Much depends on how one views the nighttime hours in relationship to the current day of the week. Ironically, then, it were either very late Saturday night or the wee hours of Sunday morning, when I finished my mad dash to the last words of Erin Morgenstern's first novel, The Night Circus, "You are no longer certain which side of the fence is the dream," and turned in my bed to fall into sleep.
When one keeps the hours I often do, he can pretty much guarantee to remember few, if any, dreams. I recall none from last night. But, upon awakening, my mind turns back immediately to the book on top of the stack beside my bed, a stunning debut novel by the aptly named young author about Le Cirque des Rêves that opens at dusk and closes at dawn and keeps many a fictional character--and at least one live one for a night or two--magically bound to sustain the imaginary life of the fantastical realm she has enfolded in its pages.
Before opening my eyes, I wonder what the point of reading such a book might be. At a glance, it has little--maybe nothing--to do with my daily life. Do the words, "The circus arrives without warning," which open and close the plotted action, signify anything for me personally? But then, the thought blooms in my mind very much like the vision that made me name these scribblings as I've done: What happens when I contemplate the profane? In fact, is there any other subject that someone like me (that is to say, anyone living) can contemplate except everyday objects and actions? To find my way to the sacred, I must dwell upon the profane. If I am lucky or persistent enough in such contemplation--and you must believe me that only once or twice have I even glimpsed its bright wonder--the profane may sometimes reveal its sacrality.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Where's the Good Samaritan when you really need him?
President Obama prepares to take his case for healthcare reform before the joint houses of Congress on Wednesday. As someone who firmly supported his candidacy, I just signed the petition at http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5649/t/4951/content.jsp?content_KEY=2801&tag=pod and added the following statement of my own:
I cannot tell you, Mr. President, how tired I am that even one citizen of the U.S. might die of an illness she or he cannot afford to combat while those of you in Washington--whom we elect to act on our behalf and for our benefit--dither and malinger over this "debate" about healthcare reform (all at the same time none of you must give it even a second thought whether you and your families might ever suffer the same fate). To my mind, there's nothing to debate.
It's one of the clearest moral questions this nation has ever faced: Do we, or do we not, treat one another as we would be treated! The privileged men and women of Congress have the mortal fate of millions of their constituents in their hands, and they wonder how we can afford to pay for healthcare reform? I see this line of thought as a distraction from the true question; namely, how can we NOT afford to care for our neighbor in need? The Good Samaritan did not debate with himself when he brought the injured person to the inn. He took out his purse and paid for the other's care. So should we now. And question no more whether we did the right thing or not.
In case you might be interested in signing some of the other petitions I have, here are seven possibilities:
I cannot tell you, Mr. President, how tired I am that even one citizen of the U.S. might die of an illness she or he cannot afford to combat while those of you in Washington--whom we elect to act on our behalf and for our benefit--dither and malinger over this "debate" about healthcare reform (all at the same time none of you must give it even a second thought whether you and your families might ever suffer the same fate). To my mind, there's nothing to debate.
It's one of the clearest moral questions this nation has ever faced: Do we, or do we not, treat one another as we would be treated! The privileged men and women of Congress have the mortal fate of millions of their constituents in their hands, and they wonder how we can afford to pay for healthcare reform? I see this line of thought as a distraction from the true question; namely, how can we NOT afford to care for our neighbor in need? The Good Samaritan did not debate with himself when he brought the injured person to the inn. He took out his purse and paid for the other's care. So should we now. And question no more whether we did the right thing or not.
In case you might be interested in signing some of the other petitions I have, here are seven possibilities:
- http://www.petitiononline.com/PubOp676/petition.html
- http://www.healthactionnow.org/?CMP=KNC-360I-GOOGLE-CPA&HBX_PK=health_care_reform_petition
- http://wvwv-healthcarenow.org/
- https://secure.prochoiceamerica.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3891
- http://www.healthcare-now.org/petition/
- http://go.sojo.net/campaign/health_care
- http://www.healthreform.gov/support.html
. . .
Saturday, September 5, 2009
"Do unto . . .". Now, how's that go again?
Here's a link to Greg Sargen't blog, "The Plum Line," where he covers Thursday's letter from leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives to President Obama urging him to continue staunchly in support of "the public option" for healthcare in this country: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/house-liberals-write-directly-to-obama-no-public-option-no-support/.
Personally, I think it's high time we stepped this so-called debate up a notch! When an NPR commentator asked the other day, "What should the President say as he addresses the joint houses of Congress next week?" I expressed some choice words . . . at the top of my lungs . . . again. Seriously, I think Mr. Obama should call Congress and the nation to task, and none too nicely! If it ever was, this is no longer a "debate;" it's degenerated into the typical name-calling and demogoguery that we know and love as the national circus in Washington, D.C.
To have a debate, there must be a question that needs arguing. But I don't see how any American can sincerely "argue" the morality and principles that undergird the healthcare issue. First, there's the purely moral question of whether any one citizen of this great country—not to mention 47 million of them!—should have NO healthcare coverage at all. Second, and just as importantly, there are the principles of fairness and equality upon which this nation was founded. If any single citizen derives benefit from "the government," how can we deny any other citizen exactly the same rights and benefits? Or, as my sister who works in the healthcare industry says, "Anyone in this country who truly believes that our fellow citizens should not have access to adequate healthcare must be willing to forego her or his own government-funded care programs."
Let's think about that for a minute. NO Medicare, NO Medicaid, NO Social Security, NO Medicare Prescription Drug benefits, NO Veterans Hospitals (or any other of the myriad VA benefits programs), NO Federal Employees Health Benefits program, NO Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI), NO federal employee pension plans of any kind, NO Consolidated Health Centers anywhere in the country, NO Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), NO nationally-funded Disability Assistance, NO Unemployment Assistance, NO National Institutes of Health, NO Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), NO "First Responders," NO federal funding to Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services (SAMHSA), NO School Lunches, NO Food Stamps, NO Supplemental Nutrition for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), NO Meals on Wheels, NO Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention programs, NO Federal Employee Vision and Dental Insurance Program (FEDVIP), NO Federal Long-Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP), NO nationally-funded immunization or vaccination programs, NO nationally-funded cancer research programs. And this list doesn't even touch on programs concerning housing, education, agriculture or the environment--none of which is completely independent of impacting healthcare.
Perhaps it's time we ask our congresspeople and senators—especially the Republicans and "conservative" Democrats among them—whether they're really ready to give up THEIR benefits! Perhaps it's time to learn just what federal programs our neighbors, their children, parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters, nieces, nephews, cousins and friends—particularly any of them who aren't ready for the government "to become involved in healthcare"—may themselves take advantage of.
My advice: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Hope you'll be watching our President on Wednesday. Let's see whom he says we should "do unto."
. . .
Personally, I think it's high time we stepped this so-called debate up a notch! When an NPR commentator asked the other day, "What should the President say as he addresses the joint houses of Congress next week?" I expressed some choice words . . . at the top of my lungs . . . again. Seriously, I think Mr. Obama should call Congress and the nation to task, and none too nicely! If it ever was, this is no longer a "debate;" it's degenerated into the typical name-calling and demogoguery that we know and love as the national circus in Washington, D.C.
To have a debate, there must be a question that needs arguing. But I don't see how any American can sincerely "argue" the morality and principles that undergird the healthcare issue. First, there's the purely moral question of whether any one citizen of this great country—not to mention 47 million of them!—should have NO healthcare coverage at all. Second, and just as importantly, there are the principles of fairness and equality upon which this nation was founded. If any single citizen derives benefit from "the government," how can we deny any other citizen exactly the same rights and benefits? Or, as my sister who works in the healthcare industry says, "Anyone in this country who truly believes that our fellow citizens should not have access to adequate healthcare must be willing to forego her or his own government-funded care programs."
Let's think about that for a minute. NO Medicare, NO Medicaid, NO Social Security, NO Medicare Prescription Drug benefits, NO Veterans Hospitals (or any other of the myriad VA benefits programs), NO Federal Employees Health Benefits program, NO Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI), NO federal employee pension plans of any kind, NO Consolidated Health Centers anywhere in the country, NO Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), NO nationally-funded Disability Assistance, NO Unemployment Assistance, NO National Institutes of Health, NO Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), NO "First Responders," NO federal funding to Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services (SAMHSA), NO School Lunches, NO Food Stamps, NO Supplemental Nutrition for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), NO Meals on Wheels, NO Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention programs, NO Federal Employee Vision and Dental Insurance Program (FEDVIP), NO Federal Long-Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP), NO nationally-funded immunization or vaccination programs, NO nationally-funded cancer research programs. And this list doesn't even touch on programs concerning housing, education, agriculture or the environment--none of which is completely independent of impacting healthcare.
Perhaps it's time we ask our congresspeople and senators—especially the Republicans and "conservative" Democrats among them—whether they're really ready to give up THEIR benefits! Perhaps it's time to learn just what federal programs our neighbors, their children, parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters, nieces, nephews, cousins and friends—particularly any of them who aren't ready for the government "to become involved in healthcare"—may themselves take advantage of.
My advice: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Hope you'll be watching our President on Wednesday. Let's see whom he says we should "do unto."
. . .
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Do WHAT to mine enemies?
If you're a "good Christian," I'm sure you know the chapter and verse to which I refer, don't you? Take your pick even: Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27 or 35. Funny! When I read any of these lines, I don't hear one iota of equivocation. And who was it that said these words, again?
In point of fact, no major religious tradition in the world does not hold this prescription as one of its tenets. The Buddha teaches: "Hatreds never cease through hatred . . . through love alone they cease. This is an eternal law" (Dhammapada 3-5). Confucius says: "He whose heart is in the smallest degree set upon Goodness will dislike no one" (Analects 4.3-4). The Tao Te Ching puts it: "I treat those who are good with goodness, and I also treat those who are not good with goodness. Thus, goodness is attained" (49). The Qur'an: "The good and the evil are not alike. Repel the evil deed with the good. And, lo! The one between whom and you there was enmity would become as if a warm friend" (41.34). The Tosefta give us: "Aid an enemy before you aid a friend and you subdue hatred" (Baba Metzia 2.26). And the Ramayana advises: "A superior being does not render evil for evil . . . the ornament of virtuous persons is their conduct. One should never harm the wicked or the good or even criminals meriting death. A noble soul will ever exercise compassion even to one who enjoys injuring others and at the moment that the cruel person commits the vicious acts. For who is without fault?" (Yuddha Kanda 115).
. . .
In point of fact, no major religious tradition in the world does not hold this prescription as one of its tenets. The Buddha teaches: "Hatreds never cease through hatred . . . through love alone they cease. This is an eternal law" (Dhammapada 3-5). Confucius says: "He whose heart is in the smallest degree set upon Goodness will dislike no one" (Analects 4.3-4). The Tao Te Ching puts it: "I treat those who are good with goodness, and I also treat those who are not good with goodness. Thus, goodness is attained" (49). The Qur'an: "The good and the evil are not alike. Repel the evil deed with the good. And, lo! The one between whom and you there was enmity would become as if a warm friend" (41.34). The Tosefta give us: "Aid an enemy before you aid a friend and you subdue hatred" (Baba Metzia 2.26). And the Ramayana advises: "A superior being does not render evil for evil . . . the ornament of virtuous persons is their conduct. One should never harm the wicked or the good or even criminals meriting death. A noble soul will ever exercise compassion even to one who enjoys injuring others and at the moment that the cruel person commits the vicious acts. For who is without fault?" (Yuddha Kanda 115).
. . .
Saturday, May 2, 2009
I Admit It! (#1)
Okay, OK! Yes, I am probably the world's worst "blogger." In fact, I've got to put the word in quotation marks because I'm not sure I can even dream of aspiring to the name. It's been six-and-a-half months since I last rattled the keys. Sheesh!
What's wrong with me? There haven't been things happening that I care to comment on? Like, oh! I don't know . . . the whole world sinking into DEEPression, the likes of which I suspect we ain't never seen before? Wall Street, the Bush Administration, Detroit, Iraq, Bernie Madoff, etc., etc. Talk about your STATES of sin! I could go on and on, but most of the rest of the world's already doing that.
Yes, I predict that the Great Depression isn't going to look so "great" when this one's passed, if that ever happens. If we've left one lump of coal, pint of petroleum or tankard-full of natural gas in the ground by the time we're done, I'll be shocked. We're spending our non-renewable sources of energy faster than the mega-banks spent their TARP funds! Do you get what the term "non-renewable" means? It means, folks, that when it's gone there ain't no more! The end! Kaput! Fini! What part of "the party's over" don't you understand?
Ferchrissakes, we're melting the polar ice caps and we take more than a decade to debate whether it can be scientifically proven that it's us doing it or some "natural phenomenon" we've never seen before. As if that makes one iota of difference! Humans haven't been around long enough in terms of geologic time to have seen anything yet. When we're all knee deep in neo-Devonian seas and our feet have begun to devolve into flippers, you think we'll wake up then? I doubt it. As long as our heads aren't underwater, we'll still be blathering on about whether evolution is purely theoretical and no more or less valid a system of ideas than Genesis.
. . .
Monday, October 13, 2008
A Message from My Shadow?
Still haven't made it out to the pub with that shadow of mine, but today I got an e-mail from someone who could almost be my shadow, that's how opposed his thinking is to mine.
The message was addressed to "all my friends . . . liberal or conservative." Then, the author went on to assert basically that a whole string of the problems America is currently experiencing—especially the financial turmoil—results from the last two years of Democratic control in Congress.
Needless to say, I had to reply. I don't know what it is about me, but I just find it hard to relax when someone slings half-truths and exaggerations at me without a shred of evidence to back them up.
The message begins, "George Bush has been in office for 7-1/2 years. For the first six, the economy was fine."
Seems as though the author forgot how the economy tanked after 9/11. Perhaps those first six years of the Bush regime weren't so rosy, after all. Let's not forget that W came into office with a debt that Clinton had reduced by more than 8% (against the GDP) from where it was when Poppa Bush left office. When W finally says bye-bye to the White House, the national debt will be back up by almost 11% from where it was when he took power. Don't believe me? Take a look at the table of "National Debt by Presidential Terms" on Wikipedia.
In fact, while you're at it, why don't you ponder for a minute or two the way the debt has risen and fallen over presidential administrations in the last half-century? The last time the debt fell while a Republican was in office was during the first term of the Nixon administration. But, contrary to what most people who classify themselves as "conservatives" seem to believe, the debt ratio has fallen in each term of every single Democrat's administration on the chart. Strange, isn't it, that the "tax and spend" Democrats have a much better track record than Republicans at reducing the national debt?
My friend's message goes on, "A little over one year ago, consumer confidence stood at a 2-1/2 year high."
Is this REALLY something the author wants to brag about, especially given the assertion in the first sentence? One year ago was 2007. Two-and-a-half years before that was 2004. That's when the nation elected W for a second term. So, what he's saying is that the man was re-elected in the middle of an economic slump. And that's true, of course. But it was an economic slump that occurred while both the White House and Congress were completely in Republican hands.
The message asserts, "Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon."
If this was true in the early fall of 2007, it was probably only true in a few parts of the country and, then, not for very long. While gas prices have troughed five times in the last four years, with the bottom of the price range most of those times somewhere around $2.00/gallon, the country as a whole last saw gasoline consistently at $2.19 (or less) in the spring of 2004. See for yourself!
It adds, "The unemployment rate was 4.5%."
That statistic is based on the recorded unemployment rate as revealed to us by administrative offices of the federal government that are under the control of guess who? George W. Bush. And I doubt he's got any interest whatsoever in making the unemployment figures look better than they might actually be. Duh! On top of that, let's talk about the jobs that ARE available to persons in the market for a new one. If they can land anything, how many of those jobs pay the same or better wages than these people were making at their former employment?
The message states, probably all too accurately, "The Dow Jones hit a record high of 14,000+. Americans were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large! . . ."
Too large, maybe? For my part, I made a conscious decision last year to live off nothng more than my paycheck, so I sure wasn't "living large." Were you? If so, for how much of it were you paying cash? I can't tell you how happy I am now that I made the choice to eliminate my debt when I did. But whether or not I had done so, the ticking up and down of the stock market doesn't have much effect on my day-to-day life. Unless you work on Wall Street, how does the market actually affect anyone personally every time it fluctuates? If it does that to you, you need to get a life.
Next the message gets into a matching series of complaints like, "Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon and climbing!"
But not today. I bought gas this morning at 1/10 of a cent under $3.00.
It says, "Americans have seen their home equity drop by 12 TRILLION DOLLARS, prices are still dropping, and 1% of American homes are in foreclosure."
And we're blaming the Democratic Congress for that!? Did they sign the papers for loans they couldn't pay? Did they dream up the anti-regulatory schemes that allowed lenders to take advantage of clients they knew perfectly well would be very unlikely to pay out the term of the exotic loan instruments they were selling?
And just what do you suppose might be the political affiliation of the former CEOs of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Bare Stearns, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, etc., etc.—all of whom have taken home huge paychecks over the years they ran their organizations into the ground? At whose expense? Sorta seems to me that the Paulson bailout the administration crammed down Congress' throat is making the American people buy off these losers for the third time!
The author of the message whines, "As I write, the DOW is probing another low."
Actually, it was up 500 points the last I heard today (around 2:00 p.m. CDT). But, like I said, how many real people base anything they do in their daily lives on fluctuations in the stock market? For crying out loud! It can go up and down several times in any given hour of the day!
Then, the author expands on what the declining stock market means, "2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS has evaporated from Americans' stocks, bonds and mutual fund investment portfolios!"
And, we're all in that same boat together, aren't we—whether Democrat or Republican? Unless, of course, you happen to be so wealthy that you've put most of your money offshore in a bank that won't be touched by the current mess you probably helped create here at home.
Let's say the absolute worst happens to the American economy and we enter another Great Depression. Shall I remind you how America got through the last one? By people pulling together. Of course it wasn't pretty and it wouldn't be now, but at the moment we're still a long way from 1929. So, stop panicking!!
Then the author gets to the crux of his "argument," "Remember, the President has no control over any of these issues. Only Congress has that. And, what has Congress done in the last two years? Absolutely nothing."
The Democratic Congress of the last two years has been blocked every step of the way by the Republican minority that sees no reason to cross the aisle and work for bipartisan relief as long as their president doesn't want them to (and sometimes even when he does). Just because Democrats wrested minimal control of the House from Republicans who had taken the opportunity of the previous six years to gerrymander Congressional districts so that it was almost impossible for them to regain control (remember Tom DeLay's special visits to Texas in 2003), that doesn't mean they're to blame for the mess that was set in motion by Reagan and brought to fruition by the current Republican administration and the twelve years of a Republican-controlled Congress, six of which this administration has had at their behest. If we're looking to pick on Congress, does anyone need to be reminded that it was the Republican-controlled 105th Congress who thought one of their most important jobs was to investigate the sex life of Bill Clinton for months and months?
In any case, if "Congress has done absolutely nothing in the last two years" (which I don't think is true), that's mostly because the Democrats do not have a clear majority in either house and, therefore, they're unable to override any attempts to block legislation by the still strong Republican minority. Finally, we should also remember that whatever action Congress takes, the President can veto. And what does it take to overturn a veto? A super-majority, which the Democrats have NOT had. Moreover, W has had no trouble using his veto or the threat of it to keep Congress dancing to his tune these past two years. On top of that, he's taken advantage of "signing statments" more than any other president, and in doing so he basically countermands the responsibility of his administration to act according to the terms of any Congressional legislation he doesn't like.
Then comes the clincher, "Now, the Democratic candidate for president claims he is really going to give us change—along with a Democratic Congress!"
Let's not forget that the Republican candidate has also been singing the "change" song! He keeps telling us that he's a "maverick" and a Washington "outsider" (even though he's been in Congress for 25 years). I really don't think it's proposing to change things in Washington that's the problem. It's all the ways that the Washington establishment thwarts any real efforts to substantially alter the status quo, with which they're perfectly content and from which they're making lots of money—K Street, campaign finance reform, the Electoral College, tax reform, Social Security reform/management, education reform, health-care reform . . . do I need to go on?
The message ends, "Just how much more CHANGE do you think you can stand?"
Personally, I think America can stand a lot of change. And, boy, do we need some right now! When Barack Obama tells me that's what he plans to work for, I believe him. Whether or not he can be successful in his dream depends a lot on you and me. But, not for one minute do I buy it when either Sarah Palin or John McCain tries to say the same thing. The only dreams these people have are nightmares and you can see that on McCain's face every time he tries to smile.
I doubt that the person who sent me this message was its original author. That means you may get one like it from your "liberal or conservative" friend, too. If so, feel free to use any part of my response that you think apt.
. . .
The message was addressed to "all my friends . . . liberal or conservative." Then, the author went on to assert basically that a whole string of the problems America is currently experiencing—especially the financial turmoil—results from the last two years of Democratic control in Congress.
Needless to say, I had to reply. I don't know what it is about me, but I just find it hard to relax when someone slings half-truths and exaggerations at me without a shred of evidence to back them up.
The message begins, "George Bush has been in office for 7-1/2 years. For the first six, the economy was fine."
Seems as though the author forgot how the economy tanked after 9/11. Perhaps those first six years of the Bush regime weren't so rosy, after all. Let's not forget that W came into office with a debt that Clinton had reduced by more than 8% (against the GDP) from where it was when Poppa Bush left office. When W finally says bye-bye to the White House, the national debt will be back up by almost 11% from where it was when he took power. Don't believe me? Take a look at the table of "National Debt by Presidential Terms" on Wikipedia.
In fact, while you're at it, why don't you ponder for a minute or two the way the debt has risen and fallen over presidential administrations in the last half-century? The last time the debt fell while a Republican was in office was during the first term of the Nixon administration. But, contrary to what most people who classify themselves as "conservatives" seem to believe, the debt ratio has fallen in each term of every single Democrat's administration on the chart. Strange, isn't it, that the "tax and spend" Democrats have a much better track record than Republicans at reducing the national debt?
My friend's message goes on, "A little over one year ago, consumer confidence stood at a 2-1/2 year high."
Is this REALLY something the author wants to brag about, especially given the assertion in the first sentence? One year ago was 2007. Two-and-a-half years before that was 2004. That's when the nation elected W for a second term. So, what he's saying is that the man was re-elected in the middle of an economic slump. And that's true, of course. But it was an economic slump that occurred while both the White House and Congress were completely in Republican hands.
The message asserts, "Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon."
If this was true in the early fall of 2007, it was probably only true in a few parts of the country and, then, not for very long. While gas prices have troughed five times in the last four years, with the bottom of the price range most of those times somewhere around $2.00/gallon, the country as a whole last saw gasoline consistently at $2.19 (or less) in the spring of 2004. See for yourself!
It adds, "The unemployment rate was 4.5%."
That statistic is based on the recorded unemployment rate as revealed to us by administrative offices of the federal government that are under the control of guess who? George W. Bush. And I doubt he's got any interest whatsoever in making the unemployment figures look better than they might actually be. Duh! On top of that, let's talk about the jobs that ARE available to persons in the market for a new one. If they can land anything, how many of those jobs pay the same or better wages than these people were making at their former employment?
The message states, probably all too accurately, "The Dow Jones hit a record high of 14,000+. Americans were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large! . . ."
Too large, maybe? For my part, I made a conscious decision last year to live off nothng more than my paycheck, so I sure wasn't "living large." Were you? If so, for how much of it were you paying cash? I can't tell you how happy I am now that I made the choice to eliminate my debt when I did. But whether or not I had done so, the ticking up and down of the stock market doesn't have much effect on my day-to-day life. Unless you work on Wall Street, how does the market actually affect anyone personally every time it fluctuates? If it does that to you, you need to get a life.
Next the message gets into a matching series of complaints like, "Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon and climbing!"
But not today. I bought gas this morning at 1/10 of a cent under $3.00.
It says, "Americans have seen their home equity drop by 12 TRILLION DOLLARS, prices are still dropping, and 1% of American homes are in foreclosure."
And we're blaming the Democratic Congress for that!? Did they sign the papers for loans they couldn't pay? Did they dream up the anti-regulatory schemes that allowed lenders to take advantage of clients they knew perfectly well would be very unlikely to pay out the term of the exotic loan instruments they were selling?
And just what do you suppose might be the political affiliation of the former CEOs of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Bare Stearns, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, etc., etc.—all of whom have taken home huge paychecks over the years they ran their organizations into the ground? At whose expense? Sorta seems to me that the Paulson bailout the administration crammed down Congress' throat is making the American people buy off these losers for the third time!
The author of the message whines, "As I write, the DOW is probing another low."
Actually, it was up 500 points the last I heard today (around 2:00 p.m. CDT). But, like I said, how many real people base anything they do in their daily lives on fluctuations in the stock market? For crying out loud! It can go up and down several times in any given hour of the day!
Then, the author expands on what the declining stock market means, "2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS has evaporated from Americans' stocks, bonds and mutual fund investment portfolios!"
And, we're all in that same boat together, aren't we—whether Democrat or Republican? Unless, of course, you happen to be so wealthy that you've put most of your money offshore in a bank that won't be touched by the current mess you probably helped create here at home.
Let's say the absolute worst happens to the American economy and we enter another Great Depression. Shall I remind you how America got through the last one? By people pulling together. Of course it wasn't pretty and it wouldn't be now, but at the moment we're still a long way from 1929. So, stop panicking!!
Then the author gets to the crux of his "argument," "Remember, the President has no control over any of these issues. Only Congress has that. And, what has Congress done in the last two years? Absolutely nothing."
The Democratic Congress of the last two years has been blocked every step of the way by the Republican minority that sees no reason to cross the aisle and work for bipartisan relief as long as their president doesn't want them to (and sometimes even when he does). Just because Democrats wrested minimal control of the House from Republicans who had taken the opportunity of the previous six years to gerrymander Congressional districts so that it was almost impossible for them to regain control (remember Tom DeLay's special visits to Texas in 2003), that doesn't mean they're to blame for the mess that was set in motion by Reagan and brought to fruition by the current Republican administration and the twelve years of a Republican-controlled Congress, six of which this administration has had at their behest. If we're looking to pick on Congress, does anyone need to be reminded that it was the Republican-controlled 105th Congress who thought one of their most important jobs was to investigate the sex life of Bill Clinton for months and months?
In any case, if "Congress has done absolutely nothing in the last two years" (which I don't think is true), that's mostly because the Democrats do not have a clear majority in either house and, therefore, they're unable to override any attempts to block legislation by the still strong Republican minority. Finally, we should also remember that whatever action Congress takes, the President can veto. And what does it take to overturn a veto? A super-majority, which the Democrats have NOT had. Moreover, W has had no trouble using his veto or the threat of it to keep Congress dancing to his tune these past two years. On top of that, he's taken advantage of "signing statments" more than any other president, and in doing so he basically countermands the responsibility of his administration to act according to the terms of any Congressional legislation he doesn't like.
Then comes the clincher, "Now, the Democratic candidate for president claims he is really going to give us change—along with a Democratic Congress!"
Let's not forget that the Republican candidate has also been singing the "change" song! He keeps telling us that he's a "maverick" and a Washington "outsider" (even though he's been in Congress for 25 years). I really don't think it's proposing to change things in Washington that's the problem. It's all the ways that the Washington establishment thwarts any real efforts to substantially alter the status quo, with which they're perfectly content and from which they're making lots of money—K Street, campaign finance reform, the Electoral College, tax reform, Social Security reform/management, education reform, health-care reform . . . do I need to go on?
The message ends, "Just how much more CHANGE do you think you can stand?"
Personally, I think America can stand a lot of change. And, boy, do we need some right now! When Barack Obama tells me that's what he plans to work for, I believe him. Whether or not he can be successful in his dream depends a lot on you and me. But, not for one minute do I buy it when either Sarah Palin or John McCain tries to say the same thing. The only dreams these people have are nightmares and you can see that on McCain's face every time he tries to smile.
I doubt that the person who sent me this message was its original author. That means you may get one like it from your "liberal or conservative" friend, too. If so, feel free to use any part of my response that you think apt.
. . .
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Truth Nor Consequences II
Last night, I spent some time on the Internet. After several weeks away from the fray, I waded onto YouTube and investigated some of the latest shenanigans by the GOP candidates. Shall we say I was a bit dumbfounded to discover that their lies have inflamed some of their so-called followers to the point where audience members have taken to calling out explicit threats against the opposition candidates. Okay, we all know that a fair amount of the Republican base is racist. And, thank God, we live in a country that permits freedom of speech . . . even hate speech! But the brazenness of some of these catcalls is enough to chill the blood of even the staunchest defender of the Bill of Rights. So outrageous has certain of this audience response become that McCain himself has tried to quell it.
Not so, of course, his running mate. For someone who took such umbrage at the Democratic candidate's reference to "pigs with lipstick," you'd think Sarah Palin might be offended that MSNBC captions her appearances with the phrase "Pitbully Pulpit." But not our “hockey mom.” Nosirree! For her part, she seems to revel in rabble-rousing! And, if the rabble were a little less easy to rouse or anything that came from her mouth a teensy bit more true, one might even say she's good at it. I guess the campaign had to find something she could do since she certainly can't answer questions. At the same time, I relish the irony that John McCain spoke forthrightly earlier in his run for the presidency about the public's distaste for negative campaigning. In contrast, I'm not sure Obama has ever felt the need to do likewise. While his team doesn't hesitate to cite negative facts about the opposition, they haven't really "gone negative" in the same way as McCain-Palin, have they?
Am I surprised that the Republicans have turned to negative campaigning as their numbers slide? Of course not. Karl Rove may not officially be advising McCain, but that doesn't mean he's ever out of the picture when it comes to contemporary Republican politics. I don't know about you, but I wonder how much money he's making these days as political commentator for that bastion of muckraking journalism Fox News. And did anyone besides me see the clip where even good old Karl had to admit that McCain's speech on the night of Obama's nomination might have been ill-advised? Too bad it isn't otherwise, but the Party who gave this country Abraham Lincoln has declined today to the point where any sort of campaign ethics seems to elude them. And, in recent years, they have Karl Rove to thank for that.
But now, I'm going to tell you about the most surprising of the lies I learned last night. On YouTube, there are clips from a program called The Young Turks. As I lurched around in the quagmire of political coverage clipped at YouTube, I came across these guys' commentary on the McCains' lie concerning their adopted daughter, which story broke in the Christian Science Monitor of August 20, 2008. As the commentary on the story reveals, this particular untruth is extraordinarily egregious and, for that matter, completely superfluous.
Apparently, prior to John McCain's run for the presidency, the story he and his wife Cindy regularly told concerning their adoption of a Bangladeshi orphan girl was completely true. In 1991 while Cindy was in Bangladesh on a medical mission, she visited a Dhaka orphanage that had been founded by Mother Teresa. Perhaps the nuns there knew that one of Mrs. McCain's charitable interests worked with birth defects in children, but whether or not, they urged her to help two girls who needed surgeries that they couldn't obtain locally. McCain agreed to take the children to the U.S. and see to it that they received the care they needed.
During the plane trip home Mrs. McCain was moved by the plight of the 10-week old baby, who had a fairly severe cleft palate, among other problems. In fact, as she tells it, this girl so touched her heart that Mrs. McCain decided she and her husband would adopt the little one. When John met Cindy on the ground in Arizona, seeing she had babies in tow, he inquired what she planned to do with the little girls. Cindy responded that she thought the girl who is now called Bridget could come home with them. Eventually, the McCains formally adopted Bridget while friends of theirs became parents to the other little girl, Mickey, who had a congenital heart problem. Like many good adoptive parents, the McCains made little noise about the noble act of rescuing these children. In fact, the less fuss everyone made over Bridget's specialness, the more easily she could truly grow into being their daughter and feel like she really belonged with her newfound family.
But the McCains' good deed would not go unpunished. During the lead up to the 2000 presidential election when John McCain opposed George W. Bush for the Republican nomination, Karl Rove and Charlie Condon hatched the brilliant idea of a phone campaign in South Carolina where Bush was trailing after McCain's win in New Hampshire. This phony survey called registered voters and posed the question: "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" Not a lie . . . exactly! (And, of course, Bill Clinton "never had sex with that woman" either.) Surely, this is just the sort of question any pollster might ask. . . . Or, maybe not! Can anyone say "underhanded," or how about just plain "dirty politics?" But the ploy worked. There's a good deal of evidence that the whisper campaign set in motion by these fraudulent calls almost singlehandedly put the kibosh on McCain's chances for the presidency at the time. Thus, we wound up with the eight interminable years of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rove and the guy who pastes his hair down with his own spit. [Aw, c'mon, his name starts with a "W". . . . Wolfowitz. I finally remembered it.]
Lest anyone suggest that John McCain cannot learn from past "mistakes," this is where the story begins to get really loopy. Shortly after losing the 2000 primary race, McCain told interviewer Morgan Strong that he believes "there is a special place in hell for people like those" who used his daughter Bridget in such a reckless and shameful way. I agree. But, if that's the case, why would you hire one of them to help you obtain your heart's ambition? Yet that's what John McCain did. In August 2006, he chose Charlie Condon to head up the revitalization of his political action committee, Straight Talk America. Since that effort ceased when McCain clinched his party's nomination, one assumes Condon has played other roles on staff. By association at least, Dan Glaister has Condon lurking somewhere behind the scenes in various decisions since mid-September of this year, when McCain's campaign called a halt to all informal moments between the candidate and the press and, then, foisted his lipstick-wearing running mate on him.
No matter from what circles of hell McCain now chooses the people closest to him, I've got to wonder who decided to spin the story of his daughter's adoption with a certain completely uncalled-for twist. On 3 February 2008, both The Sunday Mail [Sorry! I've been unable to track that reference and probably ought to delete it therefore, but we can trust the Huffington Post, can't we?] and The Sunday Telegraph ran stories about Cindy McCain that explicitly state it was Mother Teresa herself who convinced McCain to bring the children to the U.S. The first of these publications even puts the suspect sentence in Mrs. McCain's own words: "As only Mother Teresa can, she prevailed upon me to take this baby and another baby to the United States for medical care." That same day, someone changed the McCain campaign website's bio of Mrs. McCain to include the similar statement: "On one of those missions, Mother Teresa convinced Cindy to take two babies in need of medical attention to the United States."
Of course, it turns out that Mother Teresa was not even on the continent of Asia at the time, let alone at work in the Bangladeshi orphanage. Seems like someone should have taken a half-hour or so to do a little fact-checking. Yet, when you lie so blithely and get away with it so often, why let a little fact like Mother Teresa's actual whereabouts get in the way. For the most part, I refer you again to The Young Turks' fairly thorough analysis of this lie and the absolute lack of any necessity for it. Yet, in service to the second part of my title for this piece—"consequences"—I must pick up one of their points concerning it. What sort of media feeding frenzy would such a lie have provoked if it had come from Michelle Obama's mouth? Somehow, I doubt the Christian Science Monitor would have been the only major publication to carry the story. (The truth about the McCains has not been overlooked by the blogosphere, of course, since the story broke a couple months ago. But sometime you just have to wonder where the mainstream media keeps their heads.)
. . .
Not so, of course, his running mate. For someone who took such umbrage at the Democratic candidate's reference to "pigs with lipstick," you'd think Sarah Palin might be offended that MSNBC captions her appearances with the phrase "Pitbully Pulpit." But not our “hockey mom.” Nosirree! For her part, she seems to revel in rabble-rousing! And, if the rabble were a little less easy to rouse or anything that came from her mouth a teensy bit more true, one might even say she's good at it. I guess the campaign had to find something she could do since she certainly can't answer questions. At the same time, I relish the irony that John McCain spoke forthrightly earlier in his run for the presidency about the public's distaste for negative campaigning. In contrast, I'm not sure Obama has ever felt the need to do likewise. While his team doesn't hesitate to cite negative facts about the opposition, they haven't really "gone negative" in the same way as McCain-Palin, have they?
Am I surprised that the Republicans have turned to negative campaigning as their numbers slide? Of course not. Karl Rove may not officially be advising McCain, but that doesn't mean he's ever out of the picture when it comes to contemporary Republican politics. I don't know about you, but I wonder how much money he's making these days as political commentator for that bastion of muckraking journalism Fox News. And did anyone besides me see the clip where even good old Karl had to admit that McCain's speech on the night of Obama's nomination might have been ill-advised? Too bad it isn't otherwise, but the Party who gave this country Abraham Lincoln has declined today to the point where any sort of campaign ethics seems to elude them. And, in recent years, they have Karl Rove to thank for that.
But now, I'm going to tell you about the most surprising of the lies I learned last night. On YouTube, there are clips from a program called The Young Turks. As I lurched around in the quagmire of political coverage clipped at YouTube, I came across these guys' commentary on the McCains' lie concerning their adopted daughter, which story broke in the Christian Science Monitor of August 20, 2008. As the commentary on the story reveals, this particular untruth is extraordinarily egregious and, for that matter, completely superfluous.
Apparently, prior to John McCain's run for the presidency, the story he and his wife Cindy regularly told concerning their adoption of a Bangladeshi orphan girl was completely true. In 1991 while Cindy was in Bangladesh on a medical mission, she visited a Dhaka orphanage that had been founded by Mother Teresa. Perhaps the nuns there knew that one of Mrs. McCain's charitable interests worked with birth defects in children, but whether or not, they urged her to help two girls who needed surgeries that they couldn't obtain locally. McCain agreed to take the children to the U.S. and see to it that they received the care they needed.
During the plane trip home Mrs. McCain was moved by the plight of the 10-week old baby, who had a fairly severe cleft palate, among other problems. In fact, as she tells it, this girl so touched her heart that Mrs. McCain decided she and her husband would adopt the little one. When John met Cindy on the ground in Arizona, seeing she had babies in tow, he inquired what she planned to do with the little girls. Cindy responded that she thought the girl who is now called Bridget could come home with them. Eventually, the McCains formally adopted Bridget while friends of theirs became parents to the other little girl, Mickey, who had a congenital heart problem. Like many good adoptive parents, the McCains made little noise about the noble act of rescuing these children. In fact, the less fuss everyone made over Bridget's specialness, the more easily she could truly grow into being their daughter and feel like she really belonged with her newfound family.
But the McCains' good deed would not go unpunished. During the lead up to the 2000 presidential election when John McCain opposed George W. Bush for the Republican nomination, Karl Rove and Charlie Condon hatched the brilliant idea of a phone campaign in South Carolina where Bush was trailing after McCain's win in New Hampshire. This phony survey called registered voters and posed the question: "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" Not a lie . . . exactly! (And, of course, Bill Clinton "never had sex with that woman" either.) Surely, this is just the sort of question any pollster might ask. . . . Or, maybe not! Can anyone say "underhanded," or how about just plain "dirty politics?" But the ploy worked. There's a good deal of evidence that the whisper campaign set in motion by these fraudulent calls almost singlehandedly put the kibosh on McCain's chances for the presidency at the time. Thus, we wound up with the eight interminable years of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rove and the guy who pastes his hair down with his own spit. [Aw, c'mon, his name starts with a "W". . . . Wolfowitz. I finally remembered it.]
Lest anyone suggest that John McCain cannot learn from past "mistakes," this is where the story begins to get really loopy. Shortly after losing the 2000 primary race, McCain told interviewer Morgan Strong that he believes "there is a special place in hell for people like those" who used his daughter Bridget in such a reckless and shameful way. I agree. But, if that's the case, why would you hire one of them to help you obtain your heart's ambition? Yet that's what John McCain did. In August 2006, he chose Charlie Condon to head up the revitalization of his political action committee, Straight Talk America. Since that effort ceased when McCain clinched his party's nomination, one assumes Condon has played other roles on staff. By association at least, Dan Glaister has Condon lurking somewhere behind the scenes in various decisions since mid-September of this year, when McCain's campaign called a halt to all informal moments between the candidate and the press and, then, foisted his lipstick-wearing running mate on him.
No matter from what circles of hell McCain now chooses the people closest to him, I've got to wonder who decided to spin the story of his daughter's adoption with a certain completely uncalled-for twist. On 3 February 2008, both The Sunday Mail [Sorry! I've been unable to track that reference and probably ought to delete it therefore, but we can trust the Huffington Post, can't we?] and The Sunday Telegraph ran stories about Cindy McCain that explicitly state it was Mother Teresa herself who convinced McCain to bring the children to the U.S. The first of these publications even puts the suspect sentence in Mrs. McCain's own words: "As only Mother Teresa can, she prevailed upon me to take this baby and another baby to the United States for medical care." That same day, someone changed the McCain campaign website's bio of Mrs. McCain to include the similar statement: "On one of those missions, Mother Teresa convinced Cindy to take two babies in need of medical attention to the United States."
Of course, it turns out that Mother Teresa was not even on the continent of Asia at the time, let alone at work in the Bangladeshi orphanage. Seems like someone should have taken a half-hour or so to do a little fact-checking. Yet, when you lie so blithely and get away with it so often, why let a little fact like Mother Teresa's actual whereabouts get in the way. For the most part, I refer you again to The Young Turks' fairly thorough analysis of this lie and the absolute lack of any necessity for it. Yet, in service to the second part of my title for this piece—"consequences"—I must pick up one of their points concerning it. What sort of media feeding frenzy would such a lie have provoked if it had come from Michelle Obama's mouth? Somehow, I doubt the Christian Science Monitor would have been the only major publication to carry the story. (The truth about the McCains has not been overlooked by the blogosphere, of course, since the story broke a couple months ago. But sometime you just have to wonder where the mainstream media keeps their heads.)
. . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
