June 14, 2009
I have not posted much in the last month or so. I have been reading, and thinking, a lot. And more things have occurred in the news than I can keep up with.
It is hard to know when or where to take a stand on many issues, because it seems like taking a stand means condemnation and demonization of those with whom one disagrees.
We've had several vigilante killings in recent weeks. One abortion doctor, one museum guard, one army recruiter. There has been a lot of discussion. One great source pinpointing many different views on the topic is a blog page by the NY Times called "The Opinionator."
President Obama appointed Sonia Sotomayor to fill the soon-to-be vacated justice seat of David Souter. Conservatives have cried, "racist!" and other things, while liberals have labeled conservatives as obstructionists, even though they (liberals) acted in a similar manner with the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Obama is now pushing healthcare reform, while his opponents are claiming he wants to turn U.S. healthcare into Canadian or British healthcare. I read an excellent article from The New Yorker this morning about how overtreatment may be one reason why healthcare costs are so high these days. There are many out there trying to scare people away from trying to make meaningful healthcare reform happen. Even if Obama's intentions are good, it is very doubtful he is going to make much progress in his efforts to reform. Take a look at how many prominent legislators have a stake in some form of health care.
Of course, there are other silly issues like David Letterman making jokes about Sarah Palin (which, by the way, I happen to side with Palin on this particular matter).
But what seems to be the biggest problem through all of it is, while there are great discussions and arguments to be made about most of these pressing challenges our country is facing, those discussions more often than not will not even happen. Both sides are too busy demonizing the other side. It is a legitimate challenge to take a position and respect the other side to believe the way they do.
While I still tend to have opinions and sometimes even make a claim to know an answer or two, the more I read and listen to the talking heads, I just want to stay out of the fight. I don't want to be mean and hateful like they so often seem to be. I would rather try to find common ground, and see if there are ways that I agree with those whose ideology differs somewhat.
If I cannot do so, I would rather stay quiet, and let others be critical and angry. There is more than enough of those types of feelings out there without me adding to the pot.
But enough about me. Even though I do not want to demonize, it is lamentable how difficult it is to have respectful, reasoned discussion in our country today. It seems you can only discuss things civilly when you agree with the person with whom you are speaking. One problem is that certain faces on TV are very touchy about others demonizing them, but don't seem to even take note of themselves when they say, as Bill O'Reilly does in the following clip: "I don't demonize you for thinking what you do, but you have blood on your hands."
It causes people to cry foul when David Letterman jokes about Palin's child getting knocked up by Alex Rodriguez, but laugh when Ann Coulter calls Bill Clinton a rapist.
I know I don't have the answer. Right now, I am content to get most of my information from NPR, or the newspaper (the local Laramie Boomerang, or the New York Times). At least those sources are much less combative and negative. And there are plenty of other articles to read in the paper if I don't like the one I'm reading at a particular moment in time.
If others want to demonize, I will leave it to them. I will try to avoid doing so, while still reading, and having opinions. But really honestly, in my gut, I worry that this is just the start of vigilante violence. Another contention about which I hope I'm completely wrong.
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Do I Have a Crush?
Yesterday I substitute taught, went to church to practice the organ, had a few bites of dinner, and then hopped on my bicycle again to ride over to 24-hour Fitness, where I have access to CNN for $29.00/month (since we don't have cable).
Why did I take this course of action? I think it might be because I have a crush. Don't tell. The guest scheduled to be on Larry King Live that night was Michelle Obama, Barack Obama's wife. By the way, just to be fair, I think Larry has a crush on her, too.
I have listened to the woman speak several times, and have always been impressed with her strength, and with her intelligence. I know there were one or two incidents where she supposedly "misspoke," or bashed white people and/or America. None of that really stuck in my mind, because I think she is a very talented, smart woman, and I took those controversies in the proper context.
Well, last night, she impressed me again. Mr. King continued baiting her, nudging her, trying to get her angry, or to talk about controversial things people had said recently. She didn't bite. She was respectful of John McCain, Cindy McCain, of Sarah Palin, of Hillary Clinton, etc. It was such a nice turn from the constant back-and-forth between the candidates.
The one line she kept giving Larry King is when she is out on the campaign trail, no one asks her questions about these fabricated controversies. And if you think about it, why would they? These are people who are worried about making ends meet. Maybe they've lost their job. Maybe they're worried about how they will provide nutritious food and adequate clothing for their children, as well as appropriate housing; being able to pay for the mortgage.
Why would they care if McCain referred to Obama as "that one?"
So Michelle Obama impressed me again. One of the other great things she said during the interview was when King asked her what she thought about Cindy McCain saying Obama's campaign is the dirtiest in U.S. history. Michelle said it's just not true, and her mother taught her, when something is not true, you just don't pay it any mind.
I have been impressed with the tone that Barack and Michelle have used throughout the majority of this presidential campaign. And in the context of the above comment, I think that is why John McCain is getting desperate now. He is flailing, he is kicking, he's throwing out any allegation or fabrication that he can think of to put a kink in Obama's armor. But none of it is sticking, since almost all of it is either misleading, or blatantly false.
Are Obama and McCain both politicians, both senators? Sure. Do they stretch the truth, and even border on lying, time and again? And I assure you, I don't like personal attacks, true or not. But McCain has been the dirtier player. Most of what Obama is saying about McCain is right on the money. Most of what McCain is saying about Obama is just to scare people into voting against the Illinois senator. That's why McCain is going to get hammered come election day. I mean that literally and figuratively. He has nothing to offer on immigration, on the war on terror, on the economy, on fixing America. All he has is a bunch of attempts to stir the people up against Obama. It hasn't worked for 18 months, and he is going down with a sinking ship.
It's disappointing to see so many support the dirtiest politician in the race - John McCain. But then again, they are the ones who supported George Walker Bush for president even though Bush viciously brought down McCain's campaign in 2000. They are the ones who stood by while John Kerry got swift-boated in 2004. I am proud to say I never voted for that man (Bush). But to each his own. I guess it doesn't matter how dirty a person is, if they can just get people to believe that the other guy is scarier. But while Cindy McCain is out stumping for her husband, calling Obama the dirtiest, Michelle Obama can just sit back and play nice, since her husband actually has a platform to run on.
Geez, and to think I am not even going to vote for Obama. Maybe I will vote for his wife.
P.S. I think it is funny that the founder of the organization of which Barack Obama and William Ayers were a part, is a John McCain-backer. So Obama's nearly non-existant association with a man makes him "terrorist's pal," but being endorsed by the person that more or less hired the same man, is just a-ok. But that's just the way things go, I guess, sort of like John McCain bashing Fannie and Freddie while his campaign manager is a former lobbyist for those buisinesses (making something to the tune of $2 million). Unlike most of what McCain says about Obama, that is a true fact.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
How the President Sees the World
I read the article on the front page of the New York Times, grimacing, brows furrowed, in expected confusion. Why expected confusion? Confusion at how President Bush can threaten Russia for invading a country with a straight face. Expected, because this is not the first time the U.S. president has advised against invading sovereign territory, all the while maintaining troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, sovereign nations we invaded and still occupy today. The same thing happened when Turkey invaded the Kurdish region of Iraq last year.
I can only read things the way I see and understand them. All I know, is it's an audacious man who invades a country without a declaration of war, occupies that country for six or seven years, with no end in sight, who then criticizes another country for doing the same. I would find it hard to not feel hypocritical in pointing the finger at other nations.
Then again, finger pointing is always the most effective way to divert attention from where it really needs to be. In that regard, I'm sure President Bush is glad Russia is showing it's true "evil" colors. We have to have an enemy in order to have someone to fear and fight against. Since the "war on terror" gets more and more unpopular by the day, and we have become "buddies" with North Korea, and we are negotiating with Iran (even though you can't negotiate with terrorists, per the opinion of Bush himself), maybe Russia will fill the void left by the axis of evil countries. You know, in case the wars taking place in the Middle East abruptly end, and we need to war against another country. We wouldn't like to have peace for too long.
That's all.
I can only read things the way I see and understand them. All I know, is it's an audacious man who invades a country without a declaration of war, occupies that country for six or seven years, with no end in sight, who then criticizes another country for doing the same. I would find it hard to not feel hypocritical in pointing the finger at other nations.
Then again, finger pointing is always the most effective way to divert attention from where it really needs to be. In that regard, I'm sure President Bush is glad Russia is showing it's true "evil" colors. We have to have an enemy in order to have someone to fear and fight against. Since the "war on terror" gets more and more unpopular by the day, and we have become "buddies" with North Korea, and we are negotiating with Iran (even though you can't negotiate with terrorists, per the opinion of Bush himself), maybe Russia will fill the void left by the axis of evil countries. You know, in case the wars taking place in the Middle East abruptly end, and we need to war against another country. We wouldn't like to have peace for too long.
That's all.
Labels:
Georgia,
New York Times,
President Bush,
Russia,
War on Terror
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)