support. The website is currently under attack by hackers, probably from governments around the world and likely from even the U.S. government. This is one time when I don't want nationalism to trump globalism. I want nationalism to bring forth better and more open government. If WikiLeaks helps in that regard, that's good.
So, calm down, government. Don't have a cow, Attorney General Holder. Take a breath, Republican and Democratic senators. And then go about the business of making government something we citizens can have respect for and pride in for being good, open, smart, wise, competent, honorable, and an example of the integrity we want and expect.
In the past, all that journalists had to praise for opening governmental secrets on a national level was the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and we all felt good when some 20- or 30-year-old secret, usually shameful, finally came to light about what the government, including its agencies such as the FBI and CIA, had done. Now, with WikiLeaks, that has changed. The release of secrets is pretty immediate. No decades to wait. No lingering darkness to accommodate the cobwebs of history.
While the government, through many presidents, tends to whine about national security being breached, I haven't seen much evidence that past revelations have done harm. There are people who say the release of documents endangers lives. Well, where is the evidence of that? It is a big claim, easy to inflate. But where is the proof?
It has been entertaining to watch the American TV networks handle the WikiLeaks story. Their reporters will say that WikiLeaks did the leaking--it's their fault--and then will go ahead and tell everyone listening about what was leaked. If the TV networks don't like the process of the leak, why don't they refrain from providing the information about what was leaked in the first place? U.S. journalists can blame WikiLeaks and then have their cake and eat it, too. The news is then reported. U.S. journalists also would probably have reported everything that WikiLeaks provided if they'd been first to have the source. That's how the profession works.
The New York Times printed the leaked history of the Vietnam War called the Pentagon Papers, despite the Nixon Administration's attempt at prior restraint. The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue, with a verdict that favored the New York Times. Then Woodward and Bernstein used a source of leaks known as Deep Throat who happened to turn out to be the second highest official in the FBI. Though the Washington Post editors demanded that additional sources be found for verification of what Deep Throat said, the source was still a crucial part of the Watergate scandal story. Without him, who knows if the Watergate scandal story would have ever seen the light of day.
Julian Assange, the Australian founder of WikiLeaks, is currently entangled in a scandal relating to alleged sex crimes in Sweden. He says it is a smear campaign. Regardless of whether that aspect of the WikiLeaks story is true or fabricated, one man surely doesn't keep the website going. Nor does it mean that the mission of the website isn't worthy of support. The website is currently under attack by hackers, probably from governments around the world and likely from even the U.S. government. This is one time when I don't want nationalism to trump globalism. I want nationalism to bring forth better and more open government. If WikiLeaks helps in that regard, that's good.
So, calm down, government. Don't have a cow, Attorney General Holder. Take a breath, Republican and Democratic senators. And then go about the business of making government something we citizens can have respect for and pride in for being good, open, smart, wise, competent, honorable, and an example of the integrity we want and expect.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Information Station...and Comments....
Information and random thoughts:
- Here's a record achievement that no nation should want. Today marks the day that America tied, with the conflict in Afghanistan, the amount of time that the Soviet Union gave to its unsuccessful war in Afghanistan: Nine years and 50 days. The Soviet Union left Afghanistan in 1989. On the PBS News Hour, 10 more faces of young American soldiers who were killed in the war were shown.
- Because my nation can't seem to ever find or sustain peace for any good length of time, I gave up purchasing Peace-On-Earth-themed Christmas cards for the second year in a row. I don't want to participate in a cruel fraud. Some day, it will really be a joyful occasion to actually send out "peace" cards because it is true. But at this point, I won't wish for something that our leaders can't or won't accomplish. It feels too much like being a sorry character in "Waiting for Godot."
- Speaking of Christmas cards, I almost returned a box of Hallmark cards today after I saw that they were produced in China. So, then I looked at a box of Designer Greeting cards and those cards also were produced in China. Can I return two boxes? Then I looked at the last box of Christmas cards that I had purchased which were UNICEF cards. Guess what? They were made in the U.S.A. Well, how about that?! Good deal! And not only that, but also it said on the box that the purchase of the box will "help UNICEF provide seven notebooks for schoolchildren, opening up a world of possibilities through education."
- I can't think of anything I would want to buy that would ever turn me into a Black Friday shopper waiting in early morning hours for a store to open (or for a shopping stampede).
- Wal-Mart has the worst selection of books that I have ever seen. I went there today and they had multiple books by or about Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck and not much else. An awful selection!
- Newsweek magazine listed the "Power 50" of political media personalities who make the highest income annually. Here are the top 10: 1). Rush Limbaugh, $58.7 million (he makes more money per year than the combined salaries of all the members of the U.S. Senate); 2). Glenn Beck, $33 million; 3). Sean Hannity, $22 million; 4). Bill O'Reilly, $20 million (I bet those top four are loudly supportive of the extension of the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy.); 5). Jon Stewart, $15 million; 6). Sarah Palin, $14 million; 7). Don Imus, $11 million; 8). Bill Clinton, $7.7 million; 9). Keith Olbermann, $7.5 million; and 10). tie with Rudy Giuliani and Laura Ingraham, $7 million each. I guess this list means that there is a big-money market for conservative chatter. That's scary. It also means that "Demagoguery sells."
- "Exodus for Hunger" is a book by the Rev. David Beckmann of Bread for the World. He said recently on TV that the world produces enough food to feed every person on the planet. He said the big hunger increase in America is because of high unemployment. About 15 percent of all American households had trouble putting food on the table and needed the help of food banks, he said. One in four children lives in a household that runs out of food.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
News at 10...
This just in:
Some people got jobs recently. They were Republicans elected during the mid-term election. Unfortunately, they didn't need jobs, don't want to extend job benefits to the unemployed, and the unemployment rate remains the same.
Airport security (the national TSA) is telling travelers that they have two choices in order to board a plane: 1). Walk through a full-body scanner and have a naked photo of you taken; or 2). Have some security guy feel your private parts. In light of complaints about those choices, TSA is considering a third choice: 3). Let some security guy squeeze your private parts and then cook them with the radiation from a scanner that takes 3-D photos of your naked body and posts them on Facebook, with a poke here and a poke there.
Progressives are wondering if President Obama has the backbone to not compromise with the Republicans on the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Las Vegas odds-makers, spelunkers, and jellyfish experts are not optimistic.
Junk once was stuff that people took to the town dump. Now people take it to the airport and let security guards check it for explosives.
Bristol Palin and her dance partner won again on the "Dancing With the Stars" TV show. This time, their competition was only Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers in a historical film clip.
Apparently, a high number of Tea Party members watch "Dancing With the Stars." That's just one more reason for not watching the show.
In order to cut the budget deficit, the Debt Commission recommends that the retirement age be set at 105, unemployment benefits be replaced by a bus ticket and one TV dinner, and military spending be reduced by the cost of one nut and one bolt. Said former Senator Simpson, a member of the commission, "We need to stop square dancing and start peeling the potatoes."
This week's episode of "Stars Chasing Squirrels" features Glenn Beck almost catching one.
2010: President Obama said U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2014.
2014: President Brown said U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2018.
2018: President Hernandez said U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2022.
2022: President Robot 634 said U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2024
2024: Afghanistan becomes the 75th state of America, right after West Kansas, Iraq, Yemen. and Armpit.
Anderson Cooper on CNN finally threw up his hands in disgust and yelled at a politician. He's frustrated because he's been trying to "keep them honest." That's about as easy as trying to separate a college student from a cell phone.
Only about 40 years behind the times, the Pope is finally endorsing some use of condoms. Therefore, feel free to use them for water balloons.
A version of a "This Just In" repeat: Who would have ever guessed that there'd be more prostate exams at airports than at clinics?!!
Some people got jobs recently. They were Republicans elected during the mid-term election. Unfortunately, they didn't need jobs, don't want to extend job benefits to the unemployed, and the unemployment rate remains the same.
Airport security (the national TSA) is telling travelers that they have two choices in order to board a plane: 1). Walk through a full-body scanner and have a naked photo of you taken; or 2). Have some security guy feel your private parts. In light of complaints about those choices, TSA is considering a third choice: 3). Let some security guy squeeze your private parts and then cook them with the radiation from a scanner that takes 3-D photos of your naked body and posts them on Facebook, with a poke here and a poke there.
Progressives are wondering if President Obama has the backbone to not compromise with the Republicans on the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Las Vegas odds-makers, spelunkers, and jellyfish experts are not optimistic.
Junk once was stuff that people took to the town dump. Now people take it to the airport and let security guards check it for explosives.
Bristol Palin and her dance partner won again on the "Dancing With the Stars" TV show. This time, their competition was only Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers in a historical film clip.
Apparently, a high number of Tea Party members watch "Dancing With the Stars." That's just one more reason for not watching the show.
In order to cut the budget deficit, the Debt Commission recommends that the retirement age be set at 105, unemployment benefits be replaced by a bus ticket and one TV dinner, and military spending be reduced by the cost of one nut and one bolt. Said former Senator Simpson, a member of the commission, "We need to stop square dancing and start peeling the potatoes."
This week's episode of "Stars Chasing Squirrels" features Glenn Beck almost catching one.
2010: President Obama said U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2014.
2014: President Brown said U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2018.
2018: President Hernandez said U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2022.
2022: President Robot 634 said U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2024
2024: Afghanistan becomes the 75th state of America, right after West Kansas, Iraq, Yemen. and Armpit.
Anderson Cooper on CNN finally threw up his hands in disgust and yelled at a politician. He's frustrated because he's been trying to "keep them honest." That's about as easy as trying to separate a college student from a cell phone.
Only about 40 years behind the times, the Pope is finally endorsing some use of condoms. Therefore, feel free to use them for water balloons.
A version of a "This Just In" repeat: Who would have ever guessed that there'd be more prostate exams at airports than at clinics?!!
Friday, November 5, 2010
Common ground sounds like dirt to me...
Some random thoughts on the mid-term election:
1). If I hear President Obama say one more time that he will try to find common ground with the Republicans, I am going to reach down, grab a handful of ground, and throw it at the moon.
2). It was particularly depressing to see Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, senatorial candidate Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, and Congressman Alan Grayson of Florida lose in the election. If any of them want to challenge Obama from the left in 2012 (if Obama continues to compromise on important issues), I sure would be willing to join their campaigns.
3). A new third party from the left is definitely needed. It could be called the Progressive Party.
4). While only one percent of the Progressive slate of Democrats lost in the mid-term election, apparently 47 percent of the Blue Dog Democrats lost. Good riddance to the Blue Dogs, as they even gave dogs a bad name.
5). A friend recently noted in an e-mail that we really should be identifying the selfish jerks, who are against government and taxes that help to provide services, with the term "anarchists." I agree. The anarchists were in full-force this election.
6). Speaking of that, Rand Paul, the anarchist (Tea Party candidate) who won the senatorial seat in Kentucky, had campaigned on "taking America back" and more specifically "taking back the government." Well, it will be an interesting time seeing how he does that and where he takes it back to. If he gets his way, then it would probably be the 1930s, before FDR. Or maybe the 1850s, before the Civil War.
7). According to filmmaker (and Progressive) Michael Moore, if Obama doesn't return to respecting the concerns of his base (the liberals, young people, minorities, etc.), a "Naderesque challenge" is bound to emerge from the left. I agree. The one poke in the eye to Moore that I would mention, however, is that I remember a moment on a Bill Mauer show when Moore made a fool of himself on his knees begging for Ralph Nader to not enter the presidential race in 2004. What Nader was trying to do was build some kind of third party, which takes time (though apparently the Tea Party did prove it could be done faster). A third party from the left is essential now, for the same reasons of influence that the Tea Party will have on the Republican Party.
1). If I hear President Obama say one more time that he will try to find common ground with the Republicans, I am going to reach down, grab a handful of ground, and throw it at the moon.
2). It was particularly depressing to see Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, senatorial candidate Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, and Congressman Alan Grayson of Florida lose in the election. If any of them want to challenge Obama from the left in 2012 (if Obama continues to compromise on important issues), I sure would be willing to join their campaigns.
3). A new third party from the left is definitely needed. It could be called the Progressive Party.
4). While only one percent of the Progressive slate of Democrats lost in the mid-term election, apparently 47 percent of the Blue Dog Democrats lost. Good riddance to the Blue Dogs, as they even gave dogs a bad name.
5). A friend recently noted in an e-mail that we really should be identifying the selfish jerks, who are against government and taxes that help to provide services, with the term "anarchists." I agree. The anarchists were in full-force this election.
6). Speaking of that, Rand Paul, the anarchist (Tea Party candidate) who won the senatorial seat in Kentucky, had campaigned on "taking America back" and more specifically "taking back the government." Well, it will be an interesting time seeing how he does that and where he takes it back to. If he gets his way, then it would probably be the 1930s, before FDR. Or maybe the 1850s, before the Civil War.
7). According to filmmaker (and Progressive) Michael Moore, if Obama doesn't return to respecting the concerns of his base (the liberals, young people, minorities, etc.), a "Naderesque challenge" is bound to emerge from the left. I agree. The one poke in the eye to Moore that I would mention, however, is that I remember a moment on a Bill Mauer show when Moore made a fool of himself on his knees begging for Ralph Nader to not enter the presidential race in 2004. What Nader was trying to do was build some kind of third party, which takes time (though apparently the Tea Party did prove it could be done faster). A third party from the left is essential now, for the same reasons of influence that the Tea Party will have on the Republican Party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
