In the gun control debate, opponents of gun control often justify ownership of assault weapons in the name of self preservation in the rare chance that the government becomes tyrannical and oppressive. They believe that in order to stand up in the face of tyranny, they must have firepower strong enough to fire back against the military forces that would impose tyrannical rule. However, that hypothetical scenario has some serious flaws, flaws where the reality of the military and our government are in direct conflict with the idea of liberal tyranny.
There are two key features of this scenario which simply do not add up, but seldom will you hear anyone discuss either one because the gun control debate never has a chance to evolve beyond simple sparring. The first is that I firmly believe an American conservative government is more likely to impose tyrannical rule by force than a liberal government. The second point to make is that, should the government use its arm of the military to impose its rule, one has to remember that those who belong to the US military are often conservative.
The first point is the more important one to understand. I concede that a liberal government is equally prone to tyranny by way of legislation as a conservative government might be. In that instance, I would urge you to proceed to the second point I've made. Still, in terms of what we are faced with right now, the Republican party has been hijacked by gun-toting religious fanatics. The militaristic nature of the Republican party alone validates my claim that they are more likely to impose tyrannical rule than Democratic leaders. The funding for the military is more likely to increase under a Republican administration. If anything, a liberal administration would weaken the US military force (if you listen to any conservative talk radio pundit). As a liberal, I should be more afraid of tyranny via Republican rule than Democratic rule. Religion is a powerful player in government all around the world. From Iran to Saudi Arabia, oppressive regimes rely upon religious doctrine to control the population within their boundaries. If a religious movement comes about, it will be of the conservative ilk, not liberal.
The second point, then, is to realize the members of our military are heavily invested in conservative politics. Go to any veteran or currently enlisted member of our military. Ask them if, when ordered to fire upon their fellow American citizens, would they follow those orders or resist?
Then, as a liberal, I have to ask whether I should be more worried about a conservative member of the military shooting me or if a conservative should be more worried about a conservative member of the military firing up on them. Given the rhetoric present in our current political environment, I strongly feel that the threatening language present on the Right would motivate a conservative marine to off me without a second thought, whereas a conservative marine would be sympathetic to a fellow conservative and refuse the order to shoot. Do you see now how a conservative administration is more likely to impose tyrannical physical force upon the populace?
Almost instantly, arguments related to that last question would soon devolve into tangents about how the government has used the military and the FBI to attack certain groups at home. One such example would be the Waco siege in Waco, Texas. What that argument fails to recognize is, the group in question was led by a crazy person. If you are identified as a threat to our security, yes, you very well could face a military force at your doorstep. If you think that the military is going to attack your Constitutional right to organize, then perhaps the organizing you are planning is a tad on the crazy side. You might just be a threat to our way of life at this very moment if your level of paranoia makes that much sense to you.
But if you follow the current conversation over secession, or worse yet, revolution, you will find that rednecks will put down their uniforms and loyalties to the President of the United States and cross the battle lines to fight on behalf of their brothers.
So what I'm saying is, even if tyrannical rule were to be imposed, the safeguard is built in by your own political brethren who serve in the military. You should be more worried that your own elected officials are plotting to impose rigid tyranny. If you want to continue arguing that the Obama administration is tyrannical in its proposed legislation, again, I will refer you to point #2. Your arsenal will be of little necessity since conservatives in the military aren't going to shoot fellow conservatives. You don't need an assault rifle to defend against a military force because you hold much of the military force already.
But paranoia like yours prevents us from having a serious discussion about gun control. We have to entertain arguments like what I just described just to nudge the door of conversation open. We have to entertain ludicrous hypotheticals to simply move on to propose limitations like background checks, mental health restrictions on firearms, and access to firearms that were designed for military use, not civilian protection or recreation. No serious debate can be had until you move beyond these two paranoid delusions I have just discussed above.
Showing posts with label debates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debates. Show all posts
Monday, December 17, 2012
Monday, September 3, 2012
The Two Biggest Problems With Clint Eastwood's Speech
While the internet is still buzzing from the hilarity that was Clint Eastwood's rambling on the RNC stage at the convention, two things stood out in my mind as I watched the coverage and replay of the poorly timed and poorly placed attempt at Republican enthusiasm. While I agree with Bill Maher that producing comedy with an empty chair is a difficult task and that Eastwood pulled that part off, I did not find the act itself to be of the quality or decency that we should expect in a campaign.
Let me explain what I mean.
Al Sharpton has already brought my first point to our attention, as have many others. The speech itself was disrespectful to the office of the President of the United States of America. Now before you get your conservative panties and secret mormon underwear in knots, let's cover one very important retort that I've seen. Yes, democrats have been known to say and do some very unkind things when talking about President Bush. This behavior, however, does not excuse you or Clint Eastwood from behaving the same way. You should strive to be a better person than your rivals, no?
Okay, then. So the fact that Clint Eastwood not only spoke in a condescending tone to an imaginary President Obama, but adding profanity to the mix made this performance especially disrespectful. Had President Obama been in that chair, Clint Eastwood would have conducted himself in a more respectful tone.
This leads to my second impression of this crap.
This is the only way conservatives like to debate President Obama. Not only have they spent the last four years (election season and post-election first term) creating a fake story line about President Obama with which they have armed their dittohead minions for the sole purpose of making him a one term president, but in this instance, they created a situation where a debate without a retort from their opposition served only to fit their hate-laden fancy. They could argue with an invisible man from the comfort of their own echo chamber. Difference of opinion? What's that? It's what Republicans refuse to acknowledge in the name of arrogance and self preservation. This was hardly a respectable way to frame the campaign, let alone a debate. In that setting, no humor exists. It's a shameful representation of what the Republican Party has become.
Conservatives do not wish to debate the President on his home turf. No. This was an act of blatant cowardice. If they can't muster up the courage to debate President Obama face to face, then that makes them cowards. That makes Clint Eastwood a coward. To pull a line from Back to the Future III, Clint Eastwood is the biggest yellow belly in the West.
When in history has either party talked this way to a sitting US president? Oh yes, this might have to do with the fact that modern conservatives question the legitimacy of this presidency, from birthers, to people who think he is Muslim, to racists, and to people who think he stole the election. This kind of disrespectful behavior is rooted in the foul mentality that is the hatred modern Republicans have for President Obama. It's disgusting. We're Americans for crying out loud. Act like it.
That is all.
Let me explain what I mean.
Al Sharpton has already brought my first point to our attention, as have many others. The speech itself was disrespectful to the office of the President of the United States of America. Now before you get your conservative panties and secret mormon underwear in knots, let's cover one very important retort that I've seen. Yes, democrats have been known to say and do some very unkind things when talking about President Bush. This behavior, however, does not excuse you or Clint Eastwood from behaving the same way. You should strive to be a better person than your rivals, no?
Okay, then. So the fact that Clint Eastwood not only spoke in a condescending tone to an imaginary President Obama, but adding profanity to the mix made this performance especially disrespectful. Had President Obama been in that chair, Clint Eastwood would have conducted himself in a more respectful tone.
This leads to my second impression of this crap.
This is the only way conservatives like to debate President Obama. Not only have they spent the last four years (election season and post-election first term) creating a fake story line about President Obama with which they have armed their dittohead minions for the sole purpose of making him a one term president, but in this instance, they created a situation where a debate without a retort from their opposition served only to fit their hate-laden fancy. They could argue with an invisible man from the comfort of their own echo chamber. Difference of opinion? What's that? It's what Republicans refuse to acknowledge in the name of arrogance and self preservation. This was hardly a respectable way to frame the campaign, let alone a debate. In that setting, no humor exists. It's a shameful representation of what the Republican Party has become.
Conservatives do not wish to debate the President on his home turf. No. This was an act of blatant cowardice. If they can't muster up the courage to debate President Obama face to face, then that makes them cowards. That makes Clint Eastwood a coward. To pull a line from Back to the Future III, Clint Eastwood is the biggest yellow belly in the West.
When in history has either party talked this way to a sitting US president? Oh yes, this might have to do with the fact that modern conservatives question the legitimacy of this presidency, from birthers, to people who think he is Muslim, to racists, and to people who think he stole the election. This kind of disrespectful behavior is rooted in the foul mentality that is the hatred modern Republicans have for President Obama. It's disgusting. We're Americans for crying out loud. Act like it.
That is all.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
The Childish Behavior Extends Beyond Congress
One of the things that is bothering me right now about the debt ceiling debate is not that we are at an impasse at the level of the Federal Government, but that we are regularly at odds across America. Right now, every news outlet is playing up the idea that Obama and Boehner are behaving like children. They even bring in reasonably sounding Americans to chastise the bickering. At face value, it looks as though the problem is with government. Americans recognize that the rest of the world is looking at us and shaking their heads.
But that's not entirely true. Reasonable Americans are not commenting about this stuff in forums. They aren't talking about this reasonably on Facebook. They can't bring it up on Craigslist without being flagged. The ideology is a systemic problem at the voter level. As I've said before, the inability to compromise is not a symptom of government, but a result of our own inabilities to compromise. The American people are turned against each other right now.
I don't think I can name one conservative leaning person last night who didn't piss and moan about Obama blaming Bush so early in his speech. Their heads exploded all over the internet with blame that was deserved.
I don't think I saw one conservative on the internet say we should raise the debt ceiling.
I saw many throwing out the talking point that the rich pay most of the tax revenue in this country.
I mean, people...come on. You're regurgitating the same thing over and over again. The problem isn't Boehner. The problem isn't Obama.
It's us.
We cannot come together to compromise. I cannot have a conversation with a conservative anymore. It goes nowhere. It's the same argument day in and day out. It always ends in the same place. All the same things keep being said. It's almost like clockwork. We are at an impasse at the national level because we refuse to compromise at the local level.
Blame yourselves. It's our fault. We're the children. There are no more compromising conservatives anymore. That's what needs to be fixed.
But that's not entirely true. Reasonable Americans are not commenting about this stuff in forums. They aren't talking about this reasonably on Facebook. They can't bring it up on Craigslist without being flagged. The ideology is a systemic problem at the voter level. As I've said before, the inability to compromise is not a symptom of government, but a result of our own inabilities to compromise. The American people are turned against each other right now.
I don't think I can name one conservative leaning person last night who didn't piss and moan about Obama blaming Bush so early in his speech. Their heads exploded all over the internet with blame that was deserved.
I don't think I saw one conservative on the internet say we should raise the debt ceiling.
I saw many throwing out the talking point that the rich pay most of the tax revenue in this country.
I mean, people...come on. You're regurgitating the same thing over and over again. The problem isn't Boehner. The problem isn't Obama.
It's us.
We cannot come together to compromise. I cannot have a conversation with a conservative anymore. It goes nowhere. It's the same argument day in and day out. It always ends in the same place. All the same things keep being said. It's almost like clockwork. We are at an impasse at the national level because we refuse to compromise at the local level.
Blame yourselves. It's our fault. We're the children. There are no more compromising conservatives anymore. That's what needs to be fixed.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Legalization: Tell me why
One of the hottest debates out there in the US is whether or not marijuana should be legalized. Among the links and rants I find online in support of legalization, I find lunatics, belligerence, stereotypical stoners, and tangents which lack a cohesiveness that I can digest. Among those people, I find a pronounced disgust with authority, skepticism (if not demonization) of the medical community, and an overall lack of organized rationality.
So with this post, I am going to throw out some of the reasons I've been given for legalizing marijuana. Then, I'll follow each point with a brief criticism of those individual points.
I will not entertain rants from the likes of the same people I described above. You have to convince me why it is I should support legalization and my counterpoints must be addressed, not ignored by way of restating the original claim I am questioning.
I will not discuss marijuana use for medicinal purposes. I support its use for medicinal purposes if prescribed by your physician. While the method of administration is still in question, I cannot object to its use if no other pharmacological alternatives exist.
1. Marijuana as a substance vs Alcohol as a substance
The first, and often frequent point proponents use to advance their cause is that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, yet we allow everyone to drink. It is the anti-prohibition stance. For some, it is the lunacy which coincides with the anti-pharmaceutical industry stance.
My rebuttal to this point is not to question the effects of marijuana. As someone in the medical field, I know the effects and as a member of the scientific community and as a reasonable person, I must hold fast to the peer reviewed evidence, not the propaganda out there often produced as evidence by potheads. I will not entertain arguments related to those studies. Even potheads know smoking marijuana carries similar risks to smoking anything. Leave this one alone. There is another very important point to make regarding the effects of this substance that has nothing to do with the studies for or against marijuana use. We respectfully disagree with each other on that subject, so I cannot reasonably have that discussion.
What I have to do is take this discussion to the next level and I urge you to come along if you're still with me. If you're not, I'll wait for your mental preparedness to catch up.
Ready? Thank you to those of you who opt to continue reading with some sense of decency.
One of the main reasons people drink alcohol is for the effect it has on our bodies. The disinhibition and the "liquid courage" reputation alcohol has is one of the biggest influences for its use. The burn of a whiskey shot or a cherry soaked in Everclear is by no means a responsible method for ingesting alcohol. While it remains a legal form of use, it is by no means a responsible act, right?
In other words, lots of people drink to get sloshed. Getting drunk, last I checked, is a behavior we frown upon. Glorified intoxication is not at all entertaining, but sad. You should not drink to get drunk. By the same token, you should not use other substances to get high for the same reason you should not want to get drunk.
Among the stoner community, getting fucked up seems to be a priority. To me, this qualifies as a form of mental escapism which equates to getting drunk. You are using a substance to alter your mental and physical state not sanctioned by the supervision of a physician. These features make it a substance of abuse, not merely an enjoyable experience.
If it isn't, then tell me what your goal is when you take this substance? If the goal is no different than the college kid at the bar on the week end, then I cannot support legalization of mental escapism. Getting stoned is just as ridiculous a notion as getting piss drunk. The problem is, marijuana really doesn't have an in-between phase. A glass of wine at dinner does not have the same marijuana-equivalent. Stoned is stoned.
In addition, alcohol is a beverage. As a beverage, it has a certain appeal to our taste buds. Wine enthusiasts and many beer fans drink because they enjoy the taste of their favorite drink. The qualities of individual liquors are savored. Marijuana does not offer this culinary feature. When you eat brownies supplemented with THC, you aren't getting any additional flavor. You eat the laced brownie for the intoxicating effects. Because your aim is not the appreciation of flavor, but rather the effect the drug has on your body, I will refer you to the previous paragraphs and end there.
If, after this, your goal is still to get fucked up, make sure you read #3 below. Intoxication will come with regulations just like alcohol intoxication.
2. Marijuana as a cash crop
In the last few years, given the major budget issues present in both local government and within the Federal Government, supporters of legalization have argued that, if legalized, marijuana will generate tax revenue.
How exactly will it do this? In order to be taxed, it has to be sold just like cigarettes and alcohol. Marijuana will have to be produced and distributed by companies in order for profits to be taxed. There are problems within that system, including corporate loopholes for avoiding paying taxes altogether, but as a cash crop, a corporate solution seems to be the only option, whether it be through a large or small business.
If it does not go through a company-based system, then we are talking about individual growers and consumption. So you're telling me that if you grow it in the basement, you're going to charge for it? You will report this revenue to the IRS? If everyone can grow the stuff, once legal, then why would anyone pay for it? My point is, a personal system of distribution will not generate revenue.
On top of this, potheads really never thought through the notion of weed becoming a cash crop. Let's assume we were able to institute a system where companies produce marijuana for mass consumption by the public. Let's assume it becomes a source of tax revenue as you claim it should. How much will you pay for your weed then compared to now? More? Less? You can't expect me to believe that your local corner dealer who is holding will charge more than some company with an added tax on top of the base price. Just like cigarettes, you'll be paying more. A tax will mean you will be paying more for your weed.
If your personal preference is to guard your wallet, I would highly recommend keeping the current system we have. Marijuana can't be a cash crop, so unless you want to pay more, you might rethink this point and live life accepting the drug as an illegal product. Continue with the status quo.
3. Decriminalization
This is the only argument that has any validity to it, but with decriminalization comes responsibility and other forms of regulation. Like the cash crop idea, it is apparent that potheads have not fully thought through this step either.
Do I think possession and intent to sell should be a crime punishable by imprisonment? Probably not. Our prisons should not be holding places for stoners.
What I cannot tolerate, however, is public intoxication. We punish people who are in public, drunk. We require that you do not drive under the influence. Marijuana most definitely impairs your reaction time and perception of reality. We cannot allow you to be in public under the influence. Marijuana use must strictly be limited to your home or in bars designed to distribute the substance. If you get in a car, high, you should still be held accountable under the law, subject to harsh punishment just as someone who drives drunk.
If you opt for decriminalization, the laws must still be modified to moderate public domain. You can do whatever you want in your own home or on your own property, but the second you step into the public domain, you will be held accountable. Your personal freedoms cannot extend into the public domain if your impairment poses a risk to the general public.
With that, I leave you to advance the conversation. Any comments which cling to old ideas and tired arguments I could read via a Google search will be deleted without any consideration.
So with this post, I am going to throw out some of the reasons I've been given for legalizing marijuana. Then, I'll follow each point with a brief criticism of those individual points.
I will not entertain rants from the likes of the same people I described above. You have to convince me why it is I should support legalization and my counterpoints must be addressed, not ignored by way of restating the original claim I am questioning.
I will not discuss marijuana use for medicinal purposes. I support its use for medicinal purposes if prescribed by your physician. While the method of administration is still in question, I cannot object to its use if no other pharmacological alternatives exist.
1. Marijuana as a substance vs Alcohol as a substance
The first, and often frequent point proponents use to advance their cause is that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, yet we allow everyone to drink. It is the anti-prohibition stance. For some, it is the lunacy which coincides with the anti-pharmaceutical industry stance.
My rebuttal to this point is not to question the effects of marijuana. As someone in the medical field, I know the effects and as a member of the scientific community and as a reasonable person, I must hold fast to the peer reviewed evidence, not the propaganda out there often produced as evidence by potheads. I will not entertain arguments related to those studies. Even potheads know smoking marijuana carries similar risks to smoking anything. Leave this one alone. There is another very important point to make regarding the effects of this substance that has nothing to do with the studies for or against marijuana use. We respectfully disagree with each other on that subject, so I cannot reasonably have that discussion.
What I have to do is take this discussion to the next level and I urge you to come along if you're still with me. If you're not, I'll wait for your mental preparedness to catch up.
Ready? Thank you to those of you who opt to continue reading with some sense of decency.
One of the main reasons people drink alcohol is for the effect it has on our bodies. The disinhibition and the "liquid courage" reputation alcohol has is one of the biggest influences for its use. The burn of a whiskey shot or a cherry soaked in Everclear is by no means a responsible method for ingesting alcohol. While it remains a legal form of use, it is by no means a responsible act, right?
In other words, lots of people drink to get sloshed. Getting drunk, last I checked, is a behavior we frown upon. Glorified intoxication is not at all entertaining, but sad. You should not drink to get drunk. By the same token, you should not use other substances to get high for the same reason you should not want to get drunk.
Among the stoner community, getting fucked up seems to be a priority. To me, this qualifies as a form of mental escapism which equates to getting drunk. You are using a substance to alter your mental and physical state not sanctioned by the supervision of a physician. These features make it a substance of abuse, not merely an enjoyable experience.
If it isn't, then tell me what your goal is when you take this substance? If the goal is no different than the college kid at the bar on the week end, then I cannot support legalization of mental escapism. Getting stoned is just as ridiculous a notion as getting piss drunk. The problem is, marijuana really doesn't have an in-between phase. A glass of wine at dinner does not have the same marijuana-equivalent. Stoned is stoned.
In addition, alcohol is a beverage. As a beverage, it has a certain appeal to our taste buds. Wine enthusiasts and many beer fans drink because they enjoy the taste of their favorite drink. The qualities of individual liquors are savored. Marijuana does not offer this culinary feature. When you eat brownies supplemented with THC, you aren't getting any additional flavor. You eat the laced brownie for the intoxicating effects. Because your aim is not the appreciation of flavor, but rather the effect the drug has on your body, I will refer you to the previous paragraphs and end there.
If, after this, your goal is still to get fucked up, make sure you read #3 below. Intoxication will come with regulations just like alcohol intoxication.
2. Marijuana as a cash crop
In the last few years, given the major budget issues present in both local government and within the Federal Government, supporters of legalization have argued that, if legalized, marijuana will generate tax revenue.
How exactly will it do this? In order to be taxed, it has to be sold just like cigarettes and alcohol. Marijuana will have to be produced and distributed by companies in order for profits to be taxed. There are problems within that system, including corporate loopholes for avoiding paying taxes altogether, but as a cash crop, a corporate solution seems to be the only option, whether it be through a large or small business.
If it does not go through a company-based system, then we are talking about individual growers and consumption. So you're telling me that if you grow it in the basement, you're going to charge for it? You will report this revenue to the IRS? If everyone can grow the stuff, once legal, then why would anyone pay for it? My point is, a personal system of distribution will not generate revenue.
On top of this, potheads really never thought through the notion of weed becoming a cash crop. Let's assume we were able to institute a system where companies produce marijuana for mass consumption by the public. Let's assume it becomes a source of tax revenue as you claim it should. How much will you pay for your weed then compared to now? More? Less? You can't expect me to believe that your local corner dealer who is holding will charge more than some company with an added tax on top of the base price. Just like cigarettes, you'll be paying more. A tax will mean you will be paying more for your weed.
If your personal preference is to guard your wallet, I would highly recommend keeping the current system we have. Marijuana can't be a cash crop, so unless you want to pay more, you might rethink this point and live life accepting the drug as an illegal product. Continue with the status quo.
3. Decriminalization
This is the only argument that has any validity to it, but with decriminalization comes responsibility and other forms of regulation. Like the cash crop idea, it is apparent that potheads have not fully thought through this step either.
Do I think possession and intent to sell should be a crime punishable by imprisonment? Probably not. Our prisons should not be holding places for stoners.
What I cannot tolerate, however, is public intoxication. We punish people who are in public, drunk. We require that you do not drive under the influence. Marijuana most definitely impairs your reaction time and perception of reality. We cannot allow you to be in public under the influence. Marijuana use must strictly be limited to your home or in bars designed to distribute the substance. If you get in a car, high, you should still be held accountable under the law, subject to harsh punishment just as someone who drives drunk.
If you opt for decriminalization, the laws must still be modified to moderate public domain. You can do whatever you want in your own home or on your own property, but the second you step into the public domain, you will be held accountable. Your personal freedoms cannot extend into the public domain if your impairment poses a risk to the general public.
With that, I leave you to advance the conversation. Any comments which cling to old ideas and tired arguments I could read via a Google search will be deleted without any consideration.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Hitler, Fascism, Extremism, and How it All Started on the Right
The dialogue present in today's politics among the people, not our elected officials, is that of a divided finger-pointing banter aimed at advancing opinions of oneself and not of historical fact. While I admit at face value, the title of this post can be seen as unbalanced finger-pointing aimed at continuing the nonsense, I would ask readers to indulge me for just a moment out of the spirit of listening, not waiting for me to finish talking so you can interject the thoughts welling up inside of your head. Take ten deep breaths and continue reading.
When journalists these days talk about all the extremism and violent rhetoric on the Right, "true conservatives," "patriots," and the tea party ilk have one very common response that comes in a few different flavors.
The Democrats did it first.
The Democrats do it too.
The Democrats are a bunch of hypocrites.
While the second on that list might be true and violent behavior most certainly has been exhibited by groups on the Left, Democratic party leaders have not stood out in front of said groups, egging them on to elevate their own ideals. The lines on the Right between activist and politician have been blurred. Democrats have kept a clear separation between their own statements on the Hill and the protesters down below. Only media outlets and talking heads on the Right attempt to merge the two. Just because some on the Left resort to violence certainly does not excuse anyone else to do the same. I openly criticize violent actions, regardless of the cause.
However, if it were true that Obama, for instance, were a radical, I would not condone it. I know that wingnuts will cling to things like Ayers and Obama at this point, claiming close ties, but that simply isn't true. Google the terms Factcheck, Obama, and Ayers. Let's move on beyond the obvious stalemate to the real meat and potatoes. Distraction is their game, no matter how much they believe themselves to be true and those people cannot be reasoned with. They need to face that lots of misinformation has been flat out debunked. Move on to the next topic already.
But Hitler comparisons? Do you realize where the accusations of Fascism, Communism, and Socialism originated?
The exchange over Hitler and Fascism did not originate with Democrats. The sentiment originated on the Right and the defensive posturing explaining the absurdity was situated on the Left.
Go back to before Obama was elected. Go back to the Bush years (No, this isn't about blaming Bush). Look at some of the book titles that were circulating at the time. Several compared Liberalism to Fascism. On discussion boards, Right-leaning individuals opened up the flood gates by calling Liberals Fascists and Socialists at the same time. Astute Liberals on these forums stepped up to point out the idiocy in such a comparison.
Pick one, but they can't be both.
Followed by...
History lessons on Hitler, Mussolini, Fascism, and Socialism.
Followed by...
If you really want to see Fascism and Hitler like behavior, look at some of the Bush policies, the Religious Right, and the notion that if you don't like America, you can leave it. Nationalism. Blind patriotism. Corporate control.
These were defensive comments against an already implied statement that Fascism (read Hitler) and Socialism (read Mussolini) were all Liberally held tenets, not the other way around. I'm not denying that Liberals used the Hitler comparison. What talking heads on the Right fail to disclose is the timeline and series of events which lead to these comments. Those on the Right were directly comparing Liberals to Fascists and Socialists. You can't talk about either without understanding Hitler and Mussolini.
No. I'm afraid the stones being thrown over Hitler and Fascism came from the Right, not the Left. Only the keen eye accustomed to reading how debates arise will be able to spot it. I suspect wingnuts who go back to read the exchanges will see only what they wish to see and not the text in black and white on the page of their web browser.
And therein lies the real problem.
One group is compromising and living in reality. The other is uncompromising and living in some world of magical thinking. One side recognizes a difference between what you hope will happen and what will actually happen. Nuance is something only those on the Left seem to understand. Nuance is scoffed at by those on the Right.
We will never again see reasonable debate and that is unfortunate for this country. We are on the down and out. It was nice knowing you. The arguments used by the Left for so many years are now being incorrectly employed by those on the Right to project an unrealistic series of events leading up to what we are facing today. We can't fix our country if we botch up the story like a bad game of telephone. Sad, indeed.
I hate to say it, but as a Liberal, I fail to see any benefit from indulging ideas from those on the Right spewing vitriol, favoring those who are ready to work to get things done and casting aside those who would prefer to mangle everything in sight.
...At least for the time being. Once we get back on track, maybe we can start talking again. I welcome that day, but I do not see it happening. There is no arena of ideas when misinformation dictates half of the public opinion. When Democrats are no longer considered legitimate leaders by those on the Right, those on the Left will question the legitimacy of ideals held by those who stand on the Right.
Our best option is to put our ideas and laws into place and watch them succeed just to show the nuts that they were wrong. We cannot continue to argue over matters of reality and imagination. Put common sense back in the hands of those who actually have it and not those who toss the term around in a stump speech to win votes and support.
When journalists these days talk about all the extremism and violent rhetoric on the Right, "true conservatives," "patriots," and the tea party ilk have one very common response that comes in a few different flavors.
The Democrats did it first.
The Democrats do it too.
The Democrats are a bunch of hypocrites.
While the second on that list might be true and violent behavior most certainly has been exhibited by groups on the Left, Democratic party leaders have not stood out in front of said groups, egging them on to elevate their own ideals. The lines on the Right between activist and politician have been blurred. Democrats have kept a clear separation between their own statements on the Hill and the protesters down below. Only media outlets and talking heads on the Right attempt to merge the two. Just because some on the Left resort to violence certainly does not excuse anyone else to do the same. I openly criticize violent actions, regardless of the cause.
However, if it were true that Obama, for instance, were a radical, I would not condone it. I know that wingnuts will cling to things like Ayers and Obama at this point, claiming close ties, but that simply isn't true. Google the terms Factcheck, Obama, and Ayers. Let's move on beyond the obvious stalemate to the real meat and potatoes. Distraction is their game, no matter how much they believe themselves to be true and those people cannot be reasoned with. They need to face that lots of misinformation has been flat out debunked. Move on to the next topic already.
But Hitler comparisons? Do you realize where the accusations of Fascism, Communism, and Socialism originated?
The exchange over Hitler and Fascism did not originate with Democrats. The sentiment originated on the Right and the defensive posturing explaining the absurdity was situated on the Left.
Go back to before Obama was elected. Go back to the Bush years (No, this isn't about blaming Bush). Look at some of the book titles that were circulating at the time. Several compared Liberalism to Fascism. On discussion boards, Right-leaning individuals opened up the flood gates by calling Liberals Fascists and Socialists at the same time. Astute Liberals on these forums stepped up to point out the idiocy in such a comparison.
Pick one, but they can't be both.
Followed by...
History lessons on Hitler, Mussolini, Fascism, and Socialism.
Followed by...
If you really want to see Fascism and Hitler like behavior, look at some of the Bush policies, the Religious Right, and the notion that if you don't like America, you can leave it. Nationalism. Blind patriotism. Corporate control.
These were defensive comments against an already implied statement that Fascism (read Hitler) and Socialism (read Mussolini) were all Liberally held tenets, not the other way around. I'm not denying that Liberals used the Hitler comparison. What talking heads on the Right fail to disclose is the timeline and series of events which lead to these comments. Those on the Right were directly comparing Liberals to Fascists and Socialists. You can't talk about either without understanding Hitler and Mussolini.
No. I'm afraid the stones being thrown over Hitler and Fascism came from the Right, not the Left. Only the keen eye accustomed to reading how debates arise will be able to spot it. I suspect wingnuts who go back to read the exchanges will see only what they wish to see and not the text in black and white on the page of their web browser.
And therein lies the real problem.
One group is compromising and living in reality. The other is uncompromising and living in some world of magical thinking. One side recognizes a difference between what you hope will happen and what will actually happen. Nuance is something only those on the Left seem to understand. Nuance is scoffed at by those on the Right.
We will never again see reasonable debate and that is unfortunate for this country. We are on the down and out. It was nice knowing you. The arguments used by the Left for so many years are now being incorrectly employed by those on the Right to project an unrealistic series of events leading up to what we are facing today. We can't fix our country if we botch up the story like a bad game of telephone. Sad, indeed.
I hate to say it, but as a Liberal, I fail to see any benefit from indulging ideas from those on the Right spewing vitriol, favoring those who are ready to work to get things done and casting aside those who would prefer to mangle everything in sight.
...At least for the time being. Once we get back on track, maybe we can start talking again. I welcome that day, but I do not see it happening. There is no arena of ideas when misinformation dictates half of the public opinion. When Democrats are no longer considered legitimate leaders by those on the Right, those on the Left will question the legitimacy of ideals held by those who stand on the Right.
Our best option is to put our ideas and laws into place and watch them succeed just to show the nuts that they were wrong. We cannot continue to argue over matters of reality and imagination. Put common sense back in the hands of those who actually have it and not those who toss the term around in a stump speech to win votes and support.
Monday, November 23, 2009
What These Poll Results Really Represent
Three polls being tossed around in the news have been twisted to fit more partisan views without anyone even considering the views that are realistically represented by those polls.
The first two are Obama's approval rating and the "Obamacare" approval rating. At face value, these numbers show Obama might be struggling a little bit. Republicans are rolling in it painting the American public as being against Obama's policies.
That's not quite right. Let's take a look at why people might disapprove of Obama's policies, specifically with regard to the health care debate.
It should be painfully obvious that anyone on the Right opposes Obama's policies and the Health Care reform going through Congress because it's Obama. They think it's all socialism. Yes? Good. We have that chunk of people accounted for.
But surely pollsters asked more than just right wingers? Of course they did!
Let's move our way left across the spectrum.
Why would people in the middle be iffy on Obama? They're just uneasy, caught up between the fear mongering and the economic crisis. Some believe the "socialism" hype. Others are simply fiscally concerned about debt.
Why would people on the left be iffy on Obama?
Progressives want Obama to be more to the left than he really is. Despite what the Right is trying to say, Obama is not some far left politician. If he were, his numbers would be better from those on the far left. Let's face it. Progressives wanted Single Payer, not the Public Option. They aren't happy with that idea. They also aren't happy that Obama isn't fighting more to get the legislation through Congress by strong arming Dems who are being problematic.
That settles the first two polls. What about the second?
Congress does not have a good approval rating either. The House and Senate have not had a good reputation for a long time though. Americans are increasingly frustrated with our elected officials. They can't get anything done because they cannot agree on anything.
In the current situation, it would appear that the group who can't agree on anything is on the Republican side of the fence. In addition, "conservative" Democrats are becoming obstructionists as well. Nothing gets done when so many members of Congress vote "No."
But the numbers are being twisted to make it look as though Democrats will have a major loss in 2010 elections. That implies Republicans will be filling those slots, doesn't it? Republican leaders want to play this out to work in their favor. Somehow because the Democrats have the slim majority, Republicans want all the blame to fall on that watch and not their own...as if they had nothing to do with legislation failing.
Electing more Republicans will just result in less compromise and fewer opportunities for Obama's administration to get anything done. Of course, in the minds of Republicans, that's a good thing. After all, doing something would equate to big government. God forbid they actually do their jobs. We're going to end up with the same problem we had under Clinton. We won't be able to get anything done because the system of checks and balances will simply end up at the whim of stingy old white men from southern states. Don't re-elect Blue Dog Democrats either because they aren't really Democrats to begin with.
The approval rating for Congress is a reflection of this inability to overcome partisan bickering. The Democrats are showing they want to work. The Republicans are showing they can only vote "No." Doing nothing is not an option. Vote with this in mind or expect to get elected officials who are a mirror image of our own stagnant hatred for one another. Want them to get something done? Send people who want to work to get something passed.
The first two are Obama's approval rating and the "Obamacare" approval rating. At face value, these numbers show Obama might be struggling a little bit. Republicans are rolling in it painting the American public as being against Obama's policies.
That's not quite right. Let's take a look at why people might disapprove of Obama's policies, specifically with regard to the health care debate.
It should be painfully obvious that anyone on the Right opposes Obama's policies and the Health Care reform going through Congress because it's Obama. They think it's all socialism. Yes? Good. We have that chunk of people accounted for.
But surely pollsters asked more than just right wingers? Of course they did!
Let's move our way left across the spectrum.
Why would people in the middle be iffy on Obama? They're just uneasy, caught up between the fear mongering and the economic crisis. Some believe the "socialism" hype. Others are simply fiscally concerned about debt.
Why would people on the left be iffy on Obama?
Progressives want Obama to be more to the left than he really is. Despite what the Right is trying to say, Obama is not some far left politician. If he were, his numbers would be better from those on the far left. Let's face it. Progressives wanted Single Payer, not the Public Option. They aren't happy with that idea. They also aren't happy that Obama isn't fighting more to get the legislation through Congress by strong arming Dems who are being problematic.
That settles the first two polls. What about the second?
Congress does not have a good approval rating either. The House and Senate have not had a good reputation for a long time though. Americans are increasingly frustrated with our elected officials. They can't get anything done because they cannot agree on anything.
In the current situation, it would appear that the group who can't agree on anything is on the Republican side of the fence. In addition, "conservative" Democrats are becoming obstructionists as well. Nothing gets done when so many members of Congress vote "No."
But the numbers are being twisted to make it look as though Democrats will have a major loss in 2010 elections. That implies Republicans will be filling those slots, doesn't it? Republican leaders want to play this out to work in their favor. Somehow because the Democrats have the slim majority, Republicans want all the blame to fall on that watch and not their own...as if they had nothing to do with legislation failing.
Electing more Republicans will just result in less compromise and fewer opportunities for Obama's administration to get anything done. Of course, in the minds of Republicans, that's a good thing. After all, doing something would equate to big government. God forbid they actually do their jobs. We're going to end up with the same problem we had under Clinton. We won't be able to get anything done because the system of checks and balances will simply end up at the whim of stingy old white men from southern states. Don't re-elect Blue Dog Democrats either because they aren't really Democrats to begin with.
The approval rating for Congress is a reflection of this inability to overcome partisan bickering. The Democrats are showing they want to work. The Republicans are showing they can only vote "No." Doing nothing is not an option. Vote with this in mind or expect to get elected officials who are a mirror image of our own stagnant hatred for one another. Want them to get something done? Send people who want to work to get something passed.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
The VP Debate: Biden vs Palin
Man oh man. Okay, let's keep the analysis simple.
Sarah Palin did better than I thought she would as far as getting words out of her mouth. She started out nervous as hell. She was gasping for air and swallowing like she was trying to force as many words across her tongue as possible.
Then there were the questions she did not answer. Instead of answering the question asked, she tried to respond to Biden's criticisms. She completely forgot to go back to the question. She fell back to party line banter. Taxes this and taxes that just like I figured she would. She would run down bullet points and lacked direction many times. I did not hear clear plans. I heard key words and phrases, but no real specifics. When she did give specifics, she was on the defensive. Many times, she was unable to refute attacks. She survived the debate, but did not win. Like the campaign trail, she spoke to the Conservative base. She was unable to convincingly portray her team as the Maverick Team. She kept using the word, but it did not stick. Palin also took a jab at the media in order to appeal to the Conservative base. Sorry toots. Cry me a river.
Can she stop calling it "eye" raq and "eye" ran?
Biden was also speaking a little too fast. He would say words and kind of muddle through without trying to annunciate. He was still able to focus his criticism on McCain. His answers and understanding of the intricate detail of the problems this country faces illustrate the experience this guy has. He didn't need many zingers to bust her balls. Of course, the Bridge to Nowhere jab was well placed. He was able to refute many challenges Palin brought at him, especially with regard to taxes. He clearly pointed out that anyone making under $250k would not see a cent in tax increases and then refuted the attack related to small business. Palin tried to spin it so small businesses would be hit with tax hikes and Biden was able to point out that the vast majority of small businesses still fall under the $250k limit. Biden was also able to shoot down the notion that McCain is some sort of maverick. There were times when Palin tried to drive a wedge between stances Biden has taken in light of Obama's own votes, but he didn't answer those attacks. Maybe he should have. Biden spoke to middle America and hopefully they believed in what he had to say.
Biden won the debate, but Palin proved she wasn't going to freeze up. She did fall back to party line. She is too partisan for reform. Her idea of reform is going to be the same as what Mitt Romney proposed in his RNC speech. They want to rid government of Liberal policy. The middle of the road is not her plan, nor is it the target for McCain. Let's face it. Liberals are just better at compromise.
According to ABC News, Biden talked for 40 minutes and 26 seconds. Palin talked for 40 minutes and 59 seconds. Both had instances where they needed to wrap up, but I think Palin was the only one to get called on time.
Edit
It seems Americans on the internet are no more informed than Sarah Palin.
General McKiernan is who Palin was talking about. She repeatedly called him McClellan.
Talabani also seems to be off the radar screens of Americans.
Jalal Talabani is the Iraqi President.
Nouri al-Maliki is the Prime Minister.
It's so nice to see we have an informed electorate.
Sarah Palin did better than I thought she would as far as getting words out of her mouth. She started out nervous as hell. She was gasping for air and swallowing like she was trying to force as many words across her tongue as possible.
Then there were the questions she did not answer. Instead of answering the question asked, she tried to respond to Biden's criticisms. She completely forgot to go back to the question. She fell back to party line banter. Taxes this and taxes that just like I figured she would. She would run down bullet points and lacked direction many times. I did not hear clear plans. I heard key words and phrases, but no real specifics. When she did give specifics, she was on the defensive. Many times, she was unable to refute attacks. She survived the debate, but did not win. Like the campaign trail, she spoke to the Conservative base. She was unable to convincingly portray her team as the Maverick Team. She kept using the word, but it did not stick. Palin also took a jab at the media in order to appeal to the Conservative base. Sorry toots. Cry me a river.
Can she stop calling it "eye" raq and "eye" ran?
Biden was also speaking a little too fast. He would say words and kind of muddle through without trying to annunciate. He was still able to focus his criticism on McCain. His answers and understanding of the intricate detail of the problems this country faces illustrate the experience this guy has. He didn't need many zingers to bust her balls. Of course, the Bridge to Nowhere jab was well placed. He was able to refute many challenges Palin brought at him, especially with regard to taxes. He clearly pointed out that anyone making under $250k would not see a cent in tax increases and then refuted the attack related to small business. Palin tried to spin it so small businesses would be hit with tax hikes and Biden was able to point out that the vast majority of small businesses still fall under the $250k limit. Biden was also able to shoot down the notion that McCain is some sort of maverick. There were times when Palin tried to drive a wedge between stances Biden has taken in light of Obama's own votes, but he didn't answer those attacks. Maybe he should have. Biden spoke to middle America and hopefully they believed in what he had to say.
Biden won the debate, but Palin proved she wasn't going to freeze up. She did fall back to party line. She is too partisan for reform. Her idea of reform is going to be the same as what Mitt Romney proposed in his RNC speech. They want to rid government of Liberal policy. The middle of the road is not her plan, nor is it the target for McCain. Let's face it. Liberals are just better at compromise.
According to ABC News, Biden talked for 40 minutes and 26 seconds. Palin talked for 40 minutes and 59 seconds. Both had instances where they needed to wrap up, but I think Palin was the only one to get called on time.
Edit
It seems Americans on the internet are no more informed than Sarah Palin.
General McKiernan is who Palin was talking about. She repeatedly called him McClellan.
Talabani also seems to be off the radar screens of Americans.
Jalal Talabani is the Iraqi President.
Nouri al-Maliki is the Prime Minister.
It's so nice to see we have an informed electorate.
VP Debate Predictions
There is no doubt all eyes will be on Sarah Palin tonight in the VP debate. Support behind Palin has been slipping away over the last few weeks. Many are expecting to see her ass get handed to her by Joe Biden. Hard core Republicans say she will win, and perhaps that only has to do with their blind and somewhat arrogant support behind her. Americans have a hard time differentiating between the reality of what will happen and what they want to happen.
Let me first start out by saying I am in the group that wants to see her ass get handed to her. I am behind Biden all the way. That being said, there are a few realistic points to consider. All of these things are rooted in her recent behavior and comments.
Based on what we saw at the RNC, I expect Palin to lie through her teeth. That's right. This woman has lied on numerous occasions about everything under the sun. Even Andrew Sullivan, widely seen as fairly conservative, has called attention to these lies and has even made attempts at asking for the truth from the campaign. Whether it's taxes or the war, she will lie right to the camera.
As I'm writing this a McCain ad just came on tv talking about this past week. He says Republicans have blamed Democrats and Democrats have blamed Republicans. Well soldier boy, we'll see more of that tonight. Biden is going to smack Bush Republicans around like red-headed step-children and Palin is going to blame Liberal ideology for the downfall of society (in not so many words). Get off your high horse. It's starting to chafe your backside old man.
The difference between this debate and the RNC will be that Sarah Palin does not have the added benefit of a teleprompter telling her what to say. Her Sports Journalism degree via education from six different institutions is not going to do her any good in this setting. It is my understanding that in the VP debate, each candidate has five minutes of talk time for each question. Even if they were only given two minutes as the Presidential candidates were provided, I will make this prediction. She will either talk over her mark if given two minutes or fall well short of the five minute mark. She simply does not have enough experience or charm for that matter to talk for five minutes, even if she is a woman.
Biden does have a history of talking too long. I am not worried about his ability to fill in the blanks. He also knows how to kick somebody's ass. Pundits have said Biden must find a healthy balance between attack and restraint so as to not look like he's beating up on a "poor woman" or coming off as disabled or unarmed. Biden has been participating in debates throughout this entire campaign season, so he's ready. No question there.
My advice tonight:
For those who still think Obama does not have a plan, listen to Biden without your smug discontent and irrational hatred you have for Liberals. You might actually hear a plan once your ears decide to work.
For those expecting Palin to flounder, don't be surprised when she does her best impression of Captain Kirk. Even though her twangy accent is obnoxious, her choppy speech pattern is going to make her very difficult to listen to for any extended period of time.
Whoever thinks Palin is telling the truth no matter what needs to visit Factcheck.org BEFORE the debate to fill in some blanks, especially with regard to taxes. Obama is going to lower taxes for 95 percent of working families and FactCheck states that over 80 percent of tax payers will see tax breaks.
Biden better be ready to point out every instance where this little bitch decides to lie to America. Palin is going to come off snarky like that annoying ex-girlfriend.
That is all. Enjoy the show. I'll pop the popcorn.
Let me first start out by saying I am in the group that wants to see her ass get handed to her. I am behind Biden all the way. That being said, there are a few realistic points to consider. All of these things are rooted in her recent behavior and comments.
Based on what we saw at the RNC, I expect Palin to lie through her teeth. That's right. This woman has lied on numerous occasions about everything under the sun. Even Andrew Sullivan, widely seen as fairly conservative, has called attention to these lies and has even made attempts at asking for the truth from the campaign. Whether it's taxes or the war, she will lie right to the camera.
As I'm writing this a McCain ad just came on tv talking about this past week. He says Republicans have blamed Democrats and Democrats have blamed Republicans. Well soldier boy, we'll see more of that tonight. Biden is going to smack Bush Republicans around like red-headed step-children and Palin is going to blame Liberal ideology for the downfall of society (in not so many words). Get off your high horse. It's starting to chafe your backside old man.
The difference between this debate and the RNC will be that Sarah Palin does not have the added benefit of a teleprompter telling her what to say. Her Sports Journalism degree via education from six different institutions is not going to do her any good in this setting. It is my understanding that in the VP debate, each candidate has five minutes of talk time for each question. Even if they were only given two minutes as the Presidential candidates were provided, I will make this prediction. She will either talk over her mark if given two minutes or fall well short of the five minute mark. She simply does not have enough experience or charm for that matter to talk for five minutes, even if she is a woman.
Biden does have a history of talking too long. I am not worried about his ability to fill in the blanks. He also knows how to kick somebody's ass. Pundits have said Biden must find a healthy balance between attack and restraint so as to not look like he's beating up on a "poor woman" or coming off as disabled or unarmed. Biden has been participating in debates throughout this entire campaign season, so he's ready. No question there.
My advice tonight:
For those who still think Obama does not have a plan, listen to Biden without your smug discontent and irrational hatred you have for Liberals. You might actually hear a plan once your ears decide to work.
For those expecting Palin to flounder, don't be surprised when she does her best impression of Captain Kirk. Even though her twangy accent is obnoxious, her choppy speech pattern is going to make her very difficult to listen to for any extended period of time.
Whoever thinks Palin is telling the truth no matter what needs to visit Factcheck.org BEFORE the debate to fill in some blanks, especially with regard to taxes. Obama is going to lower taxes for 95 percent of working families and FactCheck states that over 80 percent of tax payers will see tax breaks.
Biden better be ready to point out every instance where this little bitch decides to lie to America. Palin is going to come off snarky like that annoying ex-girlfriend.
That is all. Enjoy the show. I'll pop the popcorn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)