The Spirits World ~ Why We Alcoholics Drink

It’s like what one of my sons recently said, “… a medicine and a poison.”  Yes, it is a medicine, a dependable old chemical friend that provides existential relief. But it’s also a friend that will stab us in the back if we let it.

ManhattanBecause of recent events in my life, and in the lives of certain loved ones, I am reposting this article, this testimony, from over a year ago. In doing so I hope that it might serve as inspiration for all who happen across it and chose to read it. Why? Because I believe that all of us who drink alcohol regularly or frequently, whether alone or socially, and do so because we like how it makes us feel, are, on some level, alcoholics. It’s time for us all to stop equivocating, to know what it is we are doing, to acknowledge our addiction.

I come from a long line of alcoholics. The earliest one that I know about was my maternal great grandfather, Joseph Anderson. Although he held a fairly high station in the Melchizedek Priesthood of the Mormon Church, he imbibed quite often. My mother told me about it. She said that, as a little girl she often stayed with her grandparents and that she overheard her grandmother, her mother and her aunts talking about it. It was a source of considerable family shame.

There was a swing mom told be about hanging from a tall, old cottonwood tree just outside the bedroom window where my mother slept. Her grandpa Joe had hung it there for her, but would sit in it himself at night and sing to himself while drinking his homemade wine. This made a lasting impression on mom. We laughed about it occasionally, mom and me, when we would sit drinking together in her kitchen. Yes, mom taught me well.

The affliction, if we can call it that, seemed to skip over my mother’s mother, although my grandma could gulp down an occasional toddy herself, and do it with considerable aplomb. But mom’s biological father, or so I’ve been told, was not only a heavy drinker, but a drug user as well.

The affliction hit my mom hard. A lifelong heavy drinker like her Aunt Mic before her, another early alcoholic in my family that I know about, her drinking finally took her life. Mom died from a diseased liver.

Mom was married four different times and had several other men in her life; all of them were alcoholics including, I presume, my biological father whom I never had a chance to meet before his death. And then there is me and my siblings, half-brothers and sisters all. But I won’t speak of our lifestyles except to say that I like manhattans best. I like them on the rocks sans the cherry garnish. They are my favorite libation. Libation – now that’s an interesting word – it’s defined as a drink poured out to a deity. Sometimes I will drink two or three manhattans in a day, the first while I am preparing an evening meal for my wife and myself. The last is often left half empty, the first two and a half having put me soundly to sleep. But I never drink when we have our little darling, my great granddaughter with us. Neither will I take more than one drink before driving or drink anything when I think that I might have to drive somewhere. I go days, sometime weeks without drinking anything. And, before my retirement from multiple careers, I never missed a day of work because of my drinking. That means that I’m not really an alcoholic, right? No, that just means that I am a more responsible alcoholic than some.

I know that my drinking, the amount that I drink, is not healthy for me. I know too that it is not healthy for my marriage relationship because it worries my wife. Although my mom was little concerned about how her drinking affected relationships in her life, she knew too that her drinking was not physically healthy. Still, she drank. Still, I drink.  But why? When asked that question, according to my mother, my great grandfather answered, “I just like the way it makes my silly head feel.” But do we who like how it makes us feel like it to death? Yes, often, too often.

What do the Scriptures have to say about drinking? A lot actually, most of it warnings about drinking to excess and drunkenness, like this passage from the Book of Proverbs 20:1, “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise.”  But there are also passages from the Gospels like this one from Mattew 11:18-19, “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.” And let’s not forget about the first miracle that Jesus performed, the turning of water into good wine at the Wedding in Cana. According to John 2;1-11, “On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, ‘They have no wine.’ And Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.’ His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you.'”

The rub seems to come then, not from the drinking itself but from drinking to excess.

There is a great article that I’ve found in the professional journal, Psychology Today, called, “The Benefits of Addiction: Why Alcoholics Drink.” It restates and confirms that there is a body of evidence recognizing the correlation of alcoholism in successive generations, thus suggesting a genetic component to alcoholism. But it says, “People who believe in the disease theory are dumb. They can’t help it, so we shouldn’t mock them. You see, they don’t have enough human insight to answer the question, ‘Why do alcoholics drink even though it hurts them?’ Other than by positing that they have some inbred disease that compels them to drink, that is.”

Wow! Now that hurts. It says that I can’t blame those who came before me for my affliction. It’s my affliction and I own it.

According to this article, drinkers like me have discovered that the experience of drinking alleviates deep-seated anxieties, anxieties that all of us have about ourselves and about our lives. Some call these anxieties pain. In other words, alcohol provides more than just a temporary camaraderie to alcoholics. It’s like what one of my sons recently said, “… a medicine and a poison.”  Yes, it is a medicine, a dependable old chemical friend that provides existential relief. But it’s also a friend that will stab us in the back if we let it — a friend that could eventually kill us either softly or roughly. From this friend we derive psychological benefits which are hard to relinquish. This is why those of us with the affliction, whether genetically predisposed to or conditioned to by association or experimentation, find it hard to walk away from. The worst of it for us, the afflicted, is that when stress in our lives becomes severe, we will often turn to it in excess.

One last quote from the referenced article: “People who have learned to allay their anxieties and fears, to feel good — or at least okay — about themselves while intoxicated, to gain some sense of control that they otherwise are bereft of — well, those are hard people to persuade to give up the bottle. Which is what AA and the 12 steps are selling — “Step over to the sunny side of the street where I live — it’s much better here.”

Please feel free to leave a comment to this posting. I would enjoy dialoging on the subject.

Published in: on February 26, 2015 at 10:53 am  Comments (5)  
Tags: , , ,

Moral Hazard ~ A Deceitful Double Standard

An economic concept called “moral hazard” divides Americans and helps to define political philosophies.

After Sunday school last week, I carpooled with other members of our church up to Dallas. We went to help serve the noon meal at The Bridge, the homeless shelter there. What a powerful experience. Without exception, the clients were respectful and appreciative, especially when they themselves were shown respect in any way. Several actually offered me blessings as I filled their glasses with ice water. Many bowed their heads in silent prayer before eating.

When the meal was over and the clients had all left the dining facility, I spoke for awhile with the supervisor of the “Stew Pot” mission team http://www.thestewpot.org/sz.asp which volunteers to run the dining facility. The facility, by the way, is aptly named The Second Chance Cafe. Our discussion led me to deep introspection about the plight of a growing number of homeless in this economy.

Our youngest son, suffering from a laundry-list of psychological problems, is a homeless person notwithstanding how much we continue trying to help him. Our granddaughter, a high school graduate and trained cosmetologist, still reeling from the aftermath of an abusive relationship with the father of her little girl, has told us that she too would most likely be in a shelter if it were not for our intervention and on-going help. So, if it can happen in our family, it can happen in yours.

On my way out to return home, I picked up a printed copy of the local version of an international publication, Street Zine. It was filled with thought-provoking articles about the poor, the homeless and disabled – the sheep I believe Jesus was talking about when He told his disciple, Simon son of John, also known as Peter, to take care of them (John 21:16). One particular article, from which I have borrowed title of this post, struck me hard. You can read the whole thing for yourself on-line if you wish. It’s at http://www.streetnewsservice.org/news/2011/june/feed-286/%E2%80%9Cmoral-hazard%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-a-deceitful-double-standard.aspx. Below, combined with my thoughts on the subject, is an abstract of the article which was written by Domink Jenne, a citizen of Freiburg, Germany.

The term, “moral hazard,” according to Herr Jenne, means something similar to moral temptation. It’s actually an abstract term from the insurance industry. In economic theory, it describes a situation in which a party insulated from risk behaves differently from how it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard. According to the theory, a driver with insurance, for example, will drive with less care because he knows he won’t have to pay in the event of an accident. The term has now become a social slogan among conservatives who refer to it as a destructive mentality that results from knowing someone will take care of you.

The welfare state, conservatives claim, promotes “moral hazard” because it removes personal responsibility and diminishes the motivation to search for work whilst living comfortably on welfare. Cutbacks are therefore necessary, even perhaps the complete removal of spending on social programs to eliminate the danger of moral temptation and damage to the economy. But you know what? I’d bet that most, if not all, of the clients I served in the Second Chance Café Sunday would jump at the chance to have a job that would pay them enough to just get by on. Unfortunately, most have issues, their own fault, somebody else’s fault or nobody’s fault, that prevent them from successfully competing in the job market.

Didn’t Jesus say that the poor would always be with us (Matthew 26:11)?

To conservatives, who perceive themselves to be the injured party, “moral hazard” threatens to affect not only those who apparently don’t want to find employment, but also those who are lucky enough to have a job – this to justify the surveillance of employees who might pilfer from stock shelves and cash drawers. So broad is conservatives’ perception of the danger of moral temptation, according to the article’s author, that it is necessary to introduce counter measures against it. Anyone who tries to counter the argument with terms such as “mutual trust” or “social responsibility,” is likely to be laughed at as a worldly innocent. Mistrust is the foundation of the argument.

The concept not only encompasses the malicious viewpoints of social deceivers and hypochondriacs, it also affects the financial sector and is a concern for us all. Consider the executives of too-big-to-fail investment banks and insurance companies who have made such horrible decisions in recent months and years, even committing fraud but not being held accountable. Still, they continue to receive huge bonuses and severance packages! Is this too not “moral hazard”?

When banks with millions, even billions in debt are saved from collapse, then it actually becomes possible that the lack of regulation and oversight encourage a high risk attitude. But conservatives don’t seem to see it this way. In Congress they resist the passage of laws and the enactment policies to prevent future fraud. The difference here is that the amounts stolen from investors by investment bankers are significantly higher than the amounts paid to alleged welfare fraudsters. Is this not A Deceitful Double Standard?

The Nobel Prize winner Kenneth J. Arrow – the man who first popularized the concept of moral hazard back in 1990 – has written and said much about the importance of spending on social programs http://gatton.uky.edu/Faculty/hoytw/751/articles/arrow.pdf. And he should know.

Please feel free to post a comment whether you agree or disagree.

Published in: on August 17, 2011 at 7:50 am  Comments (8)  

Third Party Auto Warranty Extension (Insurance) Policies ~ Not Even a Good Gamble

Turns out that, if the specific part or parts that fail are not listed under the fine print of a policy like the one I had, a claim will be denied. Only the parts least likely to fail are covered.

February 3, 2011 — Consider mine to be a voice of experience, folks. Take my advice. When your new car warranty runs out, start putting some money away for the inevitable breakdown, trade your old car in for a new car, or purchase a warranty extension from a trusted, local dealership. After all, mechanical things aren’t made to last forever. Do not … I repeat… do not purchase a third-party power train insurance policy.

I bought such a policy last year, a so-called “gold” policy through Nationwide Auto Protection for my five year-old Dodge Magnum. The salesman made it sound like everything having anything to do with the power train would be fully covered. So I figured, with the premiums for the insurance being much cheaper than payments for a new car, this would be a smart buy. I could take my time considering what to buy next, maybe even waiting a year or two to see how the new electrics like Chevrolet’s Volt perform. Wrong decision.

While hundreds of miles away from home recently, I had transmission problems. Long story made short, it took over a week to get my claim approved, and then only after a sympathetic service representative was able to convince an insurance inspector that the failure was because of a “covered” part in the trans- mission. Turns out that, if the specific part or parts that fail are not listed under the fine print of a policy like the one I had, a claim will be denied. Only the parts least likely to fail are covered. To top that off, I had to agree to pay the transmission teardown expenses in the event that my claim would be denied. So, I had to gamble around $700 in labor costs that the policy’s inspector would rule in my favor. Fortunately, I had recently had the transmission serviced too and had proof of this. Otherwise, the claim would have been denied for this reason also.

Had I not had a relative to stay with while all this took place, it would have cost me many times more to get the repairs done using the insurance than it would have just paying for it out-of-pocket. Good thing I am retired now too and didn’t need to get back to a job.

Do not walk away from this company or other such third-party insurance companies — run!

I invite your comments on this post, whether pro or con.

Published in: on February 3, 2011 at 12:30 pm  Comments (10)  

A Fluffy Kitten Story

Mitch McConnell is out jogging one morning. He notices a little boy on the corner with a box. Curious, he runs over to the child and says, “What’s in the box sonny?” To which the little boy responds, “Kittens, They’re brand new kittens.”

Mitch McConnell laughs and says, ‘What kind of kittens are they?  “Republicans, sir,” the little boys says.

“Oh that’s wonderful,” McConnell says, smiling contentedly as he continues his jogging.

A couple of days later McConnell is jogging again, but this time with his colleague John Boehner. He spies the same boy with his box just ahead. McConnell says to John, “You’ve just gotta see this, John.”  They both jog over to the boy with the box.

McConnell says, “Look in the box John, isn’t that cute? Look at those fluffy little kittens.”

Boehner says, “Say, those are really cute kittens young man. What kind of kittens are they?”

The boy replies, “They’re Democrats, sir.”

“What?” McConnell says. “I jogged by here the other day and you said they were Republicans. What’s changed? “Well,” the lad says, “their eyes are open now.”

Feel free to comment and/or share this if you like. It’s not original.

Published in: on December 1, 2010 at 9:28 am  Leave a Comment  

Thanksgiving 2010 ~ What’s There to be Thankful For?

Is it too early to say, “Bah Humbug?”

November 25, 2010 — Yeah, I know, it’s practically un-American not to smile big and wide and count all our blessings on this traditional day of thanks. But it’s difficult for me to be upbeat this year.

Yes, the misses was busy all day long yesterday preparing for the big day, is still busy this morning making everything just right and the house is already smelling yummy. But nobody’s happily driving over-the-river-and-through-the-wood to be here with us. Most of them live too far away — like in Utah, Colorado and Singapore for crying out loud.

Oh well, at least we can count on our little great granddaughter to liven things up for us. She and her mom have been living with us for months while mom gets back on her feet — a victim of the Great Recession. If the little girl likes nothing else that Oma has fixed, I anticipate that she’ll love Ms. Dee’s fabulous Bing Cherry jello salad.

While the retailers are all hoping for a great shopping season, it just isn’t going to happen. Too many folks are counting their nickels and dimes and praying for the economy to turn around faster. Too many folks are still out of work or underemployed. But the economy’s already turned around. What hasn’t turned around is the jobs situation, and that’s not going to turn around anytime soon, if ever.

Jobs in America depend on demand for American-made goods and services, and most of the things we buy are now made elsewhere. While we have opened our markets to almost every other country in the world, the biggest markets are still closed to us or largely so. Other nations and regions are more concerned, as our president has just discovered, about their own economic problems than they are about pulling together and helping us. It may now be a “world” economy, but it’s still a world made up of self-serving nations, trading alliances, oligopolies, corporations, and individuals. Besides, the Cowboys are having their worst season ever.

Having retired from teaching this year, I’m already missing the classroom — already missing my students’ bright and inquisitive faces even as I’m missing family so many miles away. No, retirement’s not all it’s cracked-up to be. So, as the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade is being beamed to our satellite receiver this morning, I apologize for raining on your personal parades. Have a Happy Thanksgiving and put aside the problems of the world if you can, if only just for one day. Enjoy your turkey and be grateful if you have anyone with whom to share it. Hmmmm… perhaps I should take my own advice.

I think I might be feeling less glum if our nation’s leaders would just come together and agree on something. Let’s all pray about that, okay? And while we’re praying, let’s not forget our young men and women in uniform, especially those overseas, especially those in combat zones and the 28,000 or more stationed in South Korea. I can just imagine how they are spending their Thanksgiving. Turkey in the field. Yum! So, if we can find nothing else to be thankful for, we can at least be thankful for their service.

Amen?

Please feel free to comment.

Published in: on November 25, 2010 at 8:09 am  Comments (1)  

Truth in Politics ~ There is Such a Thing But It’s Rare

Some will refuse to believe the truth even when it lands on their heads with irrefutable facts to back it up.

October 4, 2010   Noticing my Bill White for Texas yard sign the other day, a neighbor asked whether I thought White has a chance in the upcoming race for governor.

“There’s always a chance,” was my answer. “It may not be a good chance, but I’d still be contributing to his campaign even if his chances were next-to-none.“  It’s time, I thought but didn’t say, for Rick Perry to go, for the gerrymandering in Texas to end, and for moderates and liberals too to have their voices heard again in this representative democracy of ours.

Coincidentally, the next day my wife suggested that I do some research and a blog article on whether Perry’s claim about Texas having a budget surplus this year owing to his conservative management policies (recession notwithstanding) is true. I thought about doing it for a while, but decided the issue is bigger than just one candidate’s single claim. Claims and counter-claims are flying back and forth in these final weeks before election day as fast as tennis balls over the net at a championship match.  Truth, after all, is relative, especially among politicians. There are half-truths, exaggerations built upon scant bases, and allegations based on suspicions that exploit people’s fears.

True, to borrow a line from the TV drama, X-Files, the truth is out there. But discerning what is true and what is not true is problematic. Some people don’t want to know the truth; some can’t make up their own minds and allow themselves to swayed by others’ opinions, and; some will refuse to believe the truth even when it lands on their heads with irrefutable facts to back it up.

Recognizing that all politicians are human, susceptible to the temptations of exaggerating and spinning facts to their advantage (which is not quite the same thing as calling all politicians liars – or is it), I decided, instead to tackle the bigger issue: Between the two candidates for governor of Texas this year, which is more prone to making unsubstantiated claims and which is more careful with the facts?

By the way, according to PolitiFact.com, Perry’s claim about Texas having a budget surplus this year is rated as “barley true”. Readers are encouraged to check this out for themselves at http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/feb/12/rick-perry/perry-says-texas-has-surplus/.

Why, you might ask, should you believe what PolitiFact.com has to say about anything? My answer to this is that you should visit this Pulitzer Prize winning website and, after reading a few articles, decide for yourself whether the analyses of political rhetoric and facts reviled justify my assessment. I think that it is a truly amazing public service that more people should take the time to visit regularly rather that mindlessly jabbering away with “friends” on FaceBook.

Claims from all quarters (individual politicians, the White House, Congress, PACs, even mass forwarded email claims) are analyzed by PolitiFact.com’s network of journalists all over the country, then they are peer reviewed for accuracy before being published. Claims are rated by consensus of research analysts as being either true, mostly true, half-true, barley true, false or “pants-on-fire,” meaning that the perpetrator of the claim either acted disingenuously or was sincere but should have known better. In other words, truth is measured by PolitiFact.com on a continuum from being absolutely true to being absolutely false. Most claims, it turns out, are rated somewhere in a grey area. Each claim assessment on PolitiFact.com includes an innovative graphic, a truth meter.

Setting my personal biases aside, I decided that I might use this on-line data base to determine whether Bill White or Rick Perry is the more truthful politician by looking at the claims of each in the aggregate. Rick Perry had 40 claims assessed by the site; Bill White had 22. Both politicians had claims rated true. Both had claims rated false too – even claims rated “pants on fire”.

To make some sense of all the numbers involved, I created a spreadsheet entering the number of true claims, mostly true claims, half-true claims, barely true claims, false claims, and pants-on-fire claims for each candidate. Then I assigned the value of one (1) for true ratings, three-fourths (.75) for mostly true ratings, zero (0) for half-true ratings, minus one-fourth (-.25) for barely true ratings, minus one (-1) for false ratings, and minus one and one-half (-1.5) for pants-on-fire ratings. I then multiplied the assigned values by the number of respective claim ratings for each candidate, summed the products, and then divided the sums by the number of claims analyzed for each candidate.  The result was percent for each. Multiplying the percents then by 100 produced whole numbers for comparison – what I call Truth Factors.

Had either candidate been completely truthful all the time, his Truth Factor would have been one hundred (100). But neither had a perfect score, of course. Bill White’s score was just 6.82, but Rick Perry’s was -33.75 (notice the minus sign).

Neither score was very reassuring to me, but somebody’s got to be the next governor, right? So, who are you going to vote for, the candidate whose claims trends to the far negative side of the truth continuum, or the one that’s at least on the positive side?

Yeah, I know, some will say that this just validates their suspicion that PolitiFact.com has a liberal bias. But I hasten to point out that, if PolitiFact.com favored the Democratic candidate in this pair-wise comparison, they didn’t do him much of a favor. No, I think the results of my analysis validates what I believe, the fact that it is truth that has a liberal bias.

Please feel free to post a comment, pro or con. Mention that you want it and I’ll send you a file copy of the spreadsheet used to generate my truth factors.

Published in: on October 4, 2010 at 11:04 am  Comments (4)  

A Short Civics Lesson ~ Republican Claims Debunked

The politics of hate and fear are still very much a part of the American political system I’m afraid.

September 7, 2010   First showing up back in February of this year on the website of a candidate for Congress was an article entitled “A Short Civics Lesson”. The article was highly critical of President Obama and his handling of the economic crisis now remembered as The Great Recession. It was rife with misinformation and distorted facts. Notwithstanding, the article has been copied and pasted both verbatim and with modifications to others’ blogs and websites since then, especially on those supporting the so-called Tea Party. Now this article is being circulated as an email with the addition of a deficit spending graph created by The Heritage Foundation, a think tank dedicated to promoting and justifying conservative policies.

Among the article’s claims are:

  1. that presidents aren’t responsible for budgets;
  2. that the House and Senate, when controlled by Democrats, bypassed the president to pass continuing resolutions;
  3. that President Bush constrained Congressional spending during his first year in office, and;
  4. that Barrack Obama was personally responsible for the deficit that he claims to have inherited from Bush.

Read the article for yourself if you’re interested at  http://runningforcongress2010.blogspot.com/2010/02/short-civics-lesson.html.

There’s been a lot of this kind of thing going around, originated by people who sincerely believe that the ends justify the means. However, the “Short Civics Lesson” is most disingenuous.

Responding to the article’s first claim: Budgets do in fact start with the president then end up back on the president’s desk to be signed into law after Congress has had their way with them. Budgets are, in-effect, collaborative efforts. Yes, Congress always does send budgets (spending bills) back for the president’s signature considerably altered from what he asked for and they are usually ladened with pork. But Republican-controlled Congresses have historically been just as guilty of this as Democrat-controlled Congresses (see my earlier posting: Americans’ Political Persuasions ~ Based More on Myth than Facts).

Responding to the article’s second and third claims: It is not at all true that President Bush constrained spending by Democratically controlled Congresses. In fact, the graph included with the forwarded email neglected to include the off-budget spending during the Bush years for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the tune of over $5 billion per month http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/xp-25651. Democratic members of Congress actually cooperated with the president by approving a series of off-budget emergency appropriation requests to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The graph also shows projected deficit spending by the Obama White House assuming the Bush/Cheney tax cuts are made permanent.

In truth, the only president since Jimmy Carter to constrain out-of-control spending by Congress was Bill Clinton, as the following graph shows. But deficit spending during Obama’s first term has so far only been in response the recession, part of his administration’s expansionary fiscal policies which has included tax cuts and credits for most Americans.

The above graph was created using George W. Bush White House budget and spending data by Z-facts.com. It is contained in an article on-line at http://zfacts.com/p/318.html.

Now, a Short History Lesson in response the fourth claim in the Short Civics Lesson article:  Many Republicans in both the House and Senate voted in favor of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to create the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to provide aid to banks and other financial institutions. John McCain voted for it as did Mitch McConnell. Indeed, on September 29, 2008, 65 House Republicans voted in favor of H.R. 3997, the original House vehicle for the act. After that legislation failed, on October 1, 2008, 34 Senate Republicans voted for H.R. 1424, the new vehicle for the act, and on October 3, 2008, 91 House Republicans voted for that bill. President Bush, a Republican, subsequently signed it into law.

So, the nation’s economic problems did begin long before Obama was elected and sworn-in. The fact that Obama voted for H.R. 1424 does not prove that he generated the mess he inherited. Governments during the Regan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 years did. Let’s have a little truth in advertising here, folks!

True, Democrats in Congress are facing an up-hill battle to retain control with latest polls showing an ever-increasing number of Americans disapproving of both Congress and of the president’s handling of the economy http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/. Thirty-three percent of those recently polled by CNN actually think the president’s handling of matters has made things worse. Why do they think this? Because of misinformation contained in this kind of political propaganda. The politics of hate and fear are still very much a part of the American political system I’m afraid.

Please feel free to post a comment whether pro or con.

Published in: on September 7, 2010 at 11:55 am  Comments (5)  

Resisting Progress ~ More Lies and Distortions About Pending Energy Legislation

Like the health care and financial reform efforts, energy and climate change legislation will be another Big F _ _ _ ing deal. Accordingly, the political gamesmanship in Washington continues with the mid-term elections right around the corner.

The Senate’s version of the Waxman-Hartley Clean Energy bill in the House is called the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S.1713). The bill provides for the establish- ment of a cap-and-trade system for green- house gas emission allowances and sets goals for reducing these emissions by 20 percent by 2020 and by 83 percent by 2050. It’s been pending debate in the Senate for more than a year now with legislators’ efforts committed first to the health care issue and most recently to financial reform (seems like the wheels of progress in Washington can only travel down one major road at a time).

Like the health care and financial reform efforts, energy and climate change legislation will be another Big F _ _ _ ing deal. Accordingly, the political gamesmanship in Washington continues with the mid-term elections right around the corner. Whether this or the immigration issue will be tackled next is anyone’s guess, however.

Following last week’s pronouncements by the bill’s sponsor, John Kerry and likely co-sponsor, Joe Lieberman, the distortions from the right started flowing faster than oil from BP’s on-going disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. One came in the form of an email from Newt Gingrich’s 527 political action committee (PAC), American Solutions For Winning the Future. The email sums up the main distortions from those fighting reform in a single word: tax.  Big Oil lobbyists and their politician spokespersons use that word repeatedly. In fact, in a single sentence of Newt’s email, he uses some form of the word five times. But repeating something over and over again doesn’t make it true. The truth is that there is no energy tax in the bill at all.

Newt’s a master politician. He knows what he’s doing. He knows that his constituents are fearful of new taxes and he knows that if he harps on the subject enough, more and more Americans will begin to believe it. But he also knows that taxes are not part of this legislation so he’s confusing taxes (the levy of financial charges by government upon an individual or a legal entity such that failure to pay is punishable by law) with the specter of rising energy costs. But energy costs for both businesses and consumers, according to a new study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a private, non-partisan, non-profit think tank, could actually go down, offset by improvements in energy efficiency over the long-haul. The study counters another claim that Gingrich’s PAC hints at too, warnings of harm to our economy. The truth is that the American Power Act would add over 200,000 new clean energy jobs every year to the American economy. But maybe most important, the Peterson study concludes that the American Power Act would lower our imports of foreign oil by 40%, thus putting America back in charge of our own energy, curbing our addiction to oil, stemming the flow of American dollars to countries that don’t like us, and reducing our trade deficit which dimishes the rate at which our economy can grow. What we pay for foreign oil accounts for half or more of our annual trade deficit.

Less oil, reduced risk to the environment and to other sectors of our economy, more jobs, and lower total energy costs in the long-run. That’s the truth about the American Power Act, not the misleading claims of Newt Gingrich’s PAC and others lobbying on behalf of the unsustainable status-quo and big profits for coal and oil companies. But you don’t have to take my word for it, read the Peterson Institute’s study for yourself.

 Please feel free to post a comment whether you agree that we need a comprehensive energy plan or not.

Published in: on May 22, 2010 at 2:12 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Republican Party is Still the Party of No, No Matter What They Say

What seems obvious to me is that most Republicans in Congress are disingenuous about wanting to provide solutions to the nation’s problems. They’re just playing bandwagon populist politics when it suits them by talking the talk that concerned citizens and independent voters want to hear.

Protesting that theirs is not the Party of No, Republican members of Congress declared victory Friday evening after an open and frank, hour-and-a-half exchange between themselves and the president, an exchange that was aired on national television networks. Their imagined victory was in having got the president to concede the fact that Republicans do have ideas on how to address the nation’s problems and, in the president’s own words, some being substantial ideas. But being substantial does not imply being workable.

“We are not obstructionists,” Republicans said while the president countered with, “I am not an ideologue (a zealous supporter of a particular ideology).”

Well, if you watched any of this exchange as I did, I think you’d almost have come to the same conclusion that I did: that the president got the better of more than a hundred of his political opponents. FoxNews seemed to come to the same conclusion I did since they cut away from the exchange early to air instead critics of the president’s agenda – or so it was reported by MSNBC news analysts, Rachael Maddow, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann.

So, is it fair to still call the Republican Party the Party of No, or have they proved themselves to be credible advocates of reasonable, workable ideas to address the nation’s problems? Here’s why I think they’re still the Party of No, the Party of No Good Ideas, the party of No intention whatsoever to cooperate with Democrats to get anything done: The Senate on Tuesday rejected legislation calling for a bi-partisan congressional commission to recommend reductions in the federal deficit spending. A group of 37 Democrats and 16 Republicans supported forming the commission, while 23 Republicans and 23 Democrats opposed it. The 53-46 vote fell seven votes shy of the necessary 60 votes required under an agreement that both parties had reached Monday night. Most telling about Congressional Republicans’ sincerity, of seven Republican Senators who had co-sponsored the bill, six backed away from it when it came to a vote and the seventh, according to a Politico.com story, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32048.html, wasn’t present to cast a vote.

Deficit spending this year by the Congress, in particular the $787 billion Economic Recovery and Stimulus Act, has been a major criticism of the Obama Administration by the Conservative propaganda machine, even though sixty-three percent of it had already been budgeted before the President was even sworn-in. Further, John McCain’s campaign was primarily about cutting wasteful spending and reducing the deficit. But now that the majority of Democrats are willing to come up with a bi-partisan solution, the majority of Republicans are saying, “No.” McCain reportedly voted against it because he feared the committee might, in addition to recommending spending cuts, come to the conclusion that the only way to meaningfully reduce the deficit would be to increase taxes on those who can most afford to contribute http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012803729.html?hpid=topnews.

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), even if all non-security discretionary spending were to be cut from the nation’s budget, even if there would be no further stimulus spending after 2010 with no federal spending in the jobs bill that the president has asked Congress for, with the Bush tax cuts allowed to remain in-effect at the end of 2010, we would still have a half trillion dollar deficit with ten percent of the budget going to service interest on dollars we have already borrowed http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10521/2009BudgetUpdate_Summary.pdf. So, faced with this reality, what seems obvious to me is that most Republicans in Congress are disingenuous about providing solutions to their own criticisms of the Obama Administration. They’re just playing bandwagon populist politics when it suits them by talking the talk that concerned citizens and independent voters want to hear. They are not willing to walk the walk when public policy changes like raising taxes are on the table. That’s partisanship for you, and that’s the reason why Congressional Republicans still have a lower approval rating than Congressional Democrats.

It’s what politicians do that counts, folks, not what they say. And Republicans this year have done nothing but unite against anything and everything proposed by the majority in Congress.

Fellow Democrats, let’s all hope that independents get over their let’s-just-throw-the-incumbents-out mood before the mid-term elections this fall and that they will vote for representatives who are actually willing to roll-up their sleeves, take political risks, and get stuff done. For my money, that’s more a Democratic trait these days than a Republican one.

Please feel free to post a comment whether you agree with me or not.

Published in: on January 30, 2010 at 2:08 pm  Comments (2)  

Religious Education in Texas “Public” Schools ~ Here We Go Again

The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) is at it again, this time reviewing the U.S. History curriculum for Texas high school students with the goal of emphasizing what some claim were “Christian” ideals and beliefs that motivated our Founding Fathers.

opaScientists and educators alike were frustrated and disappointed all across the nation when, in March of this year (2009), the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) cast its final vote on state science standards. Despite 54 different groups issuing an appeal to Texas lawmakers, House Bill 4224 was passed by our state legislature which is largely comprised of social conservatives. The bill put the “strengths and weaknesses” argument against evolution back into the science education laws.

“The final vote was a triumph of ideology and politics over science,” said Dr. Eugenie Scott, according to a report in Examiner.com. Dr. Scott is executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). “The board majority chose to satisfy creationist constituents and ignore the expertise of highly qualified Texas scientists and scientists across the country.”

House Bill 4224, and another “anti-evolution” bill, HB2800, which would have exempted institutions such as the Institute for Creation Research’s graduate school from Texas regulations governing degree-granting institutions, died on the Senate floor in June when the Texas legislature adjourned. But now the SBOE is at it again, reviewing the U.S. History curriculum for Texas high school students with the goal of emphasizing what some claim were “Christian” ideals and beliefs that motivated our Founding Fathers. ABC News on-line is currently featuring a story on this. You should check it out and read some of the comments people from all over the country are posting.

Why would the media, liberal-leaning or not, think the nation should be concerned or even interested in what Texas decides to teach to its high school students? Because Texas is the nation’s second-largest school system; it could very well influence the textbooks used by students in other parts of the country where there appears to be little or no lobbying for such religiously-oriented material. The debate about whether to teach religious-based social studies in Texas public schools has, according to ABC’s article, dominated a broader discussion about the state’s K-12 curriculum which is currently undergoing a review by state officials.

My personal view, and as a certified social studies teacher in Texas, I have a stake in this issue if not a say, is that the Religious-right in Texas seems to be more interesting in teaching students what to think (what they believe to be true) rather than how to think. But to get their message across, they would have to re-write history and that frightens me. The debate rages on among historians and pseudo-historians alike as to whether the Founders were Christian. Both Liberal revisionists and the Religious-right try to make the Founders fit their ideologies. But there is evidence in primary source historical documents only to support that, for the most part, the Founders were godly men. All could not respond, “Amen,” to the Apostle’s Creed. Yes, many had degrees in theology. But there were few institutions of higher learning in the colonies that were secular; most universities had presidents who were clergymen and most graduates went on to become Protestant ministers themselves.

A blogger who posted a comment this morning in response to ABC’s article, his “nom de plume” being, BubberDad, said that he was all for teaching religion in public schools. He said he thought it particularly important for students to understand what motivated people like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Obviously, BubberDad thinks he knows what he was talking about. So I responded:

“BubblerDad – It’s interesting that you should mention Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Franklin was a Deist, you know, and history isn’t quite clear about Jefferson’s faith. From his writings, he seemed to teater between Deism and Christianity. We do know, however, that he fathered five children with his slave/concubine, Sally Hemmings — not exactly puritan behavior, right? So let’s be careful here, let’s not be rewriting history the way we wish it had happened.”

With respect to primary sources to support our beliefs about history, the following from James Madison, the principle architect of our Constitution, expresses well my concerns about the Religious-right’s attempt to characterize the United States as being a “Christian” nation:

“Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only from his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?”

James Madison – Memorial and Remonstrance Against
Religious Assessments, 1785

If the attitude and apparent political motivations of members of the Texas State Board of Education, to inject religious teachings and, in particular, “fundamentalist” Christian teachings, into science and history curriculums for Texas public schools is a concern to you, as it is to me, you might want to contact Governor Perry’s choice to chair this board, Ms. Gail Lowe. Her office phone number is (512) 556-6262. To address the board collectively on this or any other issue involving education in Texas, you may direct an e-mail to sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us.

I invite your comments.

Published in: on July 29, 2009 at 12:11 pm  Comments (3)  

How Canadians Really Feel About Their Health Care System ~ Should We Care?

Eighty-two percent of Canadians believe that their health care system is better than ours.

opa

I watched President Obama’s primetime news conference last night (July 22, 2009) on reforming our health care system. After the conference, a political ad sponsored and paid for by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation was aired on the same network, CNN. The ad featured a Canadian woman who tells of having to come to the U.S. for an operation to save her life because of long wait times for surgical procedures in Canada. Oooooooo… scary — but one woman? Is she one of thousands last year who had to do the same — hundreds, or maybe just a dozen or so? And did she really have to come here for her operation?

The ad got me to wondering how Canadians really feel about the system that they’ve had in-place now for over fifty years. I also wondered whether the ad was being aired on the Fox network too or only on networks patronized by viewers having more moderate political persuasions.

I got up this morning and, over a cup of coffee, did a little research. I found an interesting article on the subject recently published by the Canadian Press. Read the article for yourself if you wish, but to summarize, Canadians think we would be wise to consider their system as we grapple with what to do about our own. A recent survey conducted by Harris/Decima group in Canada has found that 70 percent of Canadians think their system is working well or very well and that 82 percent believe their system is better than ours. The poll, taken by telephone of 1,000 Canadians, was conducted from June 4 to 8 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

On the whole then, Canadians obviously feel pretty satisfied with their system, but should we care about how Canadians feel? Maybe… A little more research came up with the following video program produced by a San Diego television station (KPBS) in cooperation with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). The program compares our system with Canada’s. Draw your own conclusions.

The Canadian health-care system has been in the spotlight for weeks at congressional hearings, where it has alternately been characterized as the gold standard and a troubled system plagued with problems and delays. Obviously, neither our privatized system nor their single-payer system (Canadians don’t consider it to be “socialized” medicine) is perfect. But considering comparative costs and healthcare outcomes, I think the majority of Canadians are right about which system is better. Perhaps the President’s plan, a blending of the two, would offer the best of both worlds to Americans. After watching the embedded video, let me know what you think.

I invite your comments.

Published in: on July 23, 2009 at 10:58 am  Comments (4)  

Media Political Bias ~ Time for the Return of Public Funding for Public Broadcasting

Should we be at all surprised that conservatives complain about “liberal” media bias while liberals complain about “conservative” bias on Fox?

opaI’m in the midst of an email debate with my Libertarian son over this media bias issue. He claims that FoxNews is fair and unbiased while all the other news sources are liberally biased. He has based his argument primarily on the fact that more people tune-in to Fox for their news and commentary than any other source. I, of course, disagree. I think that the Fox network is biased to the political right while most of the rest offer more balanced reporting. How- ever, MSNBC, in my opinion, is probably as far to the left as Fox is to the right. An April 22d 2009 Pew Research Center polling of public opinion on criticism of President Obama substantiates this view. But, should we be at all surprised that conservatives complain about “liberal” media bias while liberals complain about “conservative” bias on Fox?

Bias reporting by news media sources in the United States is inevitable, appealing as they do to their market share of the viewing/ reading public. This quote by Bill Moyers of Public Broadcasting fame speaks volumes to this.

“I’m going out telling the story that I think is the biggest story of our time: how the right-wing media has become a partisan propaganda arm of the Republican National Committee. We have an ideological press that’s interested in the election of Republicans and a mainstream press that’s interested in the bottom line. Therefore, we do not have a vigilant, independent press whose interest is the American people.”

The bottom line Bill Moyers was talking about is, of course, money. People buy and will pay for what confirms their already held biases. So I think Walter Cronkite would have endorsed Moyers’ perspective considering how news reporting has changed since he was in the business and set, along with the old, publicly funded Public Broadcasting System, high standards for honesty and objectivity. But is Fox really fair and unbiased as my son claims, or is it as Bill Moyers has suggested, an agent for Republican National Committee political propaganda?

Consider the following Cable News (only) ratings published by Nielsen for 15 July 2009.

FNC – 1,252,000 viewers
CNN – 720,000 viewers
MSNBC –419,000 viewers
CNBC – 230,000 viewers
HLN – 327,000 viewers

Okay, now let’s do the math. FNC (FoxNews) had 1,252,000 viewers whereas the total for the rest of the cable news group was 1,696,000, a difference of 444,000. Add to that difference the number of others who tuned-in to the broadcast stations, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, et al. However many more were the number of people watching all these other sources of news and comment, oh I don’t know, but for the sake of argument let’s say that they totaled approximately the same number that chose cable news networks other than Fox, those that I believe to be the more moderate to liberal. That means the totalnumber watching other than Fox news programing is maybe 3,392,000. So, 37 percent watched the only right-wing source of news and comment available while 63 percent preferred more liberal reporting. That figure tracks fairly close to the 32 percent who still consider themselves to be Republicans and 68 percent who are Democrats or Independents. Interesting, no?

Yes, as my Libertarian son has pointed out to me, Fox News gets high ratings from Nielson for the numbers of viewers compared to the other news sources. But this is because Republicans, Libertarians and right-leaning independents have nothing else to watch. All the rest of us are dividing our patronage between NBC, CBS, PBS, ABC and the more balanced to liberal cable news networks.

I have provided my son with a media bias report published by Professor Jeff Milyo of the Economics Department of Stanford University, a report the professor claims is scheduled for publication soon in the Economist magazine. Professor Milyo has concluded that there is media bias. No surprise here, right? But his study concludes that only the Fox network is biased to the right. All the rest are more moderate to liberal-leaning. Why? Well, perhaps the truth more often lies somewhere to the left of what Fox reports and most journalists want to get at the truth. You may download a copy of the professor’s report for yourselves at http://ideas.repec.org/p/umc/wpaper/0501.html. True, one can always find a “think tank” report that supports either side of an argument, and there is lots of “opinion” out there. So, perhaps a better measure of a news network might be the number of journalism awards they get. The National Headliner Awards in 2008 went to:

 Best Newscast

First Place: NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams
Second Place: CNN – Anderson Cooper 360
Third Place: NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams

 Coverage of a Major News Event

First Place: CNN
Second Place: CNN
Third Place: CNN

Continuing Coverage of a Major News Event

First Place: CNN
Second Place: NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams
Third Place: CNN

Notice that Fox got none, neither did my favorite, ABC. Maybe that was because Fox is as far to the right as ABC is to the left. Could it be? But if you’re still not convinced, here’s an interesting and entertaining little video about the FoxNews network and biased political reporting during the 2008 national election campaigns.

I watch a lot of CNN at home during the day when school is out for summer break, which drives my wife crazy on the weekends when she is also home. I listen to it via Sirius Radio in my car when my wife is not riding with me. In the evenings, if she is home from work in time, we both like to watch ABC News with Charles Gibson. We really like Charlie. Sunday after church, we always watch This Week with George Stephanopoulos together. But based on the number of awards that Brian Williams gets for his Nightly News program on NBC, perhaps we ought to alter our viewing habits a bit. But I am convinced that restoring public funding for PBS would be in the best interests of a well-informed public.

Please feel free to comment indicating your personal media preference.

Published in: on July 20, 2009 at 8:49 am  Comments (11)  

Petty… Petty… Petty

Republicans might be more effective in their opposition to Democrats if they saved their ammunition for the bigger battles ahead.

opaIt was reported by various news agencies this morning, May 31, 2009, that President Obama has kept yet another campaign promise, this one to his wife, Michael Obama. He reportedly told his wife before the election that when his campaign for the presidency was over, win or lose, he would take her out for dinner in the Big Apple and to a Broadway show. It has also been reported that the Republican National Committee (RNC), in response this presidential date, issued a news release chastising Obama for saying that he understands American’s troubles, but then hops up to New York for “a night on the town.” How petty!

The White House declined to say how much the trip was costing taxpayers, but I can’t imagine Mr. Obama not paying for the dinner out and the show tickets himself. And even if taxpayers did have to pay for their flight to New York in a smaller jet of the presidential fleet, it seems to me that the price was well worth it if only to demonstrate a little normalcy to the people amid these troubled economic times. Americans deserve a little “true” romance — and, according to reports, New Yorkers lined up eight-deep in places to catch a glimpse of the first couple as they drove by.  Surely, the First Couples’ endorsement of the West Village restaurant, Blue Hill, and Broadway’s Belasco Theater showing “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone,” has helped to stimulate a little business in the City of Light. And since the First Couple didn’t have to drag along the entire White House staff for a longer stay at the Camp David retreat center, I for one will not begrudge the President and First Lady a well-earned night off.

Having said that, neither do I begrudge anyone’s right to criticize, including the RNC and even Rush Limbaugh. After all, he’s got a living to make and he does have a following. But I have a right to think what I do too, and I think Republicans might be more effective in their opposition to Democrats if they saved their ammunition for the bigger battles ahead:  the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court who, if confirmed (or should I say when), will be one of only three Democratic Supreme Court justices, the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill, and Ted Kennedy’s new national health care plan.

The ugly rhetoric is surely turning-off many moderate Republicans and independents, and is certainly losing Republicans support among Hispanics. By the way, if you think that Sonia Sotomayor is a racist because some outspoken Republicans have said she is, know that the justification for this claim is based on an out-of-context statement taken from a 2001 argument about her ability to render better judgments in cases involving prejudice than a white, male judge might be. The entire text of her statement is available at CNN.com.

I invite your comments, whether supportive or not.

Published in: on May 31, 2009 at 12:09 pm  Comments (7)  

The Demise of the Republican Party ~ What Must They Do to Survive?

If Republicans want to survive as a party capable of installing members into positions of power and influence at the national level, they’re going to have to start coming clean with us.

opaApril 30, 2009  ––  My comment posted to CNN’s Cafferty File this afternoon, April 30, 2009, follows. It was in response to the question, “How can the Republican Party improve its image with voters?” It didn’t make the cut to be aired, maybe because I didn’t post it until late this afternoon. But perhaps you’d like to comment in response to it on my blog.

Jack, I’m guessing that the Republican Party has ridden their political pony of lower taxes, smaller government and ridged constitutionalism into the ground. If Republicans want to survive as a party capable of installing members into positions of power and influence at the national level, they’re going to have to start coming clean with us. Americans have been educated by recent events and by the second Great Communicator, Barack Obama, that when principles fail, it’s time to start coming up with new ideas. Unfortunately, Republicans haven’t had a new idea since Ronald Regan.

Most Americans know now that Reganomics is truly Voodoo economics and that conservatives in Congress have been no more fiscally conservative than their liberal counterparts. Once we’re out of the economic mess that Republicans have left us, we’ll be generations paying-off the debt they have saddled us with and salvaging the social safety nets that Americans have come to depend upon.

Clearly, Republicans need to stop the name-calling, they need to distance themselves from Rush Limbaugh, they need to learn to evolve with change, they need respect science, they need to beg forgiveness for causing the current recession or at least making it worse, they need to stop vilifying gays, non-Christians and poor non-whites, and they need to give party leadership over to moderates like Utah’s Governor Jon Huntsman. It wouldn’t hurt either if they were to come up with a new name for their party, something like maybe the Repentance Party.

Please feel free to comment whether you agree or not.

Published in: on April 30, 2009 at 5:35 pm  Comments (21)  

Name Calling ~ The Politics of Fear

The the Republican Party has brought upon themselves a reputation for discrimination and bigotry. It has done so by forming a coalition of  “socially” conservative and religious right groups to win elections.

opaAn author of a conservative blog, surprised that I had approved his comment after reading my posting on conservative vs. liberal economics, wrote an “off-line” email to me recently.

I had suggested in my posting that many attending the conservative tea parties on Tax Day, April 15th this year, were there more to protest the fact that Democrats have taken control of Washington and are now in position to advance their social agenda of change.  I also expressed the opinion that some were there to protest our having an African American in the White House for the first time, which was obvious to me based on demonstrators’ signs seen on national news programs including Fox News.  In my reader’s message, he said in part: 

 “As for the racist comments, your perspective is limited.  I work in the media (thus why I cannot post with my name).  I have met 10 times as many racists bearing the liberal label as I have conservative.  They often mask it by being overly nice to minorities while undermining them from behind or they are minorities themselves who feel it’s their turn for payback.  I have worked personally with members of the King family and some of these are the most fervent racists that I have ever met – not that I blame them entirely.  I have been blatantly and unabashedly discriminated against by BET even though my minority credentials with UNCF and the King Foundation are solid (there are many different “King Foundations”  reportedly cashing-in on the Martin Luther King legacy— perhaps my reader meant the King Center).  I simply feel racism is not anywhere near the level you dream it is.

So I have had it with racist and racism.  The term is exaggerated by those on the left and used as a name calling slur that somehow wins any argument just by labeling someone or some group racist.”

I have no idea to what group or organization my reader was referring with the acronym, BET. I can only assume that it has something to do with the publishing business, but I have not been able to find reference to it on-line. My reader had concluded his earlier, on-line comment with, “I don’t care if you approve my comments.  It’s your blog.”

My response was: “No, I do and have approved the comment you posted on my blog. I sincerely meant what I wrote when dedicating my blog to those of us who enjoy safe opportunities to express ourselves on controversial issues of the day.

I’m sorry that we see the racist thing from such different perspectives, but I have had a very different exposure to it than you have obviously had. So if my perspective is limited, truly, yours is limited as well. See my earlier blog posting, It Works Both Ways, if you have the time and inclination. But my observation about racists taking part in the tea parties was not name-calling. Obviously, all Republicans are not racist and, yes, racism persists in America regardless of political persuasion. But ten times as many racists in the Democratic Party as in the Republican Party? REALLY?

Name calling, according to Wikipedia, is based on both logical fallacy and cognitive bias. It is a technique used to promote propaganda, a technique that I personally disdain. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices in the belief that invoked fear based on fearmongering tactics will encourage those that read, see or hear the propaganda to construct a negative opinion about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist wants recipients of these misleading claims to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about matters apart from impartial examination of facts. When employed, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief based on merit.

Yes, I believe the Republican Party has brought upon themselves a reputation for discrimination and bigotry. It has done so by forming a coalition of “socially” conservative and religious right groups to win elections. The Republican party, in my opinion, is definitely not the party of Lincoln anymore. Now Republican party notables, preparing for mid-term elections and recognizing that it has limited its appeal to the larger population, are talking about dropping it’s stand against single-sex marriages and labeling Democrats as Socialists and even Fascists. Is this not propaganda born out of desperation? It sure seems like it to me.

Please feel free to post a comment, pro or con.

Published in: on April 25, 2009 at 9:58 am  Comments (3)