But I haven't taken an opportunity to post in a while, so I will still take this opportunity to assess what happened on November 2, when Democrats lost control of the U.S. House of Representatives, lost several U.S. Senate seats, and more governorships. Here I want to speak as a progressive, to other progressives, but those who aren't are welcome to read and comment.
Some in the progressive community blame President Obama and the feckless congressional leadership. Others blame rank and file progressives who rested on their laurels after Obama was elected two years ago. I say both are right. At first glance it might seem like I'm just vacillating, but I don't see it that way.
Many Democrats and/or progressives seemed to act as if their work was done on November 4, 2008 when Barack Obama was elected President and had substantial Democratic majorities in both houses to go with it. Obama did say, many times over "Make me do it!" How many of us did, even once? I'm as guilty as anyone in not getting off of my ass to do the necessary dirty work of citizenship, spending too much time in my own home entertainment (internet or TV) silo. It's not just something you do in an even-numbered year, much less a year divisible by four. We need to start looking at citizenship as a full-time activity. Sure we have our families, jobs, hobbies, etc. and we certainly shouldn't sacrifice the first two, but, damnit! Sitting on our asses and letting others do the work is a luxury we lost a long time ago (if we ever had it). The problems facing us require much more focus and much more of a sense of urgency.
Whether or not these I'm alluding to are actually progressive is beside the point. Some of them became sycophantic.Many of these who call themselves that were too willing to accept whatever legislation came down the pike as advertised. All sorts of rationalizations were given for the weak sauce known as 'health care reform', 'financial regulatory reform', and, worse, for executive and legislative inaction on pressing issues such as immigration reform, environmental policy, the two wars, etc. Many of them made excuses for feckless Democratic leadership because, well, they weren't those crazy Republican Teabaggers.
Some of these same folks, or maybe others, stayed home this past November 2. Look up the 'enthusiasm gap'. In one sense I can empathize with those who did. Obama, in particular, didn't even try to do what he promised to do, and in some cases, did the exact opposite. Still, people need to constantly remind themselves that elections always have consequences. Many candidates with a 'D' after their names did not inspire much enthusiasm, but, like it or not, sometimes citizenship means sending to office a candidate we might consider mediocre or even below average to prevent someone we consider batshit crazy from getting in. Who knows if a Supreme Court vacancy will come before us in the next two years? Democratic Presidents may not necessarily nominate someone the caliber of Thurgood Marshall or Sonya Sotomayor, but they certainly will not nominate a Sam Alito, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. And the nominees a Democratic President are much more likely to pass through when he has a Democratic Senate to work with. So, in at least that regard, sometimes voting the person does take a back seat to voting the party.
While rank and file Democrats and progressives could have done more, the leadership needs to be taken to task as well, if not more. Make no mistake, I like President Obama. Some of the stuff he brings to the table is a refreshing change from the previous 8 years. We actually have an intellectually curious person occupying the Oval Office. The two times his conferences with congressional leadership were televised, he talked circles around them. And he has accomplished some good things, such as preventing an outright economic disaster, and the Lily Ledbetter law. Also, the attacks on him by Republicans and/or conservatives were juvenile, racist, or some combination of both. As is typical, their attacks on people they don't like are based on nothing more than what they pull out of their own asses.
But in so many ways he has disappointed me. And, frankly, I'm sick of people making excuses for him. I'm sick of commenters on Daily Kos finger-wagging us to death about standing behind our President. I still support him and want him to succeed, but for Chrissakes, in being an apologist for his disappointments, you're putting words in our mouths. My disappointment with Obama and many in Congress isn't that they failed to return America to an economic land of milk and honey in two years. We fully realize that Bush and his ilk spent eight years taking a giant shit on the place, and many of the problems we face have their roots in the Reagan years, or even earlier. My disappointment isn't that he didn't accomplish everything he said he set out to do. No progressive I've seen or heard ever said or implied that, so please stop attributing that to us.
I'm sure that many who voted (and possibly campaigned) for Obama and are now frustrated can speak for themselves, but I have my reasons for my frustrations. Single-payer health care was off the table. Obama campaigned for a public option, but preemptively surrendered that before the debate ever began in earnest. That much is verifiable fact. Even worse, they would have us believe that they didn't push for it because they "didn't have the votes". The Administration just decided, without even trying to verify if it was true, that the public option was a non-starter in the battle for health insurance reform because it wouldn't pass the Senate. They didn't know this for sure. They just assumed and asserted it. Add to that his inaction or half-assed measures dealing with the BP fiasco, Wall Street/banker corruption, the Afghan War, the Iraq War, Guantanamo, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", gay marriage, green jobs, tax policy, etc. and it's clear who is running the show, and who has Obama's ear. It's also clear who has the ears of many congressional Democrats, and it certainly isn't We the People. Add to that their advertising their half-measures as historic victories and, oddly enough, not campaigning on them, and they wonder why they lost so badly?
To make matters worse, those of us who worked our asses off to elect Obama were slapped in the face several times, and basically told to remember our place. From Rahm Emanuel referring to progressives as "fucking retarded", to Obama telling his base to "stop whining", they showed their eagerness to get our votes but shove us aside once in office.
With all of this, they shouldn't be surprised that many people who voted in 2008 stayed home this last November 2. The most important thing moving forward is for each of us involved to rededicate ourselves to pushing the progressive agenda. Now, more than ever, we need all hands on deck. Plenty of blame has gone around, including in this blog post, but now we need to get off the couch, roll our sleeves up, and once again do the dirty, oftentimes unglamorous work of citizenship.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Another way of looking at individualism
What does the word mean? To many, it has come to mean "I've got mine, screw everyone else. If you don't have yours it's your own damn fault." People of all stripes decry it as part of what ails us, but can we all agree that when it comes to individualism, there's a good kind and a bad kind?
The bad kind is pretty much summed up in the last paragraph. But extrapolation is necessary. It shows itself in members of sports teams who only care about their own stats, their own numbers, and don't give a shit about wins and losses. It shows in people who assert they shouldn't have to pay any taxes for education because they don't have, or no longer have, any children who are in school. It shows in people who assert that they work their asses off for their income, so they shouldn't have to pay any damn taxes, especially when some of them go to people who, apparently, don't work as hard as they do (and they know this how?). And in some cases it has shown itself in people who assert that a Wendy's store manager should be able to keep non-whites out of that establishment because it's his own property to do with as he pleases. The type of individualism I'm describing here is summed up in the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
With that in mind, maybe the best word to describe this isn't individualism, but self-centeredness. Does that mean that individualism, in all of it's forms, should be shunned? I say no.
We humans are a social species, but we are not cogs in a machine. Sometimes when you hear people who rail against 'radical individualism' you're hearing what you need to, but at other times you're hearing someone who has an agenda - and that often involves exploiting people. An absence of any and all regards to individualism, or individuality, creates a stifling environment where not unity, but strict uniformity, is enforced. Dissent, questioning authority, etc. is not putting yourself above the group. Often it's necessary to prevent the group from disintegrating.
Collectives are strongest when they treat their individuals well.
The bad kind is pretty much summed up in the last paragraph. But extrapolation is necessary. It shows itself in members of sports teams who only care about their own stats, their own numbers, and don't give a shit about wins and losses. It shows in people who assert they shouldn't have to pay any taxes for education because they don't have, or no longer have, any children who are in school. It shows in people who assert that they work their asses off for their income, so they shouldn't have to pay any damn taxes, especially when some of them go to people who, apparently, don't work as hard as they do (and they know this how?). And in some cases it has shown itself in people who assert that a Wendy's store manager should be able to keep non-whites out of that establishment because it's his own property to do with as he pleases. The type of individualism I'm describing here is summed up in the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
With that in mind, maybe the best word to describe this isn't individualism, but self-centeredness. Does that mean that individualism, in all of it's forms, should be shunned? I say no.
We humans are a social species, but we are not cogs in a machine. Sometimes when you hear people who rail against 'radical individualism' you're hearing what you need to, but at other times you're hearing someone who has an agenda - and that often involves exploiting people. An absence of any and all regards to individualism, or individuality, creates a stifling environment where not unity, but strict uniformity, is enforced. Dissent, questioning authority, etc. is not putting yourself above the group. Often it's necessary to prevent the group from disintegrating.
Collectives are strongest when they treat their individuals well.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Be skeptical of 'silver bullet' solutions
You may hear or see it frequently.
"If we only did this", "all we need is", "just do this, and your problem is solved".
Mind you there are some situations where one simple act fixes a problem. Tightening your gas cap in your car can make the "check engine" light go away, for example.
What's bemusing to read or hear is "most problems have simple solutions". A poster on a site I frequent put it in those exact words. You would frequently see him state "just do x, problem solved. Next!" "If you want the NFL Network, just call DirecTV, order the service, and the nice technician will come by and set it up for you. Problem solved". When he was challenged about folks who live in apartment complexes that didn't allow satellite dishes, "Then you need to move." In other words, unless you're willing to sacrifice every other life consideration and get DirecTV, you don't really want NFL Network.
Last spring on Mike Huckabee's show on Fox News, he made one of the most vapid, ridiculous analogies I've ever heard. Referring to immigration reform, he scoffed at any notion of the need for comprehensive reform. His analogy: a reference to Curly in the movie City Slickers, and his statement that the secret to life is 'one thing' (where he holds up his index finger). He then segued to his point that the key to immigration reform is 'just one thing' - strengthen border and law enforcement. By the way, that gentleman on that site used the "most problems have simple solutions" line in regard to immigration reform. His next sentence: "this one is simply a matter of law enforcement".
Never mind the potential for human rights abuses. Never mind the fact that ridding this country of those who aren't here legally will not improve the plight of the middle class and economically displaced Americans. I'm not suggesting that better patrol of the border and enforcement of the laws isn't a part of the solution, just that several other things need to be considered.
Too many times people want emotionally satisfying, 'silver bullet' prescriptions to problems that are multi-layered, multi-faceted, and that need to be thought through carefully. People who want the easy, quick fix are ripe for demagogues and swindlers.
Trish Roberts Miller writes in Characteristics of Demagoguery "A demagogue never claims that the situation is complicated to explain, nor that the solution is difficult to grasp. Demagoguery depends upon the perception that political problems and solutions are easy to understand; while demagogues often grant that it may be difficult to implement their solution(s), they almost always assert that the basic concept of the solution is straightforward.
This insistence on the simplicity of the situation may be a rhetorical decision on the part of the demagogue. Gustave Le Bon's The Crowd (the book that was supposed to be the main influence on Hitler's rhetoric) insists that the masses can only grasp simple ideas: 'Whatever be the ideas suggested to crowds they can only exercise influence on condition that they assume a very absolute, uncompromising, and simple shape'
On the other hand, it may be the demagogues really see the situation in such stark and un-nuanced ways. When Hitler's commanders would complain about his orders being unrealistic and try to talk about logistics, he would tell them that it is not logistics, but The Will that wins wars. (He was wrong.)"
As a side note, the whole essay is a good read: http://www.drw.utexas.edu/roberts-miller/handouts/demagoguery
In short, people who insist that a problem is just awaiting one, simple remedy, are most likely easily manipulated, or are themselves manipulators.
"If we only did this", "all we need is", "just do this, and your problem is solved".
Mind you there are some situations where one simple act fixes a problem. Tightening your gas cap in your car can make the "check engine" light go away, for example.
What's bemusing to read or hear is "most problems have simple solutions". A poster on a site I frequent put it in those exact words. You would frequently see him state "just do x, problem solved. Next!" "If you want the NFL Network, just call DirecTV, order the service, and the nice technician will come by and set it up for you. Problem solved". When he was challenged about folks who live in apartment complexes that didn't allow satellite dishes, "Then you need to move." In other words, unless you're willing to sacrifice every other life consideration and get DirecTV, you don't really want NFL Network.
Last spring on Mike Huckabee's show on Fox News, he made one of the most vapid, ridiculous analogies I've ever heard. Referring to immigration reform, he scoffed at any notion of the need for comprehensive reform. His analogy: a reference to Curly in the movie City Slickers, and his statement that the secret to life is 'one thing' (where he holds up his index finger). He then segued to his point that the key to immigration reform is 'just one thing' - strengthen border and law enforcement. By the way, that gentleman on that site used the "most problems have simple solutions" line in regard to immigration reform. His next sentence: "this one is simply a matter of law enforcement".
Never mind the potential for human rights abuses. Never mind the fact that ridding this country of those who aren't here legally will not improve the plight of the middle class and economically displaced Americans. I'm not suggesting that better patrol of the border and enforcement of the laws isn't a part of the solution, just that several other things need to be considered.
Too many times people want emotionally satisfying, 'silver bullet' prescriptions to problems that are multi-layered, multi-faceted, and that need to be thought through carefully. People who want the easy, quick fix are ripe for demagogues and swindlers.
Trish Roberts Miller writes in Characteristics of Demagoguery "A demagogue never claims that the situation is complicated to explain, nor that the solution is difficult to grasp. Demagoguery depends upon the perception that political problems and solutions are easy to understand; while demagogues often grant that it may be difficult to implement their solution(s), they almost always assert that the basic concept of the solution is straightforward.
This insistence on the simplicity of the situation may be a rhetorical decision on the part of the demagogue. Gustave Le Bon's The Crowd (the book that was supposed to be the main influence on Hitler's rhetoric) insists that the masses can only grasp simple ideas: 'Whatever be the ideas suggested to crowds they can only exercise influence on condition that they assume a very absolute, uncompromising, and simple shape'
On the other hand, it may be the demagogues really see the situation in such stark and un-nuanced ways. When Hitler's commanders would complain about his orders being unrealistic and try to talk about logistics, he would tell them that it is not logistics, but The Will that wins wars. (He was wrong.)"
As a side note, the whole essay is a good read: http://www.drw.utexas.edu/roberts-miller/handouts/demagoguery
In short, people who insist that a problem is just awaiting one, simple remedy, are most likely easily manipulated, or are themselves manipulators.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Simply the best
I'm talking about Denver radio's AM 760 morning show host David Sirota. Of all the talk radio I've ever listened to, he is the best I've ever heard. Maybe there are others I haven't heard of, and others that will come along, that are better, but right now, he is, for me, the gold standard on how to facilitate productive and informative discussion.
Sirota can be heard 7am to 10am Monday through Friday. Unlike a lot of talk radio, whether on the right OR left, Sirota tries to keep the discussion focused on real issues, and insists on guests and callers doing likewise. You cannot go onto his show and just spin or regurgitate talking points. Bring substance to the table, or be exposed. He does his homework and digs deeper than just about anybody I've read or heard.
As a progressive radio host Sirota also is refreshing in that he will not just shill for anybody. You being a Democrat or even a liberal doesn't make you immune from his scrutiny. You can listen to him not just by tuning your radio dial to that show but also on the AM 760 website
http://www.am760.net/pages/DavidSirota.html
Sirota can be heard 7am to 10am Monday through Friday. Unlike a lot of talk radio, whether on the right OR left, Sirota tries to keep the discussion focused on real issues, and insists on guests and callers doing likewise. You cannot go onto his show and just spin or regurgitate talking points. Bring substance to the table, or be exposed. He does his homework and digs deeper than just about anybody I've read or heard.
As a progressive radio host Sirota also is refreshing in that he will not just shill for anybody. You being a Democrat or even a liberal doesn't make you immune from his scrutiny. You can listen to him not just by tuning your radio dial to that show but also on the AM 760 website
http://www.am760.net/pages/DavidSirota.html
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Small potatoes, but
On Sunday the Arizona Cardinals wrapped up a 30-20 victory over the New Orleans Saints after Dominique Rogers-Cromartie returned a Drew Brees interception for a touchdown. The next night the New York Jets sealed a 29-20 victory over the Minnesota Vikings after Dwight Lowery picked off Brett Favre and returned it all the way.
Both of these plays were spectacular. But there's something about both of them that bother me a little. In both instances, the scores took place with less then 2 minutes remaining in the 4th quarter, and with the opponents being out of timeouts. Ultimately no negative consequences resulted from these plays, but good coaching will remind both of them that in that situation, the best course of action is to take a knee or run out of bounds. Then your offense will take the field, take a few kneel-downs, and get out of there with victory still intact. The fact that nothing bad happened as a result doesn't mean that it should be swept under the rug.
It wasn't as obvious in the Saints-Cards game because DRC's score happened with so little time left. But by scoring, he forced his team to have to kickoff to the Saints again. The chances of a Saints comeback were virtually gone, but my point still stands: take a knee or run out of bounds and get your offense to take the victory formation. Lowery scored with about a minute and a half left, which the Vikings conceivably could have used to get a quick score and try to recover an onside kick.
Remember a few years back when Brian Westbrook broke loose on a run against the Cowboys and took a knee at the 1 instead of scoring? The Cowboys had already burned all of their timeouts at that point. Westbrook's move denied Dallas any chance of getting the ball again. Shorten the game, folks. Try to take the shortest path to victory. Don't just play hard, play smart.
Both of these plays were spectacular. But there's something about both of them that bother me a little. In both instances, the scores took place with less then 2 minutes remaining in the 4th quarter, and with the opponents being out of timeouts. Ultimately no negative consequences resulted from these plays, but good coaching will remind both of them that in that situation, the best course of action is to take a knee or run out of bounds. Then your offense will take the field, take a few kneel-downs, and get out of there with victory still intact. The fact that nothing bad happened as a result doesn't mean that it should be swept under the rug.
It wasn't as obvious in the Saints-Cards game because DRC's score happened with so little time left. But by scoring, he forced his team to have to kickoff to the Saints again. The chances of a Saints comeback were virtually gone, but my point still stands: take a knee or run out of bounds and get your offense to take the victory formation. Lowery scored with about a minute and a half left, which the Vikings conceivably could have used to get a quick score and try to recover an onside kick.
Remember a few years back when Brian Westbrook broke loose on a run against the Cowboys and took a knee at the 1 instead of scoring? The Cowboys had already burned all of their timeouts at that point. Westbrook's move denied Dallas any chance of getting the ball again. Shorten the game, folks. Try to take the shortest path to victory. Don't just play hard, play smart.
What would I like to see?
I want my blog entries to be thought-provoking and to stimulate interesting discussions. With that goal in mind, here are a few things I want and some groundrules I will have for comments:
- I more than welcome disagreement and correction. If you can point out where I make a factual error or other type of mistake, and if I can see clearly that you're right, I'll acknowledge it
- The first rule for comments is this: you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. This is a well-worn phrase that many of you may be sick of hearing, but, unfortunately, needs repeating due to many insisting on using their own facts. So try to use at least a modicum of sound logic in your comments, or expect an intellectual thrashing
- I'm not an absolutist against pejoratives, but if I see that a personal attack is just that and adds nothing to the discussion, that comment will be deleted. Know the difference between "That's not true and you're being an idiot for even suggesting that" and "You're just an idiot" and not offering anything substantive
- Racist, sexist, and homophobic comments will be summarily deleted.
- Spam will be dealt with harshly
- If I suspect trollish behavior in your comments, kiss your commenting privileges goodbye
- Posting on here is a privilege, not a right.
- If/when I sense that the discussion in comments is nothing more than going around in circles, I will close the comments
Why am I doing this?
I'm brand new to blogging. One might ask "What possesses you to write your own blog?" A perfectly fair question.
For starters, few things are more cathartic to me than to write my own thoughts either on paper or on screen. Secondly, I like discussing ideas with people. This is the avenue I choose. Thirdly, I have a real fire in my belly about many issues facing this country. This blog will deal with current political and social issues, as well as religion, NFL football, or just some random topic.
How often will I post? That depends. Sometimes you might see multiple entries in a day. Sometimes I may go a week or two without entering anything. Right now I don't have internet at home so I'm limited to sponging internet off of a relative's or friend's computer.
Hopefully my posts will stimulate thought and interesting discussion. In my next entry, I will set expectations and let you know what I would like to see from readers.
For starters, few things are more cathartic to me than to write my own thoughts either on paper or on screen. Secondly, I like discussing ideas with people. This is the avenue I choose. Thirdly, I have a real fire in my belly about many issues facing this country. This blog will deal with current political and social issues, as well as religion, NFL football, or just some random topic.
How often will I post? That depends. Sometimes you might see multiple entries in a day. Sometimes I may go a week or two without entering anything. Right now I don't have internet at home so I'm limited to sponging internet off of a relative's or friend's computer.
Hopefully my posts will stimulate thought and interesting discussion. In my next entry, I will set expectations and let you know what I would like to see from readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)