I miss Keith O...
Countdown dissects the debt deal
Here's the link:
http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/special-comment-the-four-great-hypocrisies-of-the-debt-deal
Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
State of the Economy: Where's the Wealth?
When commenting on the state of the economy, someone close to me had this to say: People stay poor because they don't save their money or use it wisely. And penalizing the people who are responsible for their money, making them carry the burden [for the poor] is classism, bordering on socialism.
I was stunned. It was the second time in recent weeks I became painfully aware of the importance of history. Specifically this nugget of truth: when African Americans don't know their history, they leave themselves open to repeat it. That means their foundation in the present is shaky at best.
Most European Americans know a thing or two about English history. Before the film's opening credits they probably knew the Other Boylen Girl by name or could tell you that, while Elizabeth would soon be Queen, her beloved Dudley would never be King of England. After school many Jewish American children attend cultural studies to learn about their rich history.
But outside of Black History Month, Harriett Tubman and WEB Dubois, how many African Americans know the history behind why a disproportionate percentage of people of color remain in poverty?
For me, that statement about the poor may as well have indicted my father and his legacy. It was a slap in the face to everything he worked for all his life.
My dad was one of the wisest people I know. He was a military veteran, serving in World War II and the Korean war. He worked hard and saved virtually every nickel and dime he earned. He took pride in his home he invested in it for his family. He saved all his life and when I was old enough, he walked me and my piggy bank filled with weekly allowance straight to the nearest bank to open up a savings account.
But he couldn't save his way out of poverty. And no matter how comfortable our lives were, and how middle class we strived to be, the fact is that house he worked hard to make a home is smack in the middle of what is now a crime infested ghetto. The wealth he saved for all of his life barely makes a decent down payment in today's economy.
Poverty has little to do with who saves what. It has everything to do with who is denied opportunity and who isn't.
My dad didn't deserve to be refused housing in certain neighborhoods or to have the value of his home artificially kept low. He didn't deserve to be redlined out of his wealth.
But how to you explain this to someone who hasn't lived it firsthand? I was grateful to stumble across Tuesday's segment of the Rachel Maddow show, hosted by Melisssa Harris-Perry, which outlines why the new conservative talking point, that people are poor because they are careless with their money is not only not true, but also ignores the underlying issue of racism that is at the core of economic disparity in this country.
Use the link below if the video box doesn't appear.
The Rachel Maddow Show: US wealth gap reflects racism's legacy
Dr. Thomas Shapiro, the Pokross Professor of Law and Social Policy at Brandeis University, talks with TRMS guest host Melissa Harris-Perry about a new report showing a wider than ever wealth gap between whites and people of color.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/43904424#43904424
I was stunned. It was the second time in recent weeks I became painfully aware of the importance of history. Specifically this nugget of truth: when African Americans don't know their history, they leave themselves open to repeat it. That means their foundation in the present is shaky at best.
Most European Americans know a thing or two about English history. Before the film's opening credits they probably knew the Other Boylen Girl by name or could tell you that, while Elizabeth would soon be Queen, her beloved Dudley would never be King of England. After school many Jewish American children attend cultural studies to learn about their rich history.
But outside of Black History Month, Harriett Tubman and WEB Dubois, how many African Americans know the history behind why a disproportionate percentage of people of color remain in poverty?
For me, that statement about the poor may as well have indicted my father and his legacy. It was a slap in the face to everything he worked for all his life.
My dad was one of the wisest people I know. He was a military veteran, serving in World War II and the Korean war. He worked hard and saved virtually every nickel and dime he earned. He took pride in his home he invested in it for his family. He saved all his life and when I was old enough, he walked me and my piggy bank filled with weekly allowance straight to the nearest bank to open up a savings account.
But he couldn't save his way out of poverty. And no matter how comfortable our lives were, and how middle class we strived to be, the fact is that house he worked hard to make a home is smack in the middle of what is now a crime infested ghetto. The wealth he saved for all of his life barely makes a decent down payment in today's economy.
Poverty has little to do with who saves what. It has everything to do with who is denied opportunity and who isn't.
My dad didn't deserve to be refused housing in certain neighborhoods or to have the value of his home artificially kept low. He didn't deserve to be redlined out of his wealth.
But how to you explain this to someone who hasn't lived it firsthand? I was grateful to stumble across Tuesday's segment of the Rachel Maddow show, hosted by Melisssa Harris-Perry, which outlines why the new conservative talking point, that people are poor because they are careless with their money is not only not true, but also ignores the underlying issue of racism that is at the core of economic disparity in this country.
Use the link below if the video box doesn't appear.
The Rachel Maddow Show: US wealth gap reflects racism's legacy
Dr. Thomas Shapiro, the Pokross Professor of Law and Social Policy at Brandeis University, talks with TRMS guest host Melissa Harris-Perry about a new report showing a wider than ever wealth gap between whites and people of color.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/43904424#43904424
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Christian Science Monitor: The big lie is crumbling
Now that Rupert Murdoch's media empire is crumbling at the seams, it's a good time to dissect his propaganda machine. Fox News, specifically, is a dangerous outgrowth of rampant Republican fear mongering at the expense of people of color. While phone hacking is beyond outrageous, what's truly cause for concern are the abuses of power by New Corps, his media conglomerate, and the misinformation it thrusts onto the political debate.
President Obama was right in describing Fox as "destructive to [America's] long-term growth."
Of course spreading misleading and blatantly wrong information is nothing new. It was a pinnacle of the Hearst empire in the 50s and 60s. However, Hearst never had such global reach, nor the ability influence global markets with a bed of lies.
The Christian Science Monitor recently looked at President Obama's accomplishments contradicting some of the misinformation:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Walter-Rodgers/2011/0527/The-big-lie-that-Obama-can-t-lead-is-crumbling
President Obama was right in describing Fox as "destructive to [America's] long-term growth."
Of course spreading misleading and blatantly wrong information is nothing new. It was a pinnacle of the Hearst empire in the 50s and 60s. However, Hearst never had such global reach, nor the ability influence global markets with a bed of lies.
The Christian Science Monitor recently looked at President Obama's accomplishments contradicting some of the misinformation:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Walter-Rodgers/2011/0527/The-big-lie-that-Obama-can-t-lead-is-crumbling
Thursday, July 14, 2011
The Blame Game
Today I got a robo-call from Dick Morris, the conservative pollster and hooker patron, trying to "take America back" -- I guess from President Obama -- by buying his book in order to "make America great again." Forget the fact that the majority of Americans voted for Obama and still support him. The call went on to call the President an "idealog who rammed the deficit up to 14 trillion dollars by expanding government to likes never seen in American history. Really?
Unfortunately it's all a lie. I've been a conservative for years, but if the conservative ideals are worth fighting for, why do Republicans feel the need to lie to get others to support them?
The truth is adeptly told in this Washington Post article written by Lori Montgomery, Published: April 30. She writes:
"The nation’s unnerving descent into debt began a decade ago with a choice, not a crisis.
In January 2001, with the budget balanced and clear sailing ahead, the Congressional Budget Office forecast ever-larger annual surpluses indefinitely. The outlook was so rosy, the CBO said, that Washington would have enough money by the end of the decade to pay off everything it owed."
She goes on to do the simple math that sums up our deficit woes:
"Big-ticket spending initiated by the Bush administration accounts for 12 percent of the shift. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have added $1.3 trillion in new borrowing. A new prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients contributed another $272 billion. The Troubled Assets Relief Program bank bailout, which infuriated voters and led to the defeat of several legislators in 2010, added just $16 billion — and TARP may eventually cost nothing as financial institutions repay the Treasury."
And Obama?
"Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus, a favorite target of Republicans who blame Democrats for the mounting debt, has added — 6 percent of the total shift."
SIX PERCENT.
You can read it for yourself here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/running-in-the-red-how-the-us-on-the-road-to-surplus-detoured-to-massive-debt/2011/04/28/AFFU7rNF_story.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews
In the meantime, I have a great idea: Let's stop blaming President Obama for the enormous hole dug into the economy by the Bush tax cuts. In reality, if you cut billions of dollars worth of income out of the economy, you get exactly what we have today, a massive deficit.
Unfortunately it's all a lie. I've been a conservative for years, but if the conservative ideals are worth fighting for, why do Republicans feel the need to lie to get others to support them?
The truth is adeptly told in this Washington Post article written by Lori Montgomery, Published: April 30. She writes:
"The nation’s unnerving descent into debt began a decade ago with a choice, not a crisis.
In January 2001, with the budget balanced and clear sailing ahead, the Congressional Budget Office forecast ever-larger annual surpluses indefinitely. The outlook was so rosy, the CBO said, that Washington would have enough money by the end of the decade to pay off everything it owed."
She goes on to do the simple math that sums up our deficit woes:
"Big-ticket spending initiated by the Bush administration accounts for 12 percent of the shift. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have added $1.3 trillion in new borrowing. A new prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients contributed another $272 billion. The Troubled Assets Relief Program bank bailout, which infuriated voters and led to the defeat of several legislators in 2010, added just $16 billion — and TARP may eventually cost nothing as financial institutions repay the Treasury."
And Obama?
"Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus, a favorite target of Republicans who blame Democrats for the mounting debt, has added — 6 percent of the total shift."
SIX PERCENT.
You can read it for yourself here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/running-in-the-red-how-the-us-on-the-road-to-surplus-detoured-to-massive-debt/2011/04/28/AFFU7rNF_story.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews
In the meantime, I have a great idea: Let's stop blaming President Obama for the enormous hole dug into the economy by the Bush tax cuts. In reality, if you cut billions of dollars worth of income out of the economy, you get exactly what we have today, a massive deficit.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Top Ten Codewords from the Right-winged Playbook
It's important to understand the codewords the far-right uses in advertising, speeches and debates. The following top ten list serves as a reference guide for decyphering the real meaning behind Republican talking points.
1. Government Take-over. Any proposal that was thoroughly debated in the 2008 Presidential primary, and subsequently voted on and approved by the American electorate that manage to pass a Republican roadblock in Congress and be signed into law by the President of the United States… i.e. a law following the mandated will of the American electorate.
2. American. Anyone who supports far-right, conservative ideology. syn True American or True Patriot.
3. Patriot - A person who watches Fox News. 2. Anyone who stood with the Confederacy over the Union Army during the civil war. 3. Anyone not a person of color.
4. Nazi A derogatory term that should never be used to describe someone with whom you disagree -- unless they happen to be liberal or moderate. 2. Anyone who is not a Republican.
5. Partisan Politics. Any reasonable attempt to discuss issues and determine the best plan of action, especially if suggested by a Democrat.
6. Common Sense Solutions . 1. Any proposal put forth by a Republican that has already failed when tried previously. Also known as Reaganomics (80s), or supply-side economics. 2.Tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the population.
7. Unconstitutional. 1. Any Constitutional amendment except the second amendment. 2. Having to do with any of the Constitutional amendments and provisions as outlined in the Bill of Rights beyond the second amendment. Most often seen in issues involving the fourth, fifth and sixth amendements, which insure the right of due process for those facing legal action, protect Americans from illegal search and seizure and forbid cruel and unusual punishment. For example: forbiding protestors from bearing arms during a presidential rally merits outrage for being unconstitutional. No similar protests are warranted when people are wiretapped, detained without charges and tortured in secret detention camps .
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
1. Government Take-over. Any proposal that was thoroughly debated in the 2008 Presidential primary, and subsequently voted on and approved by the American electorate that manage to pass a Republican roadblock in Congress and be signed into law by the President of the United States… i.e. a law following the mandated will of the American electorate.
2. American. Anyone who supports far-right, conservative ideology. syn True American or True Patriot.
3. Patriot - A person who watches Fox News. 2. Anyone who stood with the Confederacy over the Union Army during the civil war. 3. Anyone not a person of color.
4. Nazi A derogatory term that should never be used to describe someone with whom you disagree -- unless they happen to be liberal or moderate. 2. Anyone who is not a Republican.
5. Partisan Politics. Any reasonable attempt to discuss issues and determine the best plan of action, especially if suggested by a Democrat.
6. Common Sense Solutions . 1. Any proposal put forth by a Republican that has already failed when tried previously. Also known as Reaganomics (80s), or supply-side economics. 2.Tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the population.
7. Unconstitutional. 1. Any Constitutional amendment except the second amendment. 2. Having to do with any of the Constitutional amendments and provisions as outlined in the Bill of Rights beyond the second amendment. Most often seen in issues involving the fourth, fifth and sixth amendements, which insure the right of due process for those facing legal action, protect Americans from illegal search and seizure and forbid cruel and unusual punishment. For example: forbiding protestors from bearing arms during a presidential rally merits outrage for being unconstitutional. No similar protests are warranted when people are wiretapped, detained without charges and tortured in secret detention camps .
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
Top Ten Codewords from the Right-wing Playbook
2. American. Anyone who supports far-right, conservative ideology. syn True American or True Patriot.
3. Patriot - A person who watches Fox News. 2. Anyone who stood with the Confederacy over the Union Army during the civil war. 3. Anyone not a person of color.
4. Nazi A derogatory term that should never be used to describe someone with whom you disagree -- unless they happen to be liberal or moderate. 2. Anyone who is not a Republican.
5. Partisan Politics. Any reasonable attempt to discuss issues and determine the best plan of action, especially if suggested by a Democrat.
6. Common Sense Solutions . 1. Any proposal put forth by a Republican that has already failed when tried previously. Also known as Reaganomics (80s), or supply-side economics. 2.Tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the population.
7. Unconstitutional. 1. Any Constitutional amendment except the second amendment. 2. Having to do with any of the Constitutional amendments and provisions as outlined in the Bill of Rights beyond the second amendment. Most often seen in issues involving the fourth, fifth and sixth amendements, which insure the right of due process for those facing legal action, protect Americans from illegal search and seizure and forbid cruel and unusual punishment. For example: forbiding protestors from bearing arms during a presidential rally merits outrage for being unconstitutional. No similar protests are warranted when people are wiretapped, detained without charges and tortured in secret detention camps .
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
3. Patriot - A person who watches Fox News. 2. Anyone who stood with the Confederacy over the Union Army during the civil war. 3. Anyone not a person of color.
4. Nazi A derogatory term that should never be used to describe someone with whom you disagree -- unless they happen to be liberal or moderate. 2. Anyone who is not a Republican.
5. Partisan Politics. Any reasonable attempt to discuss issues and determine the best plan of action, especially if suggested by a Democrat.
6. Common Sense Solutions . 1. Any proposal put forth by a Republican that has already failed when tried previously. Also known as Reaganomics (80s), or supply-side economics. 2.Tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the population.
7. Unconstitutional. 1. Any Constitutional amendment except the second amendment. 2. Having to do with any of the Constitutional amendments and provisions as outlined in the Bill of Rights beyond the second amendment. Most often seen in issues involving the fourth, fifth and sixth amendements, which insure the right of due process for those facing legal action, protect Americans from illegal search and seizure and forbid cruel and unusual punishment. For example: forbiding protestors from bearing arms during a presidential rally merits outrage for being unconstitutional. No similar protests are warranted when people are wiretapped, detained without charges and tortured in secret detention camps .
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Top Ten Code Words from the Right-winged Playbook
3. Patriot - A person who watches Fox News. 2. Anyone who stood with the Confederacy over the Union Army during the civil war. 3. Anyone not a person of color.
4. Nazi A derogatory term that should never be used to describe someone with whom you disagree -- unless they happen to be liberal or moderate. 2. Anyone who is not a Republican.
5. Partisan Politics. Any reasonable attempt to discuss issues and determine the best plan of action, especially if suggested by a Democrat.
6. Common Sense Solutions . 1. Any proposal put forth by a Republican that has already failed when tried previously. Also known as Reaganomics (80s), or supply-side economics. 2.Tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the population.
7. Unconstitutional. 1. Any Constitutional amendment except the second amendment. 2. Having to do with any of the Constitutional amendments and provisions as outlined in the Bill of Rights beyond the second amendment. Most often seen in issues involving the fourth, fifth and sixth amendements, which insure the right of due process for those facing legal action, protect Americans from illegal search and seizure and forbid cruel and unusual punishment. For example: forbiding protestors from bearing arms during a presidential rally merits outrage for being unconstitutional. No similar protests are warranted when people are wiretapped, detained without charges and tortured in secret detention camps .
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
4. Nazi A derogatory term that should never be used to describe someone with whom you disagree -- unless they happen to be liberal or moderate. 2. Anyone who is not a Republican.
5. Partisan Politics. Any reasonable attempt to discuss issues and determine the best plan of action, especially if suggested by a Democrat.
6. Common Sense Solutions . 1. Any proposal put forth by a Republican that has already failed when tried previously. Also known as Reaganomics (80s), or supply-side economics. 2.Tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the population.
7. Unconstitutional. 1. Any Constitutional amendment except the second amendment. 2. Having to do with any of the Constitutional amendments and provisions as outlined in the Bill of Rights beyond the second amendment. Most often seen in issues involving the fourth, fifth and sixth amendements, which insure the right of due process for those facing legal action, protect Americans from illegal search and seizure and forbid cruel and unusual punishment. For example: forbiding protestors from bearing arms during a presidential rally merits outrage for being unconstitutional. No similar protests are warranted when people are wiretapped, detained without charges and tortured in secret detention camps .
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Top Ten Codewords from the Republican Playbook
4. Nazi A derogatory term that should never be used to describe someone with whom you disagree -- unless they happen to be liberal or moderate. 2. Anyone who is not a Republican.
5. Partisan Politics. Any reasonable attempt to discuss issues and determine the best plan of action, especially if suggested by a Democrat.
6. Common Sense Solutions . 1. Any proposal put forth by a Republican that has already failed when tried previously. Also known as Reaganomics (80s), or supply-side economics. 2.Tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the population.
7. Unconstitutional. 1. Any Constitutional amendment except the second amendment. 2. Having to do with any of the Constitutional amendments and provisions as outlined in the Bill of Rights beyond the second amendment. Most often seen in issues involving the fourth, fifth and sixth amendements, which insure the right of due process for those facing legal action, protect Americans from illegal search and seizure and forbid cruel and unusual punishment. For example: forbiding protestors from bearing arms during a presidential rally merits outrage for being unconstitutional. No similar protests are warranted when people are wiretapped, detained without charges and tortured in secret detention camps .
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
5. Partisan Politics. Any reasonable attempt to discuss issues and determine the best plan of action, especially if suggested by a Democrat.
6. Common Sense Solutions . 1. Any proposal put forth by a Republican that has already failed when tried previously. Also known as Reaganomics (80s), or supply-side economics. 2.Tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the population.
7. Unconstitutional. 1. Any Constitutional amendment except the second amendment. 2. Having to do with any of the Constitutional amendments and provisions as outlined in the Bill of Rights beyond the second amendment. Most often seen in issues involving the fourth, fifth and sixth amendements, which insure the right of due process for those facing legal action, protect Americans from illegal search and seizure and forbid cruel and unusual punishment. For example: forbiding protestors from bearing arms during a presidential rally merits outrage for being unconstitutional. No similar protests are warranted when people are wiretapped, detained without charges and tortured in secret detention camps .
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Top Ten Codewords from the Republican Playbook
Coming into the mid-term election, it's important to understand the codewords the far-right tends to use in advertising, speeches and local debates. The following top ten list serves as a reference guide for decyphering the real meaning behind the Republican talking points.
6. Common Sense Solutions . 1. Any proposal put forth by a Republican that has already failed when tried previously. Also known as Reaganomics (80s), or supply-side economics. 2.Tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the population.
7. Unconstitutional. 1. Any Constitutional amendment except the second amendment. 2. Having to do with any of the Constitutional amendments and provisions as outlined in the Bill of Rights beyond the second amendment. Most often seen in issues involving the fourth, fifth and sixth amendements, which insure the right of due process for those facing legal action, protect Americans from illegal search and seizure and forbid cruel and unusual punishment. For example: forbiding protestors from bearing arms during a presidential rally merits outrage for being unconstitutional. No similar protests are warranted when people are wiretapped, detained without charges and tortured in secret detention camps .
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
6. Common Sense Solutions . 1. Any proposal put forth by a Republican that has already failed when tried previously. Also known as Reaganomics (80s), or supply-side economics. 2.Tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the population.
7. Unconstitutional. 1. Any Constitutional amendment except the second amendment. 2. Having to do with any of the Constitutional amendments and provisions as outlined in the Bill of Rights beyond the second amendment. Most often seen in issues involving the fourth, fifth and sixth amendements, which insure the right of due process for those facing legal action, protect Americans from illegal search and seizure and forbid cruel and unusual punishment. For example: forbiding protestors from bearing arms during a presidential rally merits outrage for being unconstitutional. No similar protests are warranted when people are wiretapped, detained without charges and tortured in secret detention camps .
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Top Ten Codewords from the RNC Playbook
Coming into the mid-term election, it's important to understand the codewords the far-right tends to use in advertising, speeches and local debates. The following top ten list serves as a reference guide for decyphering the real meaning behind the talking points.
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Top Ten Codewords from the RNC Playbook
Coming into the mid-term election, it's important to understand the codewords the far-right tends to use in advertising, speeches and local debates. The following top ten list serves as a reference guide for decyphering the real meaning behind the talking points.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Top Ten Codewords from the RNC Playbook
Coming into the mid-term election, it's important to understand the codewords the far-right tends to use in advertising, speeches and local debates. The following top ten list serves as a reference guide for decyphering the real meaning behind the talking points.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Questions for so-called Fiscal Conservatives
Dear Tea Party:
An extension of all the George W. Bush-era tax cuts would increase the federal debt by $4 trillion over the next decade. How can you claim you want to cut the deficit and still support extending the Bush tax cuts?
An extension of all the George W. Bush-era tax cuts would increase the federal debt by $4 trillion over the next decade. How can you claim you want to cut the deficit and still support extending the Bush tax cuts?
Sunday, September 26, 2010
So The Tea Party Wants to "Take Back America:" Dissecting the Sound Bites
Around the country, "Take Back America" is the rallying cry for thousands who align themselves with the Tea Party movement. Problem is they want to take the country away from the millions more in this country who already voted against their politics, policies and ideas.
Remember Joe, the Plumber? In the weeks before the election, then-candidate Obama debated Republican John McCain over ending Bush-era tax cuts for the richest 3 percent of Americans, i.e. people who make more than 250,000 a year.
We debated, debated and debated again. Obama advocated for going back to the tax rates of the Clinton administration. McCain, in contrast, advocated continuing the Bush tax breaks, which were set to expire this year. Other issues debated include health care reform and Wall Street oversight, particularly regulating the lending policies that created the financial meltdown.
In November 2008, people made their choice and spoke out by an overwhelming majority, by voting for President Obama.
Why then, in 2010 do Republicans now say the President is going against the will of the people? Or that a majority of Americans are against these policies? Why are issues the country overwhelmingly supports and already voted for still being debated and labeled controversial?
Reporting on the 2008 presidential campaign, NBC reported: | (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/10/18/4431760-will-the-real-virginia-please-stand-up)
Was it? Or was it an early glimmer of what would rise as the constant Republican strategy of positioning any Obama supporter, in fact any liberal voter as somehow "unAmerican" or even worse, "anti-American."
Unfortunately when Republicans say a majority of voters, they only mean a majority of Republican voters. The same innuendo holds for the word "patriot." Only Republicans are "true patriots."
The President aptly noted this effort to divide the country into good voters and bad voters during his 2004 Democratic National Committee speech focusing on separating the country into red and blue states.
Unfortunately there's more to Republican double-speak than meets the eye. This is even more true when one analyzes the rhetoric of the Tea Party.
Republicans claim they are "fiscal conservatives." The Tea Party ratchets this claim up a notch, by claiming not only to stand for fiscal responsibility, but also for constitutionally limited government and a free market.
Sounds good, doesn't it? But understanding the nuance behind the sound bite is the part many supporters and even TV pundits overlook.
Let's face it; everyone wants to keep government off our backs. But what does it really mean when Tea Party Republicans say it?
For the most part, smaller government means less government regulation. Historically speaking, under Republican administrations going back to Ronald Reagan, that means a rollback of government oversight of food safety, schools, energy and big business. Even the way we communicate with each other got a major overhaul.
What it means to you is government continuing to roll back regulatory provisions that keep big companies like say BP Oil, in check. That means expanding the types of policy that bought us the recent Gulf Oil disaster and massive food recalls - policies that make us less safe and secure in the end.
Stay tuned for more on how their term rolling back government and free market includes privatizing such popular programs as Medicare , Social Security and health care provided to Veterans through the Veterans Administration. I will spend a full column to illustrate how pervasive this philosophy is among the far right.
But now, back to the Tea Party. Try as they might, the Tea Party also wants you to think it's not partisan. Asked to define the movement on Sunday’s CBS Face the Nation, Tea Party candidate Marco Rubio states: “Washington is broken. Both parties are to blame.”
Ok. If that’s true why are Tea Party candidates only challenging moderate Republicans in the mid-term?
And what about fiscal responsibility?
Ken Buck, who calls himself the “grassroots choice for Colorado” further highlights the faulty thinking of Tea Party candidates. Also on Face the Nation this week, Buck claims to favor such "common-sense" solutions to our budget crisis as "Keeping [government] spending under control."
Buck states: “I think we need to look at some sort of constitutional balanced budget amendment -- or spending limit -- and some formula that keeps spending under control. We are clearly heading off a cliff. The Tea Party movement, the grassroots movement in Colorado, recognizes that Republicans are every bit as much to blame for where we are right now as Democrats. But we have to find some discipline from outside of Washington DC, and impose it on our Congress and executive branch.”
Sounds good right? Yet, when pressed, Buck announces he supports efforts to leave the Bush-era tax cuts in place, which are responsible for the bulk of the country's current budget imbalance. Buck says he favors tax cuts for all, even the most wealthy companies and individuals, i.e. the richest two percent of Americans.
He tells host Bob Schieffer: I don’t see it as tax cuts. They talk about extending the Bush tax cuts. We have a tax rate right now. Increasing that tax rate to me is a tax increase. Also, I think you have to look at where do families cut, if we don’t maintain our tax rates where they are right now? What do families have to give up in order to pay for government spending -- the overspending that’s going on -- in the federal government? I come down on the side of low taxes because I think it’s going to generate jobs in this economy.
Where do families cut? Brings to mind images of the average family, maybe even your family, who is struggling in this economy.
But remember we are really talking about people that make more than 250,000 a year, which is less than two percent of the entire population. Similarly deceptive in Republican-speak is "small business." On the right, small business is defined to encompass huge, privately-owned multi-billion dollar companies like Price Waterhouse and the Chicago Tribune. The Republican definition of the word even includes wealthy individuals who incorporate as a tax shelter, like some actors and athletics, and people like J. Howard Marshall, the wealthy hubby of Ana Nicole Smith.
Buck fails to acknowledge those temporary tax cuts for the wealthy that were passed by Bush in 2001 cut more dollars from the federal budget than the health care and stimulus packages combined. They were passed by the legislature as an effort by Bush to jump start the economy and create jobs.
Instead we lost jobs and we all know the economy tanked.
Real common sense recognizes if you have a balanced budget, then willingly cut more than half the income that supports it, you wind up with a debt crisis. That’s not called living beyond your means. That’s called deliberate sabotage. Is it no wonder our economy is in the toilet?
Earlier in the day, CBS Sunday morning ran an excellent overview on why the Bush tax cuts don't trickle down to help the middle class and in fact hurts job growth in this country. It’s a gamble that didn’t work, and one that has failed historically time and again.
Remember Joe, the Plumber? In the weeks before the election, then-candidate Obama debated Republican John McCain over ending Bush-era tax cuts for the richest 3 percent of Americans, i.e. people who make more than 250,000 a year.
We debated, debated and debated again. Obama advocated for going back to the tax rates of the Clinton administration. McCain, in contrast, advocated continuing the Bush tax breaks, which were set to expire this year. Other issues debated include health care reform and Wall Street oversight, particularly regulating the lending policies that created the financial meltdown.
In November 2008, people made their choice and spoke out by an overwhelming majority, by voting for President Obama.
Why then, in 2010 do Republicans now say the President is going against the will of the people? Or that a majority of Americans are against these policies? Why are issues the country overwhelmingly supports and already voted for still being debated and labeled controversial?
Reporting on the 2008 presidential campaign, NBC reported: | (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/10/18/4431760-will-the-real-virginia-please-stand-up)
It's no secret to native Virginians that the parts of the state inside the Washington DC beltway aren't representative of the entire Old Dominion. That's probably the point that McCain advisor Nancy Pfotenhauer was trying to make when she told NBC's Kevin Corke today that the northern and mostly suburban part of the state doesn't represent "real Virginia."
Was it? Or was it an early glimmer of what would rise as the constant Republican strategy of positioning any Obama supporter, in fact any liberal voter as somehow "unAmerican" or even worse, "anti-American."
Unfortunately when Republicans say a majority of voters, they only mean a majority of Republican voters. The same innuendo holds for the word "patriot." Only Republicans are "true patriots."
The President aptly noted this effort to divide the country into good voters and bad voters during his 2004 Democratic National Committee speech focusing on separating the country into red and blue states.
Unfortunately there's more to Republican double-speak than meets the eye. This is even more true when one analyzes the rhetoric of the Tea Party.
Republicans claim they are "fiscal conservatives." The Tea Party ratchets this claim up a notch, by claiming not only to stand for fiscal responsibility, but also for constitutionally limited government and a free market.
Sounds good, doesn't it? But understanding the nuance behind the sound bite is the part many supporters and even TV pundits overlook.
Let's face it; everyone wants to keep government off our backs. But what does it really mean when Tea Party Republicans say it?
For the most part, smaller government means less government regulation. Historically speaking, under Republican administrations going back to Ronald Reagan, that means a rollback of government oversight of food safety, schools, energy and big business. Even the way we communicate with each other got a major overhaul.
What it means to you is government continuing to roll back regulatory provisions that keep big companies like say BP Oil, in check. That means expanding the types of policy that bought us the recent Gulf Oil disaster and massive food recalls - policies that make us less safe and secure in the end.
Stay tuned for more on how their term rolling back government and free market includes privatizing such popular programs as Medicare , Social Security and health care provided to Veterans through the Veterans Administration. I will spend a full column to illustrate how pervasive this philosophy is among the far right.
But now, back to the Tea Party. Try as they might, the Tea Party also wants you to think it's not partisan. Asked to define the movement on Sunday’s CBS Face the Nation, Tea Party candidate Marco Rubio states: “Washington is broken. Both parties are to blame.”
Ok. If that’s true why are Tea Party candidates only challenging moderate Republicans in the mid-term?
And what about fiscal responsibility?
Ken Buck, who calls himself the “grassroots choice for Colorado” further highlights the faulty thinking of Tea Party candidates. Also on Face the Nation this week, Buck claims to favor such "common-sense" solutions to our budget crisis as "Keeping [government] spending under control."
Buck states: “I think we need to look at some sort of constitutional balanced budget amendment -- or spending limit -- and some formula that keeps spending under control. We are clearly heading off a cliff. The Tea Party movement, the grassroots movement in Colorado, recognizes that Republicans are every bit as much to blame for where we are right now as Democrats. But we have to find some discipline from outside of Washington DC, and impose it on our Congress and executive branch.”
Sounds good right? Yet, when pressed, Buck announces he supports efforts to leave the Bush-era tax cuts in place, which are responsible for the bulk of the country's current budget imbalance. Buck says he favors tax cuts for all, even the most wealthy companies and individuals, i.e. the richest two percent of Americans.
He tells host Bob Schieffer: I don’t see it as tax cuts. They talk about extending the Bush tax cuts. We have a tax rate right now. Increasing that tax rate to me is a tax increase. Also, I think you have to look at where do families cut, if we don’t maintain our tax rates where they are right now? What do families have to give up in order to pay for government spending -- the overspending that’s going on -- in the federal government? I come down on the side of low taxes because I think it’s going to generate jobs in this economy.
Where do families cut? Brings to mind images of the average family, maybe even your family, who is struggling in this economy.
But remember we are really talking about people that make more than 250,000 a year, which is less than two percent of the entire population. Similarly deceptive in Republican-speak is "small business." On the right, small business is defined to encompass huge, privately-owned multi-billion dollar companies like Price Waterhouse and the Chicago Tribune. The Republican definition of the word even includes wealthy individuals who incorporate as a tax shelter, like some actors and athletics, and people like J. Howard Marshall, the wealthy hubby of Ana Nicole Smith.
Buck fails to acknowledge those temporary tax cuts for the wealthy that were passed by Bush in 2001 cut more dollars from the federal budget than the health care and stimulus packages combined. They were passed by the legislature as an effort by Bush to jump start the economy and create jobs.
Instead we lost jobs and we all know the economy tanked.
Real common sense recognizes if you have a balanced budget, then willingly cut more than half the income that supports it, you wind up with a debt crisis. That’s not called living beyond your means. That’s called deliberate sabotage. Is it no wonder our economy is in the toilet?
Earlier in the day, CBS Sunday morning ran an excellent overview on why the Bush tax cuts don't trickle down to help the middle class and in fact hurts job growth in this country. It’s a gamble that didn’t work, and one that has failed historically time and again.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Fear of "the Other." The Religious Right Wraps Bigotry in the Guise of Christianity
CULTURAL DIVERSITY: Keith Olbermann and Michael Eric Dyson from Georgetown University call the religious right to the carpet for their bigoted, un-Christian and un-charitable attitudes toward President Obama, who is a Christian.
The pair discussed the recent CNN appearance by Franklin Graham, the son of evangelist Billy Graham who was uninvited from the National Prayer Breakfast for his less-than-charitable attitudes towards people of other faiths, specifically Muslims.
Graham was speaking on speculation about the President's faith, specifically if Mr. Obama was secretly Muslim. Mr. Grahams observations were exceedingly troubling, filled with nonsensical, repugnant references to the "seed" of the President's father, who was an atheist.
Shades of Rosemary's Baby and the "Demon Seed." Franklin's father Billy was exposed as virulently anti-Semitic. Does that say something about inherited "seed?"
Some of the more poignant thoughts from Dyson:
More from Dyson:
And later:
Finally, what probably amounts to the most profound statement regarding who is or is not Christian, at least for me:
Featured Newsclip. August 20: Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham spews his anti-christian venom on CNN.
Here's the direct link, in case the video segment doesn't appear on your screen | http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/38793108%2338793108
The pair discussed the recent CNN appearance by Franklin Graham, the son of evangelist Billy Graham who was uninvited from the National Prayer Breakfast for his less-than-charitable attitudes towards people of other faiths, specifically Muslims.
Graham was speaking on speculation about the President's faith, specifically if Mr. Obama was secretly Muslim. Mr. Grahams observations were exceedingly troubling, filled with nonsensical, repugnant references to the "seed" of the President's father, who was an atheist.
Shades of Rosemary's Baby and the "Demon Seed." Franklin's father Billy was exposed as virulently anti-Semitic. Does that say something about inherited "seed?"
Some of the more poignant thoughts from Dyson:
The racial subtext here can't be ignored. We're trying to "otherize" him....The jumble of epitaphs that are being hurled with lethal intensity against Mr. Obama are nothing but the made-over bigotry of people trying to find new-fangled ways to dress up old-fangled bigotry.
More from Dyson:
Mr. Graham is on horrible ground here. If we're looking at people's Christianity the Bible tells us to "judge them by their fruit.' We don't want to get into slinging accusations about who is Christian and who is not.
And later:
The President is fighting an uphill battle. He's got racial issues, he's got religious issues, he's got issues of American citizenship.
Finally, what probably amounts to the most profound statement regarding who is or is not Christian, at least for me:
Another way [to fight the bigotry] is for members of religious communities, of Christian communities, to step out on their faith and say look, let's top haranguing this man,' let's stop berating him...Jesus said a lot of people who call my name will not ultimately be in the kingdom with me. So it's not what you say out of your mouth it's what you perform in your heart....I can't discern any credible connection between the God I worship, who is about justice and mercy and truth and love, and the judgmental, harshly indifferent to the plight of the poor God that Mr. Graham seems to worship. I'd rather be with those who perform the realities of the faith, than who simply claim it out of their mouths.
Featured Newsclip. August 20: Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham spews his anti-christian venom on CNN.
Visit msnbc.com for a direct link to this segment, other world news, and provocative discussion about today's toxic political environment
Here's the direct link, in case the video segment doesn't appear on your screen | http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/38793108%2338793108
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Jeff Neuman-Lee: Fighting for Peace in the Current American Civil War
A friend passed on this article to me and I'm reposting it largely because I think it summarizes my feelings on the right-wing hate-filled misinformation campaign currently sweeping the country. Here's why:
When I hear the radical right use deliberately provocative language, i.e. "death panels" and "Armageddon," to describe a perfectly reasonable point of view, or label someone who happens to disagree as "confused" or "un-American" or "un-Patriotic," or refer to our duly elected government and its officials as "Hitler" or "Nazi" or "the Regime" --- it makes me cringe. Now, with zealous abandon, any disagreement with GOP can and will be met by a personal attack.
If childhood bullying is on the up-swing, we need only look as far as the antics of the Republican party as the reason.
And it didn't start with George W Bush and his infamous "you're either with us or against us" ideology. For the last 20 years or so, the GOP has resorted to fear-mongering and hate speech to attack people it disliked.
It started with the push to impeach Bill Clinton, who incidentally, I didn't vote for and whose policies I disagreed with for most of his time in office.
When Hillary spoke of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy," many laughed. But I knew exactly what she was referring to. The Right attacked the Clintons with such a ferocity, it prompted some in the Black community to refer to Bill as the first "Black President" more due the manner in which Clinton was treated than for any affinity with him as a sympathizer of issues of relevance to African Americans.
Polls show most of the American people were against trying to impeach a sitting President for what amounted to personal issues of morality. While most didn't like what Clinton did, they felt that was best dealt with between the Clintons. Most felt a marital affair did not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" against the country. Yet the Right insisted the country push on with a public spectacle of an impeachment hearing.
Soon anyone that challenged the Republican misinformation machine wound up targeted in some way, largely by hateful name-calling or some lie created about them - think John Kerry and the Swift boat incident.
Now we're in the middle of a war - a bitter war between the right and the left -- in a battle built largely by right-winged media strategists and their unethical use of misinformation and highly emotional words chosen more for their impact than their honest portrayal of the subject at hand. Now instead of legislators, the radical right has become a hate-mongering lie-machine, a tool of Republican pollster Frank Luntz, and his highly researched wordsmithing designed to incite more anger than it describes any real issue.
As a media person, I see clearly how we got here. What is less clear is how we can ever hope to get out, without some legal regulation of not only the broadcast industry but also the public relations profession. Both the article and its link are posted below:
Jeff Neuman-Lee: Fighting for Peace in the Current American Civil War
Fromt he Huffington Post : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-neumanlee/fighting-for-peace-in-the_b_549605.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=647059,b=facebook
Fighting for Peace in the Current American Civil War
I get mad, just like anyone else, when I see lies, distortions, and simple obstruction. The other night I watched Rachel Maddow report on the real, uncensored video from the ACORN case in California. Looks like the folks who lost their jobs because of this were actually doing their jobs; the videos were presented by FOX News in such a way as to bear false witness against them, charging them with encouraging child prostitution. FOX, as a shill for the my-money-is-more- important-than-humans-crowd, holds prime responsibility for this "bearing false witness" (Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:20).
It's not the only incidence, of course. When the self-proclaimed clown Glenn Beck calls my kind of faith a communistic, Nazi faith because I see the Biblical undergirding of what is loosely known as "social justice"; when I hear the formerly esteemed Charles Grassley of Iowa blatantly lie about "death panels" and killing Grandma; when I see the unprepared, off-the-cuff, divisive Sarah Palin given any sort of regular public pulpit; when I hear obvious lies about the efficacy of government as though it is not part of the "real" economy and automatically corrupts anyone ever engaging with it; when I hear Beck's ahistorical diatribes that miseducate uneducated and ahistorical people; when the outrage of calling creationism in any form "scientific"...
Well I could go on. I've let myself be mad.
And it has a corrosive effect on us all. It's divisive in the worst way: the intent is not to find truth together, but to subjugate some to other's will. Controversy and conflict are normal and good, but the folks who have been creating this division offer no way out of this other than the rest of us to resign in conformity to their ideas. It's pretty clear that they want to win and dominate me, and that makes me want to win! But I don't want to be like that; getting others to be in lockstep with my ideas is not my sort of victory.
However, I would be glad if both of us could use the same sort of open, empirical, and dialogical process I admire. But the real battleground may be over the process. It adds up to the effect that they don't want to (or perhaps don't understand how to) have a conversation, a real conversation, because even if I listen and change my mind about some position or another that they like, I still win by having the conversation with them.
A second, obvious corrosive effect of all this division is that it confuses and exhausts a lot of people. So many people who would be part of a real conversation allow themselves to get discouraged and drop out. Which is great for the my-money-is-more-important-than-humans-crowd because the main constraint on them is people who recognize that money has limited importance and who simply are themselves and engage the world. If we get discouraged, we acquiesce to the money power. They are glad when we drop out.
It feels like war. The problems seem so intractable. It seems so very us-against-them. And the stakes are so high. There are real winners and losers. People die in this undeclared war; from soldiers and the tens of thousands of innocents in the war of choice in Iraq to the poor who lived below the levies or had no building codes when the earthquake hit or had no insurance when it was time to take the tests. Tell the victims that this is not war. Tell those who jobs evaporate in the wake of class war-fare waged from the top this is not a war.
But there I go again, I got mad. I have a problem with just getting mad. It solves nothing and we have really enormous problems to be solved. The pressures of population on resources and pollution by themselves threaten to break any hope of a world where all men and women are equal in respect and opportunity. These pressures could even break down civilization and lead to a massive die-off.
So how do we be at peace with our enemies? Jesus calls us to love our enemies. It's been done so little by the people who call themselves Jesus' church, but we are not without models or people who today take this admonition seriously. Still, it has been taken as utopian or impossible or truly impractical.
However, consider these political and cultural leaders whose successes are legendary and whose sentiments clearly reflect Jesus' call to love the enemy:
"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" Lincoln.
"Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend." King.
"It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business." Gandhi.
An interesting selection of men. All three faced horrifying injustice inflicted on their
neighbors, if not themselves. One, Lincoln, uses violence and gets caught up in an unforeseen maelstrom; the other two intentionally provoke violence. Their attempts to make friends of enemies kills them all. Yet, all three wind up furthering the progressive liberation of humanity.
How do we make peace in times like this? This is the question I raise to anyone who might push the Huffington Post religion button. I hope we ask the basic questions. I hope that we refrain from jumping to conclusions before we ask and listen. No matter our background, we each will move back and forth from our different metaphors to the actual physical ground. I doubt we all will agree. I can't even imagine that we would even fully understand each other. But I think that we all can be encouraged to the very necessary work of making peace in this time of the continuing American Civil War
When I hear the radical right use deliberately provocative language, i.e. "death panels" and "Armageddon," to describe a perfectly reasonable point of view, or label someone who happens to disagree as "confused" or "un-American" or "un-Patriotic," or refer to our duly elected government and its officials as "Hitler" or "Nazi" or "the Regime" --- it makes me cringe. Now, with zealous abandon, any disagreement with GOP can and will be met by a personal attack.
If childhood bullying is on the up-swing, we need only look as far as the antics of the Republican party as the reason.
And it didn't start with George W Bush and his infamous "you're either with us or against us" ideology. For the last 20 years or so, the GOP has resorted to fear-mongering and hate speech to attack people it disliked.
It started with the push to impeach Bill Clinton, who incidentally, I didn't vote for and whose policies I disagreed with for most of his time in office.
When Hillary spoke of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy," many laughed. But I knew exactly what she was referring to. The Right attacked the Clintons with such a ferocity, it prompted some in the Black community to refer to Bill as the first "Black President" more due the manner in which Clinton was treated than for any affinity with him as a sympathizer of issues of relevance to African Americans.
Polls show most of the American people were against trying to impeach a sitting President for what amounted to personal issues of morality. While most didn't like what Clinton did, they felt that was best dealt with between the Clintons. Most felt a marital affair did not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" against the country. Yet the Right insisted the country push on with a public spectacle of an impeachment hearing.
Soon anyone that challenged the Republican misinformation machine wound up targeted in some way, largely by hateful name-calling or some lie created about them - think John Kerry and the Swift boat incident.
Now we're in the middle of a war - a bitter war between the right and the left -- in a battle built largely by right-winged media strategists and their unethical use of misinformation and highly emotional words chosen more for their impact than their honest portrayal of the subject at hand. Now instead of legislators, the radical right has become a hate-mongering lie-machine, a tool of Republican pollster Frank Luntz, and his highly researched wordsmithing designed to incite more anger than it describes any real issue.
As a media person, I see clearly how we got here. What is less clear is how we can ever hope to get out, without some legal regulation of not only the broadcast industry but also the public relations profession. Both the article and its link are posted below:
Jeff Neuman-Lee: Fighting for Peace in the Current American Civil War
Fromt he Huffington Post : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-neumanlee/fighting-for-peace-in-the_b_549605.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=647059,b=facebook
Fighting for Peace in the Current American Civil War
I get mad, just like anyone else, when I see lies, distortions, and simple obstruction. The other night I watched Rachel Maddow report on the real, uncensored video from the ACORN case in California. Looks like the folks who lost their jobs because of this were actually doing their jobs; the videos were presented by FOX News in such a way as to bear false witness against them, charging them with encouraging child prostitution. FOX, as a shill for the my-money-is-more- important-than-humans-crowd, holds prime responsibility for this "bearing false witness" (Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:20).
It's not the only incidence, of course. When the self-proclaimed clown Glenn Beck calls my kind of faith a communistic, Nazi faith because I see the Biblical undergirding of what is loosely known as "social justice"; when I hear the formerly esteemed Charles Grassley of Iowa blatantly lie about "death panels" and killing Grandma; when I see the unprepared, off-the-cuff, divisive Sarah Palin given any sort of regular public pulpit; when I hear obvious lies about the efficacy of government as though it is not part of the "real" economy and automatically corrupts anyone ever engaging with it; when I hear Beck's ahistorical diatribes that miseducate uneducated and ahistorical people; when the outrage of calling creationism in any form "scientific"...
Well I could go on. I've let myself be mad.
And it has a corrosive effect on us all. It's divisive in the worst way: the intent is not to find truth together, but to subjugate some to other's will. Controversy and conflict are normal and good, but the folks who have been creating this division offer no way out of this other than the rest of us to resign in conformity to their ideas. It's pretty clear that they want to win and dominate me, and that makes me want to win! But I don't want to be like that; getting others to be in lockstep with my ideas is not my sort of victory.
However, I would be glad if both of us could use the same sort of open, empirical, and dialogical process I admire. But the real battleground may be over the process. It adds up to the effect that they don't want to (or perhaps don't understand how to) have a conversation, a real conversation, because even if I listen and change my mind about some position or another that they like, I still win by having the conversation with them.
A second, obvious corrosive effect of all this division is that it confuses and exhausts a lot of people. So many people who would be part of a real conversation allow themselves to get discouraged and drop out. Which is great for the my-money-is-more-important-than-humans-crowd because the main constraint on them is people who recognize that money has limited importance and who simply are themselves and engage the world. If we get discouraged, we acquiesce to the money power. They are glad when we drop out.
It feels like war. The problems seem so intractable. It seems so very us-against-them. And the stakes are so high. There are real winners and losers. People die in this undeclared war; from soldiers and the tens of thousands of innocents in the war of choice in Iraq to the poor who lived below the levies or had no building codes when the earthquake hit or had no insurance when it was time to take the tests. Tell the victims that this is not war. Tell those who jobs evaporate in the wake of class war-fare waged from the top this is not a war.
But there I go again, I got mad. I have a problem with just getting mad. It solves nothing and we have really enormous problems to be solved. The pressures of population on resources and pollution by themselves threaten to break any hope of a world where all men and women are equal in respect and opportunity. These pressures could even break down civilization and lead to a massive die-off.
So how do we be at peace with our enemies? Jesus calls us to love our enemies. It's been done so little by the people who call themselves Jesus' church, but we are not without models or people who today take this admonition seriously. Still, it has been taken as utopian or impossible or truly impractical.
However, consider these political and cultural leaders whose successes are legendary and whose sentiments clearly reflect Jesus' call to love the enemy:
"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" Lincoln.
"Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend." King.
"It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business." Gandhi.
An interesting selection of men. All three faced horrifying injustice inflicted on their
neighbors, if not themselves. One, Lincoln, uses violence and gets caught up in an unforeseen maelstrom; the other two intentionally provoke violence. Their attempts to make friends of enemies kills them all. Yet, all three wind up furthering the progressive liberation of humanity.
How do we make peace in times like this? This is the question I raise to anyone who might push the Huffington Post religion button. I hope we ask the basic questions. I hope that we refrain from jumping to conclusions before we ask and listen. No matter our background, we each will move back and forth from our different metaphors to the actual physical ground. I doubt we all will agree. I can't even imagine that we would even fully understand each other. But I think that we all can be encouraged to the very necessary work of making peace in this time of the continuing American Civil War
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Guest Blog: “Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black” – Tim Wise « Don't Tea on Me
A friend sent a copy of a recent blog written by Tim Wise, the prominent anti-racism trainer and facilitator who has spoken on over hundreds of college campuses and to community groups across the country. In addition to the link, I'm posting his message in its entirety.
Guest Blog: “Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black” – Tim Wise « Don't Tea on Me
On Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-wise/imagine-protest-insurgency-and-the-workings-of-white-privilege/10150151948920459
“Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black” – Tim Wise
Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure – the ones who are driving the action – we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.
So let’s begin.
Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protesters — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.
Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.
Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.
Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister — who also works for the organization — defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America’s Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.
Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.
Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.
Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.
Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.
Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”
Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.
In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?
To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.
And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.
Guest Blog: “Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black” – Tim Wise « Don't Tea on Me
On Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-wise/imagine-protest-insurgency-and-the-workings-of-white-privilege/10150151948920459
“Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black” – Tim Wise
Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure – the ones who are driving the action – we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.
So let’s begin.
Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protesters — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.
Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.
Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.
Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister — who also works for the organization — defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America’s Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.
Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.
Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.
Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.
Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.
Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”
Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.
In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?
To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.
And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Why the Public is Genuinely Confused About Health Care Reform
The principle foundation of a democracy relies on an informed electorate. But the true bastions of that democracy, a free and impartial press, lately have been consistently sleeping on the job. Consider this: today, Alan Fram of the Associated Press writes the following:
Seldom used? Health Care reform has traditionally been shaped by reconciliation in this country. COBRA was created by reconciliation, which is what the "R" in the acronym stands for. So was S-CHIP. And to make things worse, this simple sentence suggests that a simple majority vote represents some sort of unsavory legislative tactic, as opposed to the normal way the senate has operated for centuries. Is it little wonder that "polls [show] that some voters consider the process unfair"?
Truth is majority rule is normal. The Reconciliation process is also normal. MSNBCs Rachel Maddow outlines its use over the past 28 years.
Rachel Maddow Feb 24
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35573155
Out of 22 times reconciliation has been used in recent years, 16 of those times they were used by Republicans to strong-arm their efforts through Congress. Now they claim the process is seldom used. Seldom used by whom? Democrats? Where is the fact-checking here? Why did such a blatantly false comment so blithely slip past the Associated Press without question?
What is new is how Republican lawmakers have hijacked the filibuster, virtually bringing the legislative process to a standstill. Maybe I missed it, but did Mr. Fram simlarly condemn this process, which truly isn't normal?
Rachel Maddow (MSNBC): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35359330
There was a time when truth took precedence and facts mattered. A time when we didn't justify repeating or reporting blatantly false information by blaming the source. And we didn't go back to a source who consistently provided erroneous information.
More than 200 bills are currently bogged down in the Senate, held hostage by Republican filibusters. Bills that would help families who are facing foreclosure or that would help create jobs. Where are the stories about how the entire legislative process has come to a standstill, making it virtually impossible to pass simple legislation with a clear majority vote. Where are the investigative, in-depth stories about that?
Rachel Maddow (Feb 23): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35551900
When the President announced his plans for a health care summit to bring both Democrats and Republicans to the table for a substantive discussion on health care reform he expressed optimism that Republicans truly cared about this country, as opposed to just scoring political points. It was a genuine opportunity for both sides to "roll up their sleeves" and get to down to real work on real issues and come to a common understanding.
But as you can see from these before and after clips, Republicans used the opportunity for "more of the same."
Do you really call this patriotism?
Hardball with Chris Matthews (Feb 25) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#35594811
Republicans seem quick to claim they care about this country and about what Americans want. They claim the overwhelming majority of the country who voted for the President and who support health care reform aren't "real Americans." Yet, they spread misinformation routinely that seldom gets challenged in any meaningful way by the press. Case in point: All the brouhaha over carrying the health care debate on C-Span.
John McCain made a point blaming the President for not showing the health care debate on C-Span, as if the President has any choice about what C-Span does or does not air. Anyone who follows C-Span knows that the debate over health care has been part of their coverage as a normal part of what they cover every day. Just because there was no one single "show" that exclusively focused on health care doesn't mean it hasn't been on the air, and has been on the air since the bill was introduced last year through passing both House and Senate. What hasn't been on C-Span is the part that C-Span never covers, efforts after a bill has passed both chambers of the house.
What McCain didn't mention was all the amendments to the existing health care bill that were made to adopt his own recommendations.
The White House currently lists all the amendments to the original health care proposal taken from suggestions made by Republicans. So much for trying to force legislation through with no no-bipartisanship.
So what's next? It's time to move forward. The Health Care summit showed clearly that the Republican party has no interest in making legislation or listening to the majority of the American people. Their only goal seemingly is to completely thwart and circumvent the legislative process.
Hardball with Chris Matthews (Feb 26): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#35611531
The Democrats seem ready to use "reconciliation," a seldom-used procedure that could let them push legislation through the Senate with a simple majority. Republicans say reconciliation should be used for budget changes, not a dramatic reshaping of national health care policy. With polls showing that some voters consider the process unfair, some moderate Democrats have expressed a reluctance to support it. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., said Friday she will be a "definite no" if it is used.
Seldom used? Health Care reform has traditionally been shaped by reconciliation in this country. COBRA was created by reconciliation, which is what the "R" in the acronym stands for. So was S-CHIP. And to make things worse, this simple sentence suggests that a simple majority vote represents some sort of unsavory legislative tactic, as opposed to the normal way the senate has operated for centuries. Is it little wonder that "polls [show] that some voters consider the process unfair"?
Truth is majority rule is normal. The Reconciliation process is also normal. MSNBCs Rachel Maddow outlines its use over the past 28 years.
Rachel Maddow Feb 24
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35573155
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Out of 22 times reconciliation has been used in recent years, 16 of those times they were used by Republicans to strong-arm their efforts through Congress. Now they claim the process is seldom used. Seldom used by whom? Democrats? Where is the fact-checking here? Why did such a blatantly false comment so blithely slip past the Associated Press without question?
What is new is how Republican lawmakers have hijacked the filibuster, virtually bringing the legislative process to a standstill. Maybe I missed it, but did Mr. Fram simlarly condemn this process, which truly isn't normal?
Rachel Maddow (MSNBC): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35359330
Watch the Rachel Maddow Show for fair, impartial analysis of world news and health care reform.
There was a time when truth took precedence and facts mattered. A time when we didn't justify repeating or reporting blatantly false information by blaming the source. And we didn't go back to a source who consistently provided erroneous information.
More than 200 bills are currently bogged down in the Senate, held hostage by Republican filibusters. Bills that would help families who are facing foreclosure or that would help create jobs. Where are the stories about how the entire legislative process has come to a standstill, making it virtually impossible to pass simple legislation with a clear majority vote. Where are the investigative, in-depth stories about that?
Rachel Maddow (Feb 23): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35551900
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
When the President announced his plans for a health care summit to bring both Democrats and Republicans to the table for a substantive discussion on health care reform he expressed optimism that Republicans truly cared about this country, as opposed to just scoring political points. It was a genuine opportunity for both sides to "roll up their sleeves" and get to down to real work on real issues and come to a common understanding.
But as you can see from these before and after clips, Republicans used the opportunity for "more of the same."
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Do you really call this patriotism?
Hardball with Chris Matthews (Feb 25) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#35594811
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Republicans seem quick to claim they care about this country and about what Americans want. They claim the overwhelming majority of the country who voted for the President and who support health care reform aren't "real Americans." Yet, they spread misinformation routinely that seldom gets challenged in any meaningful way by the press. Case in point: All the brouhaha over carrying the health care debate on C-Span.
John McCain made a point blaming the President for not showing the health care debate on C-Span, as if the President has any choice about what C-Span does or does not air. Anyone who follows C-Span knows that the debate over health care has been part of their coverage as a normal part of what they cover every day. Just because there was no one single "show" that exclusively focused on health care doesn't mean it hasn't been on the air, and has been on the air since the bill was introduced last year through passing both House and Senate. What hasn't been on C-Span is the part that C-Span never covers, efforts after a bill has passed both chambers of the house.
What McCain didn't mention was all the amendments to the existing health care bill that were made to adopt his own recommendations.
The White House currently lists all the amendments to the original health care proposal taken from suggestions made by Republicans. So much for trying to force legislation through with no no-bipartisanship.
So what's next? It's time to move forward. The Health Care summit showed clearly that the Republican party has no interest in making legislation or listening to the majority of the American people. Their only goal seemingly is to completely thwart and circumvent the legislative process.
Hardball with Chris Matthews (Feb 26): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#35611531
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Speaking Truth to Talking Point - Rachel Maddow Fact Checks Right
Rachel Maddow fact checks the right-wing's "blame the Democrats" philosophy on her February 18 show on MSNBC.
Rachel Maddow Show (air date 2/182010)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35470419
Rachel Maddow Show (air date 2/182010)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35470419
Watch the Rachel Maddow Show for fair and impartial analysis of world news, and news about health care reform
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Simple Fact-checking Unearths a Host of Right-winged (t)error-mongering
Benjamin Franklin said it best: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Fear is no excuse for dismantling the very constitution on which this nation was founded. Yet, once again the radical right tries to use the public's genuine fear of terrorism for its own political gain ad as an excuse to dismantle the U.S. Constitution.
This time, Repuplican leaders play fast and loose with the facts surrounding the capture of the so-called Christmas Day bomber. And if you listen closely you'll hear the same erroneous charge made by Sarah Palin, during her address to the Tea Party Patriots.
Here's the clip from the Rachel Maddow show:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35227215
How is it that the Constitutional right to "lawyer up" gets mocked as a bad idea by the radical right? Wouldn't "true patriots" want to uphold the Constitution?
Yet despite the scare tactics and misinformation, the fact remains using legal, U.S. Constitution mandated tactics, the FBI obtained credible leads from the apprehended terror suspect -- without resorting to torture or any other illegal means. Our principles of justice, once again, withstands the test.
This is just one in a string of examples of how the radical right is trying to destroy the principles on which U.S. was founded, while blaming its demise on the those trying to uphold it.
Fear is no excuse for dismantling the very constitution on which this nation was founded. Yet, once again the radical right tries to use the public's genuine fear of terrorism for its own political gain ad as an excuse to dismantle the U.S. Constitution.
This time, Repuplican leaders play fast and loose with the facts surrounding the capture of the so-called Christmas Day bomber. And if you listen closely you'll hear the same erroneous charge made by Sarah Palin, during her address to the Tea Party Patriots.
Here's the clip from the Rachel Maddow show:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35227215
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
How is it that the Constitutional right to "lawyer up" gets mocked as a bad idea by the radical right? Wouldn't "true patriots" want to uphold the Constitution?
Yet despite the scare tactics and misinformation, the fact remains using legal, U.S. Constitution mandated tactics, the FBI obtained credible leads from the apprehended terror suspect -- without resorting to torture or any other illegal means. Our principles of justice, once again, withstands the test.
This is just one in a string of examples of how the radical right is trying to destroy the principles on which U.S. was founded, while blaming its demise on the those trying to uphold it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
