Daily Demonization, Vigilante Violence, etc.

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.

Was God Wrong?

March 4, 2009

I was cleaning out my inbox yesterday when I stumbled across a pre-election gem in the form of a story about Sarah Palin. I know, most of you have probably already forgotten her, but I'm sure there's a few staunch conservatives who still want to canonize her, or at least adopt her in place of their real mother.

Anyway, the article quotes Palin as saying to James Dobson of “Focus on the Family” (soon to be "formerly of") that she was confident God would do the right thing on election day.

I would love to have a follow up on that statement. If Palin was right, then God obviously wanted Barack Obama to be president. However, cutting through the shrubery to arrive at the obvious, Palin was saying no more, no less than "John McCain will be president because that is what's best for the country, and God will do what is best for the country."

Here's an exact quote: “And it also strengthens my faith because I know at the end of the day putting this in God’s hands, the right thing for America will be done, at the end of the day on Nov. 4.”

Which is exactly why I am now going to go search for information about Sarah Palin changing her faith, since it seems very unlikely she would want to continue worshipping a God that is not even wise enough to pick the right president of the United States.

If that is too much of a stretch, I'm sure I will find loads of evidence that Palin is firmly behind Obama as president, since I assume she is just as confident God did the right thing on Nov. 4 as she was that he would do the right thing prior to the actual election.

If you find anything on either subject, please inform me. I'm not optimistic about the endeavor. But I'm sure God will do the right thing.

Ugly Times for Republicans

This morning I watched Meet the Press on NBC. Tom Brokaw interviewed Senator John McCain, and I thought I could listen and try to see if McCain had anything different or worthwhile to bring to the table that I haven't already heard.

Turns out, he didn't. He was as evasive as ever. He kept repeating the same senseless jabber about Joe the Plumber and Socialism; which polls he believes, and which he disagrees with. He talked about bucking the party, and going against the president. Whenever Brokaw brought up a tough question, McCain evaded. And, of course, he was in attack mode most of the rest of the time.

The issue that I don't understand is this (and if you can lay it out for me, it would be appreciated): first, Barack Obama is a Socialist because he says we need to "spread the wealth around."
Okay, we get it, senator.

So when questioned about tax policy, McCain says the LAST thing you want to do during tough economic times is raise taxes. But McCain is for the $700 billion bailout, he will certainly be for subsequent bailouts, which in no uncertain terms, could be described as Socialism. His explanation? It is government's job to step in during tough times and intervene to help the American people.

Okay, stay with me here. John McCain - against wasteful spending, lambasts Bush every day on the national deficit size, says the government should intervene in unprecedented ways because the times are hard, yet says the worst thing you can do is raise taxes. How does it make sense? And if you can make it make sense, how does McCain pay for it? If you believe he will actually impose the spending freeze he's been talking about, you are, as Bill O'Reilly is oft heard saying, "living in the land of Oz."

Here's the hard reality. McCain is going to lose. He is getting farther and farther behind. But it is not just the presidential race that republicans stand to lose. In an opinion piece, David Frum talks about how McCain is sinking not only himself, but other republicans as well. Democrats only need a net gain of 15 seats in the House to have a majority, and it they can pick off a few Senate seats, they could even get to 60 senators, something that it almost unheard of. But thanks to McCain, it may happen.

Says Frum: McCain's awful campaign is having awful consequences down the ballot. I spoke a little while ago to a senior Republican House member. "There is not a safe Republican seat in the country," he warned. "I don't mean that we're going to lose all of them. But we could lose any of them."

In the Senate, things look, if possible, even worse.

On Meet the Press, Brokaw pointed out that in 2004, 37% of voters considered themselves Republican, and 37% considered themselves Democrats. Now, the numbers are 37% Democrat, 29% Republican.

Things could get ugly for the Republicans. But they are in denial. If they are not in denial, then they probably just don't care much. As long as Sarah Palin can go around firing people up over Obama being a terrorist socialist, I guess they will be content. It's just too bad that Republicans may lose the White House, House of Representatives, and the Senate, all at a time when the Congress' approval rating is even more dismal than that of the president. I guess that is what it will take to jolt the Republicans to the idea that they might need to change their policies up; do things differently in the future.

If not, the Democrats could be in power for a long, long time.

Will Ferrell as George W.

I love Will Ferrell as President Bush. The man is hilarious. The skit is great, too. John McCain wants nothing to do with Bush.

Just As I Thought

This is a great article. I have often thought the idea of living in a small town being preferable to the city, was more myth than true. The misconception is prevalent, especially when you talk to someone who lives in a small town, about quality of schools, and general safety.

I know where I grew up, it was harder to find someone who wasn't doing drugs, or drinking beer every weekend, than the opposite. The high school where I did student teaching, there was a day care for kids who had been born to teenage mothers. Kids would come to class high. But it was in Wyoming, which was surprising. If we looked at the numbers, it wouldn't be surprising at all. The numbers are not that different from city to rural town.

Yet, Palin acts like she is better than the Washington "insiders" because she comes from a small town, and therefore can relate more to the average American, even though the average American (80% of them or thereabouts) doesn't come from the lifestyle she's trying to exhibit. Beyond that, many people seem to be glad to have a president or vice president with lower-than-average intelligence? Look at Bush, and look at Palin. I admit, all the candidates sound like robots, but why are we so averse to having an elite person become president? Why do we want an ordinary person? That's not to say someone can't come from a small-town setting and rise up to become an extraordinary candidate.

Well, I've spouted off long enough. Read on for the better information.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Palin's Small-Town Snobbery
By Steve Chapman

Americans disdain snobbery in all its forms except the most popular one: reverse snobbery. Joe Biden would never get up in front of a crowd and suggest that the citizens of Manhattan are morally superior to the residents of Possum Gulch, Ark. But Sarah Palin was happy to tell the Republican National Convention that the very best people come from the country.

"We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity and dignity," she declared, quoting the late journalist Westbrook Pegler. "They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America, who grow our food, run our factories and fight our wars. They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America." Not like those idle, insincere, lying city folks who dare to suggest that America can sometimes be wrong.

But no one seemed to take offense. The myth of rural virtue and urban vice is an old one in this country, and it persists no matter what the changes in the landscape. And whatever questions Palin may face in her debate with Biden, her paeans to small-town virtue aren't likely to be among them.

Most Americans, it seems, can tolerate hearing of the superiority of the small town, as long as they don't have to live in one. You wouldn't know it from listening to country music stations, or to the governor of Alaska, but four out of every five Americans choose not to reside in rural areas.

Maybe if they ventured beyond the city limits more often, those people would not be so inclined to believe everything they hear about the merits of rustic hamlets, which harbor a full complement of social ills.

Not everyone in rural America gets high on fresh air and the smell of new-mown hay. Illicit drugs are nearly as common out there as they are in cities and suburbs.

In 2007, a survey of 8th graders by the Monitoring the Future project at the University of Michigan found that country kids were 26 percent more likely to experiment with drugs than middle-schoolers elsewhere. Overall methamphetamine consumption among adults and teens is more than 50 percent higher in the country.

The story with alcohol is worse still. "Relative to their urban counterparts, rural youth ages 12 to 17 are significantly more likely to report consuming alcohol," says a 2006 study by the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire. Excessive boozing among adults, it noted, appears to be no less widespread in Mayberry than in Metropolis.

Nor is the countryside exempt from social problems often associated with the inner city -- such as, if you'll forgive me, out-of-wedlock births. The federal government apparently doesn't tabulate these births according to whether they occur in urban or rural areas. But it does break them down by state, and wide-open spaces are no guarantee of responsible sexual behavior.

The highest rates of births to unwed mothers are in Mississippi and New Mexico, both of which have high rural populations. The most urban states, New Jersey and California, do better than the average in out-of-wedlock births.

It's true that crime is much more common in the city than in the country. Is that because the sight of cattle grazing saps felonious impulses, or is it something else? Alfred Blumstein, a criminologist at Carnegie Mellon University, thinks the explanation is pretty simple. "It's a matter of social control," he says. "Small towns have networks of family and friends, and most everyone knows everyone else."

This deters crime in two ways. First, you don't want to damage your reputation among people who may ostracize you for doing wrong. Second, you don't want to rob someone who can easily identify you to police -- and in a small town, that limits your pool of victims. Crime is more common in cities because they offer a target-rich environment and much less chance of being spotted by someone who can tell the cops your name, address and 3rd-grade teacher.

One of these days, the 80 percent of Americans who live in more populated areas may tire of being obliquely insulted. Most urbanites and suburbanites don't think they're any better than their country cousins. But Palin might want to think twice before telling them they're worse.
schapman@tribune.com

Copyright 2008, Creators Syndicate Inc.

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.

SNL gets 'Mavericky;' Daily Show Gold

Watch this SNL clip with your conservative friends. Watch them get all indignant over the biased comedy show writers. Nevermind that Tina Fey might even sound more intelligent as Sarah Palin than Palin herself.

Take this excerpt from a recent column written by the conservative Kathleen Parker:

When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama's numbers, Palin blustered wordily: "I'm not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who's more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who's actually done it?" If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.



McCain has nothing left. So he's going to start the "swift-boat" attacks. I suggest you look up McCain-Liddy, or McCain-Keating on google, so you can be "fair and balanced."
____________________________________________________________________

Jon Stewart takes Congress to task for taking two weeks to pass an emergency bill, and congratulating themselves for it. Gosh, he's good.

Sarah Palin is an Idiot; Tina Fey, My New Hero

I thought Sarah Palin was a great choice for John McCain, until I heard her speak. If you can translate her incoherency, let me know.



And if you can explain how she has foreign policy experience because she is next to Russia and Canada in Alaska, in a way that sounds less retarded, please do so.



This explains why Tina Fey has become my new hero. They can do Sarah Palin sketches up until the election, or until McCain kicks her off the ticket, because Palin is going to sink him.

Daily Show Gems

Thank goodness for John Stewart. He is one of the only intelligent people out there, who reminds us what candidates and pundits said, sometimes just a few weeks ago, contrasted with what they say now.

Not surprising, you might guess, that it's often just the opposite of what they said before. These folks are professional double-standard-bearers. And they take for granted that we're going to be stupid enough to forget. Thank you to The Daily Show for reminding us.

My True Feelings for McCain

All right. I've tried to mask it. I've tried to downplay it. I've tried to give the benefit of the doubt.

I even came within a sliver of deciding to vote for presidential candidate John Sydney McCain III after he chose Governor Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential running mate. Her story seems very compelling, and she seems to be an average, every day american, who will fight to reform some of the nonsense that goes on in Washington. The more I learned about her, the more I was impressed. I listened to her acceptance speech this week, and I was again pleasantly pleased.

Then it happened - I listened to John McCain again. I listened to him give his speech last night, and all of the "benefit of the doubt," crap just hit the fan. And now it comes out in full force: I do not like John McCain. I don't like what he stands for. I don't like to listen to him speak. I don't like his flip-flops. I don't like him. Period.

I don't want to hear about your POW Vietnam experiences anymore, McCain. I've listened to it over and over and over again. There are thousands of soldiers who were just as brave and selfless as you. That doesn't make them good candidates for president alone. So stop trumpeting your heroism all day long. It sounds self-serving, which seems to be just the opposite of how most real war heroes actually conduct themselves. I don't want to hear it.

I am not going to vote for a guy just because I'm afraid of what the other scary muslim guy (Obama) might do.

Here's a good video for those of you who feel John McCain is a straight-talking "maverick."

And here's one more.



So I'm coming out right now. It is not very likely that I will vote for John Sydney McCain III. Not very likely at all.

P.S. For those of you who need it spelled out for you: this is still not an endorsement of Barack Obama. That would look like, "I am going to vote for Obama." I also nowhere said I would not vote for McCain. I just said it's not likely at this time. But let's be honest: I don't think I will come out and say who I will vote for, or who I voted for - after the saga has concluded. It just makes things much more intriguing for those of you in the dark, wondering - "what is this crazy weirdo really thinking?"