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.

Article about The View:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/13/barbara-walters-rips-john-boehner-this-guy-has-an-emotional-pr/

60 Minutes newspiece:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7143552n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

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

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.

Three cheers (finally!) to the 111th Congress!!

Major applause to Ezra Klein for his most recent article in Newsweek (click on the link below). All I want to say is that I'm in complete agreement and I wish that more voters (particularly Democrats) had realized this before the Mid-Term elections. I did. If we can now just encourage the new Congress to do more of the same.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/06/klein-the-do-lots-111th-congress.html

The lesson of the Mid-Term elections: Let's put anger aside and work better together

For a Democrat like me, the results of the Mid-Term elections were greatly disappointing. However, instead of responding with anger and disgust (as so many members of the Tea Party and Republican Party were wont to do regarding the elections), I think it would be the best response to try to turn what might feel like a silly and useless step backward into a positive democratic step forward. It is always important to hear from anyone who feels that they aren't being heard, and to that extent the Tea Party's organization has been healthy. That's the process of a good democracy. But it would be a severe mistake to make as the only new agenda just more negativity and uncooperation.

For example, I have heard on the news from Republicans such as Mitch McConnell, that their primary goal now is one of repealing constructive legislation such as health care. However, the election results showed more anger over the amount of money spent for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Stimulus Package), not the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act. Though some, also like me, felt that the Stimulus Package and health care legislation was actually insufficient not excessive, maybe one of the lessons of these last Mid-term elections is that peoples' voices need to be heard and paid attention to, and sooner. But one of the lessons too is that people also need to learn how to let their voices be heard most effectively.

Anger seems to have motivated and fueled many discontented people to the polls on Novemebr 2, 2010. But that temporary anger needs to subside now so that the results that those same voters want to see take place in Washington can have a chance to productively work. More negativity and anger should not continue to be the prime motivator, particularly from our leaders. Our leaders (old, and now new) need to pay attention to the anger, but they need to govern with sobriety.

Let's heed Jonathan Alter in these Mid-Term elections

I mentioned this to a friend of mine on Facebook recently, but I read an article in Newsweek by Jonathan Alter ("Why the Mid-Terms Matter: The GOP's agenda has to be stopped." Newsweek, November, 1, 2010. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/23/alter-midterms-matter.html) in which he raises the very valid point that it is not the Obama administration that we need to be concerned about in these Mid-Term elections. It should be the concern of handing control back, and so dangerously soon, to the very political party that got us into this economic mess in the first place. It is simply unrealistic to hope that the economy would recover substantially in only a year-and-a-half. It is ironic indeed that the Republicans and the Tea Party are attempting to paint the Obama administration as the primary cause of the severe unemployment and the soaring national deficit. In plain truth, this is not in perspective at all. While it is always true that one can conceivably always find a way to spend less money, the eight years under President Bush (who was elected by many of the same people who are now laying the blame at President Obama) spent a phenomenal amount of money on the Iraq war, a ruinous prescription drug program, and tax cuts which got us into the financial mess we're in; that could be considered "big government" too...but that overly-general and exaggerated perspective depends on who is spending the money and for what.

In short, the electorate should be looking at and criticizing themselves in these Mid-terms, not President Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress. We elected them to try to help repair the crumbling economy, not to take office and do as little as possible. It is very unwise of us as an electorate to judge the proactivity of the Obama administration as "big government" when they are not only taking the plight of the current condition of the country seriously, but also successfully steered the country away from the brink of bankruptcy. Doing that in only a year-and-a-half is no small accomplishment at all!

At the very least, Jonathan Alter's point is that we must not sit these Mid-Term elections out by not voting. Neither anger nor apathy are credible reasons for deciding how to vote. In point of fact, when given the opportunity, one should always vote.

It's time to end discrimination of ANY kind!

Usually, I don't pay a lot of attention to excess political e-mail, but this morning I received one that contained a video that was particularly aggravating. I have included the link to the video here. Suffice it to say that I will be happy when, like racial bigotry, prejudice against sexual orientation will be a thing of the past. What a waste of time in the least, and unkind and amoral at worst, to spend one's time in discomfort and judgment by trying to prevent people from simply being themselves.

Just let prejudice go already!

http://www.couragecampaign.org/NBCTAKEACTION

(BTW, kudos to the Obama administration for having the courage to hire people based on their qualifications, regardless of their sexuality (which matters not in the least).)