Posts Tagged ‘Conservatives’

Guns and Tyranny

January 10th, 2013

It’s rather naive to think fear of an armed citizenry is all that’s standing between democracy and tyranny. That is simply not the world we live in anymore.

Yet wall posts, like the one at the right, from the ironically named Facebook page Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children, attempt to link gun control to the rise of a second Hitler. Never mind that the Europeans have had much stricter gun control laws during our lifetimes, and democracy hasn’t fallen there.

However, the gun control debate aside, the notion that in this modern world we live in, tyranny would come via militaristic control is a complete failure to understand our country, and moreover, the goals of those who would seek to control it.

Guns are messy solutions what with all the noise, and the bleeding, and the dying. Marketing is the key to power. You need to sell people on the idea they must give up their freedoms to ensure their safety, and even pay for the privilege. How much better is it when citizens willingly yield their power and their wealth as opposed to having to take it at gun point?

Consider that the people being whipped into a frenzy over the relationship between guns and tyranny are largely the same people who have been sold on the ideas:

There’s no reason to worry about the government monitoring you if you have nothing to hide.
Net Neutrality is anti-capitalist, and Internet censorship is essential to protect the children.
Torture is effective, and detainment without due process is warranted when our safety is at stake.
Additional funding for the largest military the world has ever known is essential.
Hobbling or dismantling social safety net and insurance programs is the key to prosperity.
Making the rich richer will ultimately benefit us all.
Government subsidies of exiting corporations like Hollywood, big oil, and pharmaceuticals is essential to the economy.
Government investment in new technology like green energy, genetic research, and other “disruptive” advancements is wasted money.
Government regulation should never impede profit.
Unionized workers are the reason manufacturing jobs went to China.

Desperate people are far more compliant and easy to control. If you are scared, broke, hungry, and/or sick, getting you to trade your long term interests for satisfaction of your short term needs becomes child’s play. Snake oil salesmen enrich themselves by playing on your fears, your needs, and your hopes. And you thank them for the privilege of buying into the illusion.

The snake oil salesman doesn’t care that you have a gun. In fact, he may be glad that you do. Because he knows he controls your mind. And won’t it be handy for him to have armed minions at his call when the rational people finally try to run him out of town?

8 comments »

Posted in Politics

Tags: Conservatives Federal Regulations Guns Second Amendment Violent Rhetoric

What if it were terrorists at the school?

December 17th, 2012

As a nation, we mourn for the losses in the senseless Newtown, Connecticut school rampage last week. In the wake of that horrible tragedy we’ve seen many calls for action—calls for improved mental health services and screenings; calls for re-instituting the assault weapons ban; calls to change our culture of glorifying violence; and even calls like President Obama made last night to just do something to make this better.

On the flip side have been many voices shouting that this is not the time for discussion of solutions. They try to counsel that there is simply evil in the world and there’s nothing to be done about it beyond the coping, the grief, and the prayers that such things don’t happen again.

But I can’t escape the glaring hypocrisy of the position that now is not the time to act. Consider for a moment what those same voices would be saying if a Muslim terrorist cell had raided that school and killed those children instead of a local white man.

As a country we have been all too eager to spend money and lives as well as sacrifice all manner of personal freedoms in the interest of keeping our families safe from the statistically small threat of foreign terrorism. And we sacrifice these things in almost knee-jerk reaction to events or near-events—consider 9-11, the underwear bomber, etc. We’ll let the government screen our calls and read our emails. We’ll let them illegally and indefinitely detain suspects, and perform so-called “renditions”. We’ll let them use torture as an interrogation technique. We’ll let them grope our wives and daughters prior to boarding a plane. But hey, better safe than sorry, right?

But should the government want to provide medical services or restrict the ability for your neighbor to grocery shop while packing a semi-automatic pistol with a high capacity clip? Well, let’s not get crazy here. After all, this was just a troubled kid who went off the deep end. Shit happens.

But if that troubled kid looked Pakistani instead of like the guy next door? Well, shit would happen then too, but it would be different shit. And we wouldn’t be arguing about whether or not to act. This is America dammit. And overreaction to a threat is what we do best.

No comments »

Posted in Politics

Tags: Conservatives Guns Healthcare Reform Second Amendment Terrorism Violent Rhetoric

Data Over Dogma

November 24th, 2012

This can’t be stated often or emphatically enough. If you are willing to dismiss, suppress, or reject evidence because it conflicts with what you want to (or have been told you should) believe, then you are acting irrationally—by definition. And your judgement should be discounted accordingly.

While this situation usually comes up with regard to a specific topic, it reflects a larger problem with mindset. Sen. Marco Rubio demonstrated this most recently when, in an interview with GQ magazine, he was asked how old the earth is. After declaring “I’m not a scientist, man,” Rubio danced with all his might, ending with the declaration that “it’s one of the great mysteries.” (No Marco, it’s really not.) Rubio is previously on record as stating the “crux” of the disagreement is “whether what a parent teaches their children at home should be mocked and derided and undone at the public school level.”

It’s easy to dismiss this as being isolated to the topic of geology or evolution, something that doesn’t impact the lives of the vast majority of citizens. Rubio asserts as much when defending his GQ statement. He said this didn’t matter, pronouncing it “a dispute amongst theologians” that has “has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.”

Yet, as I’ve argued in this space before, and as Paul Krugman points out in his recent column, it matters greatly. It matters because we are hindering a crop of potential petrogeologists who are limited to guessing where God hid the oil. But moreover, it matters because we are teaching kids that evidence can be ignored if it’s uncomfortable. And it is this mindset which is particularly damaging, and not just to the field of science, and as Rubio has demonstrated, not just to kids.

We have adults rejecting global warming and progressive tax codes, not because of evidence, but because of ideology. We saw dismissal and rejection of pre-election poll data, not because it was inaccurate, but because it supported the wrong conclusion.

We live in an increasingly technological world with a complex multinational economy. Our success as a society, a country, and a culture depends on our ability to carefully and rationally understand and control that abstruse system. Reliance on irrational explanations and positions in the face of evidence backed models of the world is simply dangerous.

That is not to say that faith and ideology have no place in society. They add value to the lives of many. All the world is not explainable using logic and reason. Faith and ideology help most fill the gaps. But where data and dogma collide… bet on data every time. All our futures depend on it.

9 comments »

Posted in Politics, Religion

Tags: Christians Conservatives Economic Policy Energy Policy Evolution GOP War on Science Political Ideology Tea Party

The Perils of Misremembering History

October 14th, 2012

Khrushchev and Kennedy go head-to-head over Soviet missiles in Cuba

On its 50th anniversary, the Cuban Missile Crisis lives large in the American psyche as a time of pride. President Kennedy stared down the great Russian bear, who went quivering back into his cave. For 13 days the nation waited, poised on the brink of nuclear war, for Khrushchev to blink. It was an unmitigated vindication of military might and brinksmanship.

Or was it?

In light of recently unsealed records, historians now say the resolution of the standoff was really a triumph of backdoor diplomacy. The real story of what happened five decades ago was a bit more nuanced, and involved much less bravado and intimidation.

Attorney General Robert Kennedy met secretly with the Soviet ambassador Oct. 27 and conveyed an olive branch from his brother: Washington would publicly reject any invasion of Cuba, and Khrushchev would withdraw the missiles from the island. The real sweetener was that Kennedy would withdraw Jupiter nuclear missiles from U.S. installations in Turkey, near the Soviet border. It was a secret pledge known only to a handful of advisers.

The reality vs. the mythology is important in light of the political hay currently being made over Obama’s alleged “weakness” in the Middle East. The meme from the far-right says that attacks on our ambassador in Benghazi and Iran’s nuclear ambitions will only be curtailed by a Cuban Missile Crisis like standoff—that the U.S.A. needs to draw lines and dare our opponents to cross. Only then will America get the respect it deserves, and force our enemies to slink back to their caves.

The foreign policy being advocated from conservatives is similar to their approach to domestic policy. There will be no compromise as it shows weakness. There will be no apologies and no negotiations.

In 1962, Kennedy had the luxury of getting it both ways. He got to maintain the appearance of unyielding strength and intimidation at home, while granting concessions to the Soviets in an effort to avoid a devastating war nether side wanted. It’s not remotely clear Obama (or any modern President) could maintain that level of covert deal-making in the age of the Internet and 24-hour cable news. If a President tried and was discovered, he would be accused of conspiracy and cover-ups.

If the Cuban Missile Crisis happened today and played out exactly as it did 50 years ago, the President would be eviscerated by conservatives for negotiating with the enemy, compromising U.S. security in Europe, and positioning America as weak and unwilling to fight.

The right-wing pundits are correct that the Kennedy/Khrushchev showdown has lessons for modern foreign policy. But the lessons are in the reality of what occurred, not the mythology.

1 comment »

Posted in Politics

Tags: 2012 Elections Conservatives Foreign Policy Obama

Obama’s Alleged Snub of Israel

September 18th, 2012

The photo message to the left has been making the rounds on Facebook and other sources. As of this writing, it had over 20k shares and over 130k likes.

It’s the latest right-wing outrage over a seemingly small Obama maneuver. According to Reuters:

(Reuters) – The White House has rejected a request by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to meet President Barack Obama in the United States this month, an Israeli official said on Tuesday, after a row erupted between the allies over Iran’s nuclear programme.

An Israeli official told Reuters on condition of anonymity that Netanyahu’s aides had asked for a meeting when he visits the United Nations this month, and “the White House has got back to us and said it appears a meeting is not possible. It said that the president’s schedule will not permit that”.

Netanyahu has met with Obama on all the Israeli leader’s U.S. trips since 2009.

The White House has not confirmed the snub. But even assuming it’s an accurate recounting, I fail to see the rationale for reactions best summed up by the comment appearing on my Facebook news feed saying, “I think it is totally disgraceful!”

Granted, a meeting commits us to nothing, but neither does a refusal to meet mean a complete breakdown of a relationship. This is a standard negotiating tactic. By refusing the meet, the US is asserting its position of power and control in the situation. Basically indicating that Netanyahu needs to soften his stance and take a more conciliatory posture. That hardly seems an untenable position for the US political right-wing who are typically more than a little hawkish in their foreign policy, and often tout that America should assert its position as the global superpower.

The problem here is that Netanyahu clearly wants the US to draw “red lines” with the intent of forcing the US into military action with Iran. He’s been quite open about that, and about his ire that Obama won’t commit to irrevocable terms under which he will bomb Iran. He has also openly taken sides in our election, becoming almost the Israeli wing of the Republican party. This is something our allies rarely do, partly out of respect, but also out of the recognition that they ultimately have to deal with the next President, regardless of how the election comes out. If he wants the respectful attention of our President, and ultimately wants us to do him a significant favor, he’s got a funny way of going about it.

Forgetting this involves Obama for a minute, what is the right advocating for here? That the President is obliged to accept a visit from any foreign head of state on demand? I would think not. The President should meet when there is value to the US in doing so. In this case, Netanyahu wants something the US isn’t prepared to give (commitment to military action in Iran), nor is it clear the Israeli people are prepared for that. Their own defense minister cautions against Netanyahu’s plan. Further, Netanyahu’s reputation with pretty much every world leader is that of a petulant child, prone to tantrums when he doesn’t get his way. Moreover, his historical record is that he leaks details of confidential meetings where he doesn’t get his way to the press, spun to his own advantage. Where is the potential upside for the President, or for the country in taking this meeting? Presumably, you want a President who’s tough, and sometimes that means saying no. That clearly doesn’t mean the President is saying they will never meet. They’ve had numerous meetings in the past, and spoke on the phone just last week. We are the most powerful nation on the planet. You earn a meeting, you don’t demand one.

I also wonder if we would even be having this discussion if the Prime Minister of Spain was demanding to be seen? It seems to me that Israel gets treated differently than any other foreign nation. Are they in a precarious geographic situation? Sure. so is South Korea. But in the end, Israel is still a foreign country and how we treat them should be based on what’s in our national interest. We are not obligated to treat them like a teenage child who has moved out of the house, but still needs Daddy to protect them.

And yes, I do recognize Israel’s exulted position among the religious right as the Holy Land and the location of many of the End Times prophecies. But that is not a basis for making national policy. If their church’s would like to form their own militias and deploy them to the West Bank that’s fine by me. But the US federal government should not be making foreign policy decisions based on bible stories.

In another vein, during the ’08 election, many of the same folks who are apoplectic over snubbing Netanyahu now, were abhorred that Obama said that under the right conditions he’d meet with Iran or other hostile governments. The claim was that even meeting with Ahmadinejad showed weakness and meant we’d give in to them. Why are the rules different now? Why would this meeting not show weakness and a willingness to concede?

And as long as I’m on a roll here, let’s talk about Obama’s “terrible” support for Israel. So far he has provided full financing and technical assistance for Israel’s Iron Dome short-range anti-rocket defense system. In July, he provided an additional $70 million to extend the Iron Dome system across southern Israel. That’s in addition to the $3 billion in annual military assistance to Israel that the president requests and that Congress routinely approves. He has increased aid to Israel and given it access to the most advanced military equipment, including the latest fighter aircraft. Obama has given close coordination by intelligence agencies — including the deployment of cyberweapons — to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, said last year, “I can hardly remember a better period of American support and backing, and Israeli cooperation and similar strategic understanding of events around us than what we have right now.”

Obama persuaded Russia and China to support harsh sanctions on Iran, including an arms embargo and the cancellation of a Russian sale of advanced antiaircraft missiles that would have severely complicated any military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Obama secured European support for what even Ahmadinejad, called “the most severe and strictest sanctions ever imposed on a country.”

Obama has been steadfast against efforts to delegitimize Israel in international forums. He has blocked Palestinian attempts to bypass negotiations and achieve United Nations recognition as a member state, a move that would have opened the way to efforts by Israel’s foes to sanction and criminalize its policies. As a sign of its support, the Obama administration even vetoed a Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements.

In light of all this, it may be fair to say that Obama has an issue with Netanyahu, as does almost anyone who’s ever met him. But it’s pretty hard to claim he doesn’t care about or support Israel.

1 comment »

Posted in Politics, Religion

Tags: Conservatives GOP Obama Religious Right Republicans

Conservative: You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

September 15th, 2012

When it comes to civil liberties and personal freedoms, I’m a self-avowed flaming liberal. Marry whom you love, worship whom you will, or don’t. Smoke dope. Paint your house neon green. Dance naked in the street. As long as your actions don’t directly infringe someone else’s freedom, have at it.

But in the realm of economics, foreign policy, commercial regulation, etc. I consider myself fairly conservative. That’s “conservative” with a lower case “c”. It’s “conservative” in the sense of the dictionary definition. Someone who favors existing proven pragmatic methods. Someone who likes to preserve. Someone not prone to extravagant new experimental ventures. Someone who is cautiously moderate, and fiscally responsible.

This is far away from what “Conservative” with a capital “C” has come to mean in America. When you capitalize the “C”, suddenly you become someone who advocates for hawkish foreign policy, unabashed capitalism, and socially Darwinian domestic policy. Someone who favors dogmatic inflexible situationally independent rules.

The bizarre reality of being a Conservative in America is that you aren’t really very conservative at all. On the other hand, being conservative now makes you politically Liberal (with a capital “L”). It’s all so confusing. Perhaps a couple of examples would help.

Let’s take healthcare. On a per capita basis, American healthcare costs double what is spent for care in every other industrialized western country. And no, the quality of care is not better here. Health care costs are a drain on businesses and wages because providing employee healthcare is so expensive and continues to grow at multiples of the inflation rate.

The Conservative answer is basically to stay the course. There is a conservative angle here in that conservatives are resistant to change. But this is being ignorant of the larger picture. Sure, you can be resistant to policy change, but that doesn’t stop the change in healthcare costs that is eating up the economy. This is like sitting on your roof, refusing to be evacuated while the flood waters rise around you. The myopic conservative position may be to stay the course, but the safe, pragmatic, less risky position is to get in the next boat that comes by.

Looking around the world, some form of government run universal healthcare is the norm. There are any number of varieties including true socialized healthcare ala Great Britain, Medicare for all ala Canada, or even regulated and compulsory private insurance ala Switzerland. All deliver roughly equivalent results at a fraction of the cost of the U.S. system. Further, there are so many variations of this system all succeeding, it can’t be that tricky to implement. Given, the clear choice for true conservatives should always be to solve a problem using a cost effective, proven, and time tested technique, the answer to healthcare should be clear.

In a somewhat related vein, there is a vested conservative interest in having a healthy and well-educated citizenry, who are living in a country with a solid modern infrastructure. All of these are foundational elements to the capitalistic industrial success that ultimately drives the economic prowess that makes this country great. Collapsed bridges, flooded cities, unreliable communications or power networks, or unemployable and non-productive citizens are all largely preventable problems if the society as a whole is making persistent and solid investments in its long term future. A liberal might advocate for something similar because it was the humane thing to do or because everyone deserves a chance. But a conservative should advocate for these things because they are solid practical ways to enable a productive society and minimize the collective expense.

Think of it this way. A conservative would clearly buy insurance on his home and make every effort to keep it well maintained. In this way, it’s a safe reliable shelter that should meet the needs of his family for decades to come. What could be a more conservative position than that?

When it comes to the environment, how can you be conservative and yet oppose environmental conservatism? No, I don’t think preserving every last species of minnow or song bird is vital. Species have been going extinct since the dawn of time. That’s the circle of life. But preserving and protecting the larger ecosystem we live in and depend on is about as conservative an idea as I can imagine. From deep sea oil drilling and fracking to carbon emissions, acid rain, and nuclear waste, the capital “C” Conservative position is diametrically opposed to the lower cased conservative one. I don’t get it.

On foreign policy, I can’t for the life of me figure out what’s conservative about the kick ass and take names approach to the world. There are absolutely national interests that lie outside our borders, but diplomacy and economic power are far more cost effective, with less risk to domestic lives and treasure, than military action. It’s important to carry a big stick, but that doesn’t mean you never bother to speak softly.

On economics, Conservatives have the equation completely backwards. A conservative approach would be to take on some debt when times were bad and investment was needed. But then to be responsible and pay that debt off when things were going well. Instead, we see Conservatives opt for austerity in bad times, in essence compounding the downturn, and then claiming deficits don’t matter during prosperous times, thereby compounding the recovery. A conservative should favor a nice even economy, not one that slingshots about like a roller-coaster.

In a very real way, the current capital “C” Conservative movement has become radical. Meanwhile the Liberal movement has morphed into something downright lower case conservative. Minimally, this means that hanging your identity on a label rather than a solid ideology may lead you to a point where you are unintentionally advocating for outcomes you would very much oppose. Modern marketing means you have to be a very intelligent consumer; and not just when you are shopping for margarine, but when you are shopping for politicians.

My ideology makes me politically conservative. But the current state of politics means I align most closely with the Liberals. Clearly, in today’s world, words don’t mean what you think they mean. Vote wisely.

6 comments »

Posted in Politics, Slice of Life

Tags: 2012 Elections Conservatives Democrats Political Ideology Republicans

Aborted Reasoning

August 29th, 2012

Yesterday, I had the questionable pleasure of driving by a small abortion protest in front of a local medical building. Two men and a woman were each holding signs while one of the men used a bull horn to shout something from the sidewalk. One of the signs in particular, caught my attention. It read, “God Chose That Baby“.

In the wake of the recent Todd Akin debacle, I’ve heard a number of so-called Pro-Life advocates claim that abortion is always wrong. This troubles me. I agree that life is precious, but the mother has a life too. And life is much more than being physically not dead. I would never advocate for abortion as a casual form of birth control, but drawing hard lines around exactly when pregnancy is too much for the mother to bear is beyond my pay grade. Choose life? Sure. But whose? And at what quality of life? I’m not qualified to make that decision, and frankly neither are you… or the government.

But the sign started the wheels turning in my mind. A Pro-Life friend recently explained that when God conceives a baby, He has a plan. If the mother dies, or is physically or mentally traumatized or disabled in the process, that’s tragic. But it’s still part of the plan. If God means for the mother to survive, she will. It is not for us to intervene. Hmmm… And then, the apparent worldview of these folks clicked into place for me… and then quickly went all askew.

While I don’t agree with the position, I can at least respect a position that says God plays an active role in our everyday lives. He chooses the key events of our lives, and we are not to meddle in His affairs. He has a plan. It’s not possible to know what it is, but He has one. At least I can respect the position if the person actually lives their life by that philosophy. But I can’t see how that’s so.

According to this philosophy, there’s no reason to seek medical intervention on anything, not just pregnancy. If you have a heart attack, God meant that for you. If you were meant to survive it, you will. To expect that God’s plan included a paramedic with a defibrillator makes no sense. It would then be equally reasonable to assume God’s plan included a pharmacist with a morning-after pill.

If, in fact, God did choose that baby, who among us can say what for? God sent his own son to die for us—to teach us something. Is it so farfetched that he might send an embryo to die for a person or a family to teach them something? There are several references in the bible to men being called to a destiny from the womb. Who is to say fulfilling that destiny requires reaching adulthood? The simple reality is, you can’t say there is a plan; no one knows what it is; but that thing there is definitely not part of it.

The only rational counter argument is that there is something special and sacred about the life of a child. That the value of a child’s life is always above and beyond the value of anyone else’s life. But (since we can’t know the plan) this valuation would have to be supported by the bible, and that’s not at all clear. Jesus may have loved the little children, but Abraham was told to kill his own son, and Deuteronomy instructs fathers to have their non-virginal daughters stoned to death. Further, the bible says nothing about abortions. The closest it comes is in Exodus when it is stated that if you strike a pregnant woman and cause a miscarriage, you must pay a fine to the woman’s husband. God’s plan for the life of children is a bit cloudy at best. Clearly, “Thou shalt not kill,” is not quite the black and white rule you might assume.

Perhaps you believe that God chose that baby. But it seems that unless you’re purporting to know God’s unknowable plan for it, you’re a hypocrite.

4 comments »

Posted in Politics, Religion, XX - XY

Tags: Abortion Christians Conservatives Religious Right

Babbling in the Mirror – Obama Supporter Interviews Future Self

July 31st, 2012

I received a link to a YouTube video today. The video is a mock up of someone from 2008 interviewing their current selves and dealing with all the crushing disappointments of the Obama Administration.

The link came with a request:

“Please, please, somebody tell me where she is wrong. I really want to know!”

I’ll try to suspend my skepticism that anyone circulating this sort of propaganda is truly interested in facts, or even willing to accept them, but I’m up for the challenge anyway.

The video contains a scarcity of actual data, but there are a lot of general claims. A few are fairly accurate, many are directionally incorrect, and a few are outright false. In the opening, the 2008 woman is going on about the utopia that would surely result from 4 years under Obama. Granted, there was a lot of optimism from his supporters upon his election, but anyone who believes any President can effect a utopian transformation of the country is delusional. If you think it can be done in the midst of the second largest economic downfall in the last century, you’re just plain nuts. It’s unfair to compare Obama to some vision of Nirvana. Rather, the accurate comparison is to the alternative, a McCain administration. Unfortunately, we’ll never know what that might have been. Maybe it would be better, maybe worse, but we can be pretty sure, based on the previous 30 years of mostly Republican administrations, that it wouldn’t quite be utopia.

The initial substantive claim is that the 2012 woman’s father died because his asthma medication was outlawed. This is flat out false. No asthma medications have been outlawed. Starting this year, CFC based inhalers were banned. Keep in mind that CFC propellants have been banned since the 70s in everything else in an effort to save the ozone layer. Civilization survived. Further, HFA inhalers are available as an alternative. Same medication, same dose, different delivery mechanism.

Next is a general lament about high unemployment. There’s no doubt that unemployment remains unacceptably high. However, looking at the data, private sector employment bottomed out in early 2010 and continues to climb steadily upward. But public sector employment is plummeting at a rate the private sector in a minimally expanding economy can’t ameliorate. Look at a comparison of Bush’s first term compared to Obama’s. Bush responded to the economic downturn in 2000 with stimulus by expanding government payroll. Obama responded by slashing government jobs in favor of private sector stimulus. Hmmm…

But Obama had a super-majority! Why didn’t he fix everything? Obama’s super-majority in Congress hinged on one man, Ted Kennedy. A man who had the gall to be suffering terminal brain cancer upon Obama’s election, and who died in August of that first year. Kennedy made special and heroic returns to the Senate floor to cast votes on the stimulus and on Obamacare, but otherwise was incapacitated. After his death, Scott Brown was elected and the Obama super-majority vanished.

Oh, the executive orders! There’s no specific complaint over any specific executive orders, but the implication is that Obama is issuing them all over the place. The data from the National Archives would disagree. Obama has issued 129 EOs so far. Pro-rating that for his entire first term puts him on pace to issue 147 by January. G.W. Bush averaged 145/term. Clinton averaged 181, Bush Sr. did 165, and Reagan comes in at 190. So Obama’s on the low end of recent history.

Why didn’t the stimulus fix everything as promised? First, we have to accept the 2008 woman somehow magically knowing about the 2009 stimulus package, but I’m nit-picking. Most stimulus proponents now agree the stimulus package was not up to the task. The enormity of the economic hole was much larger than anticipated and the level of stimulus was insufficient to achieve the desired results. However, it probably was the largest package that would have been politically do-able. But even then, did it have a positive effect? There is arguably legitimate debate here, although the consensus is that the stimulus did improve things. But even if it didn’t, there’s no one claiming it did any harm excepting a brief blip in the debt curve.

Next up is the assertion that all of Obama’s investments in green energy have gone bankrupt. One company, Solyndra, went bankrupt. That’s not quite all. There’s ample room for debate on whether the government should be subsidizing commercial energy companies, but the fact remains that the vast majority of the loans have not defaulted. Further, the $535M Solyndra debacle is a relative drop in the $34B DOE loan bucket. So minimally, this claim is blowing things out of proportion.

There’s a healthcare mandate, she says with a voice dripping in desperation. Yes there is. And unless we’re content with 30-50 million Americans going without medical care or getting it by indirectly increasing the costs of those of us who do get it, there should be. Even Mitt Romney (the unwitting father of Obamacare), was recently praising the Israeli heathcare system as being cost effective—apparently unaware that it achieves those results through government controlled universal coverage. If there’s a workable alternative solution, someone should put it on the table. Otherwise…

There’s a middle class tax hike, she says. No, there isn’t. Taxes are at historic lows. That is, unless you count the Obamacare individual mandate as a tax increase, in which case they are still at historic lows. But viewing the mandate as a tax increase is a spurious argument that also requires you to acknowledge the effective tax cut the rest of get for not having to pay for the care of those without insurance through our insurance rates, paycheck deductions, and co-pays.

Obama promised transparency! Yes, he did. And the record so far is abysmal by pretty much any measure. Transparency seems to decrease year after year regardless of who’s in office. This may be a result of the 24×7 instant news culture we live in. Be that as it may, this is still our government and we have a right to know what’s going on in there.

There are loads of lobbyists in the Administration. Yes, there are, and Obama promised there wouldn’t be. This is more than a little disappointing. It may be the reality of modern government. It may be that other administrations have done much the same thing, but that doesn’t change the fact that this is a fundamental campaign promise on which Obama has failed badly.

African American suffer the highest unemployment rates. Well, yes. But historically that’s always been true. That doesn’t make it a good thing, but it’s hardly a remarkable thing.

Internationally we’ve never been more hated. This is simply pants-on-fire false.

But I thought the Muslim world would follow our lead to democracy? Well, yes and no. The Arab Spring has certainly been a profound and recent movement toward democracy in much of the Muslim world. However, in many cases it has resulted in the democratic election of parties and leaders that are not so very friendly toward the USA. The unfortunate reality of letting people choose is that you may not like their choices. Nonetheless, to say they followed our path is a little ludicrous. Further, Obama didn’t promise to bring democracy to the world. That was G.W. Bush.

Instead, we’re following Europe’s lead into debt. Yes and no, but mostly no. First, we aren’t following Europe. We aren’t racking up debt because they are or because we view them as some sort of economic mentor. Second, not all of Europe is debt ridden. Greece, Italy, and Spain are at particular risk. This crises was created because of the European Economic Union, which joins all the countries’ currencies without linking their economies. This is not the situation in the USA. we are not going the way of Europe. We may still get sucked down by them, but that’s not a function of debt, just a reality of global economies. Yes, the debt in the US is unsustainable. However, current debt levels are not a result of runaway spending. Spending increases are growing slower than at any time since the 50s. Instead, what we have is an unprecedented loss of revenue as a result of tax cuts, high unemployment, and a sluggish economy. Further, the US government is currently considered the most stable financial bet on the planet. At present, the Treasury is able to sell debt at negative yields. That means people are paying the US government to keep their money safe. This is beyond free money. Yes, we can’t rack up debt forever. When the economy recovers, we absolutely need to pay it down rather than giving ourselves tax cuts like we did in 2001. But there is no evidence that debt is an emergent risk to our economy.

I recognize this has been long, and I’m flattered if you muddled through to the end. If you have any energy left, I strongly encourage you to click through and read the reference material, or dig up your own. But please, dig up facts and not emotional appeals and sound bites. The video is a cute concept, but it is a message largely without substance.

6 comments »

Posted in Politics

Tags: Congress Conservatives GOP Obama Propaganda Republicans Tea Party

The Real Obamacare “Tax”

June 29th, 2012

“It’s a TAX!”

I was watching Fox News yesterday as the SCOTUS ruling upholding Obamacare’s individual mandate came to light. Commentary was all over the map for the first 30 minutes, but then began to rapidly zero-in on the accusation that this was now a tax on the middle-class. They had found their message, and from then on sang out in perfect harmony. It was kind of amazing.

“(Americans will) like it even less when they understand it’s a tax,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told Fox News.

One curious element is that nothing related to the mandate is different today than it was last week—excepting the label. The notion that people’s view of the mandate will change as a result of a renaming is a blatant play to the ignorance of the audience.

Still, even if we accept the new label of “tax”, is it really a new financial burden on the middle class as conservatives are saying?

For those who are currently uninsured and financially able to afford healthcare, Obamacare will impose a new financial drain. Although, in return they get health insurance. We can call that a tax if you like.

But on the flip side, those who are currently insured are presently picking up the tab for the uninsured through higher insurance premiums and medical costs. Getting the uninsured into the pool lowers policy rates for the rest of us. This is even more true as other popular provisions of Obamacare, such as preventing coverage denial for pre-existing conditions, comes into force. The net result of this is a lowering of the financial burden on the currently insured, which is a significant majority of citizens.

If forcing the uninsured into the pool is a tax increase, then it only seems fair the reduced costs to the insured be considered a tax cut. At worst, this is a wash. At best, the tax cuts for the majority will significantly outweigh the tax increase to the minority.

Will there be individuals who will pay more as a result of Obamacare? Sure. But many more of us will pay less. So it’s pretty hard to argue in aggregate that this is a tax increase on the middle class.

10 comments »

Posted in Politics

Tags: Conservatives Constitution FOX News GOP Healthcare Reform Obama Republicans SCOTUS

The Dangers of American Exceptionalism

May 8th, 2012

Sean Hannity often says that America is the greatest best country God has ever given man on the face of this Earth. It’s an oft repeated mantra, which if taken in the spirit of national pride and unity would be just fine. However, it is more often interpreted as some sort of birthright that America should rule the world… militarily, economically, intellectually, spiritually, and well hey… did I mention that we’re number one?

The trouble, of course, is that when you view everyone else as subordinate, you tend to believe they have nothing to teach you. I’ve written before about how there are countries out there with proven successes in achieving exactly the goals we’re trying to achieve in healthcare and education, but we are not even seriously studying or talking about these foreign models.

Now comes evidence that Iceland has done wonders in solving their housing market issues as well as getting their financial system back in order following the 2008 meltdown of both. In a nutshell, Iceland took over its banking industry rather than just bailing it out as we did here in the US. It then forgave any mortgage debt above 110% of a home’s value for all its citizens. This dramatically reduced the debt burden for most households and kept consumer spending from plummeting. It then instituted extensive new regulations on the banking industry to prevent another 2008-style catastrophe. Further, it has actively pursued criminal charges against almost 300 banking executives who were directly responsible for decisions leading up to the crash. The result?

Iceland’s $13 billion annual economy declined 6.7 percent the following year, in 2009, but has since rebounded and will expand by 2.4 percent this year and in 2013, the OECD estimated. Meanwhile, in the rest of debt-ridden Europe, the economy will collectively expand by a paltry 0.2 percent this year and only 1.6 percent the next, OECD estimates said in November.

Housing is now just about 3 percent below values in September 2008, just before the financial collapse. So improved is the nation’s economic and fiscal outlook that Fitch Ratings in February raised the country to investment grade with a stable outlook, stating the country’s “unorthodox crisis policy response has succeeded.”

By comparison, the US is projected to grow at 2.2% in 2012, the housing market remains underwater, and the banks are returning to many of the same policies that led to the crash in the first place.

It’s not clear that what happened in Iceland is directly applicable to the US. Perhaps those programs and policies would not function here as well for one reason or another. But the crime is that we are not even talking about it—not even trying to learn from their experience. The mainstream press has given Iceland almost no coverage. Politicians are not discussing what happened there and debating its applicability to our economy. As far as the US is concerned, Iceland doesn’t exist.

Is this because we’re too proud to admit a bunch of foreigners have something to teach us? Or is it because the special interests have a stranglehold on the media and the politicians and are suppressing stories that would lead to policies unfavorable to their moneyed interests? It’s not clear. But what is clear is that other countries are solving problems that we need to solve, and we’re idiots if we can’t find something to learn from them.

2 comments »

Posted in Politics

Tags: American Exceptionalism Conservatives Economic Policy GOP

Dear GOP, Drill This

March 3rd, 2012

Either unregulated free markets work, or they don’t. Either a thing is the President’s responsibility, or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways unless you’re inventing your own reality… Oh yeah, never mind.

Okay, maybe we should mind a little… The GOP’s message is that Obama is responsible for high gas prices and he should do something about that. And that something is to “drill, baby, drill“. Unfortunately, those damned liberally biased facts stand in stark opposition to the GOP’s message. As the chart on the right shows, oil production under Obama has risen at a substantial rate, and contrasts markedly with the steady decline of production under George Bush. In fact, the number of oil rigs in production in the U.S. has reached a 24-year high, according to oil field services company Baker Hughes. In 2005, domestic production was 1.89 billion barrels. This year, experts say, production is expected to surpass 2 billion barrels.

Further, there’s no correlation between domestic oil production and gas prices. The chart on the left shows instead that the two numbers seem to roughly track. If we assume (moronically) that correlation is the same as causation, the obvious policy would be to stop domestic production in an effort to bring prices at the pump down.

Another nail in the coffin of the failure to drill position is the U.S. Energy Information Administration report that the U.S. exported 430,000 more barrels of gasoline than it imported for the month of September. This is an historic change, because we’ve been a net importer of gasoline, mostly from Europe, since the 1960s. We are not domestically constrained on gasoline supply.

Another inconvenient truth is U.S. net petroleum imports have fallen to about 47% of the nation’s consumption, down from a record 60.3% in 2005, Energy Information Administration statistics show. It’s been 15 years since the nation’s reliance on foreign oil has been this low.

So does Obama deserve all the credit for this? No, absolutely not. While he’s called for ending the $40B in annual subsidies to big oil, so far the money flows unabated. While there was a brief moratorium on deep water drilling after the BP oil spill, that was long ago lifted. Obama subsequently opened up drilling in the Arctic to the howl of environmentalists, and also agreed to open leases for drilling off the eastern seaboard, despite his reputation on the right for shutting down oil exploration. Obama may not be responsible for the boom in production, but it’s not at all clear how you can claim he’s a hindrance to it. There might be a claim that he could do more to spur drilling, but there’s no evidence he’s done anything yet to impede drilling. If anything, his policies lean the other way.

Meanwhile, in reality, the major reasons for increases in domestic oil production lie with recent advances in geologic imaging allowing accurate identification of underground oil deposits, as well as the development of new extraction techniques making previously unprofitable wells productive.

The impact of energy efficiency should also not be underestimated. Not only are our homes, cars, and appliances cleaner and greener, but advances in technology have reduced the need for travel. More of us are telecommuting to work, or using GoToMeeting instead of jumping on a plane.

Hmmm… domestic production is up, domestic use is down, and gas prices are still rising. That doesn’t sound like the supply & demand model we learned about in school! But wait, I’ve heard rumors that the US is not the only country on the planet. Maybe there are other players here influencing the market.

It turns out that growing industrialized counties like China and India are consuming an ever larger portion of the global oil supply. In aggregate, the global demand is expected to barely keep pace with global production. So there’s minimal excess capacity in the market, and that helps keep prices high. Granted, additional production will definitely help this problem. However, if China and India continue growing at their current rate and eventually consume oil at rates approaching what we do in the U.S., the need will far outstrip the supply of oil on the entire globe. So long term, most of us have to find an energy alternative to oil anyway. The only way “Drill, Baby, Drill” solves this problem is if the US becomes entirely oil self-sufficient, and then detaches itself from the global oil markets. And that flies directly in the face of the GOP position on open, free, and unregulated markets. Can you imagine the cries when the law is passed that prevents Exxon from exporting?

And speaking of free markets, oil speculators are in no small part responsible for the current price spike. Almost 70% of the current oil commodities market is driven by speculators. Why is speculation driving prices up? Primarily, the speculation that there is an imminent military intervention in Iran that will dramatically impact the delivery of Mid-East oil. Meaning, the increased saber-rattling toward Iran is helping drive prices up by driving speculation of a coming supply crunch. Keep in mind that while Obama has offered stern warnings to Iran, the current GOP Presidential contenders (excluding Ron Paul) have all promised to attack Iran if they don’t fall in line to U.S. demands. Commodities speculation is fairly unregulated, and it seems highly unlikely the GOP would support such financial regulation. Meanwhile, their militaristic approach to foreign policy exacerbates fears that are driving the free market in the direction they claim to not want it to go.

Mitt Romney is on record saying that rather than bail out the auto industry, the market should just have been allowed to run its natural course. That’s what’s best for the markets and ultimately best for America. Why then, is it not best for the markets and best for America to let gas hit $5/gallon if that is the natural course of things? Why should the government intervene on gas prices?

If your mantra is, shut up and take your medicine while the markets sort it out, then shut up and take your medicine.

2 comments »

Posted in Mad Science, Politics

Tags: 2012 Elections Conservatives Energy Policy GOP

The GOP is Running Out of People to Alienate

February 18th, 2012

There was a time when party politics was about appealing to the majority of voters. Minimally, this meant getting people to feel like the party had their back in some way or another. However, for many groups the GOP increasingly seems to be asserting they not only don’t have their back, but they find the members of the group to be somehow unsuitable as members of society.

If you are part of, relate to, or support one of the groups below, you should know how the GOP feels about you or your loved ones:

Women – unscrupulous homicidal baby incubators who left unregulated and controlled would be hurling infants off seaside cliffs in hormonal rages.
Gays/Lesbians – an affront to God, family, and good clean living; they won’t rest until they’ve turned everyone gay and destroyed the institutions of marriage and parenthood.
Immigrants – the illegal ones are job-stealing leeches on the underbelly of society that should be deported just as soon as the crops are in; the legal ones are sketchy too—they talk funny.
Scientists – a cabal of liberal tree-hugging geeks in white lab coats bent on corrupting children, destroying religion, and crimping oil industry profits; except the ones working on smartphone technology—they’re okay.
Atheists – an evil, amoral, hedonistic scourge sent by Satan to lead the weak of faith straight to Hell and plunge America into darkness… which would be bad, unless it’s the End Times.
Poor People – lazy, shiftless, unmotivated, drug-addled drains on society; they need to get off their asses and out in the fields for sub-poverty wages so we can send all the damned illegals back home.
African Americans – entitled and lazy, they will resort to crime and drugs if they don’t get their food stamps and welfare checks; except pro athletes—they’re valuable.
Muslims – terrorists… all of them; this is America dammit, and we do not sit idly by while some freedom hating loonies with exploding underwear try to rob us of our religious freedom.
Hispanics – see Illegal Immigrants; and even those that are legal are only hear to try and figure out how to sneak all their friends and relatives over the border.
Future Seniors – current seniors are good to go; future seniors had better cinch up their Depends because this notion that you should have health care and a government pension is unsustainable; but don’t worry, if you do it right during your working years, then you’ll be rich enough to enjoy retirement; if you didn’t… well, try to die unobtrusively.

…and I’m sure I missed a few groups, or maybe the GOP just hasn’t gotten around to them yet.

I can’t fathom how alienating all these groups will help the GOP in the election as these groups represent some significant portions of the population. Their only election day salvation would seem to be keeping all these undesirables from the polls. Oh yeah, that’s already under way.

3 comments »

Posted in Politics, XX - XY

Tags: 2012 Elections Atheism Conservatives GOP Immigration LBGT

May I have that aspirin between your knees?

February 17th, 2012

Use as directed (by doddering old men)

The overreaction by the left is giving me a headache. Sure, Foster Friess made a stupid remark when he said,

“This contraception thing, my gosh, it’s so inexpensive. You know, back in my days, they’d use Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.”

He says it was a joke, and I believe him. Apparently I’m the only one who remembers hearing this joke some 40 years ago. It was a play off of what was then a new form of birth control called “the pill”. People would joke back then that the only way the pill would be 100% effective is if you held it between your knees. And I remember hearing the aspirin variant as well.

This certainly doesn’t excuse the reality that this was not the time or the venue to make such a lighthearted remark. So, Friess rightly gets a dope slap for that. But MS-NBC, the Huffington Post, and other liberal leaning outlets have been beating the poor guy to death over this.

Don’t get me wrong, I fully support contraceptives being included in everyone’s health coverage. I live in one many states that already have such rules in place. It’s sheer lunacy that we have national politicians arguing that contraceptives are harmful to women or that anyone can opt out of providing any form of health coverage as long as they site their moral conviction as the reason.

Further, Friess is the single key monetary backer of Rick Santorum’s Super-Pac, which already calls his sanity into question. And if you watch his post-remark explanation from last night, he seems more than a little bewildered, not only about why he’s on TV, but also about the positions of the candidate he supports. It’s not clear he’s firing on all cylinders, but he has a big-ass checkbook and a Supreme Court ruling that says he can use it—which is a whole different messed up thing.

However, at its core Friess was simply advocating for abstinence. After all, that’s the point of the aspirin between the knees, right?. Keep your legs closed ladies. Because everyone (who’s never had much sex) knows that you can’t have sex if your knees are touching.

All these same reporters and pundits who are apoplectic over Friess’ remark, are the same folks who for decades have listened with a straight face as politicians and advocacy groups pushed abstinence based programs in this country. Despite mountains of evidence that abstinence is a failed strategy, it still gets the courtesy of consideration from news media on the left and the right alike.

Why go off the rails now, and against a 72-year old man who has a cute way of saying he thinks we should be teaching abstinence instead of providing contraception? Sure, that’s a dumb idea. But it’s been a dumb idea for a long long time. It’s a little late to get your shocked face out now.

The left often (and properly IMHO) chastises right-wing media for blowing small issues out of proportion. For taking a minor incident and playing it and replaying it until it becomes a thing. But in this case, the left is guilty of the same behavior. Lead by example. There is a big story here on women’s health and healthcare in general. Foster Friess is not the story. Cut the old guy some slack.

2 comments »

Posted in Politics, Religion, XX - XY

Tags: 2012 Elections Conservatives Liberal Media

The American War on Sex

February 11th, 2012

Our culture has a curious relationship with sex. Judging by our television programming, Internet habits, and even news coverage, it would seem we are obsessed with it. Yet judging by our politics, we are terrified anyone is actually doing it.

Reruns of Two and a Half Men run almost constantly, and the content is almost entirely sexual. ABC’s The Secret Life of the American Teenager was wildly popular amongst teen girls, and dealt almost non-stop with teen girls having sex. The E! network is awash in pixelated boobs. And what self-respecting primetime crime drama wouldn’t feature sexual depravity and violence as a major theme?

Meanwhile, Janet Jackson’s “accidental” exposure of a nipple for 8 seconds on TV warranted the attention of the Supreme Court.

The hot-button issues emerging in the 2012 election are turning out to be topics like contraception, gay marriage, and defunding Planned Parenthood. In the 21st century, we are still committed to teaching abstinence to kids. The same kids to whom we market an unending stream of sexualized clothing, music, and media are then being told by politicians that sex is just for making babies within the context of a marriage. Is it any wonder kids think politicians are out of touch?

Ironically, the Muslim countries have this right. If you’re really committed as a culture to sexual repression, then drape your women in burkas, censor the Internet, and restrict TV broadcasts to G-rated content. At least it’s a consistent policy

Alternatively, maybe it’s time to embrace sex as a natural human function rather than some weird necessary ritual that must be performed 2.2 times in order to produce the requisite number of children. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs places sex at the same level as breathing, food, water, and sleep. We are hard-wired for sex at very fundamental and physiological level.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating for hedonism. Just because you enjoy eating doesn’t mean you’re into gluttony or dumpster diving. And just as the government plays a role in the food you eat, it has a role to play in sex as well. The government works to make sure the food supply is safe. It even encourages good nutritional habits. But there is very little support for the government regulating what you can eat and when. Maybe a similar approach should be taken with sex. The government can work to ensure that sex is safe. That might include disease prevention and control, sexual product testing, and access to sexually related health care.

But maybe people should be as resistant to the government regulating when, where, and whom you can have sex with as they are to the notion that the government will take away their soda-pop and Twinkies.

Government regulation of morality rarely goes well.

5 comments »

Posted in Politics, Religion, XX - XY

Tags: 2012 Elections Conservatives Gender Issues Religious Freedom Religious Right

The Angry Mob Is Rising

February 2nd, 2012

As the 2012 election approaches, all the old anti-Obama crap is recirculating. The message is unchanged. He’s the most dangerous man in America. He’s trying to destroy us. He’s Marxist. He’s Muslim. He hangs with terrorists. He was born on Neptune. He wears magic underwear. (Oh wait, that last one was Romney. Sorry) But you get the point.

I was recently the recipient of one such email screed, and decided to take on the issue, as I’m wont to do from time to time. Yes, I’m sure I was just tilting at windmills, but the email chain was widely circulated, and I’m making that a little wider by publishing it here. Who knows, maybe someone reading it will at least reexamine their position before picking up their pitchfork. If so, it’s worth it. The complete chain is included below.

The original email:

EVERYONE SHOULD READ AND PAY ATTENTION TO THIS, and pass it forward.

HOW DO WE GET EVERY AMERICAN TO UNDERSTAND AND VOTE TO CURE THIS BLIGHT?

Subject: Wake up!
WHEN – he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan, Muramar Kaddafi and Hugo Chavez, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – it was pointed out that he was a total newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – his voting record in the Illinois Senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he refused to wear a flag lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he surrounded himself in the White House with advisors who were pro-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he said he favors sex education in kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – his personal background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco – a man of questionable character and who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home – people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he started appointing White House Czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist /Communists, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he stood before the Nation and told us that his intentions were to “fundamentally transform this Nation” into something else, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed cabinet members and several advisors who were tax cheats and socialists, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed a Science Czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Cass Sunstein as Regulatory Czar who believes in “Explicit Consent,” harvesting human organs without family consent and allowing animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual and organizer of a group called Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Education Network as Safe School Czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Mark Lloyd as Diversity Czar who believes in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth, who supports Hugo Chavez, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – Valerie Jarrett, an avowed Socialist, was selected as Obama’s Senior White House Advisor, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Carol Browner, a well known socialist as Global Warming Czar working on Cap and Trade as the nation’s largest tax, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as Green Energy Czar, who since had to resign when this was made known, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – Tom Daschle, Obama’s pick for Health and Human Services Secretary could not be confirmed because he was a tax cheat, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – as President of the United States , he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – his actions concerning the Middle East seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel , our long time ally, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States , people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops early-on when the Field Commanders said they were necessary to win, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions, and individuals that got him elected, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc., people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he claimed he was a Christian during the election and tapes were later made public that showed Obama speaking to a Muslim group and ‘stating’ that he was raised a Muslim, was educated as a Muslim, and is still a Muslim, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through Cap and Trade, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State , people woke up— but it was too late.

Add these up one by one and you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact that Barrack Hussein Obama is determined to turn America into a Marxist-Socialist society. All of the items in the preceding paragraphs have been put into place. All can be documented very easily. Before you disavow this do an Internet search. The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph.
Will it read as above or will it be a more happy ending for most of America ?

Don’t just belittle the opposition. Search for the truth. We all need to pull together or watch the demise of a free democratic
society. Pray for Americans to seek the truth and take action for it will keep us FREE. Our biggest enemy is not China , Russia , North Korea or Iran . Our biggest enemy is a contingent of politicians in Washington , DC . The government will not help, so we need to do it ourselves.

Question….will you delete this, or pass it on to others who don’t know about Obama’s actions and plans for the USA , so that they may know how to vote in November, 2012 and the ensuing years?

It’s your decision. I believe it does matter. How about you?

WHEN – November 2012 comes, it will matter who you vote for!

I replied:

This is America. It is a country where everyone has a right to ignorance, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, paranoia, and all manner of conspiratorial delusion. The author of this gem is taking full advantage of those rights.

When the things listed here are true, you should be worried. But you should be more worried that there are people out there making decisions based on a belief that bunk like this is true. And unlike the crap below, that is happening now.

There are ample reasons to vote against Obama based on a disagreement with his policies and positions. However, the points below reflect only ad hominem attacks. They disparage the people. They take aim at the integrity and character of Obama and others, largely through innuendo and speculation. Ideally, most people outgrow this sort of behavior in middle school. But this is not an ideal world.

The only valid point the author makes in this whole diatribe is, “Don’t just belittle the opposition. Search for the truth.” Do that. Just be careful not to mistake the loudest and angriest voices for those speaking truth. Sometimes truth is just a tad more subtle than that.

Which generated this response:

I was so hoping to get a response like the last one in which you took the time to go through point by point and put it in perspective. I’m disappointed you didn’t do that this time, but did just what most Liberals do when they listen to the main stream media and can’t disprove the truth. They label those that expose the truth as racist, ignorant, paranoid etc. If, as you say, this diatribe is bunk please show me where. You might want to ”search out the truth” for yourself so you can do that.
I would also like your opinion on just how Obama has made America any better since he has been in office. Thanks!
Looking forward to hearing from you.

To which I replied:

If you want me to address your issues seriously, then you need to send me serious issues. These were not. This was the equivalent of the old bully’s chide, “Your mother wears Army boots.” And then having the bully demand you prove it’s not true.

It’s been six years since Obama hit the national stage. The GOP has had control of the house for the last two, during which their explicit self-stated mission was to bring Obama down. If any of these charges were more substantive than character smears, do you seriously think there would not have been Congressional hearings to expose all this. Obama is a Muslim Marxist Kenyan? Are we still seriously arguing these things?

If someone asserts the Earth is flat, the sky is green, and gravity makes things fall up, I could certainly provide research, data, and demonstrations those contentions were untrue. But I wouldn’t. It’s not worth my time. Anyone who holds true such readily demonstrable falsehoods is not looking for truth. They are looking for confirmation, either that they are right or that there is a conspiracy to keep the truth hidden. Nothing I might say or do is going to change that.

There is an old adage that you should never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Has Obama made the country any better? Ask the 16 million people who now have medical care. Ask the millions of unemployed who have continued to receive benefits so they can keep their homes and feed their families. Ask the employees of GM who still have jobs and are working for a thriving company. Ask the workers who have enjoyed additional thousands in their paychecks because of tax cuts. Ask the 1%ers who have garnered 88% of the income growth since 2009. Ask the Wall Street bankers who didn’t go to jail for tanking the economy. Ask the families of soldiers home from Iraq. Ask Mommar Quadaffi or Osama bin Laden.

Does any of that make this a better country? Better for whom? And compared to what? That is question you must answer for yourself.

This generated yet another response:

I am truly amazed that you get to determine what questions you decide are serious enough to answer or not. The truth is all those points made regarding the President are the truth. I will grant you some of the points by themselves seem unimporant. However when you put them all together, you can get an idea of just who Obama thinks he is and why he thinks he can stomp all over the Constitution to get his policies put into effect. You say you can’t do anything about any conspiracy to keep the truth hidden. I disagree. You could start by seriously checking out sources other than the main stream media for your information. Our freedom and our rights are slowly and oh so cleverly being stolen out from under us and it is people like you who seem to be so blinded to the the truth of what is happening to our country that they are getting away with it. You have no idea of the evil that is permeating this land.
Just a couple of more things, Tim and then I think we should agree to disagree.
No one seems to be able to answer just why Obama didn’t pass the things he wanted to when he had control of both the House and the Senate. Any ideas? (I am being very serious).
Your answer as to how Obama has made America better on the surface looks ok. My question is at what cost? Obama has put us more in debt than any other president combined. The health care billed was passed even though 60% of the people didn’t want it. It was passed unread by anyone (even the President.) It was passed after meetings being held behind closed doors where who knows what happened. (so much for the promised transparency), and by bribing congressmen and senators for their votes, (both Republicans and Democrats.) Now that we know what is in it (some parts considered unconstitutional) more of our rights are threatened, and is putting us further into debt.
Who knows what the effect of cutting benefits from Seniors to pay for this will be. There are enough sources out there to check on that.
You say millions of unemployed are receiving benefits so they can keep their homes and feed their children and that is wonderful for them. My question is what is being done for the millions who have lost their homes with no hope of getting them back? What plans are in the works for putting the millions of unemployed back to work? Obama had the chance to do something about it with the Keystone pipeline construction, but chose to appease the environmental wackos for their votes in the upcoming election. Because of the stimulus money bailouts, the Federal Government now controls the auto industry, the banking industry and the Green Energy businesses that he supported are now going bankrupt. Can you guess who is being paid back first? It is not the American taxpayers.
I could go on, but you get the idea, Tim. I’m not saying all of this is all Obama’s fault. It is my opinion the whole Governmental system is corrupt, and if we (Republicans, Democrats, Independents, the Tea Party, Christians, Jews, Atheists,) in short, Americans just stand by and let it happen, we deserve what we get. Everyone should be checking both sides of the issues and speaking up to questionable issues from both sides that, if passed, could change life as we know it.
Serious? You bet it is!!!!

Which finally resulted in this:

You are apparently easily amazed. I’m pretty sure I’d get fairly wide agreement that I absolutely get to decide what questions are important enough for me to spend my time addressing. Further, you then go on to completely justify why I chose correctly to not waste my time. You already believe you know the truth, and any notion that you’re seeking dialog, answers, and/or explanations is disingenuous at best.

And yes, we will clearly continue to disagree, but maybe not about quite what you think we disagree about.

You see malice, conspiracy, and evil. I don’t.. Obama is not evil or part of an evil plot, nor is he some sort of political Messiah. He’s a guy, doing a very tough job, in an environment pretty much designed to keep him from getting anything done. (So is every President for that matter.) It wasn’t that many years ago that even disagreeing with a wartime President was viewed as treasonous–ironically, by the same folks who now position Obama as an evil incarnate bent on the destruction of America. Doesn’t that make you wonder just a little about the cognitive dissonance of folks you’re following? Doesn’t it make you suspect that maybe they are really angling for something a little different than what’s claimed on the surface?

Where we disagree is that you believe you are privy to some hidden truth, and it’s your mission to wake others up. While I believe you are being manipulated by a political machine that masquerades as a persecuted grassroots movement, and that machine is using you to further its own ends, not to help you and those like you.

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) was formed in New York in 1937. Its findings are considered seminal in the field and are still widely quoted in propaganda texts. The IPA outlined 7 critical techniques for effective propaganda. If you want to get a group of people fired up and headed off in the direction of your choosing, these are the things you need to do.

Name calling – Apply emotion-laden labels to individuals who provide a face and a focus for either the idea being pushed, or its opposition.
Glittering generalities – We believe in, fight for, live by, or other virtue words about which we have deep-set ideas. Such words include civilization, Christianity, good, proper, right, democracy, patriotism, motherhood, fatherhood, marriage, morality, etc..
Transfer – A device by which the message carries over the authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect such as “church” or “nation” to an idea we might otherwise reject.
Testimonial – ‘Bill O’Reilly said,’ ‘The Governor said’, ‘My doctor said,’ ‘Our minister said’; basically lending the weight of others you respect to the argument. Can also be used in reverse by lending the weight of those you despise (e.g. Bill Ayers, Hugo Chavez) to tear down the opposition.
Plain folks – Binding your idea to children, small town America, hockey moms, real Americans, etc. Can also be used in reverse by labeling the opposition as not plain folks (e.g. elites, intellectuals)
Card stacking – Employing all the arts of deception to win support for an idea. Stacking the cards against the truth through distortion, careful omission, half-truths, and false testimony, raising new issues to divert attention from a failing argument.
Bandwagon – Hire a hall, use radio/TV stations, fill a stadium, march a lot of people in a parade. Employ symbols, colors, music, movement, all the dramatic arts. Get people to write emails and blog, and/or to contribute to the cause. Make them feel part of a group that’s connected to the message.

Does this sound familiar? Granted, politicians have employed these techniques to varying degrees since the dawn of time, but this basically is the Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News playbook. They are unmitigated masters of this.

I’m certain you don’t think you’re being played. One rarely does while they are in the midst of it. But if you harbor a shred of true inquisitiveness, re-read the initial email you sent. The one you assert is all true. Can you see that it employs these techniques? Read whatever it is you read as your source of daily information, and weigh it against these techniques. Are you getting news or propaganda?

Granted, just because something is propaganda doesn’t mean it’s false. But it does pretty much mean that the author is is up to something. Something that can’t be sold on the facts and logical reasoning alone. Otherwise, it’s a lot of work to go through to make a point that shouldn’t get much disagreement.

My original point was essentially that the email you sent was propaganda. It contained no plan, no useful policy ideas, no arguments to weigh or counter. It was fear-mongering. It was a storm the castle pitch. That can’t be usefully countered by a point by point analysis. It could be offset by counter-propaganda, but I will not stoop to that. As a people, I’d like us to be more than pawns in a political marketing tug-of-war.

I’m not going to argue that the world is all sunshine and roses. It’s not. We absolutely have problems. But they are not the making of any one man or one event, nor will one man or one event be their undoing. Being angry, afraid, and contemptuous is understandable. But it’s not helpful. We are where we are. The question remains, how do we move forward and up? Pitchforks and torches rarely foment progress.

No comments »

Posted in Politics

Tags: 2012 Elections Conservatives Obama Tea Party Words Matter

« Older Entries