The U.S. Supreme Court--whose justices habitually attire themselves in black robes--has heard the arguments for and against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and they plan to meet on Friday to vote on their decision about its constitutionality. It might be another three months before we learn of the Court's decision.
Or maybe not; who knows?
A friend of the right-wing persuasion--yes, I have quite a few friends like that--has commented that based on the news reports of the proceedings before the Court, I am sounding less confident about the outcome. Not so. One always wishes for the best fortune possible, and this time is no exception, but there's no decline in my confidence.
The Affordable Care Act--known as ACA and as Obamacare--has changed the nation's conversation about healthcare. There's no going back to the past when the conversation has changed. This is politics; conversation, discussion and lots of talking are the lifeblood of politics. It is because of that fundamental change that my confidence in accomplishing the goals of the ACA is still high.
Since you are wondering about this, here are some of the goals of the ACA that have already been accomplished: there is no longer denial of medical coverage for pre-existing conditions; coverage for pre-existing conditions cannot be subject to higher insurance premiums or other discrimination against the individual needing the coverage; there are no longer any life-time caps on a beneficiary's insurance payouts; insurers must continue to provide coverage for policyholders' adult children up to the age of 26; health insurance plans must spend at least 80% or 85%--depending on the nature of the plan--of their premium revenue on medical and related services.
Do you remember that it wasn't all that long ago that a pre-existing condition would make a person an insurable pariah? When was that? Oh, yes, it was in the pre-Obamacare Dark Ages! Even most of my right-wing friends agree that was an egregious abuse of power. Well, they can't do that any more.
Numerous changes to improve quality and control costs have been implemented by insurers and medical service providers as required by ACA. These things, and more, are significant, but either you will just have to take my word for it or go look it up yourself because they are too numerous and detailed to write about here.
But the conversation got hijacked. It was hijacked by the Republican Party and the so-called Tea Party so that they could holler about the unfairness and unconstitutionality of the ACA requiring that everybody be financially-responsible for their own healthcare needs by having health insurance.
Gee, what a concept! People should be prudent and financially-prepared for the future and the unexpected things in life. What a wholesome, red-white-and-blue American, mom-and-apple-pie sort of thing. Finally, those spend-thrift, left-wingy Democrats are getting behind a plan for individual responsibility.
Well, that turned out to be a problem, because it took away something for the Republicans to complain about.
Besides, people don't like being forced to do anything; that's natural. So the insurance mandate is political low-hanging fruit.
This is sophistry of the worst sort. Here's why: the individual insurance mandate that is at the heart of the constitutional challenge is a right-wing idea from its beginning. It was dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation in the early 1980s, and was pushed by the Republican establishment as an economically-sound way of funding the operations of the health insurance companies.
Or, at least, economically-advantageous for the insurance companies.
Let's take a little trip in the Healthcare Way-Back Machine. What's the fundamental problem that we were trying to solve with this individual mandate? Remember? Of course you do. The health insurers were blaming increasing insurance premiums on the willingness of the uninsured part of the population to seek healthcare in the most expensive setting possible -- the hospital emergency room. The right-wing solution to this problem, which is what became imbedded in the ACA, was to enhance the corporate revenue streams of the insurers through compliance with an individual insurance mandate.
And now the Supremes have allowed themselves to be drawn into. . .well, what is this, anyway? Is it an issue of basic legal human rights?
(Probably not if you want to believe what Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said the other day on the steps of the Supreme Court, when he declared that human rights come from God and not from laws. What's up with him, anyway? Is he running for Pope or for President? Has he forgotten about that American legal paper-work known as the Bill of Rights?)
(And while we're on the topic of Republican presidential candidates, isn't there an essential contradiction in the logic of Mitt Romney, the "inevitable Republican nominee," championing the constitutional failings of the ACA individual mandate, when his signature governing achievement was an individual insurance mandate for the State of Massachusetts? I know, he says it's OK for states to do this, but not for the Federal government. . .how does that make any sense? Think about it long enough, and it'll be enough to make your head explode.)
Is it just a big political confrontation? Is this all about money and debt and government expenditures and taxes? Is it a big mess? Probably, it's a combination of all of the above.
All of this reminds me of a similar confrontation of social welfare, economics, governmental authority and visceral arguments that happened a half-century ago. Here we go in the Way-Back Machine again.
Fortunately--or perhaps unfortunately, depending on the point of view--my age is such as to provide me with first-hand memories of the "Great Seat Belt Controversy" of the mid-20th Century. In a debate that had remarkable similarities to this age's debate over healthcare, we had to put up with dire warnings that mandatory seat belts in automobiles would cause end-of-times government overreach and economic disaster. None of that happened. Instead, we ended up with safer cars, and eventually with air bags which provided a quantum leap in safety. Same things were said by industry and their political allies about air bags during the 1980s, but we got past that experience in the same way. For anybody who has been under a rock since the early '80's: there's been no economic disaster from seat belts and air bags in cars, and we have not been troubled by the end-of-times because of horrendous government overreach in regulating the safety of something that people use all the time.
People use cars all the time, or at the very least, they are passengers in cars that they don't drive, so everybody is affected in some way by safety characteristics of cars. There's simply no way to convincingly assert that any appreciable portion of the American population does not benefit from the safety features of auto seat belts and air bags.
Likewise, people use healthcare services, some more than others, but there is no way to convincingly assert that any appreciable part of the population will not at some point use or benefit from healthcare services. If somebody doesn't use healthcare services right now, they probably will at some time in the future. At the very least, everybody is affected by the health of everybody else around them. Think of: flu, pneumonia, AIDS, flesh-eating bacteria. . .the list is long.
The value of the precaution of having and using seat belts and air bags in cars is well-established and accepted. It's all about safety, prudence, health and well-being. Sort of sounds like healthcare, doesn't it? So, it would seem that the precautionary value of being a participating part of the healthcare system would also be easily accepted. But that has not been the case. Why? Because of politics.
And so now we wait on the deliberations of the black-robed ones.
If the ACA is deemed by them to be constitutional, then we continue on an established path for an improved national healthcare system. It's not a perfect one, and future course corrections are inevitable, but it will yield benefits; some as described earlier in this writing. The politics surrounding it will, of course, continue.
If the ACA is deemed to be unconstitutional, then what happens? It's hard to say. More politics, at a minimum. Probably improved odds of an Obama reelection as the realities of diminished insurance benefits or higher insurance premiums, or both, sink in. If the whole thing is ruled unconstitutional, then maybe we end up back in the Dark Ages with regard to pre-existing conditions and some of the other popular results of the ACA. That's a reality that would stir people up. If only the insurance mandate is ruled unconstitutional, then underpinnings of the political compromise for the economics of the whole thing probably fall away. That might lead to significantly higher insurance premium payments, or it might not. The great gnashing of teeth over the additional cost of adding seat belts and air bags to cars eventually ended up as a tempest in a tea pot.
Which make me wonder if the Supremes drink tea or coffee or both? And do they go for the de-caffeinated varieties? I hope they avoid the caffeine; they have plenty of things already to keep them up at night.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Looking for the American political center -- let's make a deal
Hello? American political center people, are you there? Who are you? What are you like? What does it mean to be in the "center?" Does the "center" matter any more? Was it ever important?
We live in the so-called "digital age," so we tend to think digital thoughts. In so doing, we want to identify the characteristics of our world with precision. Using the term "center" drives us in the direction of numerical or mathematical analysis, so we want the center to be identified as some sort of average, or a median, or somewhere on a bell curve.
That's not going to work. In politics, the center--whatever it is--cannot be identified with precision. This is true, too, for every place else on the political spectrum, whether to the left of center or to the right.
American politics over the last few years--and especially in this year--has been so filled with strident vociferations of "most conservative" or "most fiscally responsible"--the implication being that the political characterization in question can be precisely measured so that the virtue of having a rock-solid belief is established beyond a reasonable doubt--that we have yielded our politics and our government to the demands of those who would measure multi-dimensional human activities with uni-dimensional yard-sticks (or meter-sticks if you are thinking metrically).
Enough of that. It's a waste of time, and with all the generated hot air it is proof-positive of the human contribution to global warming.
For a few moments here, consider this concept: where you are on the political spectrum is as much a result of what you do as it is of what you believe. Likewise, this is true--in fact, it's critically-true--for all candidates seeking election.
Maybe you're a Republican, and you think you are in the center. (Not likely--based on all the hullabaloo in the Republican presidential contest about which candidate is the "most conservative"--but anything is possible.) Maybe you are a Democrat, and position yourself in the political center. (Speaking for myself, I feel that I am somewhere close to the center, even if probably a little to the left of center. More on that later.) Maybe you are an "independent," and feel that you are in the center, or perhaps not.
The other day I asked some friends to help me define the political center, but we couldn't come up with a clear and unambiguous answer.
There's a lot more to the political spectrum than just the labels that are so often used, labels like "liberal," "conservative," "left," "right," "center." Pew Research has a fascinating survey of the American population that attempts to place people according to "key beliefs" in any one of nine different "political typologies." The survey is almost a year old--it was published in May of last year--but having gone through it, my feeling is that it is still relevant today. It's pretty complex, but worth a look.
The shortcoming of the survey, though, is that there's more to politics and successful government than "beliefs." Good politics and successful government also requires the ability and the proclivity to make a deal.
Does reading that make anybody feel slightly unclean? If so, that's too bad, because "doing a deal" is the only way that good governance has ever been achieved in a democratic society. Having beliefs is part of the deal-making, but intractably sticking to beliefs does not contribute to deal-making, and it is not a source of good governance. Accept it, get used to it, and keep it in mind as you vote.
Consider these notable figures from the American political landscape of the second half of the Twentieth Century: Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Tip O'Neill, Everett Dirksen, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton. All of them--and others, too--have these things in common: they made things happen in government; they occupied some part of the "political center;" they had key beliefs; and they knew how to make deals happen with people around them, even those people who did not necessarily have the same key beliefs.
You'll never catch me supporting or voting for a candidate whose self-description is "most conservative;" you have probably already figured that out. But you'll also never see me supporting a candidate who claims to be "most liberal." Neither extreme makes any sense in government, because taking a position like that implies that there's not much interest in making a deal, nor much ability to do a deal. That leads to a non-functioning, or maybe a dysfunctional, government.
Take a look now at the way Americans position themselves on issues and beliefs; go to the Pew Research survey.
The survey includes a quiz that can be used to place a person somewhere along the political typology, as defined by Pew Research. Take it; it only needs a couple of minutes. If you are politically-engaged, or at least politically-aware--one of which is probably the case if you are reading this--then you will find it to be amusing, or entertaining, or informative, or enlightening, or some combination of all of those things.
I took the quiz. I waffled on selecting answers to three or four of the questions, but in each case ended up with a choice that was in the general vicinity of what I would have preferred to answer. The results identify me as a "solid liberal." If I had guessed first on where I would land, that would not have been my guess. (Perhaps you would have placed me there even without the quiz.) But, there I am, and I'm proud of it!
In any case, the survey makes no allowance for the importance of deal-making. If it did, then I think my identification would have to be "solid liberal with centrist tendencies who likes making deals with the other side." That's a long label, but much more accurate.
According to Pew, "solid liberals" have these beliefs:
Pew continues by describing "solid liberals" as:
What's interesting is that out of the eight "key issues" that Pew identifies as being supported by the vast majority of solid liberals, four of those same issues are also supported by 52% or more of the general public, and another one is supported by 47% of the general public. Knowing that, I now feel a little closer to the "center," whatever that might be. These are the statements of the "key issues" with which "solid liberals" tend to agree:
Check it out for yourself. The links are up there earlier in this posting.
And then think about deal-making in government. Think about accomplishments like the Interstate Highway system, and the Civil Rights Act, and the space program with its landings on the Moon.
Those were Big Deals.
Here's something to keep in mind during this election year: those Big Deals were not, and could not have been, accomplished by people who described themselves as "most conservative" or "most liberal." Instead, they were done by people who said "this will be good for the country." There was no universal agreement on the proposals--there never is--so they had to make things happen by doing deals.
Complicated, messy, time-consuming, gritty deal-making. That's where the center is. And that's why the ones in the center are those with red, chapped and dry hands -- it's because they have to wash them so often after the dirty work of making deals.
It's the only way we can have good government.
We live in the so-called "digital age," so we tend to think digital thoughts. In so doing, we want to identify the characteristics of our world with precision. Using the term "center" drives us in the direction of numerical or mathematical analysis, so we want the center to be identified as some sort of average, or a median, or somewhere on a bell curve.
That's not going to work. In politics, the center--whatever it is--cannot be identified with precision. This is true, too, for every place else on the political spectrum, whether to the left of center or to the right.
American politics over the last few years--and especially in this year--has been so filled with strident vociferations of "most conservative" or "most fiscally responsible"--the implication being that the political characterization in question can be precisely measured so that the virtue of having a rock-solid belief is established beyond a reasonable doubt--that we have yielded our politics and our government to the demands of those who would measure multi-dimensional human activities with uni-dimensional yard-sticks (or meter-sticks if you are thinking metrically).
Enough of that. It's a waste of time, and with all the generated hot air it is proof-positive of the human contribution to global warming.
For a few moments here, consider this concept: where you are on the political spectrum is as much a result of what you do as it is of what you believe. Likewise, this is true--in fact, it's critically-true--for all candidates seeking election.
Maybe you're a Republican, and you think you are in the center. (Not likely--based on all the hullabaloo in the Republican presidential contest about which candidate is the "most conservative"--but anything is possible.) Maybe you are a Democrat, and position yourself in the political center. (Speaking for myself, I feel that I am somewhere close to the center, even if probably a little to the left of center. More on that later.) Maybe you are an "independent," and feel that you are in the center, or perhaps not.
The other day I asked some friends to help me define the political center, but we couldn't come up with a clear and unambiguous answer.
There's a lot more to the political spectrum than just the labels that are so often used, labels like "liberal," "conservative," "left," "right," "center." Pew Research has a fascinating survey of the American population that attempts to place people according to "key beliefs" in any one of nine different "political typologies." The survey is almost a year old--it was published in May of last year--but having gone through it, my feeling is that it is still relevant today. It's pretty complex, but worth a look.
The shortcoming of the survey, though, is that there's more to politics and successful government than "beliefs." Good politics and successful government also requires the ability and the proclivity to make a deal.
Does reading that make anybody feel slightly unclean? If so, that's too bad, because "doing a deal" is the only way that good governance has ever been achieved in a democratic society. Having beliefs is part of the deal-making, but intractably sticking to beliefs does not contribute to deal-making, and it is not a source of good governance. Accept it, get used to it, and keep it in mind as you vote.
Consider these notable figures from the American political landscape of the second half of the Twentieth Century: Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Tip O'Neill, Everett Dirksen, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton. All of them--and others, too--have these things in common: they made things happen in government; they occupied some part of the "political center;" they had key beliefs; and they knew how to make deals happen with people around them, even those people who did not necessarily have the same key beliefs.
You'll never catch me supporting or voting for a candidate whose self-description is "most conservative;" you have probably already figured that out. But you'll also never see me supporting a candidate who claims to be "most liberal." Neither extreme makes any sense in government, because taking a position like that implies that there's not much interest in making a deal, nor much ability to do a deal. That leads to a non-functioning, or maybe a dysfunctional, government.
Take a look now at the way Americans position themselves on issues and beliefs; go to the Pew Research survey.
The survey includes a quiz that can be used to place a person somewhere along the political typology, as defined by Pew Research. Take it; it only needs a couple of minutes. If you are politically-engaged, or at least politically-aware--one of which is probably the case if you are reading this--then you will find it to be amusing, or entertaining, or informative, or enlightening, or some combination of all of those things.
I took the quiz. I waffled on selecting answers to three or four of the questions, but in each case ended up with a choice that was in the general vicinity of what I would have preferred to answer. The results identify me as a "solid liberal." If I had guessed first on where I would land, that would not have been my guess. (Perhaps you would have placed me there even without the quiz.) But, there I am, and I'm proud of it!
In any case, the survey makes no allowance for the importance of deal-making. If it did, then I think my identification would have to be "solid liberal with centrist tendencies who likes making deals with the other side." That's a long label, but much more accurate.
According to Pew, "solid liberals" have these beliefs:
- Strongly pro-government and very liberal on a broad range of issues
- Very supportive of regulation, environmental protection and government assistance to the poor
- One of the most secular groups; 59% say that religion is not that important to them
- Supportive of the country's growing racial and ethnic diversity
- Two-thirds disagree with the Tea Party
Pew continues by describing "solid liberals" as:
- Highly politically engaged
- 75% are Democrats
- Concentrated in the Northeast and West
- 57% are female
- Best educated of the groups: 49% hold at least a bachelor's degree and 27% have post-graduate experience
- A third regularly listen to NPR, about two-in-ten regularly watch The Daily Show and read The New York Times
- 59% have a passport
- 42% regularly buy organic foods
- 21% are first or second generation Americans
What's interesting is that out of the eight "key issues" that Pew identifies as being supported by the vast majority of solid liberals, four of those same issues are also supported by 52% or more of the general public, and another one is supported by 47% of the general public. Knowing that, I now feel a little closer to the "center," whatever that might be. These are the statements of the "key issues" with which "solid liberals" tend to agree:
- Government often does a better job than people give it credit for.
- The government should do more to help needy Americans, even if it means going deeper into debt.
- Government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public interest.
- Business corporations make too much profit.
- Our country needs to continue making changes to give blacks equal rights with whites.
- Good diplomacy is the best way to ensure peace.
- The growing number of newcomers from other countries strengthens American society.
- Homosexuality should be accepted by society.
Check it out for yourself. The links are up there earlier in this posting.
And then think about deal-making in government. Think about accomplishments like the Interstate Highway system, and the Civil Rights Act, and the space program with its landings on the Moon.
Those were Big Deals.
Here's something to keep in mind during this election year: those Big Deals were not, and could not have been, accomplished by people who described themselves as "most conservative" or "most liberal." Instead, they were done by people who said "this will be good for the country." There was no universal agreement on the proposals--there never is--so they had to make things happen by doing deals.
Complicated, messy, time-consuming, gritty deal-making. That's where the center is. And that's why the ones in the center are those with red, chapped and dry hands -- it's because they have to wash them so often after the dirty work of making deals.
It's the only way we can have good government.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Needed: Freedom from religion in politics and government
It's getting to the point where my preferred candidate for President would be a self-avowed atheist, or at least an agnostic. Perfection, of course, would be a general understanding and acknowledgment that a candidate's religion--or lack thereof--has no bearing on that candidate's qualifications for elected office.
My guess is that most Americans already feel that way. However, far too many apparently do not accept that reality, if the rhetoric of the Republican presidential nominating contest, and a recent poll conducted in today's primary states of Mississippi and Alabama, are reliable indicators.
First, the public opinion poll, since it's from the two states that are holding elections today. It asked people about their beliefs on whether President Barack Obama is a Christian or a Muslim. As it turns out, most Republican voters in Mississippi and Alabama apparently think that President Obama is a Muslim.
Admittedly, this one caught me by surprise, because it seemed to me that this issue had been settled long ago and so there was no lingering public interest in asking the question again. Yes, the various juvenile attempts at snippy humor have not escaped me; I can laugh at things like that--ha, ha--and move on. There's no need to dwell crude humor.
But to hear that ". . .about half still believe he is Muslim and about 1 in 4 believes his parents’ interracial marriage should have been illegal. . ." as described in an article on today's latimes.com was surprising. Follow the link and read it if you want to learn some of the details of the poll results. It's not an attractive profile of the Republican voters in Alabama and Mississippi.
This has been said before, but let's say it again: Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but there's only one set of facts. People who believe that Barack Obama is Muslim and not Christian are simply ignorant of facts and of reality.
(Here's a note especially for those readers from other countries who might be confused about this American preoccupation with religion and government: President Obama is factually known to publicly attend Christian church services, and he is acknowledged as of the Christian faith by various Republican spokespeople. Continuing for non-American readers: Obama is a Democrat; Republicans are mostly anti-Obama; Democrats are liberals and on the left side of politics; Republicans are conservatives and on the right side of politics; blue is the color for Democrats, and red is the color for Republicans. Red Americans can be pretty intense about their Christian religion; blue Americans are much more casual about the subject. Yes, it's a lot of labels, and it's a distraction from the important needs of running the country. But, we seem to enjoy the entertainment of these distractions.)
In addition to this nonsense about President Obama, we also have to put up with the constant observations that many conservative Christian Republicans are distrustful of Republican candidate Mitt Romney because he is of the Mormon religion. Mr. Romney is not my choice for President, but this criticism about his religion is nonsense, too.
These people have nothing of value to contribute, so they fall back on prejudicial attitudes that were last popular during the Dark Ages and the days of the Inquisitions.
A political candidate's religion has nothing to do with how well that person will be able to fulfill the responsibilities of elected office. Instead, the skills that are needed include things like fairness, creativity, diplomacy, openness, ethics, knowledge, inquisitiveness, awareness of future possibilities and intelligence.
Skills can come along with any religion, or with no religion.
That's all for now on this subject. The election results from Alabama and Mississippi will be interesting. More on that at a later time.
My guess is that most Americans already feel that way. However, far too many apparently do not accept that reality, if the rhetoric of the Republican presidential nominating contest, and a recent poll conducted in today's primary states of Mississippi and Alabama, are reliable indicators.
First, the public opinion poll, since it's from the two states that are holding elections today. It asked people about their beliefs on whether President Barack Obama is a Christian or a Muslim. As it turns out, most Republican voters in Mississippi and Alabama apparently think that President Obama is a Muslim.
Admittedly, this one caught me by surprise, because it seemed to me that this issue had been settled long ago and so there was no lingering public interest in asking the question again. Yes, the various juvenile attempts at snippy humor have not escaped me; I can laugh at things like that--ha, ha--and move on. There's no need to dwell crude humor.
But to hear that ". . .about half still believe he is Muslim and about 1 in 4 believes his parents’ interracial marriage should have been illegal. . ." as described in an article on today's latimes.com was surprising. Follow the link and read it if you want to learn some of the details of the poll results. It's not an attractive profile of the Republican voters in Alabama and Mississippi.
This has been said before, but let's say it again: Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but there's only one set of facts. People who believe that Barack Obama is Muslim and not Christian are simply ignorant of facts and of reality.
(Here's a note especially for those readers from other countries who might be confused about this American preoccupation with religion and government: President Obama is factually known to publicly attend Christian church services, and he is acknowledged as of the Christian faith by various Republican spokespeople. Continuing for non-American readers: Obama is a Democrat; Republicans are mostly anti-Obama; Democrats are liberals and on the left side of politics; Republicans are conservatives and on the right side of politics; blue is the color for Democrats, and red is the color for Republicans. Red Americans can be pretty intense about their Christian religion; blue Americans are much more casual about the subject. Yes, it's a lot of labels, and it's a distraction from the important needs of running the country. But, we seem to enjoy the entertainment of these distractions.)
In addition to this nonsense about President Obama, we also have to put up with the constant observations that many conservative Christian Republicans are distrustful of Republican candidate Mitt Romney because he is of the Mormon religion. Mr. Romney is not my choice for President, but this criticism about his religion is nonsense, too.
These people have nothing of value to contribute, so they fall back on prejudicial attitudes that were last popular during the Dark Ages and the days of the Inquisitions.
A political candidate's religion has nothing to do with how well that person will be able to fulfill the responsibilities of elected office. Instead, the skills that are needed include things like fairness, creativity, diplomacy, openness, ethics, knowledge, inquisitiveness, awareness of future possibilities and intelligence.
Skills can come along with any religion, or with no religion.
That's all for now on this subject. The election results from Alabama and Mississippi will be interesting. More on that at a later time.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Oreos, Limbaugh and name-calling
Today, March 6, is the 100th anniversary of the creation of the Oreo cookie, according to Nabisco's website.
Tomorrow will mark one week since Rush Limbaugh used his national radio show to publicly insult a female Georgetown University law student in a vulgar way simply because she was providing Congressional testimony on the value of birth control medication. Limbaugh has apologized--sort of--for his remarks, while blaming the political left for uttering words that were "against everything I know to be right and wrong."
The man's an idiot.
Oops, I shouldn't say that. It's name-calling, and that's rude. So, I am sorry that I have said that Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. That label is probably factually inaccurate. Maybe he's even smarter than I am, and I'm pretty sure that I am not an idiot.
But I will contend that Limbaugh is behaving in an oafish and boorish manner. Grammatically, that is an accurate descriptive statement; it's not name-calling.
Since I have never cared for Oreos--not being one of those people who dunks their cookies into milk prior to eating them, which seems to be the only way that these things are consumed--perhaps I should say that Limbaugh is an "oreo" and let it go at that. However, that would be demeaning to Oreo cookies, so--once again--no name-calling here.
Besides, there are some big differences between Oreo cookies and Rush Limbaugh. Most notably, whenever I see somebody consume an Oreo, the most apparent end result is a beatific look of pleasure and contentment. On the other hand, consumption of a Limbaugh show seems to lead to almost anything but pleasure and contentment. And finally, Oreo cookies are sweet, and Limbaugh is a sour-puss.
(I hereby publicly apologize for calling Limbaugh a sour-puss, but I stand by the accuracy of my observation about his facial expressions as communicated by that label. And, no, I do not feel that I have descended into a depravity of Stygian darkness that might have been caused by reading commentaries from the opposite side of the political spectrum. The choice of words is mine alone, and I am not confused about what's right and what's wrong because of any perceived brain-washing by my political polar opposites.)
Nonetheless, there are some similarities between Oreo cookies and Limbaugh.
Oreo cookies have a large following of devoted fans; the same is true of Limbaugh. Oreo cookies are dry and crunchy and abrasive on the outside; the same is true of Limbaugh. But the most striking similarity is that both are utterly devoid of nutritional value.
What's with all the name-calling that's going on these days, anyway? Speaking for myself--and, I am willing to bet, for many others, too--I'm tired of people who are participating in public discourse calling each other names by using insulting terminology. Name-calling is easy; it's just a way of applying a label to somebody else. It makes the name-caller feel smug and superior. Sometimes it can be a little joke and no harm is done and everybody has a little fun, but that's not the type of name-calling that is going on these days.
Usually, name-calling has value for the verbal assaulter because it serves to conceal that person's ignorance. People conceal their ignorance because they want others to think that they have something of value to offer when there's really nothing there.
So, my assumption is that Limbaugh resorted to using pejorative words about somebody who had an opinion different from his because he was ignorant of anything factual and relevant to say about her. His ignorance calls into question the validity of anything else that he might have to say on that particular subject at the least, and maybe on every other subject he talks about, too.
Before Limbaugh's verbal meltdown we heard presidential candidate Rick Santorum refer to President Obama as "a snob" for encouraging college education. While at the low-temperature end of the vulgarity heat spectrum, the word "snob" was apparently used by Santorum because he had nothing valuable to say. Maybe he's a first-time offender; if so, this comment will fade over time. If he does not become a serial name-caller, then perhaps he will earn the right to be called "Mr. Santorum" again.
Name-calling contributes nothing to government, politics and the presidential contest. It's distracting and a waste of time. This won't stop just because you and I say it should, or just because writings like this one expose it for the puerile indulgence that it is, but it ought to stop, and that should happen without delay.
If these people don't have anything valuable to say, they should not be using up oxygen by saying rude things about people who disagree with them. Instead, they ought to just keep their mouths shut.
And maybe everybody should have more milk and cookie breaks, too. I'm all in favor of pleasure and contentment. Oreos work for some people; oatmeal cookies work best for me.
Tomorrow will mark one week since Rush Limbaugh used his national radio show to publicly insult a female Georgetown University law student in a vulgar way simply because she was providing Congressional testimony on the value of birth control medication. Limbaugh has apologized--sort of--for his remarks, while blaming the political left for uttering words that were "against everything I know to be right and wrong."
The man's an idiot.
Oops, I shouldn't say that. It's name-calling, and that's rude. So, I am sorry that I have said that Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. That label is probably factually inaccurate. Maybe he's even smarter than I am, and I'm pretty sure that I am not an idiot.
But I will contend that Limbaugh is behaving in an oafish and boorish manner. Grammatically, that is an accurate descriptive statement; it's not name-calling.
Since I have never cared for Oreos--not being one of those people who dunks their cookies into milk prior to eating them, which seems to be the only way that these things are consumed--perhaps I should say that Limbaugh is an "oreo" and let it go at that. However, that would be demeaning to Oreo cookies, so--once again--no name-calling here.
Besides, there are some big differences between Oreo cookies and Rush Limbaugh. Most notably, whenever I see somebody consume an Oreo, the most apparent end result is a beatific look of pleasure and contentment. On the other hand, consumption of a Limbaugh show seems to lead to almost anything but pleasure and contentment. And finally, Oreo cookies are sweet, and Limbaugh is a sour-puss.
(I hereby publicly apologize for calling Limbaugh a sour-puss, but I stand by the accuracy of my observation about his facial expressions as communicated by that label. And, no, I do not feel that I have descended into a depravity of Stygian darkness that might have been caused by reading commentaries from the opposite side of the political spectrum. The choice of words is mine alone, and I am not confused about what's right and what's wrong because of any perceived brain-washing by my political polar opposites.)
Nonetheless, there are some similarities between Oreo cookies and Limbaugh.
Oreo cookies have a large following of devoted fans; the same is true of Limbaugh. Oreo cookies are dry and crunchy and abrasive on the outside; the same is true of Limbaugh. But the most striking similarity is that both are utterly devoid of nutritional value.
What's with all the name-calling that's going on these days, anyway? Speaking for myself--and, I am willing to bet, for many others, too--I'm tired of people who are participating in public discourse calling each other names by using insulting terminology. Name-calling is easy; it's just a way of applying a label to somebody else. It makes the name-caller feel smug and superior. Sometimes it can be a little joke and no harm is done and everybody has a little fun, but that's not the type of name-calling that is going on these days.
Usually, name-calling has value for the verbal assaulter because it serves to conceal that person's ignorance. People conceal their ignorance because they want others to think that they have something of value to offer when there's really nothing there.
So, my assumption is that Limbaugh resorted to using pejorative words about somebody who had an opinion different from his because he was ignorant of anything factual and relevant to say about her. His ignorance calls into question the validity of anything else that he might have to say on that particular subject at the least, and maybe on every other subject he talks about, too.
Before Limbaugh's verbal meltdown we heard presidential candidate Rick Santorum refer to President Obama as "a snob" for encouraging college education. While at the low-temperature end of the vulgarity heat spectrum, the word "snob" was apparently used by Santorum because he had nothing valuable to say. Maybe he's a first-time offender; if so, this comment will fade over time. If he does not become a serial name-caller, then perhaps he will earn the right to be called "Mr. Santorum" again.
Name-calling contributes nothing to government, politics and the presidential contest. It's distracting and a waste of time. This won't stop just because you and I say it should, or just because writings like this one expose it for the puerile indulgence that it is, but it ought to stop, and that should happen without delay.
If these people don't have anything valuable to say, they should not be using up oxygen by saying rude things about people who disagree with them. Instead, they ought to just keep their mouths shut.
And maybe everybody should have more milk and cookie breaks, too. I'm all in favor of pleasure and contentment. Oreos work for some people; oatmeal cookies work best for me.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Follow-on to comments about gov't, politics and religion
A couple of comments came in on yesterday's posting about government, politics, religion and Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum's recent expostulations on this subject.
First off, Tiger says "I think Santorum is pandering. He can't be that stupid." OK. . .works for me.
Next, new commentator "Om" contributes an impassioned argument in favor maintaining a separation of religion and government. It's worth a look.
Om makes a great observation in the closing part of the comment by saying ". . .isn't our political process a good one despite our complaints? Just think, if not for the pressure and the heat of the campaign, we would not have been fully exposed to the true and inner drive of Mr. Santorum. . ."
Seems like a good point to me. We Americans often gripe about our politics because there seems to be so much of it, and it seems to include so much hot air. But if the Republican presidential nominating contest had concluded, say, a month ago--at which point it would have already been in full swing for about one half of a year--then this particular set of Mr. Santorum's opinions might not have been revealed. Doesn't matter if you are for or against; all would be equally ignorant.
But let's not stretch out the campaigning any longer than it already is. . .please!
By the way, the Smithsonian magazine has an excellent article that provides good background information on this subject (it has nothing to do with Mr. Santorum). Much of today's conversations on the "wall" between church and state cites our third President Thomas Jefferson for originating the concept. While it is true that Jefferson was an advocate of maintaining separation between the two institutions, he was predated in American history by the beliefs and actions of Roger Williams, the founder of the Rhode Island colony. The article is in the January issue, entitled "God, Government and Roger Williams' Big Idea", and it is available online by clicking here.
It would be good to hear from anybody who has views on this subject that are different from what has been written so far.
First off, Tiger says "I think Santorum is pandering. He can't be that stupid." OK. . .works for me.
Next, new commentator "Om" contributes an impassioned argument in favor maintaining a separation of religion and government. It's worth a look.
Om makes a great observation in the closing part of the comment by saying ". . .isn't our political process a good one despite our complaints? Just think, if not for the pressure and the heat of the campaign, we would not have been fully exposed to the true and inner drive of Mr. Santorum. . ."
Seems like a good point to me. We Americans often gripe about our politics because there seems to be so much of it, and it seems to include so much hot air. But if the Republican presidential nominating contest had concluded, say, a month ago--at which point it would have already been in full swing for about one half of a year--then this particular set of Mr. Santorum's opinions might not have been revealed. Doesn't matter if you are for or against; all would be equally ignorant.
But let's not stretch out the campaigning any longer than it already is. . .please!
By the way, the Smithsonian magazine has an excellent article that provides good background information on this subject (it has nothing to do with Mr. Santorum). Much of today's conversations on the "wall" between church and state cites our third President Thomas Jefferson for originating the concept. While it is true that Jefferson was an advocate of maintaining separation between the two institutions, he was predated in American history by the beliefs and actions of Roger Williams, the founder of the Rhode Island colony. The article is in the January issue, entitled "God, Government and Roger Williams' Big Idea", and it is available online by clicking here.
It would be good to hear from anybody who has views on this subject that are different from what has been written so far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)