Even Your Name is From Hundreds of Years Ago.
You can’t fight progress. Ask the horse and buggy people, telegraph operators, heck even newspaper people if you can fight progress. Trying to go back to some previous time is not a recipe for success. In fact I’m trying to think of one successful retro-movement. I’m not talking about fads like bellbottoms coming back into style, I’m talking about real social movements. The only regressive movement that seems to have any success is the anti-gay marriage movement.
Homosexuals deserve to enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals, it’s an inevitability that they will be allowed to serve openly in the military and get married. Yet the forces against this progress seem to be successful, for most of the reasons that the Tea Party movement isn’t: They have a clear message (gays can’t get married or serve in the military), it’s mostly grounded in reality (gay people are real, but they aren’t trying to destroy marriage) and they have a clear goal (they have anti-gay marriage propositions and voting initiatives that they pass). But they are on the wrong side of history. Being gay isn’t a choice and it can’t be cured. So the reality is that a segment of our population is being denied equal rights. And the denial of rights to anyone is the wrong side of history.
Take Health Care, most other western nations offer their citizens some type of universal coverage. America is actually late to the game. And that government takeover the right talks about? All America is requiring is that all of its citizens purchase insurance from private insurance companies. The Hospitals will still be privately run (unlike England where they are state run) and there is no government insurance agency. Everything is still in the private sector. So once again the Tea Party movement isn’t grounded in reality.
Even Social Movements Need the Target Demographic
The final reason the Tea Party movement is going to fail is that it isn’t embraced by young people. Almost every major social movement, every revolution, every lasting social change is started or embraced by the younger generation. Even our revolution was made up of people mostly under 50, many under 40. Alexander Hamilton was 19-21 at the first constitutional convention. Thomas Jefferson was 33 when he wrote the Declaration. Martin Luther King, Jr was 26 when he led the Montgomery bus boycotts and 34 when he led the march on Washington. Rosa Parks may have been 42, but predating her on refusing to give up their seats was Irene Morgan, who was 27 (she helped overturn segregation on interstate bus rides), Sarah Keys (whose age I can’t find but she was a private in the Woman’s Army Corp), and just nine months before Parks infamous ride, Claudette Colvin a 15 year old refused to give up her seat on the same bus line. Heck, Jesus who you may know as the founder of Christianity, died in his early 30s.
What you aren’t seeing is a bunch of protests at college campuses in the name of the Tea Party movement. The Iranian election protests were on Twitter, students marched on Tianamen Square, Ron Paul is a major political name due to his popularity on college campuses. And of course there was this guy named Obama.
Some people know you have to get them when their young, it’s why the conservatives on the Texas school boards and Kansas school boards work so hard to stay in power. They can decide what the textbooks say, and can feed our children the version of the facts that best fit their ideology. (Funny that conservatives are the ones who claim that liberals “indoctrinate”, when it is conservatives who are literally rewriting school books.)
But what about the Tea Party?
Quick google search for tea party turned up quotes from a:
54 year old,a Retiree, Guy who receives Social security, woman 67, man 50,
And image searches don’t help much either. I had to really search to find anyone who looked under 40. Try it yourself, do a Tea Party Google image search. If you find a picture that is less than 50% people over 50 I’d be surprised (and children under 12 don’t count).
Even though the Tea Party will not last, it doesn’t mean it can’t make life hard on those of us trying to move the country forward. How can we speed up their demise? Do the exact opposite of what they’re doing: Have a clear message, have clear achievable goals, keep the young people energized and keep painting the Tea Party as the party of the past and ours as the party of progress. That’s how Obama got elected, how Clinton got elected, and it’s even how Reagan got elected. We have to remember that a majority of Americans (53%) elected Barack Obama. And every congressman was elected by of majority of their constituents. If the tea party movement represents a majority of the American people, then we’ll see that reflected in the polls, but if the Democratic majorities are any indication, the United States has been turning towards progress. If the Tea Party movement is still around in 2012, it won’t be because they’ve been successful, it will be because we’ve not worked hard enough to defeat them.
Joe R.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Why the Tea Party won't last - part 1
Note: I've split this post into two parts due to length. I'll post the second part on Wednesday.
The Tea Party would like to think of itself as here for the long run, possibly replacing the Republican Party as a national party. That the Tea Party movement is a large movement with many members is not to be denied, but can they actually achieve anything? Are they a new political party or just a passing fad?
If you look to the social movements of the past you’ll see that the Tea Party just doesn’t have what it takes. Even the people they claim to admire, our founding fathers, did more than just throw tea in a river out of anger. The founders weren’t randomly angry at the king, they had legitimate grievances, and they took specific actions to change things. There are four reasons the tea party will not last: They do not have clear goals and objectives, they have an inconsistent message not grounded on facts, their direction is backwards rather than forwards, and their movement is not embraced by young adults. It is these four things that make a social movement historical as opposed to a footnote.
So, you’re mad. What are you going to do about it?
First, the Tea party movement does not have clear, ACHIEVABLE, goals or objectives. They have vague goals like lower taxes, or no taxes, getting government out of our lives, etc. When you look at movements of the past that were successful they had clear goals and objectives. The civil rights movement of the 60s was not out to end racism (though that was a hope), they were out to change the laws that made racism seem legitimate. The woman’s suffrage movement didn’t have as it’s goal to make men see women as equals (though that was the hope), it’s goal was to give women the right to vote. By having a clear goal that is achievable your movement can affect social change. There is less racism today (but as events over weekend of the Health Care vote show it is by no means gone) thanks to the civil rights legislation. Hilary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are testaments to the social change brought about by the suffrage movement (though the small number of female senators is testament to how far we still need to go). If the Tea Party movement were to have a clear goal that it could achieve, something that could be voted on, it might have some staying power. Vague ideas with no actionable items are philosophy not government.
Totalitarianism: or how a President elected by 66 million people enacting legislation he said he would pass once he became President is somehow subverting the will of the people.
The Tea party also has an inconsistent message that is not grounded on reality. The civil rights movement and the suffrage movements were trying to correct wrongs that ACTUALLY existed. Black people in the United States could not eat at lunch counters, sit in the same sections or use the same water fountains or toilets as white people. That was the reality of the United States in the sixties. The Tea Party talks about government totalitarianism, socialism, government takeovers, none of which are real. Many tea party members are on medicare and don’t want government run insurance. They simultaneously want more government regulation of corporations and less government meddling. If the tea party movement wants to last it’s going to need an actual message that is grounded on facts.
As a liberal I believe that government can help people, because I’ve seen in my own life that it can. So when I support health care reform it is because I’ve seen that there are people who have insurance who get sick and have their coverage dropped (reality), then these same people have to struggle just to live, literally LIVE (reality). Arguments that there is going to be a government takeover of hospitals (fiction), Death Panels (fiction), the government coming between you and your doctor (fiction) may help keep people scared, but they do not make for a lasting movement because once people see the reality, they won’t follow the movement anymore. Claims of socialism, fascism and communism (which aren’t synonyms) will only take you so far.
Next: Why you may not understand their music but you still need their support.
The Tea Party would like to think of itself as here for the long run, possibly replacing the Republican Party as a national party. That the Tea Party movement is a large movement with many members is not to be denied, but can they actually achieve anything? Are they a new political party or just a passing fad?
If you look to the social movements of the past you’ll see that the Tea Party just doesn’t have what it takes. Even the people they claim to admire, our founding fathers, did more than just throw tea in a river out of anger. The founders weren’t randomly angry at the king, they had legitimate grievances, and they took specific actions to change things. There are four reasons the tea party will not last: They do not have clear goals and objectives, they have an inconsistent message not grounded on facts, their direction is backwards rather than forwards, and their movement is not embraced by young adults. It is these four things that make a social movement historical as opposed to a footnote.
So, you’re mad. What are you going to do about it?
First, the Tea party movement does not have clear, ACHIEVABLE, goals or objectives. They have vague goals like lower taxes, or no taxes, getting government out of our lives, etc. When you look at movements of the past that were successful they had clear goals and objectives. The civil rights movement of the 60s was not out to end racism (though that was a hope), they were out to change the laws that made racism seem legitimate. The woman’s suffrage movement didn’t have as it’s goal to make men see women as equals (though that was the hope), it’s goal was to give women the right to vote. By having a clear goal that is achievable your movement can affect social change. There is less racism today (but as events over weekend of the Health Care vote show it is by no means gone) thanks to the civil rights legislation. Hilary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are testaments to the social change brought about by the suffrage movement (though the small number of female senators is testament to how far we still need to go). If the Tea Party movement were to have a clear goal that it could achieve, something that could be voted on, it might have some staying power. Vague ideas with no actionable items are philosophy not government.
Totalitarianism: or how a President elected by 66 million people enacting legislation he said he would pass once he became President is somehow subverting the will of the people.
The Tea party also has an inconsistent message that is not grounded on reality. The civil rights movement and the suffrage movements were trying to correct wrongs that ACTUALLY existed. Black people in the United States could not eat at lunch counters, sit in the same sections or use the same water fountains or toilets as white people. That was the reality of the United States in the sixties. The Tea Party talks about government totalitarianism, socialism, government takeovers, none of which are real. Many tea party members are on medicare and don’t want government run insurance. They simultaneously want more government regulation of corporations and less government meddling. If the tea party movement wants to last it’s going to need an actual message that is grounded on facts.
As a liberal I believe that government can help people, because I’ve seen in my own life that it can. So when I support health care reform it is because I’ve seen that there are people who have insurance who get sick and have their coverage dropped (reality), then these same people have to struggle just to live, literally LIVE (reality). Arguments that there is going to be a government takeover of hospitals (fiction), Death Panels (fiction), the government coming between you and your doctor (fiction) may help keep people scared, but they do not make for a lasting movement because once people see the reality, they won’t follow the movement anymore. Claims of socialism, fascism and communism (which aren’t synonyms) will only take you so far.
Next: Why you may not understand their music but you still need their support.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
What's wrong with the Republican party
I was working on a post about all that is wrong with the current Republican party, then I read this: An open letter to conservatives from Talking Points Memo and decided I should probably just post a link to it, since I can't match the amount of citations it achieves. It's one thing to make claims about conservatives and Republicans, it's another to have an example for every single critique. In a word this blog post is awesome. And something everyone should have a permanent link to.
Here's how it begins:
Dear Conservative Americans,
The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly Republican home, so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now. You've lost me and you've lost most of America. Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I'd like to give you some advice and an invitation.
First, the invitation: Come back to us.
Now the advice. You're going to have to come up with a platform that isn't built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from your own; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more. But you have work to do even before you take on that task.
Your party -- the GOP -- and the conservative end of the American political spectrum have become irresponsible and irrational. Worse, it's tolerating, promoting and celebrating prejudice and hatred. Let me provide some examples -- by no means an exhaustive list -- of where the Right as gotten itself stuck in a swamp of hypocrisy, hyperbole, historical inaccuracy and hatred.
If you're going to regain your stature as a party of rational, responsible people, you'll have to start by draining this swamp:
Continue reading
Here's how it begins:
Dear Conservative Americans,
The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly Republican home, so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now. You've lost me and you've lost most of America. Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I'd like to give you some advice and an invitation.
First, the invitation: Come back to us.
Now the advice. You're going to have to come up with a platform that isn't built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from your own; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more. But you have work to do even before you take on that task.
Your party -- the GOP -- and the conservative end of the American political spectrum have become irresponsible and irrational. Worse, it's tolerating, promoting and celebrating prejudice and hatred. Let me provide some examples -- by no means an exhaustive list -- of where the Right as gotten itself stuck in a swamp of hypocrisy, hyperbole, historical inaccuracy and hatred.
If you're going to regain your stature as a party of rational, responsible people, you'll have to start by draining this swamp:
Continue reading
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Obama signs health reform into law
I was at work during the signing, but thanks to the internet and CNN.com I was able to watch this historic moment. I work for a company that has a little over 60 employees, and while it pays a good wage, doesn't offer insurance. Thanks to this bill I may finally get coverage. (I live in Texas so there's a chance Perry and the Attorney General may try to keep me from getting it.)
Even if I don't get coverage many other Americans are going to benefit from this program. Part of the reason I'm a liberal, and vote Democratic, is due to the fact that it was Democratic programs that allowed me to attend college. It was the government helping me out, that allowed me to get a degree. Private loans cannot compare to Federal student loans (both sub & unsubsidized). It was the Hope credit that helped make it affordable. The fact I get to deduct my student loan interest from my taxes helps me. This is all that the government has done for me. Now here is what the government is going to do for you:
A list of some of the things that this Health care bill will do:
* This year, children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied health insurance coverage. Once the new health insurance exchanges begin in the coming years, pre-existing condition discrimination will become a thing of the past for everyone.
* This year, health care plans will allow young people to remain on their parents' insurance policy up until their 26th birthday.
* This year, insurance companies will be banned from dropping people from coverage when they get sick, and they will be banned from implementing lifetime caps on coverage. This year, restrictive annual limits on coverage will be banned for certain plans. Under health insurance reform, Americans will be ensured access to the care they need.
* This year, adults who are uninsured because of pre-existing conditions will have access to affordable insurance through a temporary subsidized high-risk pool.
* In the next fiscal year, the bill increases funding for community health centers, so they can treat nearly double the number of patients over the next five years.
* This year, we'll also establish an independent commission to advise on how best to build the health care workforce and increase the number of nurses, doctors and other professionals to meet our country's needs. Going forward, we will provide $1.5 billion in funding to support the next generation of doctors, nurses and other primary care practitioners -- on top of a $500 million investment from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Health insurance reform will also curb some of the worst insurance industry practices and strengthen consumer protections:
* This year, this bill creates a new, independent appeals process that ensures consumers in new private plans have access to an effective process to appeal decisions made by their insurer.
* This year, discrimination based on salary will be outlawed. New group health plans will be prohibited from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that discriminate in favor of higher-wage employees.
* Beginning this fiscal year, this bill provides funding to states to help establish offices of health insurance consumer assistance in order to help individuals in the process of filing complaints or appeals against insurance companies.
* Starting January 1, 2011, insurers in the individual and small group market will be required to spend 80 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Insurers in the large group market will be required to spend 85 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Any insurers who don't meet those thresholds will be required to provide rebates to their policyholders.
* Starting in 2011, this bill helps states require insurance companies to submit justification for requested premium increases. Any company with excessive or unjustified premium increases may not be able to participate in the new health insurance exchanges.
Reform immediately begins to lower health care costs for American families and small businesses:
* This year, small businesses that choose to offer coverage will begin to receive tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums to help make employee coverage more affordable.
* This year, new private plans will be required to provide free preventive care: no co-payments and no deductibles for preventive services. And beginning January 1, 2011, Medicare will do the same.
* This year, this bill will provide help for early retirees by creating a temporary re-insurance program to help offset the costs of expensive premiums for employers and retirees age 55-64.
* This year, this bill starts to close the Medicare Part D 'donut hole' by providing a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the gap in prescription drug coverage. And beginning in 2011, the bill institutes a 50% discount on prescription drugs in the 'donut hole.'
Source:
Nancy-Ann DeParle
Director, White House Office of Health Reform
It's not perfect but it's a start.
Even if I don't get coverage many other Americans are going to benefit from this program. Part of the reason I'm a liberal, and vote Democratic, is due to the fact that it was Democratic programs that allowed me to attend college. It was the government helping me out, that allowed me to get a degree. Private loans cannot compare to Federal student loans (both sub & unsubsidized). It was the Hope credit that helped make it affordable. The fact I get to deduct my student loan interest from my taxes helps me. This is all that the government has done for me. Now here is what the government is going to do for you:
A list of some of the things that this Health care bill will do:
* This year, children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied health insurance coverage. Once the new health insurance exchanges begin in the coming years, pre-existing condition discrimination will become a thing of the past for everyone.
* This year, health care plans will allow young people to remain on their parents' insurance policy up until their 26th birthday.
* This year, insurance companies will be banned from dropping people from coverage when they get sick, and they will be banned from implementing lifetime caps on coverage. This year, restrictive annual limits on coverage will be banned for certain plans. Under health insurance reform, Americans will be ensured access to the care they need.
* This year, adults who are uninsured because of pre-existing conditions will have access to affordable insurance through a temporary subsidized high-risk pool.
* In the next fiscal year, the bill increases funding for community health centers, so they can treat nearly double the number of patients over the next five years.
* This year, we'll also establish an independent commission to advise on how best to build the health care workforce and increase the number of nurses, doctors and other professionals to meet our country's needs. Going forward, we will provide $1.5 billion in funding to support the next generation of doctors, nurses and other primary care practitioners -- on top of a $500 million investment from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Health insurance reform will also curb some of the worst insurance industry practices and strengthen consumer protections:
* This year, this bill creates a new, independent appeals process that ensures consumers in new private plans have access to an effective process to appeal decisions made by their insurer.
* This year, discrimination based on salary will be outlawed. New group health plans will be prohibited from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that discriminate in favor of higher-wage employees.
* Beginning this fiscal year, this bill provides funding to states to help establish offices of health insurance consumer assistance in order to help individuals in the process of filing complaints or appeals against insurance companies.
* Starting January 1, 2011, insurers in the individual and small group market will be required to spend 80 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Insurers in the large group market will be required to spend 85 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Any insurers who don't meet those thresholds will be required to provide rebates to their policyholders.
* Starting in 2011, this bill helps states require insurance companies to submit justification for requested premium increases. Any company with excessive or unjustified premium increases may not be able to participate in the new health insurance exchanges.
Reform immediately begins to lower health care costs for American families and small businesses:
* This year, small businesses that choose to offer coverage will begin to receive tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums to help make employee coverage more affordable.
* This year, new private plans will be required to provide free preventive care: no co-payments and no deductibles for preventive services. And beginning January 1, 2011, Medicare will do the same.
* This year, this bill will provide help for early retirees by creating a temporary re-insurance program to help offset the costs of expensive premiums for employers and retirees age 55-64.
* This year, this bill starts to close the Medicare Part D 'donut hole' by providing a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the gap in prescription drug coverage. And beginning in 2011, the bill institutes a 50% discount on prescription drugs in the 'donut hole.'
Source:
Nancy-Ann DeParle
Director, White House Office of Health Reform
It's not perfect but it's a start.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Different ways of thinking
The first year of the Obama administration has been one of intense debate. There were debates on bailouts, the recovery act, health care, the war on terror and on and on. The problem is that there are two ways of thinking about problems: the scientific and the non-scientific. I use science because those are the two types of degrees you can get in college: a liberal arts or a science degree. (There are other degrees you can get, but they basically boil down to these.) It is those two types of degrees that shape the way you debate about issues.
The difference in these two ways of thinking is why there are never any solutions to our problems in Congress. I was watching a debate on the Daily show between Jon Stewart and Marc Thiessen on “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” (EIT). The problem with this debate is that Thiessen believes he’s right because he has evidence to support his argument. Stewart thinks he’s right because he has evidence to support his opposing argument. Well if there is evidence to support both arguments, then how can you tell who is right?
(In the interest of full disclosure I have a degree in Psychology, which is still considered a liberal art not a science)
In the liberal arts, such as history, literature, and the social sciences, arguments are made by finding evidence to support your argument. In a typical assignment you would present a thesis and then offer examples that support the thesis.
In the sciences, such as biology, physics and chemistry, you present a hypothesis and then attempt to disprove it. If you believe that x causes y then your hypothesis gains evidence if you show that x causes y. But that’s not where science stops. Science then tries to see if “w” causes y, or “g” causes y. If those things are also true, then what does it mean that x causes y? Only science approaches questions in this way.
Let’s take the enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT) argument. If EIT gets us intelligence that prevents attacks, that’s a good thing and you have evidence for your thesis. However, intelligence that prevents attacks has been gained without using EIT. So now the question is, do we need to use EIT?
In most discussions there isn’t a way to answer these questions because you can’t normally run experiments to prove these sorts of hypotheses. You can’t assign people to random groups of EIT and non-EIT. Unless you’re lucky (or unlucky) enough to have the federal government unofficially run the experiment for you. All we have to do is take all the intelligence that was gathered by both methods (and I do mean all, you can't pick and choose), have an independent group rate the data on how useful it was (use scientists with no interest in public policy), then compare the two. If it turns out that there was a 60/40 or 70/30 difference between the two methods of interrogation, then you have your answer.
That, unfortunately, would only be the beginning of the problem. Let’s say that it turns out that EIT is 70% more effective than non-EIT, should we use it? I ask this question, because the same question can be asked about stem-cell research. Using embryonic stem-cells is much more useful, than using adult stem cells. The difference is probably more than 70%, however most people who would support EIT would NOT support stem-cell research that uses embryonic stem-cells. Their argument is that using embryonic stem-cells may save lives, but it is morally wrong. People who are against EIT argue that it may yield results, but it is morally wrong also.
(Of course, if it turns out that you get more useful data using non-EIT, then there isn't really any debate to be had.)
So I guess all I really did was postpone the argument. We have a way of discovering the truth, but not whether it’s right or wrong (morally). At least if we knew what was true, then debating on whether it’s right or wrong would mean something.
The difference in these two ways of thinking is why there are never any solutions to our problems in Congress. I was watching a debate on the Daily show between Jon Stewart and Marc Thiessen on “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” (EIT). The problem with this debate is that Thiessen believes he’s right because he has evidence to support his argument. Stewart thinks he’s right because he has evidence to support his opposing argument. Well if there is evidence to support both arguments, then how can you tell who is right?
(In the interest of full disclosure I have a degree in Psychology, which is still considered a liberal art not a science)
In the liberal arts, such as history, literature, and the social sciences, arguments are made by finding evidence to support your argument. In a typical assignment you would present a thesis and then offer examples that support the thesis.
In the sciences, such as biology, physics and chemistry, you present a hypothesis and then attempt to disprove it. If you believe that x causes y then your hypothesis gains evidence if you show that x causes y. But that’s not where science stops. Science then tries to see if “w” causes y, or “g” causes y. If those things are also true, then what does it mean that x causes y? Only science approaches questions in this way.
Let’s take the enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT) argument. If EIT gets us intelligence that prevents attacks, that’s a good thing and you have evidence for your thesis. However, intelligence that prevents attacks has been gained without using EIT. So now the question is, do we need to use EIT?
In most discussions there isn’t a way to answer these questions because you can’t normally run experiments to prove these sorts of hypotheses. You can’t assign people to random groups of EIT and non-EIT. Unless you’re lucky (or unlucky) enough to have the federal government unofficially run the experiment for you. All we have to do is take all the intelligence that was gathered by both methods (and I do mean all, you can't pick and choose), have an independent group rate the data on how useful it was (use scientists with no interest in public policy), then compare the two. If it turns out that there was a 60/40 or 70/30 difference between the two methods of interrogation, then you have your answer.
That, unfortunately, would only be the beginning of the problem. Let’s say that it turns out that EIT is 70% more effective than non-EIT, should we use it? I ask this question, because the same question can be asked about stem-cell research. Using embryonic stem-cells is much more useful, than using adult stem cells. The difference is probably more than 70%, however most people who would support EIT would NOT support stem-cell research that uses embryonic stem-cells. Their argument is that using embryonic stem-cells may save lives, but it is morally wrong. People who are against EIT argue that it may yield results, but it is morally wrong also.
(Of course, if it turns out that you get more useful data using non-EIT, then there isn't really any debate to be had.)
So I guess all I really did was postpone the argument. We have a way of discovering the truth, but not whether it’s right or wrong (morally). At least if we knew what was true, then debating on whether it’s right or wrong would mean something.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Goes without saying
Democrats refuse to work with Republicans.
Democrats raise taxes.
Why do Republican’s get away with making these claims? Partly it’s because reporters don’t engage in debate with the people they’re interviewing (so they don’t seem biased), but is also because Republican’s (and Democrats) are speaking to their bases, their supporters. When speaking to people who agree with you, you don’t have to worry about facts. That’s seems like I’m calling them liars, what I mean is you don’t have to make your case because they already agree with you. Ones supporters accept as given something others would require evidence for, before they believed. “It goes without saying.”
If you believe in ghosts, then the door shutting on its own is proof that the house is haunted. If you don’t believe in ghosts, then the door shutting might be due to air pressure changes in the house, (like happens in my apartment) or any number of other reasons.
If you believe that Democrats like big government, then you probably don’t know that Clinton reduced the size of the federal government only to have George W. Bush increase it. If you believe that government can’t solve social problems then you ignore the civil rights movement, or the fact that social security and Medicaid have helped millions.
Whenever anyone makes a statement, and I mean anyone whether you agree with them or not, you should ask yourself, “is this true, or am I agreeing out of a preconceived notions?” Is this a fact or a belief? Be skeptical, but in the true sense of the word. A real skeptic accepts as facts ideas that have ample evidence for them. A skeptic doesn’t dismiss everything as opinion, but seeks to eliminate questions by finding more evidence. The more evidence for a position, the more likely it is to be right.
So when you say, “they’re all in the pocket of the corporations.” You’re wrong, and are part of the problem. Because as long as you spread the blame on every Senator and Representative, then those that are truly responsible will get away with their obstructionism and live to obstruct another day, while those who are trying to do the right thing get swept out of office because they were painted with the same broad brush as the obstructionist. When you don’t vote because you think your vote doesn’t count (another truism), the status quo wins. If everyone who disagreed with the way things are going now actually voted, things would change. That’s something that many in power would rather go without being said.
Democrats raise taxes.
Why do Republican’s get away with making these claims? Partly it’s because reporters don’t engage in debate with the people they’re interviewing (so they don’t seem biased), but is also because Republican’s (and Democrats) are speaking to their bases, their supporters. When speaking to people who agree with you, you don’t have to worry about facts. That’s seems like I’m calling them liars, what I mean is you don’t have to make your case because they already agree with you. Ones supporters accept as given something others would require evidence for, before they believed. “It goes without saying.”
If you believe in ghosts, then the door shutting on its own is proof that the house is haunted. If you don’t believe in ghosts, then the door shutting might be due to air pressure changes in the house, (like happens in my apartment) or any number of other reasons.
If you believe that Democrats like big government, then you probably don’t know that Clinton reduced the size of the federal government only to have George W. Bush increase it. If you believe that government can’t solve social problems then you ignore the civil rights movement, or the fact that social security and Medicaid have helped millions.
Whenever anyone makes a statement, and I mean anyone whether you agree with them or not, you should ask yourself, “is this true, or am I agreeing out of a preconceived notions?” Is this a fact or a belief? Be skeptical, but in the true sense of the word. A real skeptic accepts as facts ideas that have ample evidence for them. A skeptic doesn’t dismiss everything as opinion, but seeks to eliminate questions by finding more evidence. The more evidence for a position, the more likely it is to be right.
So when you say, “they’re all in the pocket of the corporations.” You’re wrong, and are part of the problem. Because as long as you spread the blame on every Senator and Representative, then those that are truly responsible will get away with their obstructionism and live to obstruct another day, while those who are trying to do the right thing get swept out of office because they were painted with the same broad brush as the obstructionist. When you don’t vote because you think your vote doesn’t count (another truism), the status quo wins. If everyone who disagreed with the way things are going now actually voted, things would change. That’s something that many in power would rather go without being said.
Monday, March 08, 2010
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
It's been fun watching Republicans talk about compromise as if it were a synonym for capitulation. Here's what happened with Health Care: Democrats had a 60 seat (if not vote) majority, but they still tried to put everything they could in the bill that Republicans would want and take out everything that Republicans would find even remotely offensive. After all this, the Republicans still claim that Democrats refuse to cooperate.
We could talk about how they get away with this sort of rhetoric, but that's a blog for a different day. What I want to talk about now is what compromise really means. Compromise is about two people making concessions to achieve a middle ground. Let's put it in simple terms that anyone can understand: let's say you have a group of people and they want to order a pizza. There are ten of you. 4 want supreme pizza, 3 want pepperoni, and 3 want veggie. What the Democrats did was forgo supreme pizza completely even though the majority wanted it. The democrats decided to order pizzas for everyone that was half pepperoni half veggie. The Republicans refuse to eat the pizza because they only want pepperoni, and now believe we should start ordering from scratch. That's not compromise, that's ... well being a child. Only children refuse to eat with others because they don't get what they want, and when you give in to them, still cry about the unfairness of it all.
When I see Eric Cantor or John Boehner talking about "starting with a clean sheet", i think of a child whining about having to share with others, and sad because they don't get to dictate how the game is played anymore. The sad part is that we as Democrats let them get away with this. I don't have children, but for those of you who do, how long would you allow your kids to get away with this sort of behavior? How long are we going to let Republicans get away with it?
We could talk about how they get away with this sort of rhetoric, but that's a blog for a different day. What I want to talk about now is what compromise really means. Compromise is about two people making concessions to achieve a middle ground. Let's put it in simple terms that anyone can understand: let's say you have a group of people and they want to order a pizza. There are ten of you. 4 want supreme pizza, 3 want pepperoni, and 3 want veggie. What the Democrats did was forgo supreme pizza completely even though the majority wanted it. The democrats decided to order pizzas for everyone that was half pepperoni half veggie. The Republicans refuse to eat the pizza because they only want pepperoni, and now believe we should start ordering from scratch. That's not compromise, that's ... well being a child. Only children refuse to eat with others because they don't get what they want, and when you give in to them, still cry about the unfairness of it all.
When I see Eric Cantor or John Boehner talking about "starting with a clean sheet", i think of a child whining about having to share with others, and sad because they don't get to dictate how the game is played anymore. The sad part is that we as Democrats let them get away with this. I don't have children, but for those of you who do, how long would you allow your kids to get away with this sort of behavior? How long are we going to let Republicans get away with it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)