World Political Conversation
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b165c/b165c8f4e0c14ef7198d50695872ed2b2d692525" alt=""
Thursday, December 20, 2012
On the epidemic of mass shootings
I agree completely with the late and former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in his article "The Right To Bear Arms" in Parade Magazine (January 14, 1990, page 4).
http://www.guncite.com/burger.html
I have other thoughts too, beginning with an attempt at some analysis of the amendment.
First, the Second Amendment is frequently misquoted. The entire amendment is one sentence of four clauses separated by three commas. Here is the complete Second Amendment:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The frequent misquote leaves out the first two clauses, as well as the final clause. Here is the incomplete, but more often-quoted version:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
The complete amendment above clearly specifies that those particular citizens assigned to "a well-regulated militia" have "the right...to keep and bear arms," not each and every citizen. Since the amendment is one sentence (albeit four clauses), the first clause applies to the entire amendment. The word "state" in the second clause refers to the state "militias" of the first clause. The word "people" in the third clause refers back to those in the state "militia," not all people, connecting the third clause with the first clause. The phrase "shall not be infringed" refers of course to the phrase "the right of the `people`" which (following the algebraic Transitive Property of Equality http://www.mathwords.com/t/transitive_property.htm) also refers back to the word "militia" in the first clause, the prerequisite clause of the amendment. So all four clauses of the amendment reference the first clause, "A well-regulated militia."
Second, this amendment needs to be amended again, or better, completely rewritten to reflect and remedy the issues involving guns today, providing restrictions along with the acknowledged right. The amendment is also written somewhat awkwardly compared to writing today (the one sentence of four clauses above), which is part of the reason for the confusion in its interpretation. It was written in the style of the time which was likely influenced by the erudite education of the "framers" of the Constitution. In addition, we are far beyond colonial times, so the focus on the state "militia" no longer applies. But it is perfectly reasonable that ordinary citizens should be permitted to lawfully own a simple gun. However, since guns in general are among the most dangerous and deadly of the human inventions, it is more than perfectly reasonable that gun ownership should come with severe restrictions/regulations. The need for tougher restrictions are for two reasons: 1) the lethal power of a gun, and 2) the sheer ease and likelihood with which a gun can be lethal. Protection against the danger and destruction that guns are designed for should greatly outweigh the right to unrestricted ownership; and by anyone, including law enforcement and the military (restriction laws for law enforcement and the military should be reexamined as well, although differently than ordinary citizens; what those differences should be I don`t know).
For example, one combined amendment for ordinary citizens should be a reimplementation of the now-expired Assault weapons ban and the Brady Law. The first is obvious. The latter requires a 5-day-waiting-period for the purchase of any gun to give time for a thorough background check (I actually agree with Chief Justice Burger`s suggestion of 10 days instead of 5 days which would allow for a much more thorough check (unless, as he notes, proof could be shown for urgent need so the background check could expedited.). A 5 or 10 day waiting period would also put the onus on the purchaser to plan ahead responsibly. Prudent responsibility should trump convenience (I doubt if any of the surviving family members of the victims of mass shootings would have sympathy for someone who complained of being inconvenienced by waiting for a 5 or 10-day thorough background check. Those families might suggest an even longer waiting period.) Background checks for firearms should be the most rigorous of any personal inquiry. There should be little-to-no privacy plea permitted to own and wield a gun. If you want one, you have to submit to the most rigorous examination or your personal and legal history (including criminal and mental history). In my opinion, there is a civic obligation, expectation, and consequence to owning a gun of any kind. Guns are tools with the power of destruction and death. Loss of more personal and legal privacy in order to protect society from the unintended consequesnces and mishaps of the gun owner should be expected. The worst has to be assumed and prepared for because of the gun's lethal power.
Another amendment might be, as Burger points out, that there be specified firearms that the average citizen would not be permitted to purchase under any circumstances, regardless of a background check, like automatic and assault weapons (the Brady Law and the ban on assault weapons during the Clinton administration were both allowed to expire under the administration of President George W. Bush). Again, the reason is the ease with which the more destructive guns wreak lethal carnage. Those guns could include any gun other than a simple, non-automatic handgun or rifle. No ordinary citizen needs more than one to six bullets in any one gun for the right and ability to protect themselves. All automatic firearms should be illegal to own by the general public, and severely restricted by law enforcement and the military. The four branches of our national military and each state National Guard are our modern versions of the colonial/state militias. They are also professionals trained to safely and effectively use the more dangerous variety of manufactured and sophisticated weaponry, so those entities could be allowed automatic and assault weapons. But those individuals would be subjected to the same rigorous and revised background checks as everyone else; law enforcement and the military personnel are human beings too...fallible and vulnerable to unforseen human consequences. The average citizen, however, is comparatively untrained in the safe use of guns, so all the more reason for the heaviest restrictive gun laws to be imposed on the general public.
Finally, because we have a strong national military, this issue is no longer about protecting the citizen against the government through the right to own a gun. That was more of an immediate concern in colonial times (or at least worry from the example of former British rule). We should be well past the paranoia that our government is a tyrannical entity in democratic disguise, unlawfully imprisoning its citizens at whim who then can`t defend themselves because they either don`t have all necessary firearms to resist the random and fallacious arrests or the government has confiscated their weapons; that is a much more rare (and illegal) occurrence now in this country. This issue should now simply be about protecting the safety of the general public from the lethally destructive power of guns. While it is true that it takes a person (or some intelligent physical force) to pull a trigger (hence the erroneous argument "Guns don`t kill, people do"), as I stated above, the ease of the resultant destruction is indisputable and the reason that guns need to carry much tougher regulations.
Clearly, the pattern of mass shootings in the United States demonstrates that we as a country are doing a deplorable job of protecting our fellow innocent citizens from injury and death by guns. These mass shootings have become an epidemic. Epidemics need to be actively addressed and eradicated, or at the very least, greatly minimized.
Monday, September 19, 2011
In Support of Government Balanced with Individual Prosperity
Finally, to my relief, someone has expressed an appreciation for government. In Paul Begala's article, "I (heart) Government," (Newsweek, September 19, 2011. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/09/11/paul-begala-why-now-is-the-time-to-defend-big-government.html) he reminds us of how much good government has done for the country. However, it has been a continually popular stand in this country to think of our federal government as a force of ill, a contemporary "bogeyman."
I was first aware of the negative view of government during the Vietnam War and the "Communist or 'Red' Scare," when we as Americans were terrified with the idea that Communism, or the Communist form of Socialism would destroy the world. Completely ironically, the Soviet Union was in no shape to annihilate the United States or anyone else because the country was imploding, self-destructing. In more recent years, and currently, the fear of Socialism has been transferred from the Soviet Union (primarily because it no longer exists) to any domestic issue that is proposed for assistance by our own federal government.
The reasons are several. First, some equate the Socialism of the Soviet Union and its failure as a strong example of how a centralized government can become autocratic and totalitarian under the posture of providing for the welfare of its citizens. Second, there is a steadfast belief in Capitalism, our form of government, that the only vehicle for true and deserved success is through individual hard work and financial gain. And third, there is a ugly mindset that feels that the poorest citizens deserve their lot in life because they brought poverty on themselves from a lack of exactly the initiative of the aforementioned hard work. The author Ayn Rand and Senator Paul Ryan (an outspoken disciple of Rand) were and are proponents of this view, respectively.
What they forget, however, is that not only is a country only as strong as its weakest citizenry, but that no individual is solely responsible for their own success with anything. To be successful one needs opportunity, and one only has opportunity in a country that is financially stable enough to have opportunities in which to participate. To take the stance that one's hard earned money should be left alone by their government is to completely forget that it was a stable government that allowed the individual to make the money in the first place. If one succeeds financially in a country that is stable enough to offer that success, one is obligated to pay a proper percentage of that gain back in taxes to the very government that allowed them to make the gain. This should be simple common sense and ethics. So the idea that the federal government would tax its wealthiest citizens more than its poorest is not only fair and equitable, it's practical, ethical, and makes complete financial sense. It would all but eliminate the problem of any serious national debt. Yes, there will always be some citizens who are lazy, indifferent, dependent financially and emotionally, and will always remain poor. But that is not the vast majority of people. Therefore, for any wealthy person to look upon a poor person with disdain or disgust and argue against being taxed fairly because of the few who are lazy, is a greater abomination in attitude than the attitude of the few who remain lethargic. It is simply inhumane and un-American.
Finally, Begala mentions several enormous accomplishments that would not have been possible without financial support from the federal government: the abolition of slavery, putting men on the moon, and the killing of Osama Bin Laden to name a few. The only thing I see that the detractors of government involvement in domestic issues are motivated by is self-centeredness and greed. It is greed in the guise of a warning against a possible dictatorship like the former Soviet Union. The remarkable and ironic thing is that many of these same detractors of government are the same that elected George W. Bush as president twice which put us on the brink of financial ruin and in the current recession. It was not too much governmental regulation, but too little (of the banks and Wall Street) that eliminated our balanced budget (achieved by the Clinton administration) and nearly turned a recession into another depression or worse. Government by itself is, of course, not the answer to all the problems facing a country. But neither is no government at all. How to skillfully balance government involvement with individual freedom is a delicate dance. However, contrary to how many of the voices in the Republican and Tea Parties continue to express themselves, government is also not the enemy.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Texting DUZ Risk Making U Stoopid :)
I mean this post in both a serious and a humorous sense. I know it will hit home (and maybe feel offensive) to many readers because most of us send and receive text messages to some degree and are not particularly concerned with how well we write when we do text. I think that many of us successfully separate our casual writing in texting from the care we take with our writing when it's important to do so. But I also think it's important that we occasionally stop to think about the habits we can fall into and both their value and their potential damage.
That said, while this is not a political post, I want to give a hearty thanks to Niall Ferguson for his article,
That said, while this is not a political post, I want to give a hearty thanks to Niall Ferguson for his article,
"Texting Makes U Stupid" (Newsweek, September 19, 2011 http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/09/11/how-will-today-s-texting-teenagers-compete.html). In my opinion, he is right on the money. The longer I live the more I'm convinced that the most important of the three "Rs," just like we all learned, is reading. Next of course is writing. But to be a good writer, one has to read...a lot...to absorb and learn the craft from other writers, and the great writers.
Writing is the skill of telling a story in permanent form, extrasomatically, meaning manually, outside our brains. The Sumerians invented writing in 2000 B.C., and they perhaps unwittingly gave humanity the best technical tool for learning and documenting that our species has ever, and probably will ever know. The beauty of writing involves the brilliant skill of putting complete words together to form mental imagery absent the presence of the actual storyteller. One key word in the preceding sentence is the word "complete." The best writers use complete words as well as a creative and rich vocabulary.
Texting is usually not complete words, but a short-cut version of writing and is about as far from skillful writing as ketchup is from a healthy vegetable. The pleasure of texting is rapid, amusing, and casual communication anywhere in the world. But it is really only entertaining and fast at best. The best part of course is that it makes global communication nearly immediate. The dangers and worst parts of texting are that the writing is often extremely poor, and it can create terrible writing habits in the user which can then transfer into other forms of communication like e-mail and actual typed documents. By the way (not BTW), "email" is also a shortcut and should not be a word. E-mail stands for "electronic mail" and therefore the "e" should be separated from the word "mail" by a hyphen.
I know from personal experience about the probable effects of texting on the skill of writing. I taught Music Appreciation at the college level for two years and assigned the students research papers. The writing, on average, was horrible. Not only did the students probably not even bother to run the "Spellcheck" (which is still leaving to the computer what one should be doing themselves, proofreading), but I found many instances where the students used texting shortcuts, and they had not the faintest idea of how to put words, sentences, paragraphs, and the format of pages together to create a mature and riveting narrative. This is not only a pity, it's a tragedy. A general poor writing education and the habit of texting in shortcut writing (and even quick e-mailing) rather than writing carefully is not only robbing today's young people of a fundamentally necessary skill, it's robbing future generations of the ability to learn about them through their excellent writing. How do today's young people think that their writer ancestors were able to tell them about their own lives so well? Ironically, though we think that today's computer technology is an advancement, our ancestors were probably better off that they were less technologically advanced in this way. They were able to become great writers because the technology that they were limited to forced them to use their brains more than their gadgets. They didn't have speedy devices like cell-phones and computers, so they had to rely on their minds and their pens. And yes, many of them could write with pen and ink and not make mistakes because they were used to thinking more slowly and they made less errors as a result. One look at the original (or a copy of the original) Constitution and the Declaration of Independence proves the ability and skill with just pen and paper. (Incidentally, I have copies of a couple of letters that my grandfather Lee wrote to his son, my Uncle Frank, in pen. The handwriting is fairly clean and the vocabulary is superb, even for just a personal letter. And the paper has no lines and the writing is straight across the page.)
Good, clear thinking takes time, and great writing requires both. Texting requires neither and the technology supports that. The speed and ease of computers has created a hidden but devastating double-edged sword. It feels pretty wonderful to be able to communicate with anyone anywhere in the world at lightning speed. But the very two things that are valuable for deep learning, time and clear thought, are essentially obliterated by that ease and speed. I would argue with Mr. Ferguson that the gain in speed and ease of communication is not worth the complete loss of the time and clear, skillful thinking necessary to keep all of us writing at our best.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Paul Ryan's uncourageous healthcare proposal
The health care proposal put forth by Republican congressman, Paul Ryan, has been touted as "courageous." I would like to point out one element that I think makes it very uncourageous and therefore typical once again of the Republican capitalist mindset. It does not propose to raise any taxes, particularly on the wealthy. Instead, it proposes tax cuts to the wealthy and cuts to valuable existing government-funded programs.
One clear way in which we could reduce our national debt is to raise revenue by raising taxes from wealthier Americans. This is a perfectly reasonable and fair principle. If one can afford to pay higher taxes, one should. This because one has been able to earn the income by living in a country that allows the increased earnings; if one benefits from such an allowance, then one should ethically pay a proper percentage of those earnings back to the government in taxes.
Too often the mentality of many of the wealthiest Americans seems to be opposite to this. One way in which our capitalist form of government is not impressive is that the accumulation of wealth can breed selfishness. However, none of us have come by our wealth completely independently. We were fortunate to have parents or other life situations that put us in the fortunate position of being able to earn more money. In other words, no one is successful entirely on their own. We all receive help. So in return for receiving help comes giving help in return through generosity, and generosity in the same form in which it is received, or monetarily. It is a very ethical and reasonable principle that if one benefits by making money in a system that also protects those assets and allows one to make the money in the first place, that one should return a proportionally larger amount in taxes to the provider of that protection, or the government. In other words, if one is able to have the opportunity to acquire wealth and benefit from that ability by the government (there is no police state on earning capital), one should pay a larger share in taxes. It should definitely not be the other way around. Tax cuts are the other way around. Tax cuts leave to hope that the wealthy will spend their tax cuts on goods and services in the economy therefore boosting the economy and indirectly helping those less wealthy ("Trickle-down economics"). However, this is dependent on the person receiving the tax cut to voluntarily spend the money and boost the economy. This is not sufficient. The return of assistance in the form of taxes must be obligatory or law. This method of return should also be welcomed and expected by the citizens, not resented and protested. It is a selfish and childish principle that one would be allowed to keep all their earned capital AND benefit from the protection of that capital by the federal government. (One "can't have it both ways," or "your cake and eat it too.") Therefore, it is a completely fair and equitable system that the federal government would enact law that would require that the percentage of each person's individual taxes would substantially increase along with their increase in earnings. This should be a no-brainer and something that we as Americans would feel proud to do rather than reacting stubbornly and selfishly by bawking at the idea of our taxes being raised. If more of us who were wealthier could change this selfish mindset, we could reduce the national deficit in a fraction of the time it took to accumulate. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. The Republican (and Tea Party; their very name comes from the famed protest of paying more taxes in the "Boston Tea Party") mentality resents the idea of returning a larger percentage of their earnings in taxes. Instead, they indirectly put the burden on those who can afford it less by cutting government programs that help the public thereby raising revenue by saving, or not spending that government money. The problem with that is simple and backwards. It's depriving the country of valuable services (government-funded public services like healthcare, affordable housing, education, research, and public transportation, just to name a few) while allowing the wealthy to remain wealthy at the expense of the rest of the country. It is a very self-centered attitude. It also killing our country as evidenced by the soaring national debt. President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, managed to balance the budget. George W. Bush, a Republican, gave us this huge national debt. Case closed.
So even though Senator Paul Ryan's budget proposal has been called courageous, I contend again that it is only courageous in that it is assertive. Real courage would be if Paul Ryan were to stand up to his Republican colleagues and encourage them to reconsider raising taxes on themselves and other most wealthy Americans to help increase revenue and lower the national debt. That would be courageous indeed!
____________
Link to President Obama's speech on the federal budget:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/winning-the-future/fiscal-framework?utm_source=email107&utm_medium=image&utm_campaign=fiscal
One clear way in which we could reduce our national debt is to raise revenue by raising taxes from wealthier Americans. This is a perfectly reasonable and fair principle. If one can afford to pay higher taxes, one should. This because one has been able to earn the income by living in a country that allows the increased earnings; if one benefits from such an allowance, then one should ethically pay a proper percentage of those earnings back to the government in taxes.
Too often the mentality of many of the wealthiest Americans seems to be opposite to this. One way in which our capitalist form of government is not impressive is that the accumulation of wealth can breed selfishness. However, none of us have come by our wealth completely independently. We were fortunate to have parents or other life situations that put us in the fortunate position of being able to earn more money. In other words, no one is successful entirely on their own. We all receive help. So in return for receiving help comes giving help in return through generosity, and generosity in the same form in which it is received, or monetarily. It is a very ethical and reasonable principle that if one benefits by making money in a system that also protects those assets and allows one to make the money in the first place, that one should return a proportionally larger amount in taxes to the provider of that protection, or the government. In other words, if one is able to have the opportunity to acquire wealth and benefit from that ability by the government (there is no police state on earning capital), one should pay a larger share in taxes. It should definitely not be the other way around. Tax cuts are the other way around. Tax cuts leave to hope that the wealthy will spend their tax cuts on goods and services in the economy therefore boosting the economy and indirectly helping those less wealthy ("Trickle-down economics"). However, this is dependent on the person receiving the tax cut to voluntarily spend the money and boost the economy. This is not sufficient. The return of assistance in the form of taxes must be obligatory or law. This method of return should also be welcomed and expected by the citizens, not resented and protested. It is a selfish and childish principle that one would be allowed to keep all their earned capital AND benefit from the protection of that capital by the federal government. (One "can't have it both ways," or "your cake and eat it too.") Therefore, it is a completely fair and equitable system that the federal government would enact law that would require that the percentage of each person's individual taxes would substantially increase along with their increase in earnings. This should be a no-brainer and something that we as Americans would feel proud to do rather than reacting stubbornly and selfishly by bawking at the idea of our taxes being raised. If more of us who were wealthier could change this selfish mindset, we could reduce the national deficit in a fraction of the time it took to accumulate. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. The Republican (and Tea Party; their very name comes from the famed protest of paying more taxes in the "Boston Tea Party") mentality resents the idea of returning a larger percentage of their earnings in taxes. Instead, they indirectly put the burden on those who can afford it less by cutting government programs that help the public thereby raising revenue by saving, or not spending that government money. The problem with that is simple and backwards. It's depriving the country of valuable services (government-funded public services like healthcare, affordable housing, education, research, and public transportation, just to name a few) while allowing the wealthy to remain wealthy at the expense of the rest of the country. It is a very self-centered attitude. It also killing our country as evidenced by the soaring national debt. President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, managed to balance the budget. George W. Bush, a Republican, gave us this huge national debt. Case closed.
So even though Senator Paul Ryan's budget proposal has been called courageous, I contend again that it is only courageous in that it is assertive. Real courage would be if Paul Ryan were to stand up to his Republican colleagues and encourage them to reconsider raising taxes on themselves and other most wealthy Americans to help increase revenue and lower the national debt. That would be courageous indeed!
____________
Link to President Obama's speech on the federal budget:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/winning-the-future/fiscal-framework?utm_source=email107&utm_medium=image&utm_campaign=fiscal
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
What do John Boehner's tears really show?
I watched last Sunday's 60 Minutes with usual interest. In particular, this time, I was interested to see what John Boehner would be like in an in-depth interview. I knew that Boehner could become emotional, but I was unprepared, as was Leslie Stahl, for how frequently he became emotional and what he became emotional about. As a man who is also extremely emotional, I found it somewhat refreshing that Boehner could allow himself to be so emotional without being ashamed. But I also found myself paying attention to what seemed to be making him emotional. He teared up when he talked about himself and reaching the "American Dream," and he expressed not being able to be around kids at schools because he wants the same for them like he has achieved, but he did not say how he wanted to help other people achieve the same thing. The implication was that the goal is on future stories of individual "rags to riches," but less on feeling someone else's pain by giving them (through equitable tax revenue) what they can't get for themselves individually, one of the functions of any government, federal or state. Joy Behar of "The View" said it best, "He cries only when he talks about how sad his life was... He had to sweep floors, he was a janitor, and yet he has very little empathy for people who are in that position now."
It was also mentioned in the 60 Minutes piece that Boehner is a former Democrat. What changed his mind and caused him to become a Republican was seeing his earnings taxed by the federal government in a way that I'm sure he deemed excessive. What was not mentioned, and is rarely mentioned in any newspiece about taxation, is what in particular Boehner objected to his money (in the form of taxes) being put toward. This is always a necessary (and overlooked) question. It isn't complete to object to something without knowing specifically what it is that's objectionable. Simply objecting to raising taxes in general is not specific enough. We need to know what the revenue obtained by the tax increase(s) would actually pay for before objecting.
This is a prime example of what I often feel to be one fundamental difference between people: a difference between selflessness and selfishness; and politically, between the Democrats and the Republicans. Democrats tend to empathetically remember what it was like not to have wealth and support programs that assist people. Republicans tend to forget what it was like to have little wealth and want to keep their hard-earned wealth for themselves. Republicans therefore support less government involvement and interference, and more individual success and gain. In "my view," however, it's the simply difference between being selfless and selfish.
It was also mentioned in the 60 Minutes piece that Boehner is a former Democrat. What changed his mind and caused him to become a Republican was seeing his earnings taxed by the federal government in a way that I'm sure he deemed excessive. What was not mentioned, and is rarely mentioned in any newspiece about taxation, is what in particular Boehner objected to his money (in the form of taxes) being put toward. This is always a necessary (and overlooked) question. It isn't complete to object to something without knowing specifically what it is that's objectionable. Simply objecting to raising taxes in general is not specific enough. We need to know what the revenue obtained by the tax increase(s) would actually pay for before objecting.
This is a prime example of what I often feel to be one fundamental difference between people: a difference between selflessness and selfishness; and politically, between the Democrats and the Republicans. Democrats tend to empathetically remember what it was like not to have wealth and support programs that assist people. Republicans tend to forget what it was like to have little wealth and want to keep their hard-earned wealth for themselves. Republicans therefore support less government involvement and interference, and more individual success and gain. In "my view," however, it's the simply difference between being selfless and selfish.
Article about The View:
60 Minutes newspiece:
Thursday, November 25, 2010
The refreshing consistency of President Obama
I was most impressed in reading James T. Kloppenberg's article, True To His Word, in the most recent issue of Newsweek (November 29, 2010). Personally, I have been impressed with the way the president has been taking his job seriously and implementing decisive and needed legislative action ever since he took office. What I had not thought to do was to revisit either of his books, Dreams From My Father, or The Audacity of Hope, to assess his performance, but Mr. Kloppenberg did. Kloppenberg points out that Barack Obama explained in detail in both books what he intended to do if elected president, and he has, in fact, stayed "true to his word."
I read The Audacity of Hope and listened to most of Dreams From My Father as a book on tape. I was extremely impressed with both of the books and they only strengthened my already positive impression of Obama. I did not think to reread either of them prior to the Mid-Term elections or afterward. Frankly, however, I wouldn't have felt the need. I am not at all among the voters who have been disappointed with his performance as president thus far. Quite the contrary. I think he and his administration have done an outstanding job considering the abysmal mess that he and his administration were handed by the previous administration. But it was elevating and confirming indeed to read from Mr. Kloppenberg that the exaggerated din from both sides of the aisle, comprised of extreme Democrats and Republicans (not to mention the Tea Party), are forgetting how consistent, productive, and successful this president and his administration have actually been in saving this country from near economic disaster.
James T. Kloppenberg's article confirms what I already thought: that though they certainly aren't perfect and they have made their share of errors, we have one of the finest presidents and administrations in history currently in the White House. We need to tone down our collective anger and impatience as a nation and appreciate that they are doing much more good than harm.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/17/obama-is-doing-just-what-he-said-he-would-do.html
I read The Audacity of Hope and listened to most of Dreams From My Father as a book on tape. I was extremely impressed with both of the books and they only strengthened my already positive impression of Obama. I did not think to reread either of them prior to the Mid-Term elections or afterward. Frankly, however, I wouldn't have felt the need. I am not at all among the voters who have been disappointed with his performance as president thus far. Quite the contrary. I think he and his administration have done an outstanding job considering the abysmal mess that he and his administration were handed by the previous administration. But it was elevating and confirming indeed to read from Mr. Kloppenberg that the exaggerated din from both sides of the aisle, comprised of extreme Democrats and Republicans (not to mention the Tea Party), are forgetting how consistent, productive, and successful this president and his administration have actually been in saving this country from near economic disaster.
James T. Kloppenberg's article confirms what I already thought: that though they certainly aren't perfect and they have made their share of errors, we have one of the finest presidents and administrations in history currently in the White House. We need to tone down our collective anger and impatience as a nation and appreciate that they are doing much more good than harm.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/17/obama-is-doing-just-what-he-said-he-would-do.html
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Capitalism at its worst: Great individual wealth can breed great selfishness
After reading the cover story of last week's edition of Newsweek, November 8, 2010, ("Power of 50") and hearing the feedback from the angry voters who successfully gave control of the House back to the Republicans, I am struck by a strong tentative conclusion: That it is mostly the extremely wealthy who are giving the general public the distorted impression that the federal government is trying to spend too much of their money (in the form of taxes for domestic and foreign government expenditures). The reality is that the wealthy are too protective of, and selfish with, their wealth. It is selfishness in the guise of a protective warning: a greatly exaggerated (verging on paranoid) warning to the public that the federal government of the United States, under the Obama administration and its passage of legislation, has become an oppressive, mammoth, Socialist, and autocratic federal government. Ironically, those who listen and believe the wealthy proponents of this scenario keep themselves ignorant and poorer while the wealthy grow all the more wealthy. In short, demonizing the federal government for the normal and necessary regulation of national capital is a decoy by the wealthy for a compulsive desire to remain individually, selfishly, and egregiously affluent.
Even though it is true that millions of people are still out of work and have lost their homes, and even though the national debt is still dangerously out-of-control, I don't feel that the severity of the anger generated by extreme conservatives is appropriate or directed at the correct source. The Obama administration was correct in acting as swiftly as they did in the passage of the Stimulus Package (which saved the country from bankruptcy), and they were correct in passing a preliminary health care bill because the health of health care is directly tied to the health of the economy. These were necessary emergency measures, probably necessary in their expense, and likely actually inadequately funded rather than too expensive. One of the reasons that unemployment is still too high and the health care reform disappointing (no Public Option) is that the Obama administration compromised too much and did not press for more spending for both initiatives. In other words, maybe you get what you pay for; not enough money means not good enough results. However, it is then highly unreasonable to give the impression that too much money was spent when in fact it was exactly the opposite. To little was spent in the short term for adequate enough gain in the long term.
According to the article in Newsweek, "Power of 50," the largest influence on voter anger and negativity is Rush Limbaugh. Of the wealthy people listed in the article, Limbaugh is the wealthiest. I suspect that if one is prone to anger and negativity, and if one is wealthy, and one is as self-righteous in their personal and political agenda as Limbaugh sounds (from his quotes in the article), this is the kind of person who would be the most likely to warn against the evils of a source other than himself (namely the federal government). In my view, one of the primary traits of immaturity is a quick and consistent tendency to demonize others (in this case, large institutions like national governments). In other words, to find everyone else but oneself in error.
Even though it is true that millions of people are still out of work and have lost their homes, and even though the national debt is still dangerously out-of-control, I don't feel that the severity of the anger generated by extreme conservatives is appropriate or directed at the correct source. The Obama administration was correct in acting as swiftly as they did in the passage of the Stimulus Package (which saved the country from bankruptcy), and they were correct in passing a preliminary health care bill because the health of health care is directly tied to the health of the economy. These were necessary emergency measures, probably necessary in their expense, and likely actually inadequately funded rather than too expensive. One of the reasons that unemployment is still too high and the health care reform disappointing (no Public Option) is that the Obama administration compromised too much and did not press for more spending for both initiatives. In other words, maybe you get what you pay for; not enough money means not good enough results. However, it is then highly unreasonable to give the impression that too much money was spent when in fact it was exactly the opposite. To little was spent in the short term for adequate enough gain in the long term.
According to the article in Newsweek, "Power of 50," the largest influence on voter anger and negativity is Rush Limbaugh. Of the wealthy people listed in the article, Limbaugh is the wealthiest. I suspect that if one is prone to anger and negativity, and if one is wealthy, and one is as self-righteous in their personal and political agenda as Limbaugh sounds (from his quotes in the article), this is the kind of person who would be the most likely to warn against the evils of a source other than himself (namely the federal government). In my view, one of the primary traits of immaturity is a quick and consistent tendency to demonize others (in this case, large institutions like national governments). In other words, to find everyone else but oneself in error.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)