Category Archives: Culture

Rewarding unreasonable behavior.

Posted on by

On the anniversary of 9/11, Republican spokesperson and renowned liar, Rush Limbaugh, chastised President Obama for trying to turn 9/11 into a day of public service.  Wow!  How dare the President want to commemorate the attacks on U.S. soil with something positive!  How dare the President try to encourage Americans to serve their nation! 

Certainly, the past President never encouraged public service and sacrifice.  In the wake of 9/11, Bush asked us to go shopping.  And while our young people were serving and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq, he pushed for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.  (I guess he believed that only the middle class and poor should sacrifice for their country.)  Bush refused to allow press coverage and photographs of the true cost of war.  Indeed, Republicans treated war much as the Wizard of Oz would.  “Pay no attention to what’s behind that curtain.”

But, in reality, Republican criticism has nothing to do with President Obama’s statements and actions.  He’ll be criticized by Republican pundits no matter what he says or does.   That’s not surprising.  After all, we’re talking about the same people who accused then-First Lady Hillary Clinton with murder relating to the so-called Travel-gate.  They’re the people who spent $60 million of taxpayers’ money to investigate Clinton’s investment loss in Whitewater.  They’re the same people who called Democrats “whack jobs” and “conspiracy nuts” for crying foul over the 2000 Florida election.   (Never mind the findings of an independent group of journalists who stated, “It’s clear that a significant majority of Floridians intended to vote for Al Gore.”)  And these are the same people who attacked the patriotism of a Vietnam War hero while supporting a candidate who got his powerful daddy to help him avoid the draft by getting him into the Air National Guard. 

Republicans are good at attacking.  In fact, they’re great at it.  Many of today’s Republican strategists learned at the knee of the masters; Tricky Dick Nixon and Spiro Agnew.  Republican attacks and tricks should not come as a surprise to anyone – least of all Democrats.

What is surprising is that Democrats continue to try to reason with them.  And, by doing so, they continue to encourage their bad behavior.  It’s astounding that Representative Joe Wilson can bellow “You lie” to President Obama in an address to a joint session of Congress.  It’s even more astounding that Democratic Senators reword the health care reform bill because of Wilson’s outburst.  (Despite the fact that the bill already clearly stated that health care coverage will be denied to illegal aliens, the wording was strengthened in response to Wilson.) 

The message to Republican extremists is that their extreme accusations and tactics work. 

So Republicans and their media supporters will continue to scare citizens with fabricated issues like “Death Panels”.  They’ll continue to raise fears that a Presidential speech to school children is an attempt to indoctrinate them.  And they’ll continue to compare a centrist African-American President who continues to search for bipartisanship to Adolph Hitler.  (How can anyone actually believe this stuff?) 

Someone once said, “You can’t reason with unreasonable people.”  Yet Democrats continue to try to reason with Republicans.  Why? 

The revealing nature of Republican attacks.

Posted on by

Following Representative Wilson’s outburst during the President’s address before a joint session of Congress, I believe we have to ask ourselves some questions:  Is it a coincidence that the first such outburst was aimed at our first African-American President?  Is it a coincidence that the outburst came from a Congressman from South Carolina?  Is it coincidence that this is the first President accused of being born in another country despite indisputable evidence to the contrary?  Is it coincidence that this President is accused of creating death panels for senior citizens despite the facts?  Is it coincidence that this President is accused of trying to “indoctrinate our children” by merely encouraging them to work hard?  And is it coincidence that the number of death threats against our President has increased dramatically?

The conclusion is inescapable.  The attacks against President Obama represent more than a mere difference of opinion or ideology. 

From the moment he was sworn in, President Obama has been faced with an unprecedented combination of crises – a floundering economy, a failed financial system, a collapsed auto industry, millions of foreclosed homes, out of control health care costs, skyrocketing deficits and two wars.  These weren’t crises of his own making.  These were crises created under the previous administration.  Yet rather than rallying behind the President in the face of these crises as Democrats rallied behind Bush after 9/11, the Republicans have done everything possible to undermine Obama’s attempts to right our ship of state.   

Granted the attacks against President Obama are coming from a small, angry minority in Southern states.  (Okay, okay, I know I just described the Republican Party.)  But, in my lifetime, no President has faced such venomous and personal attacks.  Not Richard Nixon following the cover-up of the Watergate burglary.  Not Ronald Reagan following the cover-up of the sale of weapons to Iran.  Not George W. Bush following the lies that led to the unnecessary invasion of Iraq. 

Perhaps the real lesson of a Republican shouting “You lie!” at President Obama in the House chamber is this:  Pathological liars often assume everyone else is like them. 

The end of hope?

Posted on by

President Obama campaigned for office with a message of hope – of changing the political climate in Washington.  And he has tried mightily.  He has consistently reached out to Republicans for ideas and support.  Not since Lincoln has a President tried to appoint so many members of the opposition party to his Cabinet. 

Yet in the issues that matter most, President Obama has not garnered a single Republican vote.  Not on the much-needed stimulus package.  Not on the loans to automakers.  And, so far, not on health care.

Indeed, the Republican response to his efforts for bipartisanship may be best summarized by Congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst, “You lie!” screamed at the President during his speech calling for health care reform. 

In the charade of bipartisanship seen at most Presidential speeches before a joint session of Congress, Joe Wilson’s rant was rude and outrageously disrespectful.  Yet compared to the stone faces and scowls of Republican legislators sitting on their hands, it had a certain authenticity.  All Wilson did was bring the ugliness that has been displayed at so-called “Town Hall Meetings” and on conservative talk radio into the Capitol chamber.   

Were other Republicans so forthright, we would have been treated to shouts of “Socialist”, “Nazi”, “Communist”, “Death Panels”, “Pull the plug on Granny” and “Show us your birth certificate!”

Of course, Republicans like Sen. Kyl, Sen. Grassley, Sen. Coburn and Sen. Enzi prefer not to confront their Democratic colleagues with such unpleasantness.  They would rather make their disrespectful and inane rants in front of crowds comprised of uninformed conservatives, and on Fox News Network where no commentator or host would consider challenging such statements.

Now President Obama has drawn a line in the sand.  He has stated that he will hold opponents accountable for their distortions and lies.  However, I believe that the President will not give up on bipartisanship easily.  I believe he will keep trying to change the tone of political conversation for as long as he is in office. 

Despite his efforts, I can’t imagine that Republicans will cease their cynical and mean-spirited attacks.  They will continue to pander to their ever more conservative and uninformed base.  And, of course, they will continue to provide red meat to Fox News Network and conservative talk radio.  The only real question is whether or not the independents and moderates will reward such cynical and partisan rhetoric  by voting for Republicans. 

I am becoming less and less hopeful.

The other side of Reaganomics:

Posted on by

In a previous post, I stated my belief that Reaganomics was an utter failure.  That’s not entirely true.  It was a huge success for the wealthy.  It also successfully eroded the power of organized labor. 

When Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers who were members of PATCO, I believe he inspired his followers to launch an attack on all labor unions.  Since that time, there has been a steady outsourcing of American manufacturing jobs to places like China, India, Indonesia and Mexico.   This has forced unions to make concessions with regard to wages and benefits.  The recent troubles of GM and Chrysler are good cases in point. 

During the debate over auto industry bail-outs, the discussion seemed to revolve around the wages and benefits of United Auto Workers.  Never mind the decades of questionable decisions by the company executives, along with their inflated salaries.  In the minds of many, the real problem is that UAW workers were paid more than their counterparts at Honda, Toyota, Nissan and other import brands.  The claims were that while the workers for foreign brands were paid approximately $45/hr, UAW workers were paid $70/hr or more.  Outrageous!  Right? 

Well, hold on a moment.  My UAW friends tell me that the figure of $70/hr not only included wages and benefits such as health care.  It also included the cost of benefits for recent retirees, plus all costs associated with workers – overtime costs, Social Security, Medicare, etc.  It even includes the cost of tools used by the workers!  Take away all of those costs and the actual average hourly wage was $29.78. 

But it’s not just lower wages the Reaganites are after.   What they really want to do is to rid corporations of the obligation for health and retirement benefits.  And what better way to accomplish than to crush organized labor? 

It took a couple of wars, the Great Depression and many bloody management/labor clashes for conditions to improve for American workers.  I fear that Reaganomics combined with globalization and the greed of CEOs may be leading us back to labor conditions similar to those under the robber Barons of the early 1900s when work was more like servitude.

What would Jesus do? If Jesus were a fascist.

Posted on by

Lately, I’ve been reading The Family – The secret fundamentalism at the heart of American power by Jeff Sharlet.  If you haven’t read the book, I highly recommend it.  It’s a fascinating read.  Yet Mr. Sharlet’s excellent account of the growth of Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. is utterly frightening. 

It’s not that I fear Christians.  But I do fear this particular brand of Christianity.

You see, Sharlet’s account of the fundamentalism that took shape in the 30s and 40s and has been growing ever since is of a “Christianity” embraced by the rich and powerful.  It seems that these people worship Jesus, not for his teachings of love and compassion.  Instead, they appear to be attracted to Jesus because of the power and influence he wielded.  Followers of this perverse form of fundamentalism also are said to admire Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Pol Pot for the same reasons.  Never mind that they were dictatorial and murderous.  They knew how to influence others and get things done.

I’ve often found that many religious zealots are of the “ends justify the means” variety.  Too often, they believe that they can do anything they want as long as it’s in the name of God.  (Indeed, throughout the course of my career I’ve found that they are the most likely default on their bills.)  But the Family appears to take the concept a bit further.  It would seem that, for this “religion,” the ends are a world dominated by large corporations and the wealthy. 

It’s not surprising to learn that some well-known conservatives and religious leaders are affiliated with the group.  It is, however, more startling to learn that many current Senators, Congressmen, former administration officials and corporate CEOs are linked to the movement.  Two of the most notable members are Sen. John Ensign and Governor Mark Sanford who have gained publicity for recent sex scandals.  Both have been residents of a Family owned home known as “C Street” that is tax-exempt since it is listed as a “church.”

If you have an interest in politics, or even in the future of our nation, I encourage you to read Jeff Sharlet’s account of this organization.  When you see the list of advocates for the Family, I think you’re likely to have the same reaction as I have.

Be afraid.  Be very afraid.

The myth of guns as self-defense weapons.

Posted on by

For years, the NRA and its associated wing nuts have been trying to convince Americans that everyone should carry a gun.  And some of those card-carrying dimwits came to Congressional town hall meetings armed with guns to make their point. 

The 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights states “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  The gun-toting NRA supporters always focus on the second part of the sentence.  They choose to ignore the first part.  In any event, the amendment raises more questions than it answers.  It seems the intent of the founding fathers was to ensure the defense of our nation and the ability to protect it from an insurrection.  But what is the definition of a well regulated militia?  Is that not intended to refer to our nation’s military?  Or perhaps the National Guard?  Or does an armed mob of “tea baggers” and sheet-clad, anti-Obama fascists qualify?

Similarly, if everyone is permitted to keep and bear arms, where do you draw the line?  Currently, anyone can purchase assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns.  But should an NRA member also be allowed to own a 50-caliber machine gun (I hear they’re fabulous for deer hunting)?   A fully-functional Abrams tank (maybe for big game)?  A nuclear-tipped cruise missile?  Certainly, the nation’s founders would have drawn a line in there somewhere. 

Moreover, despite statements of NRA gunslingers to the contrary, a gun is an offensive weapon.  It is, in fact, a lousy defensive weapon.  If you’re attacked while carrying a gun, you have to count on drawing your gun and getting off an accurate shot before the attacker gets to you.  If you don’t, the attacker may actually turn your own gun against you. 

And if both you and the attacker are armed with guns, the “winner” is determined by whoever gets off the more accurate shot first.  (I hear you want to give yourself an edge by keeping the sun to your back.)

The fact is that guns tend to escalate confrontations more often than they solve them.  If you have a gun, you feel compelled to use it.  (My distant relative, Billy Clanton, was armed at the OK Corral, and look how well that turned out for him.)  But if you don’t have a gun, you tend to avoid confrontations or look for other ways to resolve them. 

I own several rifles and a shotgun, but I don’t carry them to public meetings.  Neither do I carry my Tibetan sword, Chinese hook swords, butterfly swords, broadsword, Tai Chi sword, Indonesian Kris, chain whip, 3-section staff, spear, staff, nunchakaus, tonfas, and knives.   But maybe I should.  There must be a Republican town hall coming to my vicinity soon.

Return to the “Good Old Days?” Be careful what you wish for.

Posted on by

I receive a lot of emails, mostly from my conservative friends, of the “Remember When?” variety.  Of course, they focus on the “Leave it to Beaver” days of the 1950 and 60s.  A recent one started me wondering why we look back on those days so fondly. 

After all, the 50s were pre-civil rights and pre-feminism.  They were also the days of Sen. Joseph McCarthy and impending doom from Soviet H-bombs.  And the 60s revolved around the Vietnam War.

So why do we remember those days so fondly?  I’m sure part of the reason is that we were kids and teens who didn’t worry about politics and the ills of the world.  In addition, there was a black and white honesty to those days when right and wrong seemed more clearly defined.  But I submit that one very big reason is that there was less disparity in income.  Around the small town where I grew up, it was more difficult to tell the “haves” from the “have-nots.” 

That was partly due to generational modesty – it just wasn’t polite to show-off. 

It also had a good deal to do with tax codes.  It might surprise you to learn that, during the Republican Eisenhower administration, the income tax rate for the top bracket was 91-92 percent.  In contrast, the tax rate for the bottom bracket was 22 percent.  By 1971, the top rate had dropped to 70 percent while the bottom rate dropped to 14 percent.  And today, the top rate is 35 percent while the bottom bracket is 10 percent.  

Given the fact that income taxes have dropped dramatically since 1951, you would think that most of us would be feeling pretty good about our taxes and government.  Unfortunately, there seems to be a growing anger as evidenced by the “tea-baggers” and “anti-health care reformists” who shout slogans and carry signs demanding their country back. 

Hmmm…I wonder how those people would feel about bringing back the tax structure of the “good old days?”

Those people seem to forget that many of the things we enjoy and take for granted were created by government and subsidized by taxes:  Education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, V.A., the G.I. Bill, the interstate highway system and the national park system to name just a few. 

The truth is we have more than any of the generations before us.  In general, we keep a greater percentage of our earnings than before.  We have more time for recreation than ever before.  And in comparison to the days of McCarthyism and Jim Crow laws, there’s less government intrusion in our lives.  So why do conservatives think the 50s and early 60s were so wonderful?

My theory is that, we didn’t have people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck ranting about how bad our government is and trying to pit one faction of our population against another. 

For me, the (Republican) party’s over.

Posted on by

For many years, there was a tradition in politics. You could count on each side giving its “spin” on an issue in hopes of influencing voters to their point of view. If you didn’t have the time or inclination to research the issue on your own, you could be relatively certain that the truth was somewhere in the middle. But sometime in the 1990s that changed.

I first realized the change in 1999 when I visited the website of the Republican National Committee in search of quotes from conservative Republicans. What I found was “Gore Gaffs,” dozens of ridiculous statements attributed to then-Democratic presidential candidate, Al Gore. The only problem was that I recognized all of the quotes as having been made by Dan Quayle. I was dumbfounded. Why would the leadership of a political party lie about something that could so easily be disproved? For what possible benefit?

The only conceivable answer is a cynical one – the party believes that no one will actually recognize the lie or hold the party accountable. Unfortunately, “Gore Gaffs” foreshadowed an ugly and disturbing trend by the party.

The Bush administration used lies and half-truths to lead us into an unnecessary war in Iraq. It lied about the “outing” of a clandestine CIA agent whose husband publicly exposed administration lies during the run-up to the war. It lied about the firing of U.S. Attorneys. It lied about eaves-dropping on American citizens. The list of lies during the Bush administration is quite lengthy and growing. In fact, former Homeland Security Director, Tom Ridge, recently admitted that he was pressured to raise the security threat level in 2004 to help Bush get re-elected. And it was recently discovered that former Vice-President Dick Cheney and the CIA hired a mercenary force (Blackwater, aka Xe) to form an international hit squad that was unconstitutionally kept secret from Congress.

Complicit in all of the lies are Fox News and conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh. Rush has long been known to make things up in order to whip his audience into a frenzy and increase his ratings. And, although Fox claims to be “fair and balanced”, it’s anything but. Former Bush Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, admitted that the administration used Fox to “get out its talking points.” It takes only a few minutes of viewing to realize that Fox News is simply a megaphone for Republican lies. But, of course, its viewers are so partisan or uninformed that they don’t care or don’t know.

During the 2008 presidential election, the GOP was in full attack mode. The difference in tone couldn’t have been more striking. Indeed, had one not known better, one might have concluded that all of the problems created by 8 years of the Bush administration were actually the fault of the Democrats.

The 2008 elections were a strong rebuke of the Republican Party and its policies. But rather than examining the policies that led to the election defeat, the party decided to redouble its attacks. Republicans and their surrogates blame the loss on perceived voter fraud by Acorn. And, with a lack of real leadership, the party has turned to Rush Limbaugh as its titular leader. He and other conservatives are not just “spinning” issues based on their point of view. They are creating, or at least repeating, lies in order to scare people about the new administration’s policies.

Attempts to rescue our financial system following its collapse under Bush are described as “socialist” and unnecessary government intervention. The same terms were used to describe the rescue of the auto industry, one of our nation’s few remaining manufacturing industries. A carbon cap and trade bill will “lead to the collapse of the energy industry and put millions out of work.” Health care reform is a “Nazi policy using death panels designed to kill granny” or an attempt to “put bureaucrats between you and your doctor.” Never mind that three government-run health care programs are run quite well. VA, Medicare and Medicaid are generally well-liked by those who participate in them.

At town hall meetings, angry conservatives have tried to shout down any real discussion of the issues, and, as if to make their shouts more forceful, some have brought loaded guns.

The Republican Congressmen and Senators refuse to discuss policies or the merits of legislative initiatives. They offer no counter-proposals. All they offer are lies, fear and more tax cuts for large corporations and the wealthy. And if any Republicans dare break ranks with their brethren on a single vote, they’re labeled RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and they’re attacked by even more conservative candidates in the primaries.

For more than 30 years, the Republican Party has led an assault on the middle class and the poor with “trickle down” economics. In truth, under Republican leadership, the economy was reduced to a trickle. And none of the tax cuts have trickled down.

Indeed, a recent study found that the disparity between the wealthy and the rest of the population has reached the highest level since 1913, and the tax rate on the wealthy has dropped from 70 percent in 1980 to 35 percent in 2009. Thanks to Republican policies, as of 2007 .01 percent of the population controlled 10 percent of the wealth and 10 percent of the population controlled 49 percent of the wealth. And, if you want to consider the effect of Republican policies on health care reform, 47 million Americans are now uninsured, millions more are underinsured and nearly a million Americans will be forced into bankruptcy this year by illness.

This is why a fiscal conservative and social liberal like me no longer votes for Republicans. After 40 years as an independent, I am now a proud member of a party that respects me enough to not lie to me.

Why we’re divided

Posted on by

With the recent debate on health care reform, one thing has become painfully clear.  We don’t just have differing opinions of the facts.  We have differing sets of facts.  Indeed, differing realities.  These differences seem to have more to do with our choice of television programming than with age, education, opinions or ideologies.   For example, a recent NBC News survey asked respondents their opinions of 4 discredited myths regarding health care reform. 

According to the survey, 72% of Fox News viewers believe that health care reform will provide coverage to illegal immigrants (it won’t).  79% of Fox News viewers believe that it will lead to a government takeover of our health care system (it won’t).  69% of Fox News viewers believe that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions (it won’t).  And 75% of Fox News viewers believe that it will make decisions about when to stop care for the elderly (are you kidding me?).   These percentages were much lower amongst viewers of other cable news networks. 

This research points to a very real problem for our nation that goes beyond health care reform.  It’s one thing to debate facts.  It’s quite another if those “facts” are entirely different.  As a communications professional, I know that the most difficult communications task is to disprove a negative.  If the viewers of Fox News believe that Obama is out to kill Granny, there’s almost no way for him to disprove it in their minds.  If Obama says it’s false, the people who believe the negative will just say he’s lying.  If he points to credible news sources, the believers will just say that those sources are biased. 

Of course, we can’t blame all of our nation’s problems on Fox News.  There are plenty of politicians, cable networks, talk radio hosts, websites and PACs (Political Action Committees) across the political spectrum that are perpetuating myths and lies.  But since Fox News has larger audiences, it bears greater responsibility. 

So how do we break this conundrum and get back to debating the same set of facts?  The answer certainly can’t be bringing guns to public debates, shouting at each other and calling the other side Nazis or un-American.  The answer is to seek the truth from multiple news sources – preferably news sources with competing opinions.  Everyone must understand that many “news” programs are more entertainment than news.  We must understand that media are profit-oriented; if they can generate ratings by encouraging their staff to stretch the truth and pander to audiences, they will, regardless of the consequences.  Finally, we must hold the media and our politicians accountable for their lies. 

Our democracy relies on an informed public.  That’s a responsibility we must all take seriously.  That means seeking the truth.  And not being force-fed falsehoods and distortions by one or two pundits who have unlimited access to a camera and a microphone.