If you actually watched the President’s State of the Union speech last night and disagreed with it, congratulations, you’re an extremist. These days, unfortunately, that also means you’re a mainstream Republican. As many of you know, on the political spectrum, I definitely lean left, but when I listened to what our President said last night, I agreed with almost everything he said, and there is only way one way to characterize that speech: reasonable, rationale, and centrist.
Sure, he suggested we spend more money on programs like education and transportation. But he also suggested we offset that spending by closing tax loopholes for oil companies, streamlining the tax code in general, and putting a freeze on domestic spending increases. Additionally, he pledged to veto any bill with pork in it. Is there anyone that disagrees with properly funding education—especially when that money comes with a requirement to make it more effective and efficient? Really? And is there anyone who thinks that having high speed trains and more, or better, roads is a bad idea—especially when that money is meant to stimulate the construction industry, which has been one of the hardest hit in this economy? Really? If the answer is yes in either case: why? I’d really like an explanation.
The President also challenged Republicans and Democrats alike to make changes to the health care bill if they thought it could be improved—he said he’d be a willing partner in helping to make it more effective, better functioning, and more streamlined. The Republicans refused to applaud. Why? And when he said that he was proud of the fact that insurance companies could no longer take advantage of consumers, that people with pre-existing conditions could no longer be denied coverage, and that employers were able to spend up to $5,000 less per month to cover their employees, Republicans refused to applaud. Why? The only logical explanation is that they have no desire to have any kind of health care legislation, especially not when it protects consumers, allows people with pre-existing conditions coverage, or helps to lower the cost of health insurance for small businesses. I’ll ask the question again: why? Such a position to me seems completely baffling.
From what I heard in the President’s speech last night, his primary goal is for America to advance and succeed, to come back from the brink of an economic abyss and forge ahead to renew our role as a world leader in innovation, human rights, and democracy. Do I believe that everything our President spoke of will get done? No. Does a speech fix all of our nation’s problems? Of course not. But it’s a blueprint for how things get better—a way in which Americans can forget their differences and work together to rebuild this country. Isn’t that a good thing?
The bottom line is that for Republicans it’s not. They don’t want the U.S. to recover. They don’t care about the American dream. They could give a damn about education, health care, infrastructure, or taking care of their constituents. For them it is simple: cast Obama and the Democrats as bad guys so that we stay in office and make more money for our political donors. That’s it. A Republican’s only function in politics is to figure out ways to carve out tax loopholes, pesky regulations, and pork for their donors, or to block the passage of legislation that reigns in abuse by their clients against consumers. Worse, the party has taken to horrifying, un-American stances or telling outright lies to try to convince their constituents that they are still worth voting for: all government regulations are bad, taxes kill jobs, Obama is a socialist, Democrats are going to take away your guns, blah, blah, blah.
Quite frankly, it’s awful. Time to take a look in the mirror Republicans: if you support your party’s agenda right now, you’re an extremist. You don’t support public education, any kind of legislation meant to protect consumers, any kind of taxes, or even having a government—other than to provide a military—which you think should be bombing everyone that doesn’t agree with us back to the Stone Age. You hate gays, glory in owning weapons, are a borderline racist, and want to stick your head into every decision a private individual makes, unless that individual is you. That is the plain, honest truth.
So, Republican, is this what you really believe? Is this who you really are? Somehow, I doubt it. I just hope you aren’t too proud to see that your party has lost their way, and “gulp,” that may mean you’ll actually have to vote for a Democrat. It may be hard, but isn’t America worth it?
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Gun Control
This past weekend Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords from Arizona was shot and badly injured by a lone gunman. While she was the suspect’s stated target, along the way he killed 6 people (including a girl that was only 9 years old, as well as a federal judge), and wounded 13 others. Now this is obviously an act of extremism, and has been loudly denounced by both sides of the aisle, but while Democrats, who are serious about passing gun laws and taking the vitriol out of politics, can actually back up their speech against violence, hate, and intolerance, Republicans are once again talking out of both sides of their collective mouth—indeed, it is their hate filled rhetoric and the irresponsibility of their media that are directly responsible for the heinous acts that occurred on this past Saturday, January 8th, 2011.
If you’re unfamiliar with the trash they spew on conservative talk radio, or the awful things people like Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity say on a daily basis, consider yourself lucky. O’Reilly has basically had a man killed. He mentioned Dr. George Tiller (who O’Reilly nicknamed “the baby killer”), an abortion provider in Kansas, nearly 30 times on his show over the course of 4 years, saying things like, “if the state of Kansas doesn’t stop this man, then anybody who prevents that from happening has blood on their hands as the governor does right now, Governor Sebelius,” and, ““No question Dr. Tiller has blood on his hands. But now so does Governor Sebelius. She is not fit to serve. Nor is any Kansas politician who supports Tiller’s business of destruction. I wouldn’t want to be these people if there is a Judgment Day. I just — you know … Kansas is a great state, but this is a disgrace upon everyone who lives in Kansas. Is it not?” Tiller was shot and killed on May 31st, 2009.
But O’Reilly isn’t alone in his violent rhetoric. Consider what Representative Michelle Bachman (R-Minnesota) said on the radio in the Spring of 2009, “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back.” This type of hate speech absolutely permeates the right wing media’s atmosphere. Obviously, pundits are going to deny that it is their intent that anyone actually be killed, but once the words leave their mouth that choice is no longer up to them.
It is extremely frustrating too, that so many Americans believe that “both sides” are wrong, or misdirected. That is a blatant false equivalency. The fact is that while the tenor of the conversation on both sides is heated, there are several key differences:
1) Liberals have much less reason to lie, misdirect, or mislead people, and as a consequence, they don’t. Think about the key issues Democrats are concerned with: health care, economic development and fairness (in a nutshell, creating jobs that pay a living wage), regulating banks and corporations so that they don’t harm or take advantage of consumers, effective foreign policy, cutting the military budget, and ensuring equality for people regardless of their race, color, creed, sexual orientation, or religious background. Most people genuinely support these issues if you take partisanship out of the mix, because it is simply in their best interest, so there is really no reason to lie or mislead people to generate political support.
Republicans, on the other hand, have to manufacture reasons why people should vote against their best interests—they have to find some reason that people should want to deny their friends and neighbors health care, that we should allow corporations and banks to be unregulated despite the danger this poses to consumers, and that we should deny equality and economic opportunity regardless of one’s backgrounds or beliefs. If the Republican philosophy of government worked, our country and economy would be thriving right now; instead, the reality is that our nation is falling apart in almost every way possible. Therefore, the only way for conservatives to convince people that they should support an agenda and worldview that has failed, is to lie, misdirect, and use fear to confuse and deceive; whereas liberals, while equally passionate, simply do not need to fool people to advance their agenda.
2) While liberals certainly get angry about disagreements on policy (and the fact that conservatives are constantly lying and obfuscating the truth), I can’t recall a single time when I’ve heard a liberal radio host or television pundit call for the use of violence to accomplish political goals, or suggested that people go buy, or brandish, guns. And I listen to liberal radio almost every day.
On the other side of the aisle, instances where conservative pundits, not to mention Republican politicians, reference or allude to the use of guns and violence to solve problems, are abundant, as I’ve illustrated above. They also tolerate hate and extremism at their political rallies, such as when their supporters show pictures depicting Obama as a terrorist or witch doctor, instead of showing true leadership by telling people to calm down.
The real concern is that this type of rhetoric, combined with the idea that people should own guns and resort to violence, is a theme for Republicans and their conservative followers. At the recent debate to see who will become the GOP’s next chairperson, one of the questions the candidates were asked was, “how many guns they owned?”
Let’s be perfectly clear: people in today’s modern society do not need to own guns, and certainly not guns that have as their chief purpose the killing of human beings. If someone wants to own a gun and keep it in the home for self-defense, or someone wants to own a gun to hunt with, then fine, but how long are we going to allow these types of killings to go on without taking real action? How many massacres are we going to suffer before the American public gets serious about controlling guns, and putting a stop to gun violence?
At this point, I think every American citizen owes it to our society to make a stand. When we see Fox news on at the gym, we should tell the people working that they are spewing hate speech at their place of business. When conservatives talk about the second amendment, ask them whether it protects their right to own a nuclear bomb, or if there should be limits on what types of weapons people can own and use?
At the very least, we should start holding the merchants of guns and ammunition accountable. If a bullet or gun is sold at a store, and that bullet or gun ends up killing someone unlawfully, then the seller should be responsible for at least half of all monetary damages resulting from that crime.
Until we get serious about controlling weapons and the people that wield them in our society, things like what happened last Saturday are going to keep happening. And who knows? Next time, you may be standing next to the target. Or it might be your nine year old child.
Wake up conservatives.
If you’re unfamiliar with the trash they spew on conservative talk radio, or the awful things people like Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity say on a daily basis, consider yourself lucky. O’Reilly has basically had a man killed. He mentioned Dr. George Tiller (who O’Reilly nicknamed “the baby killer”), an abortion provider in Kansas, nearly 30 times on his show over the course of 4 years, saying things like, “if the state of Kansas doesn’t stop this man, then anybody who prevents that from happening has blood on their hands as the governor does right now, Governor Sebelius,” and, ““No question Dr. Tiller has blood on his hands. But now so does Governor Sebelius. She is not fit to serve. Nor is any Kansas politician who supports Tiller’s business of destruction. I wouldn’t want to be these people if there is a Judgment Day. I just — you know … Kansas is a great state, but this is a disgrace upon everyone who lives in Kansas. Is it not?” Tiller was shot and killed on May 31st, 2009.
But O’Reilly isn’t alone in his violent rhetoric. Consider what Representative Michelle Bachman (R-Minnesota) said on the radio in the Spring of 2009, “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back.” This type of hate speech absolutely permeates the right wing media’s atmosphere. Obviously, pundits are going to deny that it is their intent that anyone actually be killed, but once the words leave their mouth that choice is no longer up to them.
It is extremely frustrating too, that so many Americans believe that “both sides” are wrong, or misdirected. That is a blatant false equivalency. The fact is that while the tenor of the conversation on both sides is heated, there are several key differences:
1) Liberals have much less reason to lie, misdirect, or mislead people, and as a consequence, they don’t. Think about the key issues Democrats are concerned with: health care, economic development and fairness (in a nutshell, creating jobs that pay a living wage), regulating banks and corporations so that they don’t harm or take advantage of consumers, effective foreign policy, cutting the military budget, and ensuring equality for people regardless of their race, color, creed, sexual orientation, or religious background. Most people genuinely support these issues if you take partisanship out of the mix, because it is simply in their best interest, so there is really no reason to lie or mislead people to generate political support.
Republicans, on the other hand, have to manufacture reasons why people should vote against their best interests—they have to find some reason that people should want to deny their friends and neighbors health care, that we should allow corporations and banks to be unregulated despite the danger this poses to consumers, and that we should deny equality and economic opportunity regardless of one’s backgrounds or beliefs. If the Republican philosophy of government worked, our country and economy would be thriving right now; instead, the reality is that our nation is falling apart in almost every way possible. Therefore, the only way for conservatives to convince people that they should support an agenda and worldview that has failed, is to lie, misdirect, and use fear to confuse and deceive; whereas liberals, while equally passionate, simply do not need to fool people to advance their agenda.
2) While liberals certainly get angry about disagreements on policy (and the fact that conservatives are constantly lying and obfuscating the truth), I can’t recall a single time when I’ve heard a liberal radio host or television pundit call for the use of violence to accomplish political goals, or suggested that people go buy, or brandish, guns. And I listen to liberal radio almost every day.
On the other side of the aisle, instances where conservative pundits, not to mention Republican politicians, reference or allude to the use of guns and violence to solve problems, are abundant, as I’ve illustrated above. They also tolerate hate and extremism at their political rallies, such as when their supporters show pictures depicting Obama as a terrorist or witch doctor, instead of showing true leadership by telling people to calm down.
The real concern is that this type of rhetoric, combined with the idea that people should own guns and resort to violence, is a theme for Republicans and their conservative followers. At the recent debate to see who will become the GOP’s next chairperson, one of the questions the candidates were asked was, “how many guns they owned?”
Let’s be perfectly clear: people in today’s modern society do not need to own guns, and certainly not guns that have as their chief purpose the killing of human beings. If someone wants to own a gun and keep it in the home for self-defense, or someone wants to own a gun to hunt with, then fine, but how long are we going to allow these types of killings to go on without taking real action? How many massacres are we going to suffer before the American public gets serious about controlling guns, and putting a stop to gun violence?
At this point, I think every American citizen owes it to our society to make a stand. When we see Fox news on at the gym, we should tell the people working that they are spewing hate speech at their place of business. When conservatives talk about the second amendment, ask them whether it protects their right to own a nuclear bomb, or if there should be limits on what types of weapons people can own and use?
At the very least, we should start holding the merchants of guns and ammunition accountable. If a bullet or gun is sold at a store, and that bullet or gun ends up killing someone unlawfully, then the seller should be responsible for at least half of all monetary damages resulting from that crime.
Until we get serious about controlling weapons and the people that wield them in our society, things like what happened last Saturday are going to keep happening. And who knows? Next time, you may be standing next to the target. Or it might be your nine year old child.
Wake up conservatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)