The telephone poll was conducted between March 4-7, with a sample of 1001 randomly selected phone numbers, including cell phones, with margin of eror +/- 3.1. Here are some items I found interesting:
Most important issue facing the country right now:
unemployment/jobs 43%, deficit 29%, health care 12%,
war in Afghanistan 7%, immigration 3%.
Most important priority for the federal government:
creating job 56%, cutting spending 42%.
Who has a better vision for economic future for U.S.?
Obama 45%, Republicans 33%.
Should public employees have the right to collective bargaining?
Yes 64%, No 32%.
Who has more political power?
Labor unions 32%, Corporate America 63%.
Your opinion of the health care bill:
Repeal it 41%, See how it works 42%, leave it alone 12%
So: give it a chance + leave it alone = 54% = don't repeal
Opinion of the job Obama is doing as President:
Yes 51%, No 43%, Not sure 6%.
However, when broken down into issues, they disapprove more than they approve in 4 out of 5 (economy 43/52, health care 44/50, deficit 38/56 , jobs 44/51); only on the Middle East does he get 49/43 net approval. So there is something beyond the specific issues that causes them to approve of Obama as president.
Approval/disapproval of some key figures: (The first figure combines "very" and "mostly" favorable; the second figure combines "mostly" and "very" unfavorable; the third figure is "not sure."
Barack Obama . . . . . . .55% / 41% / 4%
Sarah Palin . . . . . . . . . 28% / 60% / 12%
Newt Gingrich . . . . . . . 28 % / 40% / 32%
John Boehner . . . . . . . .31% / 25% / 44%
Democratic Party . . . . . 48% / 42% / 9%
Republican Party . . . . . .41% / 47% / 12%
Tea Party . . . . . . . . . . 32% / 43% / 25%
Public Employees . . . . . .72% / 17% / 11%
Wall Street . . . . . . . . . .30% / 49% / 21%
Notice especially:
60% unfavorable for Sarah Palin (and that was 38% very unfavorable and 22% mostly unfavorable)
32% not sure for Newt. This was before his disastrous "confession" on Christian Broadcasting and the subsequent skewering of him by Lawrence O'Donnell and the scornful dismissal by David Brooks. I predict that the next poll will show a big shift into unfavorable.
The 72% favorable for public employees (includes firefighters, police, teachers, nurses) -- all highly esteemed and in the spotlight as Wisconsin Republicans "bust" the unions that represent them.
Summary: the Democrats come out ahead on most every question when looked at as individual issues. It seems all we need to do is get control of the message that blasts out over the airwaves 24/7 and begin to reverse those talking points and easy (wrong) answers that people absorb.
Ralph
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Westboro Phelps (shhhh !!!)
No, I'm not trying to silence the twisted minds of the Topeka, KA family cult who picket at innocent victims' funerals. The Supreme Court upheld their constitutional right to do so.
But there is no constitutional right that says their speech has to be turned into news and amplified for them. So I'm saying "Shhhh" to the news media.
Please ** JUST IGNORE ** this little band of anti-gay zealots, who now say they're going to picket the funerals of the seven Pennsylvania children that died in a fire. They'll be holding up their much-used, "God Hates Fags" and "America is Doomed," signs -- doomed because our country increasingly accepts gay people and grants them the same rights.
What does this have to do with these innocent children? Absolutely nothing. It's an opportunity to get national media attention, that's all.
So: don't give them the attention. It's no longer news, anyway, is it? So ignore them. It's as simple as that. Period. Case closed.
Except: our outrage-hungry TV watchers demand spectacle, and the Phelps gang is happy to provide spectacle.
I'm thinking of starting a boycott campaign -- get people to agree to stop watching/reading, for one week, whatever news source shows the Phelps or runs an article about them. That ought to do it.
Ralph
But there is no constitutional right that says their speech has to be turned into news and amplified for them. So I'm saying "Shhhh" to the news media.
Please ** JUST IGNORE ** this little band of anti-gay zealots, who now say they're going to picket the funerals of the seven Pennsylvania children that died in a fire. They'll be holding up their much-used, "God Hates Fags" and "America is Doomed," signs -- doomed because our country increasingly accepts gay people and grants them the same rights.
What does this have to do with these innocent children? Absolutely nothing. It's an opportunity to get national media attention, that's all.
So: don't give them the attention. It's no longer news, anyway, is it? So ignore them. It's as simple as that. Period. Case closed.
Except: our outrage-hungry TV watchers demand spectacle, and the Phelps gang is happy to provide spectacle.
I'm thinking of starting a boycott campaign -- get people to agree to stop watching/reading, for one week, whatever news source shows the Phelps or runs an article about them. That ought to do it.
Ralph
Newt is (no longer) a dangerous man #5
If the current raining of scorn and ridicule on Newt's nascent parade continues from such media figures as David Brooks (NPR and PBS) and Lawrence O'Donnell (MSNBC), I think it will thoroughly ruin any political possibilities for the big-headed narcissist.
So maybe Newt isn't so dangerous after all -- except to marriage. And it seems that the marriages he poses a threat to are his own. His affairs have twice broken up his own marriages; but if any of his affairs has been with a married women, it hasn't been made known in all his showy confessions.
However, there is one other category of marriage that Newt works hard to destroy -- that of same-sex couples -- despite his own lesbian half-sister's efforts to change his mind. They do not have the closest of sibling relationships, you probably aren't surprised to hear.
It may be intolerable for someone like Newt to settle quietly into non-public life, but he'd better start working on it. Because he's not going to be elected to anything any time soon -- hopefully ever. And this last-gasp grappling for the brass ring is making him look ridiculous and ultimately rather pathetic -- he wants to be president so very much, and he's really a buffoon and doesn't know it.
A smart buffoon, but a buffoon nevertheless.
Ralph
So maybe Newt isn't so dangerous after all -- except to marriage. And it seems that the marriages he poses a threat to are his own. His affairs have twice broken up his own marriages; but if any of his affairs has been with a married women, it hasn't been made known in all his showy confessions.
However, there is one other category of marriage that Newt works hard to destroy -- that of same-sex couples -- despite his own lesbian half-sister's efforts to change his mind. They do not have the closest of sibling relationships, you probably aren't surprised to hear.
It may be intolerable for someone like Newt to settle quietly into non-public life, but he'd better start working on it. Because he's not going to be elected to anything any time soon -- hopefully ever. And this last-gasp grappling for the brass ring is making him look ridiculous and ultimately rather pathetic -- he wants to be president so very much, and he's really a buffoon and doesn't know it.
A smart buffoon, but a buffoon nevertheless.
Ralph
Friday, March 11, 2011
Newt is a dangerous man #4
It looks like Newt's campaign to start a parade he can jump in front of is flagging.
Surely, going on Christian TV to parade his confessions of the sins of extra-martial affairs, and the news that God has forgiven him, has got to be an act of desperation.
At the same time, it was probably necessary if he was to get the support of the Christian right wing. Nothing they love much better than a "bad boy" repenting. They get to vicariously enjoy the sin, while cluck-clucking over the sinner, and rejoice that he has been forgiven -- and of course then he's welcomed with open arms.
Sorry if I sound cynical and irreverent. And I should never put down another person's expression of faith. I've just see far too many politicians play this religious card; and I'm so cynical and scornful of Newt, so jaded by his antics and his narcissism, that it would be hard for me ever to believe he had done an uncalculated, genuine thing.
My opinion is apparently pretty wide-spread -- and now being freely vented in the media. Conservative NYT columnist David Brooks was on TV and was asked his opinion of the GOP hopefuls. About Gingrich he said: "I wouldn't let that guy run a 7-Eleven, let alone a country."
Mind you, as bold and brutal as that is, Brooks is not disparaging him for his zipper problem; he just doesn't agree with Newt's high opinion of himself.
And now Lawrence O'Donnell has broadcast a lengthy, devastating parody of Newt's "confessional" CBN interview, including a reference to the fact that Newt's First Lady would have started out as one of his extra-marital affairs.
With such ridicule and scorn coming from major media figures, I don't see how even Newt, in all his blind narcissistic glory, could think he has any chance at all. Who is going to plunk down a lot of money to back him with such low opinions being splashed around by respective pundits?
I think we may not have Newt to kick around much longer. The only thing of interest at this point is how he will choose to explain ending his "maybe I'll run" charade.
Ralph
Surely, going on Christian TV to parade his confessions of the sins of extra-martial affairs, and the news that God has forgiven him, has got to be an act of desperation.
At the same time, it was probably necessary if he was to get the support of the Christian right wing. Nothing they love much better than a "bad boy" repenting. They get to vicariously enjoy the sin, while cluck-clucking over the sinner, and rejoice that he has been forgiven -- and of course then he's welcomed with open arms.
Sorry if I sound cynical and irreverent. And I should never put down another person's expression of faith. I've just see far too many politicians play this religious card; and I'm so cynical and scornful of Newt, so jaded by his antics and his narcissism, that it would be hard for me ever to believe he had done an uncalculated, genuine thing.
My opinion is apparently pretty wide-spread -- and now being freely vented in the media. Conservative NYT columnist David Brooks was on TV and was asked his opinion of the GOP hopefuls. About Gingrich he said: "I wouldn't let that guy run a 7-Eleven, let alone a country."
Mind you, as bold and brutal as that is, Brooks is not disparaging him for his zipper problem; he just doesn't agree with Newt's high opinion of himself.
And now Lawrence O'Donnell has broadcast a lengthy, devastating parody of Newt's "confessional" CBN interview, including a reference to the fact that Newt's First Lady would have started out as one of his extra-marital affairs.
With such ridicule and scorn coming from major media figures, I don't see how even Newt, in all his blind narcissistic glory, could think he has any chance at all. Who is going to plunk down a lot of money to back him with such low opinions being splashed around by respective pundits?
I think we may not have Newt to kick around much longer. The only thing of interest at this point is how he will choose to explain ending his "maybe I'll run" charade.
Ralph
Huckagee: gaffes or calculated "dumb"?
Mike Huckabee, who stills polls well in many demographics, hasn't indicated that he's running for president. He's sitting in a comfy spot as a FoxNews commentator and would have to give that up. Also, it's not clear that he really wants to run again.
I would say that his latest gaffes may be a sly strategy to rev up his support among the right fringe group. Here are the gaffes and what I'm thinking:
1. He referred to Obama having grown up in Kenya and would certainly be influenced by his "Kenyan boyhood" experiences and also made reference to the Mau Mau rebellion. Then he released a statement saying he had meant to refer to Obama's Indonesia boyhood. Yes, but what about the Mau Mau stuff? That would not have sprung to mind in connection with Indonesia.
2. He criticized Natalie Portman for having a baby "out of wedlock." He then said he had merely used this to lead into a discussion of the difficult economic issues of most single mothers who struggle to make it on their own. Portman obviously doesn't have those economic problems. Also she's not a single mother; she and her partner simply are not married. All the other aspects of "single parent" do not apply to her.
3. He has revived the infamous "death panel" jab at health care reform, despite its having been thoroughly debunked when Sarah Palin tried to use it. He says -- but there are things in the reform that will lead to rationing of health care and denying it to the aged.
So -- why is Huck doing this? He's not dumb. He's not uninformed. He's not someone prone to stumble over his facts. Well, sometimes, but not from out of left field, like the Obama/Kenya thing.
My guess is that it's part of a strategic plan to appeal to the conservative "social values" crowd that could form his largest base. It gets at anti-Obama feeling, it bespeaks "family values," and it plays the health care card. Comedians may make jokes, progressives may grit their teeth; but his conservative base either won't care -- or will like him better for it.
Dumb like a fox . . . that's Huck.
Ralph
I would say that his latest gaffes may be a sly strategy to rev up his support among the right fringe group. Here are the gaffes and what I'm thinking:
1. He referred to Obama having grown up in Kenya and would certainly be influenced by his "Kenyan boyhood" experiences and also made reference to the Mau Mau rebellion. Then he released a statement saying he had meant to refer to Obama's Indonesia boyhood. Yes, but what about the Mau Mau stuff? That would not have sprung to mind in connection with Indonesia.
2. He criticized Natalie Portman for having a baby "out of wedlock." He then said he had merely used this to lead into a discussion of the difficult economic issues of most single mothers who struggle to make it on their own. Portman obviously doesn't have those economic problems. Also she's not a single mother; she and her partner simply are not married. All the other aspects of "single parent" do not apply to her.
3. He has revived the infamous "death panel" jab at health care reform, despite its having been thoroughly debunked when Sarah Palin tried to use it. He says -- but there are things in the reform that will lead to rationing of health care and denying it to the aged.
So -- why is Huck doing this? He's not dumb. He's not uninformed. He's not someone prone to stumble over his facts. Well, sometimes, but not from out of left field, like the Obama/Kenya thing.
My guess is that it's part of a strategic plan to appeal to the conservative "social values" crowd that could form his largest base. It gets at anti-Obama feeling, it bespeaks "family values," and it plays the health care card. Comedians may make jokes, progressives may grit their teeth; but his conservative base either won't care -- or will like him better for it.
Dumb like a fox . . . that's Huck.
Ralph
Selling ObamaCare
It's time to take over the health care reform message from those who have turned "Obamacare" into something vile in the minds of many Americans. I'm going to use their term (with a slight change -- capitalizing the C: ObamaCare), because I would like to turn the same term into something positive -- which it is.
When polled about the individual benefits of the plan, the majority of Americans want those benefits. OK, so most kids, asked if they would like to have ice cream, would say yes.
What about paying for it? Again, there are many examples of premiums going up way too fast and too high. That, my friends, is the result of:
(1) the constantly rising costs of medical care if we don't get it under some systematic plan that includes controlling costs, as ObamaCare does; but those aspects of it have not yet gone into effect -- and won't if the Repubs can help it; it's part of their strategy to kill it.
(2) Another reason is that insurance companies are jacking up premiums ahead of the controls, because they won't be able to get away with it later.
(3) And another reason is that some of the premiums are going up because new benefits are included in the required plan. You pay more, but you get more things that are important, like preventive care.
Let's look at the nearest thing that exists to ObamaCare: the Massachusetts health care plan that covers almost everyone in that state. It was signed into law by Gov. Mitt Romney. He's now trying to back away from it, because Repubs don't want to admit it might be a good idea -- it's too close to ObamaCare. What he now says is that what's right for one state may not be right for others, and the federal government shouldn't take this away from state governments.
That is the only argument he could possibly make; he can't simply disown a bill he helped create when it's working well and popular, too. So he invokes federal control as the devil.
Now a poll has been released: 85% of the residents of Massachusetts like their new health care plan. That's going to be pretty hard to shoot down as insignificant.
Ralph
When polled about the individual benefits of the plan, the majority of Americans want those benefits. OK, so most kids, asked if they would like to have ice cream, would say yes.
What about paying for it? Again, there are many examples of premiums going up way too fast and too high. That, my friends, is the result of:
(1) the constantly rising costs of medical care if we don't get it under some systematic plan that includes controlling costs, as ObamaCare does; but those aspects of it have not yet gone into effect -- and won't if the Repubs can help it; it's part of their strategy to kill it.
(2) Another reason is that insurance companies are jacking up premiums ahead of the controls, because they won't be able to get away with it later.
(3) And another reason is that some of the premiums are going up because new benefits are included in the required plan. You pay more, but you get more things that are important, like preventive care.
Let's look at the nearest thing that exists to ObamaCare: the Massachusetts health care plan that covers almost everyone in that state. It was signed into law by Gov. Mitt Romney. He's now trying to back away from it, because Repubs don't want to admit it might be a good idea -- it's too close to ObamaCare. What he now says is that what's right for one state may not be right for others, and the federal government shouldn't take this away from state governments.
That is the only argument he could possibly make; he can't simply disown a bill he helped create when it's working well and popular, too. So he invokes federal control as the devil.
Now a poll has been released: 85% of the residents of Massachusetts like their new health care plan. That's going to be pretty hard to shoot down as insignificant.
Ralph
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Peter King/Muslim hearings
The controversial hearings of the Homeland Security Committee is titled, "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and That Community's Response." Only a couple of hours old now, it has already produced fireworks.
Representative Keith Ellison (D-Minn), the first Muslim-American elected to Congress, gave powerful testimony that was both rational and emotional. The CNN anchors giving commentary referred to it as "amazing." Ellison was rational in that he challenged the focus of the hearings as stigmatizing and scapegoating the entire Muslim community -- beginning with the title itself -- and by public comments leading up to the hearings (an obvious reference to Chairman King's widely publicized comments).
Ellison pointed out the many examples of terrorism in U.S. history, some of which were associated with a particular religion -- the first example being the KKK with its frequent invoking the Christian church. Yet the entire Christian community has never been blamed for the KKK. And no hearings have been held to explore how the Christian community has responded to the KKK's terrorism.
Ellison became emotional (and it had a powerful effect) in describing the life and death of Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a 23 year old Muslim-American firefighter from Queens, who died saving others on 9/11. This young man was quintessentially American in his interests, liking "Star Wars" and having his own car. He was working as a research assistant at Rockefeller University and driving an ambulance part time.
And yet, because he was identified as Muslim, many people spun theories that he had been involved in the attacks -- instead of honoring his sacrificing his own life trying to save victims. Rep. Ellison became tearful at this point -- and it made his testimony extra powerful as he conveyed what such stigmatizing stereotyping feels like.
Other Democratic members of the committee also irately challenged the narrow focus of the hearings. They were critical mainly of the way Chairman King slanted the hearings with his title, his tone, and advance misstatements in speaking about the hearings, and his selection of witnesses.
Rep. Cedric Richmond was particularly effective in suggesting the hearings that could have been held -- to focus on "terrorism" and the recruitment of young men into radicalism -- rather than making the focus on the Muslim community and its "lack of cooperation" with law enforcement and security investigations.
Witnesses included two fathers of young men lost to the coercive tactics of recruitment and terrorism training, hoping to contribute to understanding that would help prevent other young men being radicalized. Theirs were emotional stories as well. And I will say that the sherrif from LA County, and the doctor/intellectual who spoke about his Muslim life and community, were impressive witnesses. Theirs were reasonable, mostly balanced points.
After listening to both sides, I would suggest that it could have been more useful -- and avoided some of the angst -- if the hearings had focused on: What makes the difference in the young man described by Rep. Ellison and the young men who are susceptible to radicalization. You could add in the young American men who become radicalized by other religious and non-religious groups. "Terrorism in America" and how our young people get caught up in it could be the topic of discussion.
I strongly recommend watching Rep. Ellison's testimony.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/10/keith-ellison-tears-up-muslim-hearings_n_833981.html
Ralph
Representative Keith Ellison (D-Minn), the first Muslim-American elected to Congress, gave powerful testimony that was both rational and emotional. The CNN anchors giving commentary referred to it as "amazing." Ellison was rational in that he challenged the focus of the hearings as stigmatizing and scapegoating the entire Muslim community -- beginning with the title itself -- and by public comments leading up to the hearings (an obvious reference to Chairman King's widely publicized comments).
Ellison pointed out the many examples of terrorism in U.S. history, some of which were associated with a particular religion -- the first example being the KKK with its frequent invoking the Christian church. Yet the entire Christian community has never been blamed for the KKK. And no hearings have been held to explore how the Christian community has responded to the KKK's terrorism.
Ellison became emotional (and it had a powerful effect) in describing the life and death of Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a 23 year old Muslim-American firefighter from Queens, who died saving others on 9/11. This young man was quintessentially American in his interests, liking "Star Wars" and having his own car. He was working as a research assistant at Rockefeller University and driving an ambulance part time.
And yet, because he was identified as Muslim, many people spun theories that he had been involved in the attacks -- instead of honoring his sacrificing his own life trying to save victims. Rep. Ellison became tearful at this point -- and it made his testimony extra powerful as he conveyed what such stigmatizing stereotyping feels like.
Other Democratic members of the committee also irately challenged the narrow focus of the hearings. They were critical mainly of the way Chairman King slanted the hearings with his title, his tone, and advance misstatements in speaking about the hearings, and his selection of witnesses.
Rep. Cedric Richmond was particularly effective in suggesting the hearings that could have been held -- to focus on "terrorism" and the recruitment of young men into radicalism -- rather than making the focus on the Muslim community and its "lack of cooperation" with law enforcement and security investigations.
Witnesses included two fathers of young men lost to the coercive tactics of recruitment and terrorism training, hoping to contribute to understanding that would help prevent other young men being radicalized. Theirs were emotional stories as well. And I will say that the sherrif from LA County, and the doctor/intellectual who spoke about his Muslim life and community, were impressive witnesses. Theirs were reasonable, mostly balanced points.
After listening to both sides, I would suggest that it could have been more useful -- and avoided some of the angst -- if the hearings had focused on: What makes the difference in the young man described by Rep. Ellison and the young men who are susceptible to radicalization. You could add in the young American men who become radicalized by other religious and non-religious groups. "Terrorism in America" and how our young people get caught up in it could be the topic of discussion.
I strongly recommend watching Rep. Ellison's testimony.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/10/keith-ellison-tears-up-muslim-hearings_n_833981.html
Ralph
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
NPR - time to cut the cord?
A follow up to my "Stinging the good guys" of yesterday about the latest right-wing sting operation by the folks that killed ACORN, this time trying to kill NPR.
Already reeling from the awkward firing of Juan Williams last year, now a senior fund-raiser has been caught on tape trashing the Tea Party and saying that NPR would be better off, in the long run, without government funding. NPR's CEO Vivian Schiller was asked to resign and did, meaning she was fired.
All this bad publicity will only add fuel to the fire of conservatives in congress who want to eliminate funding for NPR.
Some argue that it would be a good thing for NPR not to accept federal funds. Here's the argument:
(1) They can survive without it. Most of their revenue comes from local stations buying programs from NPR, from listener support, charitable foundations, and corporations. Private contributions would likely increase to help make up the difference.
(2) The PBS news network (including NPR) is the most respected news on TV, according to a recent Public Policy Polling. PBS received a 50 trust/30 distrust rating. The next best was NBC at 40/43; Fox News was 42 trust/46 distrust. It should be able to survive -- maybe even thrive -- on its own. A side note from the poll: Democrats tend to trust everyone except Fox News; Republican trust nobody but Fox.
(3) The most persuasive argument to me is this: remove their dependence on government funding and you get rid of the necessity to walk the tightrope, lest some congressman use a misstatement against you in the next appropriations bill. It will free PBS and NPR up to concentrate on excellent journalism. They succeed at this, better than anyone else, even with this scrutiny. Remove it -- and life will be much easier and reporting less constrained.
My annual contribution is modest, but I would increase it significantly if they lose federal money.
Ralph
Already reeling from the awkward firing of Juan Williams last year, now a senior fund-raiser has been caught on tape trashing the Tea Party and saying that NPR would be better off, in the long run, without government funding. NPR's CEO Vivian Schiller was asked to resign and did, meaning she was fired.
All this bad publicity will only add fuel to the fire of conservatives in congress who want to eliminate funding for NPR.
Some argue that it would be a good thing for NPR not to accept federal funds. Here's the argument:
(1) They can survive without it. Most of their revenue comes from local stations buying programs from NPR, from listener support, charitable foundations, and corporations. Private contributions would likely increase to help make up the difference.
(2) The PBS news network (including NPR) is the most respected news on TV, according to a recent Public Policy Polling. PBS received a 50 trust/30 distrust rating. The next best was NBC at 40/43; Fox News was 42 trust/46 distrust. It should be able to survive -- maybe even thrive -- on its own. A side note from the poll: Democrats tend to trust everyone except Fox News; Republican trust nobody but Fox.
(3) The most persuasive argument to me is this: remove their dependence on government funding and you get rid of the necessity to walk the tightrope, lest some congressman use a misstatement against you in the next appropriations bill. It will free PBS and NPR up to concentrate on excellent journalism. They succeed at this, better than anyone else, even with this scrutiny. Remove it -- and life will be much easier and reporting less constrained.
My annual contribution is modest, but I would increase it significantly if they lose federal money.
Ralph
Newt is a dangerous man #3
It looks like I'm going to be writing about Newt a lot -- until he finally gets the message that he's not going to be president, no matter how much he really, really, really wants it.
HuffPost's Jason Linkins is every bit as scornful of Newt as I am. He has a few choice lines today about Newt's marital problems that have to be shared. Just to remind us all of the chronology:
Wife #1 - Jackie. She was his high school teacher and a good bit older than he. Years later, when she was in the hospital for treatment of breast cancer, Newt presented her with divorce papers. He had already proposed to wife #2.
Wife #2 - Marianne. After 18 years of marriage, he confessed his affair with a staff aide and told her he wanted a divorce -- shortly after she had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. He had already proposed to wife #3. He had just returned from a speaking tour where he "had given a speech full of high sentiments about compassion and family values." Marianne asked how he could give a speech like that when he was doing what he was doing.
Well, with that background, Jason Linkins reacts to an interview with Newt on the Christian Broadcasting Network. Newt's biggest task right now seems to be to deal with the marriage question, as it affects his political chances, and he's playing the big religion card -- talking publicly about his confession and the forgiveness from God for his previous sins. Remember the tacky scene on TV a few years ago where James Dobson heard his confession and forgave him?
But wait !! According to Linkins, it wasn't really all Newt's fault, you see.
Not so fast, Newtie. This is not a fairy tale; you don't have a wand -- or even a pointed hat with stars and crescent moon on it. This is real, the heaviest responsibility of any job in the world. Think about the national debt, the bad economy, the dysfunctional congress, Iraq, Afghanistan, radical jihadists, Libya, Israel/Palestine, global warming, health care, people like You . . . and I could go on.
All that pressure would surely cause Newt to stray again and "do things that are wrong." I think we should say "No" to Newt, for his own good and for the good of his marriage to Callista.
Too bad, Newt. You overplayed this hand. No prezzie for you; it could ruin a good marriage. You did say this one is good, didn't you? Better nurture it. And remember, Callista, stay well !!
Ralph
HuffPost's Jason Linkins is every bit as scornful of Newt as I am. He has a few choice lines today about Newt's marital problems that have to be shared. Just to remind us all of the chronology:
Wife #1 - Jackie. She was his high school teacher and a good bit older than he. Years later, when she was in the hospital for treatment of breast cancer, Newt presented her with divorce papers. He had already proposed to wife #2.
Wife #2 - Marianne. After 18 years of marriage, he confessed his affair with a staff aide and told her he wanted a divorce -- shortly after she had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. He had already proposed to wife #3. He had just returned from a speaking tour where he "had given a speech full of high sentiments about compassion and family values." Marianne asked how he could give a speech like that when he was doing what he was doing.
"It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."Wife #3 - Callista. The staff aide mentioned above. The would-be First Lady started out as The Other Woman. As I've suggested before, Callista better try to stay healthy. Newt doesn't seem to do too well with sick ladies.
Well, with that background, Jason Linkins reacts to an interview with Newt on the Christian Broadcasting Network. Newt's biggest task right now seems to be to deal with the marriage question, as it affects his political chances, and he's playing the big religion card -- talking publicly about his confession and the forgiveness from God for his previous sins. Remember the tacky scene on TV a few years ago where James Dobson heard his confession and forgave him?
But wait !! According to Linkins, it wasn't really all Newt's fault, you see.
[H]e admits that he was doing "things that were wrong," in his married life. And yet he makes it sound like he was doing those things because of forces well beyond his control!Linkins goes on:
"There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate," Gingrich told CBN's David Brody, in an interview taped at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition and posted online Tuesday night.
"And what I can tell you is that when I did things that were wrong, I wasn't trapped in situation ethics, I was doing things that were wrong, and yet, I was doing them," Gingrich said.
Think about that, America: Newt Gingrich did all of those things because he loved you so very much! And when things got tough for America, he didn't leave us for New Zealand or Ecuador or Portugal, as if we were some woman. Gingrich stuck by America, and if the pressure of our demands got to be so great that it forced him to philander from time to time, then maybe we need to take responsibility for that.See, that's what worries me about Newt's becoming president. Even with his experience in Washington, I doubt he really really really understands the pressures of being president. He would just snap his fingers and say: Let there be a no-fly zone over Tripoli. And Lo, and Behold. . . . Next problem.
Not so fast, Newtie. This is not a fairy tale; you don't have a wand -- or even a pointed hat with stars and crescent moon on it. This is real, the heaviest responsibility of any job in the world. Think about the national debt, the bad economy, the dysfunctional congress, Iraq, Afghanistan, radical jihadists, Libya, Israel/Palestine, global warming, health care, people like You . . . and I could go on.
All that pressure would surely cause Newt to stray again and "do things that are wrong." I think we should say "No" to Newt, for his own good and for the good of his marriage to Callista.
Too bad, Newt. You overplayed this hand. No prezzie for you; it could ruin a good marriage. You did say this one is good, didn't you? Better nurture it. And remember, Callista, stay well !!
Ralph
Peter King and the Muslims
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is head of the House Homeland Security Committee and is about to hold hearings on "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and That Community's Response."
Gustav Niebuhr teaches journalism and religion and is director of the Religion and Society program at Syracuse University. He is also the grand-nephew of the influential theologian Reinhold Niebuhr.
Niebuhr is rightly concerned that the hearings will focus on Americans of one particular religious affiliation. Why not investigate radicalization and terrorism in America, period, without singling out Muslims? And why now? -- just as Muslim young people are giving their lives to establish democratic governments -- not Islamic theocracies -- in Tunesia, Egypt, and Libya.
These concerns are made ten times worse, given that the conservative Peter King is already known for his blunt conservative opinions, crude language, and loose tongue: everything you could want to "make matters worse" in the realm of diplomacy and legislative comity.
Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus says we're over-reacting. She points out that home-grown terrorism is increasingly a threat. Much of it arises among young Muslim men, who are inspired and encouraged by radical recruiters who base their cause in Islam and speak in its name. It is also true that the majority of U.S. Muslims are not part of that and that their religious faith has none of that violent and anti-American sentiment.
These hearings also come on the heels of an anti-Muslim rally held in California attended by two congressmen. King himself carries "terrorism" baggage, having been personally involved with the leaders, and a public supporter, of the Irish Republican Army, long listed by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. He justifies that, citing his Irish heritage and that the IRA never attacked the U.S., to which he gives his loyalty.
This is of course a committee of Congress over which Obama has no control; but the administration has already tried damage control in the form of a statement supportive of American Muslims and drawing distinctions between the radical few and the vast number of good citizens of Muslim faith.
Perhaps King's own crude language will be so over the top that it will evoke a backlash from moderates in his own party -- and the world will see that Americans are not all like Pete King, just as they are not all like the radical jihadists. And that it will expose the Republican strategy of putting foxes in charges of hen houses and bulls in charge of china shops.
Ralph
Gustav Niebuhr teaches journalism and religion and is director of the Religion and Society program at Syracuse University. He is also the grand-nephew of the influential theologian Reinhold Niebuhr.
Niebuhr is rightly concerned that the hearings will focus on Americans of one particular religious affiliation. Why not investigate radicalization and terrorism in America, period, without singling out Muslims? And why now? -- just as Muslim young people are giving their lives to establish democratic governments -- not Islamic theocracies -- in Tunesia, Egypt, and Libya.
These concerns are made ten times worse, given that the conservative Peter King is already known for his blunt conservative opinions, crude language, and loose tongue: everything you could want to "make matters worse" in the realm of diplomacy and legislative comity.
Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus says we're over-reacting. She points out that home-grown terrorism is increasingly a threat. Much of it arises among young Muslim men, who are inspired and encouraged by radical recruiters who base their cause in Islam and speak in its name. It is also true that the majority of U.S. Muslims are not part of that and that their religious faith has none of that violent and anti-American sentiment.
So how do you hold reasonable hearings on a genuine threat to our country and focus it on identified groups who seem to be at the center of the storm -- without implications that will offend Muslims worldwide, as well as at home?It's too late now. For months King has been talking up his hearings, and his careless tongue slips into referring to "the Muslim threat to America." He has already inflamed outrage with his comments, such as to the New York Daily News, that the discrimination and hatred that Muslims believe they encountered after 9/11 was their own imaginations. He has also claimed that 80% of mosques in America are controlled by radical imams.
Well, for starters, you could put someone other than Peter King in charge.
These hearings also come on the heels of an anti-Muslim rally held in California attended by two congressmen. King himself carries "terrorism" baggage, having been personally involved with the leaders, and a public supporter, of the Irish Republican Army, long listed by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. He justifies that, citing his Irish heritage and that the IRA never attacked the U.S., to which he gives his loyalty.
This is of course a committee of Congress over which Obama has no control; but the administration has already tried damage control in the form of a statement supportive of American Muslims and drawing distinctions between the radical few and the vast number of good citizens of Muslim faith.
Perhaps King's own crude language will be so over the top that it will evoke a backlash from moderates in his own party -- and the world will see that Americans are not all like Pete King, just as they are not all like the radical jihadists. And that it will expose the Republican strategy of putting foxes in charges of hen houses and bulls in charge of china shops.
Ralph
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
The Libyan dilemma
To bomb, or not to bomb. That is the question.
Shall the United States overthrow the regime in yet another Muslim country? That is what HolyJoe and McNothing want us to do, apparently.
Obama is being the adult in the room. No cowboy, trigger-happy Texan he. We're already fighting two wars in two other Muslim countries, with the American people increasingly wanting us to get out of both, now. If we use our military forces in Libya, then what about Yemen or Bahrain, if they blow up? And what about Iran . . . and others? Shall we just take on the whole Muslim world at once?
Hawks like McNothing and HolyJoe, to say nothing of all the politically motivated critics of Obama, will find fault with whatever Obama does. But that hawkish pair are calling for a military intervention.
So, what about enforcing a no-fly zone over Tripoli, which would destroy Gaddafi's means of retaliating against the rebels? It's certainly tempting to step in and give them that much help. Libyans are being mowed down in the streets by Gaddafi's air force.
The Obama administration is not about to do that alone. He and British Prime Minister David Cameron have been conferring about options. The British Foreign Secretary said a no-fly zone would require "a clear legal basis, a demonstrable need and strong international support and broad support in the region and a readiness to participate in it." Britain and France are reportedly working on a proposed no-fly zone resolution to present to the U.N. Security Council.
It's interesting that none of the dozen or so possible GOP presidential candidates has put forth a clear plan for what he/she would do in Obama's place; instead just saying that Obama's is being too cautious, too weak, too passive. It's those former presidential candidate-losers (HolyJoe and McNothing) who are saying what he should do.
It's not an easy decision -- if you have to take responsibility for the consequences. Or if you have to face the voters a year from now, which neither HolyJoe or McNothing will have to do.
Ralph
PS: Update: The ever-incautious Newt has released a statement that the U.S. should "execute a no-fly zone this afternoon." Newt knows how to throw bombs -- he doesn't have any idea that you don't just "execute a no-fly zone" with the snap of a finger. Which is why he would perhaps be more dangerous in the Oval office than She Who Shall Not Be Named. Newt would be even more incautious than Dubya.
Newt needs to go back to school and learn the difference between bold and fool-hearty. He thinks he's being bold when he's being fool-hearty.
Shall the United States overthrow the regime in yet another Muslim country? That is what HolyJoe and McNothing want us to do, apparently.
Obama is being the adult in the room. No cowboy, trigger-happy Texan he. We're already fighting two wars in two other Muslim countries, with the American people increasingly wanting us to get out of both, now. If we use our military forces in Libya, then what about Yemen or Bahrain, if they blow up? And what about Iran . . . and others? Shall we just take on the whole Muslim world at once?
Hawks like McNothing and HolyJoe, to say nothing of all the politically motivated critics of Obama, will find fault with whatever Obama does. But that hawkish pair are calling for a military intervention.
So, what about enforcing a no-fly zone over Tripoli, which would destroy Gaddafi's means of retaliating against the rebels? It's certainly tempting to step in and give them that much help. Libyans are being mowed down in the streets by Gaddafi's air force.
The Obama administration is not about to do that alone. He and British Prime Minister David Cameron have been conferring about options. The British Foreign Secretary said a no-fly zone would require "a clear legal basis, a demonstrable need and strong international support and broad support in the region and a readiness to participate in it." Britain and France are reportedly working on a proposed no-fly zone resolution to present to the U.N. Security Council.
It's interesting that none of the dozen or so possible GOP presidential candidates has put forth a clear plan for what he/she would do in Obama's place; instead just saying that Obama's is being too cautious, too weak, too passive. It's those former presidential candidate-losers (HolyJoe and McNothing) who are saying what he should do.
It's not an easy decision -- if you have to take responsibility for the consequences. Or if you have to face the voters a year from now, which neither HolyJoe or McNothing will have to do.
Ralph
PS: Update: The ever-incautious Newt has released a statement that the U.S. should "execute a no-fly zone this afternoon." Newt knows how to throw bombs -- he doesn't have any idea that you don't just "execute a no-fly zone" with the snap of a finger. Which is why he would perhaps be more dangerous in the Oval office than She Who Shall Not Be Named. Newt would be even more incautious than Dubya.
Newt needs to go back to school and learn the difference between bold and fool-hearty. He thinks he's being bold when he's being fool-hearty.
Stinging the good guys
Wikipedia defines a sting operation:
I have some mixed feelings about the ethics of this: to catch drug dealers seems ok; but it was often used to catch men seeking sex with other men -- an undercover police officer making seductive gestures in a public rest room and then arresting the men who respond.
What about the ethics of politically motivated sting operations to discredit liberal organizations? They killed ACORN with these tactics -- having actors pretend to be a pimp and his woman seeking advice about housing for use as a brothel featuring underage girls brought to this country illegally; filming the responses from unsuspecting ACORN workers and then selectively editing them to bring bring down the organization they hated.
Now the same conservative group is using the same tactics, trying to poison the well of government grants to NPR -- a sting type interview with an NPR fundraiser. A two hour interview, selectively edited down to an 11 minutes clip, designed to outrage conservative House members who will shortly vote on proposed government funding of NPR.
The edited clip shows the NPR fundraiser making derogatory comments about Tea Party members and saying that NPR would be better off in the long run without government funding.
Is this a necessary part of democracy to allow this? Is it the same principle that I defend about free speech having to be free for the bad guys as well as for the good?
I don't like stings even as a means of trapping bad guys; I certainly don't like it when it brings down what I consider the good guys, who are trying to bring intelligent and rational news and analysis, as well as much needed community services to poor and disadvantaged people.
But as a principle? Maybe we have to allow it. And the answer: just as countering bad free speech with good free speech is the answer to the Westboro Baptist Church, maybe exposing the political motives of the sting operators and countering the effect with a good campaign of public education about public radio is the answer.
But . . . it's so hard just to keep up with, and counter, all the tactics of the determined opponents to progressive, intelligent, rational public life.
Ralph
In law enforcement, a sting operation is a deceptive operation designed to catch a person committing a crime. A typical sting will have a law-enforcement officer or cooperative member of the public play a role as criminal partner or potential victim and go along with a suspect's actions to gather evidence of the suspect's wrongdoing.An example would be: posing as someone seeking illegal drugs in order to catch a supplier.
I have some mixed feelings about the ethics of this: to catch drug dealers seems ok; but it was often used to catch men seeking sex with other men -- an undercover police officer making seductive gestures in a public rest room and then arresting the men who respond.
What about the ethics of politically motivated sting operations to discredit liberal organizations? They killed ACORN with these tactics -- having actors pretend to be a pimp and his woman seeking advice about housing for use as a brothel featuring underage girls brought to this country illegally; filming the responses from unsuspecting ACORN workers and then selectively editing them to bring bring down the organization they hated.
Now the same conservative group is using the same tactics, trying to poison the well of government grants to NPR -- a sting type interview with an NPR fundraiser. A two hour interview, selectively edited down to an 11 minutes clip, designed to outrage conservative House members who will shortly vote on proposed government funding of NPR.
The edited clip shows the NPR fundraiser making derogatory comments about Tea Party members and saying that NPR would be better off in the long run without government funding.
Is this a necessary part of democracy to allow this? Is it the same principle that I defend about free speech having to be free for the bad guys as well as for the good?
I don't like stings even as a means of trapping bad guys; I certainly don't like it when it brings down what I consider the good guys, who are trying to bring intelligent and rational news and analysis, as well as much needed community services to poor and disadvantaged people.
But as a principle? Maybe we have to allow it. And the answer: just as countering bad free speech with good free speech is the answer to the Westboro Baptist Church, maybe exposing the political motives of the sting operators and countering the effect with a good campaign of public education about public radio is the answer.
But . . . it's so hard just to keep up with, and counter, all the tactics of the determined opponents to progressive, intelligent, rational public life.
Ralph
Monday, March 7, 2011
Michael Moore in Wisconsin
Michael Moore addressed the protesters in front of the state capitol in Madison, Wisconsin yesterday. On behalf of all Americans and the cause of worker compensation, he thanked them, as well as the 14 Democratic senators who left the state to prevent a quorum voting on the controversial bill that would greatly reduce collective bargaining. I found it inspiring and want to quote excerpts here as a way to preserve them in my archive:
America is not broke.
Contrary to what those in power would like you to believe so that you'll give up your pension, cut your wages, and settle for the life your great-grandparents had, America is not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich. . . .
400 obscenely rich people, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion dollar taxpayer "bailout" of 2008, now have more loot, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined. If you can't bring yourself to call that a financial coup d'état, then you are simply not being honest about what you know in your heart to be true. . . .Money doesn't grow on trees. It grows when we make things. It grows when we have good jobs with good wages that we use to buy the things we need and thus create more jobs. . . . But if those who have the most money don't pay their fair share of taxes, . . . If the wealthy get to keep most of their money, we have seen what they will do with it: recklessly gamble it on crazy Wall Street schemes and crash our economy. The crash they created cost us millions of jobs. That too caused a reduction in revenue. And the population ended up suffering because they reduced their taxes, reduced our jobs and took wealth out of the system, removing it from circulation.
The nation is not broke, my friends. Wisconsin is not broke. It's part of the Big Lie. It's one of the three biggest lies of the decade: America/Wisconsin is broke, Iraq has WMD, the Packers can't win the Super Bowl without Brett Favre.
The truth is, there's lots of money to go around. LOTS. It's just that those in charge have diverted that wealth into a deep well that sits on their well-guarded estates. They know they have committed crimes to make this happen . . . . So they have bought and paid for hundreds of politicians across the country to do their bidding for them. . . . To help prevent that day when the people demand their country back, the wealthy have done two very smart things:
1. They control the message. By owning most of the media they have expertly convinced many Americans of few means to buy their version of the American Dream and to vote for their politicians. Their version of the Dream says that you, too, might be rich some day – this is America, where anything can happen if you just apply yourself! . . The message is clear: keep your head down, your nose to the grindstone, don't rock the boat and be sure to vote for the party that protects the rich man that you might be some day.
2. They have created a poison pill that they know you will never want to take. . . . As the economy and the stock market went into a tailspin, and the banks were caught conducting a worldwide Ponzi scheme, Wall Street issued this threat: Either hand over trillions of dollars from the American taxpayers or we will crash this economy straight into the ground. Fork it over or it's Goodbye savings accounts. . . .
The executives in the board rooms and hedge funds could not contain their laughter, their glee, and within three months they were writing each other huge bonus checks and marveling at how perfectly they had played a nation full of suckers. . . .
Until now. On Wisconsin! . . . Your message has inspired people in all 50 states and that message is: WE HAVE HAD IT! We reject anyone tells us America is broke and broken. . . . they still crave what we all crave: Our country back! Our democracy back! Our good name back! The United States of America. NOT the Corporate States of America. The United States of America! . . .
Thank you, Wisconsin. You have made people realize this was our last best chance to grab the final thread of what was left of who we are as Americans. For three weeks you have stood in the cold, slept on the floor, skipped out of town to Illinois -- whatever it took, you have done it, and one thing is for certain: Madison is only the beginning. The smug rich have overplayed their hand. . . .
No, they had to have more – something more than all the riches in the world. They had to have our soul. They had to strip us of our dignity. They had to shut us up and shut us down so that we could not even sit at a table with them and bargain about simple things like classroom size or bulletproof vests for everyone on the police force . . . .
And that, my friends, is Corporate America's fatal mistake. But trying to destroy us they have given birth to a movement -- a movement that is becoming a massive, nonviolent revolt across the country. We all knew there had to be a breaking point some day, and that point is upon us. . . .
America ain't broke! The only thing that's broke is the moral compass of the rulers. And we aim to fix that compass and steer the ship ourselves from now on. Never forget, as long as that Constitution of ours still stands, it's one person, one vote, and it's the thing the rich hate most about America -- because even though they seem to hold all the money and all the cards, they begrudgingly know this one unshakeable basic fact: There are more of us than there are of them!
Madison, do not retreat. We are with you. We will win together.
If only . . . . Maybe?
Ralph
Michele's manufactured outrage
Michele Backmann went on Meet the Press with a new outrage against Obama and his "gangster government," for which she is demanding that he apologize to the American people.
Seems that the "Obamacare" haters are just waking up to the fact that they have been had.
The Affordable Health Care Act that was passed last March, following a year of debate on the subject, contained some "advance appropriations" to ensure the implementation of the reforms. The wisdom of that is now quite evident, because one thing it does is to make it harder for the opposition to kill it by defunding it.
In other words, implementation will not require the usual separate process of going through the appropriations bill. It contains its own appropriations: $5 million for this year, and another $100 million over the next eight years, minus any funding enacted by Congress.
Michele's outrage: she claims that this was "slipped secretly" into the bill. Really? It was in there at the time it was debated and passed. Is Michele just now getting around to reading it -- or having her staff read it and tell her what it says?
It's the law, Michele. It was not done in secret. It was clearly and plainly there in the bill. If you didn't do your homework, or weren't smart enough to realize that this perfectly legal and reasonable advance appropriations would make it harder for you to undo it -- then you are the one who needs to apologize to your constituents who elected you to do your job. Or perhaps you are doing your job as you conceive it: to make a lot of noise and distraction to rev up their fear and anger -- and don't worry about how nutty you sound.
Personally, I think this was a pretty smart thing for the Dems to have done, knowing the Repubs would try to defund it, if they couldn't outright kill it.
Ralph
Seems that the "Obamacare" haters are just waking up to the fact that they have been had.
The Affordable Health Care Act that was passed last March, following a year of debate on the subject, contained some "advance appropriations" to ensure the implementation of the reforms. The wisdom of that is now quite evident, because one thing it does is to make it harder for the opposition to kill it by defunding it.
In other words, implementation will not require the usual separate process of going through the appropriations bill. It contains its own appropriations: $5 million for this year, and another $100 million over the next eight years, minus any funding enacted by Congress.
Michele's outrage: she claims that this was "slipped secretly" into the bill. Really? It was in there at the time it was debated and passed. Is Michele just now getting around to reading it -- or having her staff read it and tell her what it says?
It's the law, Michele. It was not done in secret. It was clearly and plainly there in the bill. If you didn't do your homework, or weren't smart enough to realize that this perfectly legal and reasonable advance appropriations would make it harder for you to undo it -- then you are the one who needs to apologize to your constituents who elected you to do your job. Or perhaps you are doing your job as you conceive it: to make a lot of noise and distraction to rev up their fear and anger -- and don't worry about how nutty you sound.
Personally, I think this was a pretty smart thing for the Dems to have done, knowing the Repubs would try to defund it, if they couldn't outright kill it.
Ralph
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Joke of the week
Sarah Palin saying that Barack Obama is too "inexperienced" to be president.
The other joke of the week: she got me to mention her name.
She wins.
Ralph
The other joke of the week: she got me to mention her name.
She wins.
Ralph
Tough choices
Democracy is a messy business, someone observed. There are good examples of this floating around these days.
One thing that makes it tough is the "herding cats" aspect. As in: look how we struggle against the politics of business interests and political pandering in trying to do anything about the environment and climate change. Meanwhile, China, with its central control has leaped way ahead, not only in making necessary changes, but in taking the lead in manufacturing wind turbines, for example. They didn't have to face the Koch brothers' billions backing the fringe right, who are determined to bring down Obama and any progressive movement; and they didn't have an opposition party who sees political advantage in catering to people's fears. They just did it.
I'm not saying, given everything, I would swap our imperfect democracy for their government. But some things are easier for them. Of course, doing bad things to people and to society is also easier -- and that's not good.
The other thing on my mind that is tough in democracy is that we are so often faced with having to choose between two values or two principles, rather than obvious good/bad, right/wrong decisions. Several good examples of this:
1. Whether to support dictators in the Middle East, who have been allies in the past, to help stabilize the area (like Mubarak) or who control vast resources we need (like Libya) or provide military bases for us (like Bahrain). Or whether to side with a populist movement for democracy. Why wouldn't we just side with democracy? Sometimes it's the risk that another, worse dictator or terrorist group will take advantage of the instability and seize power. Not always easy choices for the administration.
We armchair warriors can sit here and say, of course, side with democracy. We don't have the responsibility of weighing all the facts and taking the consequences. Still, my gut feeling was negative when I read last night that the Obama administration had a new strategy: focus on "regime alteration" rather than "regime change."
What does that mean? Rather than immediately toppling autocratic allies, encourage the revolt leaders to work with regimes that are willing to make changes they are demanding. That feels like appeasement and wrong, yet it is practical, and could avoid the instability that risks unwanted, worse groups seizing power.
2. Another is the Supreme Court decision this week on the Westboro Baptist Church's free speech rights to make vile anti-gay protests at funerals, including funerals of non-gay, fallen soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. My head says, yes, free speech is free speech, even when you abhor the message. My heart says funerals should protected as private time for families. Is there a principle that could encompass both?
The answer, of course, has to be for free speech (short of the shouting-"fire"-in-a-crowded-theater" exception) -- and for countering abhorrent speech with better speech. And, as already is the case, protest can be regulated by local ordinances -- providing a space removed from the actual church/cemetary itself. And others can interpose themselves to shield them visually or to drown them out, as the bikers do at military funerals by revving up their motors.
The simplest solution for the Westboro crowd, however, would be to ignore them. They don't travel half way across the country to protest before a few hundred mourners. They do it to draw the media and get splashed on national TV. The more outrageous their signs, the more coverage. Solution: ignore them, don't film them, don't mention them in the paper. Just don't.
Ralph
One thing that makes it tough is the "herding cats" aspect. As in: look how we struggle against the politics of business interests and political pandering in trying to do anything about the environment and climate change. Meanwhile, China, with its central control has leaped way ahead, not only in making necessary changes, but in taking the lead in manufacturing wind turbines, for example. They didn't have to face the Koch brothers' billions backing the fringe right, who are determined to bring down Obama and any progressive movement; and they didn't have an opposition party who sees political advantage in catering to people's fears. They just did it.
I'm not saying, given everything, I would swap our imperfect democracy for their government. But some things are easier for them. Of course, doing bad things to people and to society is also easier -- and that's not good.
The other thing on my mind that is tough in democracy is that we are so often faced with having to choose between two values or two principles, rather than obvious good/bad, right/wrong decisions. Several good examples of this:
1. Whether to support dictators in the Middle East, who have been allies in the past, to help stabilize the area (like Mubarak) or who control vast resources we need (like Libya) or provide military bases for us (like Bahrain). Or whether to side with a populist movement for democracy. Why wouldn't we just side with democracy? Sometimes it's the risk that another, worse dictator or terrorist group will take advantage of the instability and seize power. Not always easy choices for the administration.
We armchair warriors can sit here and say, of course, side with democracy. We don't have the responsibility of weighing all the facts and taking the consequences. Still, my gut feeling was negative when I read last night that the Obama administration had a new strategy: focus on "regime alteration" rather than "regime change."
What does that mean? Rather than immediately toppling autocratic allies, encourage the revolt leaders to work with regimes that are willing to make changes they are demanding. That feels like appeasement and wrong, yet it is practical, and could avoid the instability that risks unwanted, worse groups seizing power.
2. Another is the Supreme Court decision this week on the Westboro Baptist Church's free speech rights to make vile anti-gay protests at funerals, including funerals of non-gay, fallen soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. My head says, yes, free speech is free speech, even when you abhor the message. My heart says funerals should protected as private time for families. Is there a principle that could encompass both?
The answer, of course, has to be for free speech (short of the shouting-"fire"-in-a-crowded-theater" exception) -- and for countering abhorrent speech with better speech. And, as already is the case, protest can be regulated by local ordinances -- providing a space removed from the actual church/cemetary itself. And others can interpose themselves to shield them visually or to drown them out, as the bikers do at military funerals by revving up their motors.
The simplest solution for the Westboro crowd, however, would be to ignore them. They don't travel half way across the country to protest before a few hundred mourners. They do it to draw the media and get splashed on national TV. The more outrageous their signs, the more coverage. Solution: ignore them, don't film them, don't mention them in the paper. Just don't.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
