Friday, October 8, 2010
Sane Enough to Know I'm Not: Depression
Please link to ParsleysPics (HERE) if you are interested in reading this installment. This has turned out to be a much larger - and longer - series than I had anticipated and I'm not comfortable hogging all the space on The Swash Zone. Thanks.
The Angle of reflection
A significant part of the Republican "message" has been that our secular laws derive from a largely mythical "Judeo-Christian" system of values. Yes, the adage about strange bedfellows is true, but politics and religion, being in bed together, tend to spawn strange offspring and to dress them up as reason and decency.
Of course it's true that a great number of our laws do reflect religious prohibitions, biases and attitudes and those laws often criminalize behavior that involves no harm to people or property and interferes with personal liberty, but those taboos seem to be shared by a great number of cultures which adhere to religions from Animism to Confucianism. There's little that's unique about our alleged Christian values and from the start, many of those values were at odds with our independence and our freedom. Yes, it's hard to think of a religion of any kind that has no rules of behavior but we're talking about Americans -- the people at the center of the universe who don't really think much about thinking or the necessity of reason.
So when we pass laws forbidding dancing on Friday, the observation or rejection of Christmas, the reading of certain books: when we make laws concerning who may live together, have sex together and in what way, we have illustrations of religious law intruding into secular life in America. Such things are slowly eroding and always changing, of course, but the prospect of a group that has always composed a small minority in the US: The Muslims, supporting certain religious rules within their own congregations and amongst their adherents, seems to have all the bells in the national belfry ringing in discord.
Islamic religious law, says Sharon Angle, is "taking hold" in some American cities and that's a "militant terrorist situation." No, really. I suppose it's wildly different in a terrorist sort of way for Jews to forbid Pork and Lobster or cheeseburgers or to require prayer at certain times and even to mandate beards or distinctive clothing. I suppose it's not the same thing for Catholics to forbid divorce and require celibacy of certain people and distinctive clothing for the clergy. The special Mormon underwear? Prohibitions against alcohol and coffee? Is the Church of Latter Day Saints "taking over" Utah and the constitution taken to the shredder? No, there's no militant terrorist situation there. Is there really a chance that the constitution will be supplanted by the Amish Ordnung even if an area has a majority of that peaceful faith? So why are we afraid and what are we really afraid of? Why does Sharon Angle say:
The key word here is "Foreign." Although virtually all our religions are imported and many religious groups immigrated simply so that they could have communities with their own religious rules, Angle wants to reinforce the chauvinism of a certain kind of self-styled Christian who would be quite happy with a massively powerful government intent on substituting their own 'Christian' restrictions for our secular constitution. She is, most ironically, the best example of what she wants us to fear. Muslims and certain other people will always be "foreign" and most of us will never pause to reflect upon the horrible consequences that xenophobic, nationalistic bit of European bigotry had in the last century.
But we're not a nation of critical thinkers; at least not enough of us to give reason or even common decency a fighting chance. Bigotry, our real national religion, forbids it after all and we make demons out of people who don't want to participate or worst of all, don't want any religion forced on them.
Angle would like to pass on her contagious nightmare and indeed I know too many people who share it and who will refuse to be persuaded that even if we someday have an Ayatollah of Texas, he's not going to be able to use force to punish reprobates and infidels or have any more secular authority than an Archbishop or TV evangelist. They refuse to remember when Roman Catholics were a "foreign" religion to be feared for inquisitions and foreign rule over Americans. Somehow that "hopey-changey" thing did work our fairly well for them and for the many others who have had to contend with the Know-Nothing nativists and the Sharon Angles of their day.
Of course it's true that a great number of our laws do reflect religious prohibitions, biases and attitudes and those laws often criminalize behavior that involves no harm to people or property and interferes with personal liberty, but those taboos seem to be shared by a great number of cultures which adhere to religions from Animism to Confucianism. There's little that's unique about our alleged Christian values and from the start, many of those values were at odds with our independence and our freedom. Yes, it's hard to think of a religion of any kind that has no rules of behavior but we're talking about Americans -- the people at the center of the universe who don't really think much about thinking or the necessity of reason.
So when we pass laws forbidding dancing on Friday, the observation or rejection of Christmas, the reading of certain books: when we make laws concerning who may live together, have sex together and in what way, we have illustrations of religious law intruding into secular life in America. Such things are slowly eroding and always changing, of course, but the prospect of a group that has always composed a small minority in the US: The Muslims, supporting certain religious rules within their own congregations and amongst their adherents, seems to have all the bells in the national belfry ringing in discord.
Islamic religious law, says Sharon Angle, is "taking hold" in some American cities and that's a "militant terrorist situation." No, really. I suppose it's wildly different in a terrorist sort of way for Jews to forbid Pork and Lobster or cheeseburgers or to require prayer at certain times and even to mandate beards or distinctive clothing. I suppose it's not the same thing for Catholics to forbid divorce and require celibacy of certain people and distinctive clothing for the clergy. The special Mormon underwear? Prohibitions against alcohol and coffee? Is the Church of Latter Day Saints "taking over" Utah and the constitution taken to the shredder? No, there's no militant terrorist situation there. Is there really a chance that the constitution will be supplanted by the Amish Ordnung even if an area has a majority of that peaceful faith? So why are we afraid and what are we really afraid of? Why does Sharon Angle say:
"It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States?"Well, of course we wouldn't pay any attention to such a person as she if she weren't outrageous, but if we were a nation that could notice that these religious rules are in no respect taking hold of municipal governments and in fact are optional personal choices in a nation that allows us to make such choices freely, perhaps Sharon Angle would be all alone in some little room raving at the walls and not on national TV farting out her fallacies, misrepresentations and hysterical lies -- and God help us, running for the US Senate. Sure there would be something fundamentally wrong, but more certainly: it isn't happening here. Religion, say the courts, gives no license to break the law whether that faith demands we strangle a wayward daughter or drag a gay man behind a pickup truck or poison our congregation with cyanide.
The key word here is "Foreign." Although virtually all our religions are imported and many religious groups immigrated simply so that they could have communities with their own religious rules, Angle wants to reinforce the chauvinism of a certain kind of self-styled Christian who would be quite happy with a massively powerful government intent on substituting their own 'Christian' restrictions for our secular constitution. She is, most ironically, the best example of what she wants us to fear. Muslims and certain other people will always be "foreign" and most of us will never pause to reflect upon the horrible consequences that xenophobic, nationalistic bit of European bigotry had in the last century.
But we're not a nation of critical thinkers; at least not enough of us to give reason or even common decency a fighting chance. Bigotry, our real national religion, forbids it after all and we make demons out of people who don't want to participate or worst of all, don't want any religion forced on them.
Angle would like to pass on her contagious nightmare and indeed I know too many people who share it and who will refuse to be persuaded that even if we someday have an Ayatollah of Texas, he's not going to be able to use force to punish reprobates and infidels or have any more secular authority than an Archbishop or TV evangelist. They refuse to remember when Roman Catholics were a "foreign" religion to be feared for inquisitions and foreign rule over Americans. Somehow that "hopey-changey" thing did work our fairly well for them and for the many others who have had to contend with the Know-Nothing nativists and the Sharon Angles of their day.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
What's in your wallet?
The prospect of foreclosure is frightening enough to the many people who are having trouble making mortgage payments and who fear losing their homes. It's frightening enough without the prospect of strange men crashing through the back door in the middle of the night.
Even worse for some people here in The Sunshine State, folks who are simply a bit behind in payments but who are not in foreclosure have been treated to a surprise breaking and entering by representatives of one of those banks that love to advertise how they're on your side. Listen to the 911 call from one frightened woman and put yourself in her position and ask yourself what you would do if the man in black kicked in your door. I certainly know what I would do and what the law allows me to do to a possibly armed unannounced midnight caller. It would involve more than an angry letter to J.P. Morgan.
The hired thugs of our friendly banking industry have done worse than frightening people half to death in a way Pauly Walnuts could only envy. There are stories of home invasions at wrong addresses and one Jason Grodensky from nearby Ft. Lauderdale, Florida with the good fortune to have no mortgage at all had his house foreclosed on by Bank of America. What's in your wallet?
The publicity has been bad enough that major banks are curtailing foreclosure viking raids or freezing foreclosures entirely for the moment. Nancy Pelosi and some 30 Democrats in the house are calling for an investigation in their typically socialist way and Attorney General Eric Holder has announced he will be looking into it. Bloomberg News reports that some 7 states are investigating charges that false documents and signatures have been used to justify hundreds of thousands of possible fraudulent foreclosures and their attendant Viking raids against surprised and terrified homeowners.
So it's all going to be taken care of right? The Democrats are on the side of the people and against those huge, ugly hordes of corporate Visigoths and their paper battering rams, right? They control the Senate and the House and they'd never let the Republicans rubber stamp the right of Corporate Huns to lie, cheat and bypass every code of human decency since the Code of Hammurabi and the Proclamation of Telepinu -- right?
Don't be too sure, because a bill that may do just that now sits on President Obama's desk that somehow oozed through our lefty, anti-business, death-to-Capitalism Congress. Stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democratic Senator Robert Casey used some obscure procedure to take the bill away from the Senate Judiciary committee and the Senate then immediately passed it without debate and by unanimous consent. There was no one in the gallery to sing Whose side are you on.
Even worse for some people here in The Sunshine State, folks who are simply a bit behind in payments but who are not in foreclosure have been treated to a surprise breaking and entering by representatives of one of those banks that love to advertise how they're on your side. Listen to the 911 call from one frightened woman and put yourself in her position and ask yourself what you would do if the man in black kicked in your door. I certainly know what I would do and what the law allows me to do to a possibly armed unannounced midnight caller. It would involve more than an angry letter to J.P. Morgan.
The hired thugs of our friendly banking industry have done worse than frightening people half to death in a way Pauly Walnuts could only envy. There are stories of home invasions at wrong addresses and one Jason Grodensky from nearby Ft. Lauderdale, Florida with the good fortune to have no mortgage at all had his house foreclosed on by Bank of America. What's in your wallet?
The publicity has been bad enough that major banks are curtailing foreclosure viking raids or freezing foreclosures entirely for the moment. Nancy Pelosi and some 30 Democrats in the house are calling for an investigation in their typically socialist way and Attorney General Eric Holder has announced he will be looking into it. Bloomberg News reports that some 7 states are investigating charges that false documents and signatures have been used to justify hundreds of thousands of possible fraudulent foreclosures and their attendant Viking raids against surprised and terrified homeowners.
So it's all going to be taken care of right? The Democrats are on the side of the people and against those huge, ugly hordes of corporate Visigoths and their paper battering rams, right? They control the Senate and the House and they'd never let the Republicans rubber stamp the right of Corporate Huns to lie, cheat and bypass every code of human decency since the Code of Hammurabi and the Proclamation of Telepinu -- right?
Don't be too sure, because a bill that may do just that now sits on President Obama's desk that somehow oozed through our lefty, anti-business, death-to-Capitalism Congress. Stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democratic Senator Robert Casey used some obscure procedure to take the bill away from the Senate Judiciary committee and the Senate then immediately passed it without debate and by unanimous consent. There was no one in the gallery to sing Whose side are you on.
Sane Enough To Know I'm Not: Bipolar 101
MRI of the brain during "normal", manic and depressed moods
So I’m bipolar. So what? How does this make me an expert? It doesn’t. I’m no authority on the subject whatsoever. I can only write about what my experiences have been and about what I’ve learned while searching for answers to this very complicated multifaceted mental illness.
There are several stock responses when I tell someone I’m bipolar. “Oh, my dear, I can just imagine the hell you go through.” Or, “Oh sweetie, talk to me anytime. My great-aunt/mother/brother/wife/ daughter has it. I know all about it.” Well meaning but it’s pure horse hockey. You ain’t got a clue unless you have it.
Another is: “We all get blue sometimes.” True, “we all” do just that. Someone dies, we lose our job or our kid gets sick. Or our house burns down while the firefighters stand there and do nothing. Any of these things alone is enough to depress anyone. But . . .
It is a situational depression. It is nowhere nearly as extreme in intensity or longevity. It isn’t so debilitating that you don’t want to get out of bed for weeks or months at a time. It doesn’t cause you to self-mutilate, or worse, to kill yourself. It may even last for a couple of years but not for a lifetime. And you can’t just talk yourself out of it.
Another is, “Well, gee, I have periods when I’m more energized than at other times.” Of course and that’s perfectly normal. You just got a raise, won some money, moved to that farm you’ve always wanted. Or, maybe it’s something simple like the sun shining and it’s a beautiful spring day. But . . .
This feeling of elation is thousands of miles away from the intensity and destructiveness of a manic episode. You don’t lose your judgment. You don’t make reckless decisions, spend boat loads of money you don’t have, or dance naked in a fountain, or self-medicate with drugs and alcohol.
Oh, there’s one more: “Well, I’m sure if you pray and talk to the Lord, you’ll be just fine.”
So what is this thing called manic depression anyway? What causes it? Is it contagious? Can’t you just take a pill to get rid of it? What are the symptoms?
According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness: “Bipolar disorder, or manic depression, is a medical illness that causes extreme shifts in mood, energy, and functioning. These changes may be subtle or dramatic and typically vary greatly over the course of a person’s life as well as among individuals.”
Too clinical. Too cut and dry says I. What are missing here are all the complexities of mood disorders, all the varieties which come in all sizes, shapes and even colors and the multitude of symptoms which overlap. There’s major depression. There’s manic depression. There’s schizophrenia. Each of them presents themselves differently and all of them have similarities, making diagnosis a complicated affair.
Even manic depression has variations on a theme. One is rapid cycling where moods go up and down like a roller coaster ride. The other is mixed states where mania and depression are experienced at the same time. Mixed states are bad enough. Rapid cycling is pure hell and they're both hard to control because just the tiniest dose of a medication, too much or too little, can send a person spiraling in the other direction. And there are even a few more, but that’s really getting too technical for this blog.
Scientists have been trying to find a genetic link to bipolar for decades, but so far it has eluded them. There was a huge study of the Amish about 15 years ago because they have such a high rate of bipolar and not a small amount of inbreeding. The study was a dud, unfortunately. But clinical trials continue at Columbia, John Hopkins, Duke and other major universities and centers. It is well documented that manic depression, and related mood disorders, is passed down through the generations.
A few cut and dry, but revealing, statistics from NAMI:
- Approximately 20.9 million – or 9.5 percent - of American adults over the age of 18 have some form of mood disorder.
- Manic depression affects about 5.7 million adults in America, or about 2.6 percent.
- The median age of onset is 32. (Note: children as young as six or seven are being diagnosed. More about this later).
- Ninety percent of people who commit suicide have a diagnosable mood disorder.
As mentioned earlier, bipolar is such a complex disorder that it is impossible to do it justice on a blog. What you’ve seen here and in my previous post (HERE) is a superficial look at best. But I think readers need this tiny bit of information to understand what follows.
Everything with us is an extreme. There's no such thing as smooth sailing. It’s a stormy sea with periods when a body, mind and soul can be pushed to the depths, raised up in turmoil and only occasionally have peace and calm.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
An Instability of Ideas
Notions on the war in Afghanistan are tumbling through my mind and tugging on my emotions, demanding to be processed, refusing to coalesce, and threatening me with the dreaded bugaboo, cognitive dissonance. Don't want to write about them; can't stop thinking about them; let's see what happens when I throw them into the blog blender.
[But, first, the disclaimer: I support Democratic candidates, except where they are obviously unqualified, in which case I support the Green candidate (think SC, where they let me vote). I think Obama has done an heroic job. I think it's time for liberals and progressives to pull together. Having said that much, perhaps I should just stifle my issues with the war. Robert McNamara once said, when he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't on Vietnam, "And I would rather be damned if I don't," meaning that he'd finally decided it was time to STFU. Because, of course, he'ds actually been damned for what he did. So, should I bring this controversial topic up at a time when we need to pull together? Damned if I won't.]
Charles Krauthammer's Op-Ed for the Washington Post, Monday, Oct 4, 2010: "Has Obama Abandoned The Troops He Sent To War?"
, and the quotation by the CinC that can be spun so many ways: "I can't lose the whole Democratic party." Krauthammer's spin is:
What I recall is that in the first days the new president was under enormous pressure from top military advisors to go all out in Afghanistan, to throw everything we had at a war he had doubts about. What I recall is that the surge and withdrawal target date announcement struck me as compromise, forcing me to trust that the President knew things I didn't...had come to know things he hadn't known during his campaign.
I continue to believe that the compromise was not politically based, but was chosen because Mr. Obama saw some possibility that a troop increase could further the goals of our war with Al Qaeda, but wanted to see smaller scale results before committing all our treasure and all our soldiers to the effort.
As to the effects of Bob Woodward's "revelations," I haven't yet read the book, but I have read more articles and blogs on the book than I can count. I've assumed that pundits like Krauthammer have culled what they consider to be the most damning quotations and I think they fail to damn. What I find damning is Krauthammer's conclusion in this piece:
I had my doubts about the surge then and I have them now. I wanted the soldiers home then and I want them home now. And I wish the President had worked harder to communicate with us about his decisions. But I find Krauthammer's conclusion to be a cheap shot in a profoundly significant discussion.
I believe these statements by the President, also quoted in Woodward's book and reported in the NYTimes and Washington Post, depict a leader wrestling with the best information and advice he could get his hands on, including interviews with former Sec'y of State Colin Powell, who advised, “don’t get pushed by the left to do nothing. Don’t get pushed by the right to do everything.”
The Republican Pledge To America acknowledges that we are a nation at war and makes not one statement on how it intends to deal with the war in Afghanistan other than that tired old phrase about supporting our troops, as if only Republicans fight. As if only Republicans care or worry for those who fight.
Last night, I watched "The Fog of War," a documentary based on a long interview with Robert McNamara on the Vietnam War. Certain quotations haunt me:
, but that is not, to my understanding, the mindset of Barack Obama.
Bob Woodward on Sept. 28th, to George Stephanopoulos:
.jpg)
Charles Krauthammer turned this agonizing national decision into political fodder by exploiting our pain and our anguish about the human costs of war. Those costs are too real to be politicized. To imply, as Krauthammer does, that President Obama has lost interest in Afghanistan, that he doesn't care about the soldiers he's committed to that war, is the ultimate in irresponsible partisanship. Mr. Krauthammer would have been better off following McNamara's STFU motto, "I'd rather be damned if I don't."
P.S. For an excellent review of the President's decision process on the surge and withdrawal date, go to the Washington Post's Interactive Timeline for the period of September through December of 2009.
[But, first, the disclaimer: I support Democratic candidates, except where they are obviously unqualified, in which case I support the Green candidate (think SC, where they let me vote). I think Obama has done an heroic job. I think it's time for liberals and progressives to pull together. Having said that much, perhaps I should just stifle my issues with the war. Robert McNamara once said, when he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't on Vietnam, "And I would rather be damned if I don't," meaning that he'd finally decided it was time to STFU. Because, of course, he'ds actually been damned for what he did. So, should I bring this controversial topic up at a time when we need to pull together? Damned if I won't.]
"What kind of commander in chief sends tens of thousands of troops to war announcing in advance a fixed date for beginning their withdrawal? One who doesn't have his heart in it. One who doesn't really want to win but is making some kind of political gesture."Krauthammer goes on to Bob Woodward's book, O'bama's Wars
, and the quotation by the CinC that can be spun so many ways: "I can't lose the whole Democratic party." Krauthammer's spin is:First, isn't this the party that in two consecutive presidential campaigns--John Kerry's and then Obama's--argued vociferously that Afghanistan is the good war, the right war, the war of necessity, the central front in the war on terror? [....]
Did he suddenly develop a faint heart? Or was the party disingenuous about the Afghan War all along, using it as a convenient club with which to attack Geroge W. Bush over Iraq, while protecting the Democrats from the charge of being reflexively anti-war? [....]
One can only conclude that Obama now thinks Afghanistan is a mistake. Maybe he thought so from the very beginning.Krauthammer is shrewd. He's given the "weak president" spin to what had to have been and continues to be the toughest decisions a president is called on to make. That spin is predictable, despicable, typical of the right at the moment.
What I recall is that in the first days the new president was under enormous pressure from top military advisors to go all out in Afghanistan, to throw everything we had at a war he had doubts about. What I recall is that the surge and withdrawal target date announcement struck me as compromise, forcing me to trust that the President knew things I didn't...had come to know things he hadn't known during his campaign.
I continue to believe that the compromise was not politically based, but was chosen because Mr. Obama saw some possibility that a troop increase could further the goals of our war with Al Qaeda, but wanted to see smaller scale results before committing all our treasure and all our soldiers to the effort.
As to the effects of Bob Woodward's "revelations," I haven't yet read the book, but I have read more articles and blogs on the book than I can count. I've assumed that pundits like Krauthammer have culled what they consider to be the most damning quotations and I think they fail to damn. What I find damning is Krauthammer's conclusion in this piece:
"Sen. Kerry, now chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, once asked many years ago: 'How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?' Perhaps Kerry should ask that of Obama.
"'He is out of Afghanistan psychologically,' says Woodward of Obama. Well, he may be out, but the soldiers he ordered to Afghanistan are in.
Some will not come home."
I believe these statements by the President, also quoted in Woodward's book and reported in the NYTimes and Washington Post, depict a leader wrestling with the best information and advice he could get his hands on, including interviews with former Sec'y of State Colin Powell, who advised, “don’t get pushed by the left to do nothing. Don’t get pushed by the right to do everything.”
“I’m not signing on to a failure,” President Obama is quoted saying near the end of this book. “If what I proposed is not working, I’m not going to be like these other presidents and stick to it based upon my ego or my politics — my political security.”
************
“Everything we’re doing has to be focused on how we’re going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint. It’s in our national security interest. There cannot be any wiggle room,”
***********
“In 2010, we will not be having a conversation about how to do more. I will not want to hear, ‘We’re doing fine, Mr. President, but we’d be better if we just do more.’ We’re not going to be having a conversation about how to change [the mission] ... unless we’re talking about how to draw down faster than anticipated in 2011.”
What I want to know is, what's the Right's position on Afghanistan? Are they still sorting that out? Michael Steele was roundly condemned for calling Afghanistan "a war of Obama's choosing," and, "not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in," (July, 2010). For once, Lindsey Graham said something I value in response to Steele's idiocy: "It was an uninformed, unnecessary, unwise, untimely comment. This is not President Obama's war, this is America's war. We need to stand behind the president."
The Republican Pledge To America acknowledges that we are a nation at war and makes not one statement on how it intends to deal with the war in Afghanistan other than that tired old phrase about supporting our troops, as if only Republicans fight. As if only Republicans care or worry for those who fight.
On the workings of President Johnson's mind, "People did not understand there were recommendations and pressures that could carry the risk of war with China and of nuclear war."
On allies, "If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better re-examine our reasoning."
On escalation, "This has gone from being a nasty little war to a nasty middle-sized war."
"How much evil must we do in order to do good."
Quoting LBJ for a memorandum on the war, "This morning, Senator Scott said, 'The war which we can neither win, lose, nor drop is evidence of an instability of ideas.'" (my emphasis)I cannot sort out the jumble. I am relieved that Obama set a date to begin withdrawal, pending conditions (which ones?!). Must we maintain another presence in the region to contain Iran? Is Afghanistan our only door to terrorist training camps? Does the warrior nation mentality, which Obama opposes, demand that we keep an active front somewhere, always, and--if not in Iraq--well, then we never should have lost our focus in Afghanistan? That may well be the mindset of what Andrew Bacevich calls the Washington rules
, but that is not, to my understanding, the mindset of Barack Obama.Bob Woodward on Sept. 28th, to George Stephanopoulos:
He is an intellectual, as we know. He's the law professor...And so, intellectually, he realizes [that the situation is] real, real, hard. He knows as commander in chief, he has to do something.
And for the first time, you can see his internal struggle, his intellectual struggle. His dealing with the military. He's dealing with his political advisers.I see a country, its political advisors, its military advisors, and its President struggling hard to do the right thing in Afghanistan--right for the Afghans, right for the Americans, right for the soldiers. There is another total review of the war scheduled for December. That process will be exhaustive, of that I am sure, because that is this President's way.
.jpg)
Charles Krauthammer turned this agonizing national decision into political fodder by exploiting our pain and our anguish about the human costs of war. Those costs are too real to be politicized. To imply, as Krauthammer does, that President Obama has lost interest in Afghanistan, that he doesn't care about the soldiers he's committed to that war, is the ultimate in irresponsible partisanship. Mr. Krauthammer would have been better off following McNamara's STFU motto, "I'd rather be damned if I don't."
P.S. For an excellent review of the President's decision process on the surge and withdrawal date, go to the Washington Post's Interactive Timeline for the period of September through December of 2009.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Sane Enough To Know I'm Not: Introduction
The individual who coined the phrase “you never see anything on the Interstate” must have just finished driving through Kansas. In all directions are fields of grain which dance with wind that never takes a break. Trees, probably planted to break the never ending bluster, have few leaves. The highest structures are an occasional silo or overpass.
The state with its hard working farmers and wonderfully warm and friendly people is flat, boring and monotonous as hell.
I left Kansas City, elev. 774 ft., one sunny morning and headed west for Denver and the beautiful majestic Rocky Mountains. After passing through Topeka the monotonous terrain began to cause my eyes to droop and my spirits to sag. With each mile it became increasingly hard to stay awake and it took every ounce of will power to concentrate on the driving.
My body began to feel sluggish and I had to fight to stay awake. I yawned, I squirmed, I opened the windows and turned the volume up on the CD player and then switched to the radio searching for some upbeat music. Nothing helped and the noise of the music was more an irritant than a benefit, so I turned it off. And then I turned it on again. Off again,on again. I just wanted to crawl into a warm cocoon and go to sleep for a long, long time.
For hundreds of miles of unbearable boredom I battled the overwhelming desire to snooze. I tried gallantly but unsuccessfully to fight off the sinking spirits which were threatening to consume the whole of my body and mind. As hard and fast as I tried to drive there was this little black cloud that seemed to be weighing down the car and its driver and pulling them back. The speedometer read 80 mph but it felt more like a sluggish 35.
By the time I reached Colby the little cloud had turned into a huge black turbulent mass that sat on top of bright blue skies. Perfect conditions for a tornado. The car automatically headed for the little town out in the middle of nowhere and to the well-known motel that I already knew offered solace in the way of solid food, lively music and drinks as powerful as the ones at the Denver Press Club. I had a good time with my old friend Jack for a few hours before crawling into that cocoon I had longed for all during the day.
The sky is endless in Kansas and the next morning the sun shone brightly as I headed for my car. Just as I was getting in I noticed my little black companion hovering nearby. I knew I was looking forward to more of the same and sank into the driver’s seat feeling totally deflated. More boredom. More tediousness. More flat land. More depression.
Over 200 miles later, I stopped in Burlington, Colorado for gas and a bite to eat. The man behind the counter bragged about their historic carousel. “Not bad for a tiny town on the plains with an altitude of 4,219 feet,” he said. An altitude of 4,219 feet? Who was he kidding? Not once did I feel I was gaining in altitude.
Even though eastern Colorado is a mirror image of western Kansas, I began to feel a tingle of excitement as I started out once again. My spirits rose higher and higher with each mile and the little black cloud began to dissipate. I slammed down on the gas pedal and soared toward Denver. No longer did the car feel sluggish. No longer did I feel lethargic. No longer did I feel flat. I was flying. I was in control.
Several hours later I could see the snowy peaks of the Rockies and became even more excited but didn’t dare drive any faster. And then the Denver skyline started taking shape and I could hardly contain myself. I was about to burst wide open and began singing at the top of my lungs with Willie, “On the Road Again.” God, it felt good to feel good.
Since I had a few days before I had to report back to work I recklessly decided to head for Estes Park, the "Gateway to Rocky Mountain National Park." I couldn’t contain my energy and impatiently honked at Sunday-go-to-meeting drivers as I barreled past giving them the International Sign Language. Once I got through Boulder the traffic thinned and I was Queen of the Road. I drove up steep curvy mountain roads as if I was back on the flat straight interstate in Kansas.
I was euphoric. I was energized. I was as manic as a gerbil on a perpetual motion machine. My mind was taking off in flights of one fancy after another. I was going to do this, buy that and create this, that and the other. In the meantime I kept increasing my speed. I was no longer in control.
The crash was sudden and hard. I went careening down a steep embankment into a big black hole where the sun didn’t shine.
NOTE: Congress declared the first week of October as Mental Illness Awareness Week in 1990. Because of all the voodoo surrounding this subject I am going to dedicate a few posts to bipolar illness over the next few days. It is what I know best. I hope I can bust a few myths for anyone who cares to read about it.
The state with its hard working farmers and wonderfully warm and friendly people is flat, boring and monotonous as hell.
I left Kansas City, elev. 774 ft., one sunny morning and headed west for Denver and the beautiful majestic Rocky Mountains. After passing through Topeka the monotonous terrain began to cause my eyes to droop and my spirits to sag. With each mile it became increasingly hard to stay awake and it took every ounce of will power to concentrate on the driving.
My body began to feel sluggish and I had to fight to stay awake. I yawned, I squirmed, I opened the windows and turned the volume up on the CD player and then switched to the radio searching for some upbeat music. Nothing helped and the noise of the music was more an irritant than a benefit, so I turned it off. And then I turned it on again. Off again,on again. I just wanted to crawl into a warm cocoon and go to sleep for a long, long time.
For hundreds of miles of unbearable boredom I battled the overwhelming desire to snooze. I tried gallantly but unsuccessfully to fight off the sinking spirits which were threatening to consume the whole of my body and mind. As hard and fast as I tried to drive there was this little black cloud that seemed to be weighing down the car and its driver and pulling them back. The speedometer read 80 mph but it felt more like a sluggish 35.
By the time I reached Colby the little cloud had turned into a huge black turbulent mass that sat on top of bright blue skies. Perfect conditions for a tornado. The car automatically headed for the little town out in the middle of nowhere and to the well-known motel that I already knew offered solace in the way of solid food, lively music and drinks as powerful as the ones at the Denver Press Club. I had a good time with my old friend Jack for a few hours before crawling into that cocoon I had longed for all during the day.
The sky is endless in Kansas and the next morning the sun shone brightly as I headed for my car. Just as I was getting in I noticed my little black companion hovering nearby. I knew I was looking forward to more of the same and sank into the driver’s seat feeling totally deflated. More boredom. More tediousness. More flat land. More depression.
Over 200 miles later, I stopped in Burlington, Colorado for gas and a bite to eat. The man behind the counter bragged about their historic carousel. “Not bad for a tiny town on the plains with an altitude of 4,219 feet,” he said. An altitude of 4,219 feet? Who was he kidding? Not once did I feel I was gaining in altitude.
Even though eastern Colorado is a mirror image of western Kansas, I began to feel a tingle of excitement as I started out once again. My spirits rose higher and higher with each mile and the little black cloud began to dissipate. I slammed down on the gas pedal and soared toward Denver. No longer did the car feel sluggish. No longer did I feel lethargic. No longer did I feel flat. I was flying. I was in control.
Several hours later I could see the snowy peaks of the Rockies and became even more excited but didn’t dare drive any faster. And then the Denver skyline started taking shape and I could hardly contain myself. I was about to burst wide open and began singing at the top of my lungs with Willie, “On the Road Again.” God, it felt good to feel good.
Since I had a few days before I had to report back to work I recklessly decided to head for Estes Park, the "Gateway to Rocky Mountain National Park." I couldn’t contain my energy and impatiently honked at Sunday-go-to-meeting drivers as I barreled past giving them the International Sign Language. Once I got through Boulder the traffic thinned and I was Queen of the Road. I drove up steep curvy mountain roads as if I was back on the flat straight interstate in Kansas.
I was euphoric. I was energized. I was as manic as a gerbil on a perpetual motion machine. My mind was taking off in flights of one fancy after another. I was going to do this, buy that and create this, that and the other. In the meantime I kept increasing my speed. I was no longer in control.
The crash was sudden and hard. I went careening down a steep embankment into a big black hole where the sun didn’t shine.
NOTE: Congress declared the first week of October as Mental Illness Awareness Week in 1990. Because of all the voodoo surrounding this subject I am going to dedicate a few posts to bipolar illness over the next few days. It is what I know best. I hope I can bust a few myths for anyone who cares to read about it.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
What have you done for me lately?
I was having a late lunch with a friend of mine yesterday, Russ, who volunteers for the Martin Heinrich campaign. And he mentioned a campaign mailer that he helped send out, which showed Heinrich's opponent, along with McCain, Palin and other Republicans. This is one of the basic messages from Democrats this year. "OK, so we suck. But they suck more!"
That's not really a message that raises people's spirits, is it? Not really inspiring hope, right there.
But that seems to be the nature of this political season. Go negative, as hard as possible. And while you might be expecting this to be a Republican tactic (after all, if you have no new ideas of your own, what do you campaign on?), it's coming from the Democrats, too.
Was there ever a time in America when politicians would just run on their accomplishments? Or at least show how your political beliefs are improving the country?
Well, we can thank that media narrative being advanced by the right-wing press, who want us to believe that a Democratic White House and a Democratic-controlled Congress are getting nothing done. Or worse, destroying the country.
Some Democrats are just leaving Obama out of their ads (and at least one tongue-kisses George W. Bush). Because, after all, Obama hasn't been able to get anything done, has he?
Which, of course, is complete bullshit. But try telling that to the media.
(Perhaps this is why Bush's "No Child Left Behind" focuses more on children regurgitating what they've been told recently, and less on critical thinking. A compliant electorate, used to being fed the answers and not thinking about the questions, is easier to fool.)
Now, admittedly, anything that the Obama administration has accomplished has been over the intractable resistance of a Republican party who would watch the country to fall to ruins before they'd allow a Democratic President to succeed. Hell, they're already planning, if they "win" the midterms, to do absolutely nothing except smear the president. (You know, like the end of Clinton's term, only with less ethical investigators and a compliant press.)
Obama took an economy in free-fall, and has managed to stop the plummet. It's true that everything isn't perfect. But consider what this country was up against.
In the words of Alan S. Blinder (professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, vice chairman of the Promontory Interfinancial Network, and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board):
Oh, and he also passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to essentially prevent businesses from saying "Hey, she let us fuck her for four months before she complained. It must not be an issue! So we can keep on fucking her!"
He has installed not one, but two female Supreme Court justices; Elena Kagan actually started her new job on Friday. There have been twenty Supreme Court Justices appointed since 1960 (date chosen arbitrarily as the second wave of the Feminist movement). Only four of them have been women: they make up 51% of the population, they're equally affected by the law, but only four have been appointed to the Supreme Court; and Obama is responsible for doubling that number. And, by the way, we also have the first Hispanic Justice, Sonia Sotomayor.
(Think of that number for a second, by the way. Fifty years, and only twenty Justices. You wonder why American jurisprudence is so freaking slow? Where's the anti-incumbent crowd on this issue?)
You know that a lot of the provisions in healthcare reform just kicked in, right? Yes, it could have been better, it could have had a public option, it could have given puppies and kittens to every child in the United States. But it's also the first major healthcare change since the Medicare and Medicaid legislation was passed almost half a century ago.
And despite the panicked cries of the ignorant and ill-informed (as well as the blatant liars), it's entirely market-based, without even a tinge of socialism.
And America is now safer than it was just twenty-one months ago. America's reputation in the international community is improved, we are withdrawing from Iraq, in as safe a manner as possible. And we're moving toward an effective nuclear treaty among the world's major powers.
And these are just highlights, without even mentioning advances in environmental protection, science and education, among others.
George Santayana once said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." But at the moment, maybe we should just work on understanding current events.
That's not really a message that raises people's spirits, is it? Not really inspiring hope, right there.
But that seems to be the nature of this political season. Go negative, as hard as possible. And while you might be expecting this to be a Republican tactic (after all, if you have no new ideas of your own, what do you campaign on?), it's coming from the Democrats, too.
Was there ever a time in America when politicians would just run on their accomplishments? Or at least show how your political beliefs are improving the country?
Well, we can thank that media narrative being advanced by the right-wing press, who want us to believe that a Democratic White House and a Democratic-controlled Congress are getting nothing done. Or worse, destroying the country.
Some Democrats are just leaving Obama out of their ads (and at least one tongue-kisses George W. Bush). Because, after all, Obama hasn't been able to get anything done, has he?
Which, of course, is complete bullshit. But try telling that to the media.
(Perhaps this is why Bush's "No Child Left Behind" focuses more on children regurgitating what they've been told recently, and less on critical thinking. A compliant electorate, used to being fed the answers and not thinking about the questions, is easier to fool.)
Now, admittedly, anything that the Obama administration has accomplished has been over the intractable resistance of a Republican party who would watch the country to fall to ruins before they'd allow a Democratic President to succeed. Hell, they're already planning, if they "win" the midterms, to do absolutely nothing except smear the president. (You know, like the end of Clinton's term, only with less ethical investigators and a compliant press.)
Obama took an economy in free-fall, and has managed to stop the plummet. It's true that everything isn't perfect. But consider what this country was up against.
"Hey, you've had two years to clean up what we took eight years to break! Aren't you done yet?"Despite what the GOP desperately want you to believe, Obama's stimulus program worked. It didn't work well enough, because Obama and his advisors were too conservative - it didn't go far enough, but it still worked.
In the words of Alan S. Blinder (professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, vice chairman of the Promontory Interfinancial Network, and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board):
TARP must be among the most reviled and misunderstood programs in the history of the republic. Voters are clearly appalled by the idea that their government spent $700 billion bailing out banks.And it continues. He's enacted cuts in spending, instituted financial reforms to prevent another economic meltdown, passed credit card reform to keep the banks from stealing from you directly.
The only problem is: It didn't. Even if we count insurance giant AIG as a bank, no more than $300 billion ever went to banks. TARP's total disbursements, including the auto bailout, never reached the $400 billion mark. The money went for loans and to purchase preferred stock; it was not "spent." In fact, most of it has already been paid back—with interest and capital gains. When TARP's books are eventually closed, the net cost to the taxpayer will probably be under $100 billion—far under if General Motors ever repays.
Spending perhaps $50 billion of taxpayer money to forestall a financial cataclysm seems like a bargain. Yes, I know it's maddening to hand over even a nickel to bankers who don't deserve it. But doing so was a necessary evil to save the economy. Think of it as collateral damage in a successful war against financial armageddon.
Oh, and he also passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to essentially prevent businesses from saying "Hey, she let us fuck her for four months before she complained. It must not be an issue! So we can keep on fucking her!"
He has installed not one, but two female Supreme Court justices; Elena Kagan actually started her new job on Friday. There have been twenty Supreme Court Justices appointed since 1960 (date chosen arbitrarily as the second wave of the Feminist movement). Only four of them have been women: they make up 51% of the population, they're equally affected by the law, but only four have been appointed to the Supreme Court; and Obama is responsible for doubling that number. And, by the way, we also have the first Hispanic Justice, Sonia Sotomayor.
(Think of that number for a second, by the way. Fifty years, and only twenty Justices. You wonder why American jurisprudence is so freaking slow? Where's the anti-incumbent crowd on this issue?)
You know that a lot of the provisions in healthcare reform just kicked in, right? Yes, it could have been better, it could have had a public option, it could have given puppies and kittens to every child in the United States. But it's also the first major healthcare change since the Medicare and Medicaid legislation was passed almost half a century ago.
And despite the panicked cries of the ignorant and ill-informed (as well as the blatant liars), it's entirely market-based, without even a tinge of socialism.
And America is now safer than it was just twenty-one months ago. America's reputation in the international community is improved, we are withdrawing from Iraq, in as safe a manner as possible. And we're moving toward an effective nuclear treaty among the world's major powers.
And these are just highlights, without even mentioning advances in environmental protection, science and education, among others.
George Santayana once said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." But at the moment, maybe we should just work on understanding current events.
ABUSES OF POWER: A TALE OF FOUR ATTORNEYS GENERAL (AND WHY I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR THE GOP)
What is it about the office of state attorney general that attracts autocratic social controllers who will violate your civil liberties and impose their ideas of:
What you can think?
What you can say?
What kind of person you ought to be?
Who is entitled to equal rights under law?
What constitutes academic freedom?
With whom you can sleep?
Who will be prosecuted and persecuted?
Here is my gallery of rogue state attorneys general who think the office confers a right to enforce dogma and social conformity and tyrannize over decent citizens:
Andrew Shirvell. The assistant attorney general in the State of Michigan has launched a personal vendetta against a gay student at the University of Michigan. Shirvell singled out Chris Armstrong, the first openly gay student to win election as president of the student assembly. In Shirvell’s twisted mind, winning a student election means Armstrong has become a public figure and a legitimate political target; and Shirvell thinks he is justified in superimposing Nazi swastikas over Armstrong’s photograph, in visiting Armstrong’s house at 1:30 AM, in smearing Armstrong’s parents and friends. Here is Anderson Cooper's interview of Shirvell:
This CNN interview affords us a clear and disturbing example of what mental health professionals call reaction formation. It is a fancy term for insisting that the pot is not a pot, at least in public, by adamantly persecuting the kettle. Here are other examples:
Does Shirvell have reasons to be jealous? Meanwhile Shirvell’s boss, Michigan State Attorney General Michael Cox, thinks defamation, harassment, intimidation, and stalking are legitimate forms of free speech … if the victim happens to be gay and the perpetrator is an ally and colleague.The anti-gay family values senator from Idaho whose ‘wide stance’ in a public restroom got him arrested in Minneapolis (Larry Craig);
The anti-gay cofounder of the Family Research Council who was caught with a male prostitute at Miami airport (George Rekers);
The former Speaker of the House who lead the impeachment of President Clinton over an affair with an intern while the Speaker himself was having an affair with an intern as his wife lay hospitalized and dying of cancer (Newt Gingrich).
Next …
Kenneth T. Cuccinelli. Scarcely two weeks in office, AG Cuccinelli continued to represent a private client in court … thus committing a violation of professional ethics. Cuccinelli is all too willing to abuse his official powers to advance a radically ideological agenda that includes, among other things, a visceral hatred of environmental science. Drawing upon tactics reminiscent of the McCarthy era:
Cuccinelli filed what amounts to a subpoena ordering the University of Virginia to hand over … all available documents, computer code and data relating to Mann's research on the five grants. He also demanded all correspondence, including e-mails — from 1999 to the present — between Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, and dozens of climate scientists worldwide, as well as some climate sceptics. The order stated that Cuccinelli was investigating Mann's possible violation of the 2002 Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act — although no evidence of wrongdoing was given to explain invoking the law, which is intended to prosecute individuals who make false claims in order to access government funds.Cuccinelli has filed briefs in federal court challenging EPA jurisdiction over greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. "We cannot allow unelected bureaucrats with political agendas to use falsified data [my bold] to regulate American industry and drive our economy into the ground,” he insists. His extremist agenda includes opposition to abortion, sex education, gay rights, and the recently enacted healthcare reform bill, which he has challenged in Federal court. Finally, Cuccinelli is a Birther.
Next ….
Tom Corbett. As Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania, Corbett seems to have an exceptionally thin skin - especially when accused of hypocrisy and misfeasance in office. To question Corbett’s integrity is tantamount to violating state law. Earlier this year, Corbett subpoenaed Twitter:
… to provide “any and all subscriber information” of the person(s) behind two accounts – @bfbarbie and @CasaBlancaPA – who have been anonymously criticizing [Attorney General Tom Corbett] …Here are the Tweets that caused Corbett to issue his subpoena:
The information that Twitter is ordered to provide includes “name, address, contact information, creation date, creation Internet Protocol address and any and all log in Internet Protocol address”.
”Is it wrong to mix campaign work with taxpayer business? Apparently not when Tom Corbett does it - bonusgate #pagovrace”These Twitter subscribers accuse Corbett of duplicity, hypocrisy, and conflict of interest in prosecuting political opponents for the same offenses committed by Corbett:
“Quiz! Who sputters with indignation over failure to recuse from cases involving contributors? - #bonusgate #pagovrace”
Sandy Segal said he didn’t know what to think when he received the letter this week.As a former lobbyist for Waste Management, Inc., Corbett has blocked community efforts to enforce environmental ordinances. Along with Cuccinelli, Corbett is also challenging the healthcare reform bill in Federal court.
The envelope, labeled as coming from “Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett,” bore the message: “Please give me your immediate attention.”
He opened it to find Corbett was seeking a contribution in his run for governor. Corbett is seeking the Republican nomination.
“It looked like a pretty official kind of letter to me, at least the envelope,” said Segal, 62, of Susquehanna Twp.
Segal, who said he is a Democrat, later saw small print at the bottom of the envelope that read, “Not Paid For At Government Expense.” On the back, the envelope says, “Corbett for Governor.”
As Corbett has led an investigation of lawmakers accused of using taxpayer money and resources to bolster election campaigns, he is increasingly taking criticism from Democrats on his campaign activities.
Next …
Bill McCollum. The following is a true account of my personal experience with Florida’s Attorney General. On Wednesday, May 19, 2010, at approximately 2:30 PM, there was a loud knock on my front door; not the customary ‘tap, tap’ of a delivery person bearing packages, but a determined ‘bang, bang.’ When I looked through the security peephole, there was a fisheye image of two men standing outside. When I opened the door, they flashed badges and demanded answers to “a few questions” starting with: “Did you send an electronic message to Attorney General Bill McCollum?” For readers unfamiliar with Bill McCollum and the nature of my “electronic message,” let us recall the story of George Rekers and the infamous rent boy scandal that broke earlier this year (with commentaries by our own Bloggingdino and Captain Fogg). George Rekers is the disgraced neuropsychiatrist and Christian Fundamentalist cofounder of the Family Research Council who went on a European junket with a rent boy and was ‘outed’ by a Miami newspaper reporter. After the story broke, a liberal nonprofit group known as Progress Florida circulated this petition:
Your intrepid Octopus went a step further. I linked to the website of the Florida Attorney General and used this online contact form to file a complaint against Bill McCollum ... accusing him of defrauding Florida taxpayers. Weeks later, in retaliation, McCollum dispatched two officers to my door with orders to tell me to STFU.Tell Bill McCollum’ “We Want Our” Money Back!
Attorney General Bill McCollum gave $120,000 of our money to a discredited, anti-gay hypocrite named George Rekers. The courts had already deemed Rekers' "expertise’ junk science, and McCollum insisted on doubling Reker's pay to $120,000 from $60,000, ignoring the terms of a written agreement between Rekers and the cash-strapped Department of Children and Families. Finally, Rekers' anti-gay credentials were naturally called into question after he was caught traveling with a gay escort who advertised his services on a porn site. Bill McCollum wasted our tax dollars on a bigoted, ideological crusade that keeps children away from loving homes. Sign our petition below and tell McCollum: We want our money back!
We might be inclined to view Messrs. Shirvell (slant rhymes with ‘gerbil’), Cuccinelli, Corbett, and McCollum as comical if there were no injustices, i.e. if no Americans were harmed by their brand of wedge politics. Regrettably, these AGs are ruthless social conservatives whose standard operating procedure includes bullying, harassment, and oppression.
Here is a grim statistic: The suicide rate among gay teenagers is 3 to 4 times higher than other youth – attributable to discrimination, bullying, and social ostracism at an emotionally fragile time in their lives. And here is my Charles Dickens prediction for a dystopian future if social conservatives and their rabid rabble gain control of our government:
Wedge politics, designed to demoralize and polarize the electorate, will lead to a sharp increase in bias crimes;I refuse to be intimidated or silenced by rogue politicians. If Messrs. Cox, Cuccinelli, Corbett, or McCollum object to the language of this post (and my surly attitude), I dare them to subpoena Blogger or Twitter and discover my true identity. I double dare them to dispatch henchmen to my door and harass me. At my station in life, what do I have to lose? If I chose martyrdom, the cause is worthy. In the end, bad actors on the political stage do not get to write the final drama, and historians do not treat demagogues and despots kindly.
The repeal of Roe v. Wade will mean victims of rape and incest will be forced to bear the children of sexual predators;
If a woman has a naturally spontaneous miscarriage, she will be automatically suspected of murdering the fetus;
Women with expired or anencephalic fetuses will be forced carry them to full term, thus endangering their lives;
Victims of domestic violence will not be able to divorce their tormenters;
Poverty and violence will fill the streets.
SO BRING IT ON!
Saturday, October 2, 2010
It's Time for Liberals to Get Their Groove Back
Liberals used to be exciting; we tended to think outside of the box and we believed in the power of advocacy. We championed peace; fought for justice; attacked racism and sexism with gusto. But not any more, here lately we whine a lot about what President Obama has not accomplished and insist that he needs to be more aggressive.
I think phrases like "be more aggressive" are meaningless. Be more agressive in what way? What would you have Obama do that he has not done on those issues? He has no authority to compel Congress to do anything. To get the cooperation of Congress is a process of negotiation; there is no presidential authority to push any legislation through Congress.
What would you have him do? I want to know precisely what it is any of the folks who keep saying that the president should be more aggressive on progressive issues want him to do? I don't mean some nebulous concept such as act tough, I mean what specific actions do you think that he should take that he has not taken? He supports repealing DADT and has said as much to Congress; he even got the military leadership to state that it favored repealing DADT. What now, pimp slap John McCain and the other recalcitrant senators?
Some assert that this administration should prosecute the former administration for its use of torture. The actions of the previous administration were immoral but they were argubably within the parameters of executive authority and not, therefore, prosecutable. As for the Patriot Act, bad law but once again it is not within the authority of the president to simply declare that it no longer exists. Guess who? Congress. Instead of undermining the president, how about we direct our resources towards holding Congress accountable and insisting on changes.
Some of my friends insist that the president's efforts at bipartisanship are a demonstration of weakness. They think that we need to be tougher, adapt the tactics of the right for our own use. I reject that notion, not because I'm interested in making nice; I'm interested in accomplishing our goals. How does stooping to the same level of deception, rudeness, and unethical standards as the right, move forward a progressive agenda?
The one thing upon which liberals appear to agree is that the left is more intellectually astute than the right. Frankly, I don't believe that this is an absolute, but liberals pride themselves on being thinkers. Exactly to whom does a policy that adapts the approach of the right appeal? It doesn't appear likely that the intelligent minded folks on the left will be influenced by negative strategies; besides, they are already on our side. So who are we trying to influence?
As for the Tea Party, it is a lost cause and there is nothing that the left can say that will sway them to change their position. Calling the right on the lies that it perpetrates may provide some personal satisfaction but it will not change their minds. You can't show them that they are wrong. It's a waste of effort. Their beliefs aren't based on logic; no matter how many facts you present to the Tea Party faithful they will continue to believe what they want to believe. For heaven's sakes, these people believe that Obama is a Muslim, a socialist, and a supporter of the terrorists in spite of there being nothing to support these allegations and everything to contradict them!
The progresive left needs to focus on the independents and young people who played a key role in winning the presidential election in 2008. Is the dumbed down, angry attack mode of the right really going to be an effective tool in persuading the disenchangted progresives who were so enthused in 2008 to rally? Is engaging in a shouting match with the right to assign blame really an effective strategy for influencing these intelligent, undecided people?
We don't need the Tea Party in order to win in November but we do need those disillusioned independents and young people who put Obama over the finish line in 2008. Those are the people who are threatening not to vote; those are the people who feel betrayed. They are disillusioned and tired.
Long time liberals will snarl and complain but we will still vote, but without these disillusioned folks, our votes won't be enough and the TP will triumph. So how do we rev up the independents, the "this is the first time I've ever voted in 30 years crowd," the idealistic young, how do we get them to replicate the dedication that they displayed in 2008? Somehow, I don't think that a lot of whining and complaining because unrealistic expectations have not been met will get them to come back to the fold.
All of this leftist carping isn't a minor thing. We have to get these people back. We can't afford for them to sit out the upcoming elections. We have to help them see a reason to have hope. 2008 was alll about hope; now progressives have turned into a whining, bitter bunch out for blood. I don't object to this solely because I personally find such behavior childish but because it is not only useless, it's counterproductive. It only confirms for the disillusioned that there's nothing worth fighting for because hope is a myth and change is impossible. If I believed that, I'd stay home on election day too.
We cannot afford to suck the life out of the progressive movement with sour attitudes and a sullen sense of defeat before the battle is even fought. The next time that someone challenges Obama's effectiveness in his less than two years as president, give them this link to 244 things that Obama has accomplished thus far. Then direct them over to his recent interview in Rolling Stone Magazine. If you need a fact sheet explaining why the repeal of DADT is not within the president's power, let me know. I've generated one and will be happy to send it to you. Don't waste your efforts on TP members but do remind those who voted for Obama in 2008 that change has always been incremental and that the president is moving us in the right direction. Most of all, pick yourself up, stop whining, and remember that at the bottom of Pandora's box, when all the evils of the world had been released was a bright and shining creature called "Hope."
I think phrases like "be more aggressive" are meaningless. Be more agressive in what way? What would you have Obama do that he has not done on those issues? He has no authority to compel Congress to do anything. To get the cooperation of Congress is a process of negotiation; there is no presidential authority to push any legislation through Congress.
What would you have him do? I want to know precisely what it is any of the folks who keep saying that the president should be more aggressive on progressive issues want him to do? I don't mean some nebulous concept such as act tough, I mean what specific actions do you think that he should take that he has not taken? He supports repealing DADT and has said as much to Congress; he even got the military leadership to state that it favored repealing DADT. What now, pimp slap John McCain and the other recalcitrant senators?
Some assert that this administration should prosecute the former administration for its use of torture. The actions of the previous administration were immoral but they were argubably within the parameters of executive authority and not, therefore, prosecutable. As for the Patriot Act, bad law but once again it is not within the authority of the president to simply declare that it no longer exists. Guess who? Congress. Instead of undermining the president, how about we direct our resources towards holding Congress accountable and insisting on changes.
Some of my friends insist that the president's efforts at bipartisanship are a demonstration of weakness. They think that we need to be tougher, adapt the tactics of the right for our own use. I reject that notion, not because I'm interested in making nice; I'm interested in accomplishing our goals. How does stooping to the same level of deception, rudeness, and unethical standards as the right, move forward a progressive agenda?
The one thing upon which liberals appear to agree is that the left is more intellectually astute than the right. Frankly, I don't believe that this is an absolute, but liberals pride themselves on being thinkers. Exactly to whom does a policy that adapts the approach of the right appeal? It doesn't appear likely that the intelligent minded folks on the left will be influenced by negative strategies; besides, they are already on our side. So who are we trying to influence?
As for the Tea Party, it is a lost cause and there is nothing that the left can say that will sway them to change their position. Calling the right on the lies that it perpetrates may provide some personal satisfaction but it will not change their minds. You can't show them that they are wrong. It's a waste of effort. Their beliefs aren't based on logic; no matter how many facts you present to the Tea Party faithful they will continue to believe what they want to believe. For heaven's sakes, these people believe that Obama is a Muslim, a socialist, and a supporter of the terrorists in spite of there being nothing to support these allegations and everything to contradict them!
The progresive left needs to focus on the independents and young people who played a key role in winning the presidential election in 2008. Is the dumbed down, angry attack mode of the right really going to be an effective tool in persuading the disenchangted progresives who were so enthused in 2008 to rally? Is engaging in a shouting match with the right to assign blame really an effective strategy for influencing these intelligent, undecided people?
We don't need the Tea Party in order to win in November but we do need those disillusioned independents and young people who put Obama over the finish line in 2008. Those are the people who are threatening not to vote; those are the people who feel betrayed. They are disillusioned and tired.
Long time liberals will snarl and complain but we will still vote, but without these disillusioned folks, our votes won't be enough and the TP will triumph. So how do we rev up the independents, the "this is the first time I've ever voted in 30 years crowd," the idealistic young, how do we get them to replicate the dedication that they displayed in 2008? Somehow, I don't think that a lot of whining and complaining because unrealistic expectations have not been met will get them to come back to the fold.
All of this leftist carping isn't a minor thing. We have to get these people back. We can't afford for them to sit out the upcoming elections. We have to help them see a reason to have hope. 2008 was alll about hope; now progressives have turned into a whining, bitter bunch out for blood. I don't object to this solely because I personally find such behavior childish but because it is not only useless, it's counterproductive. It only confirms for the disillusioned that there's nothing worth fighting for because hope is a myth and change is impossible. If I believed that, I'd stay home on election day too.
We cannot afford to suck the life out of the progressive movement with sour attitudes and a sullen sense of defeat before the battle is even fought. The next time that someone challenges Obama's effectiveness in his less than two years as president, give them this link to 244 things that Obama has accomplished thus far. Then direct them over to his recent interview in Rolling Stone Magazine. If you need a fact sheet explaining why the repeal of DADT is not within the president's power, let me know. I've generated one and will be happy to send it to you. Don't waste your efforts on TP members but do remind those who voted for Obama in 2008 that change has always been incremental and that the president is moving us in the right direction. Most of all, pick yourself up, stop whining, and remember that at the bottom of Pandora's box, when all the evils of the world had been released was a bright and shining creature called "Hope."
Friday, October 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)