27 February 2009
Following Through
Is it just me, or is President Obama, on the whole, doing what he said he'd do? Today's announcement on the end of combat operations in Iraq is but the latest in a series of steps (closing Guantanamo, cutting taxes, investing in health care, etc.), which have not gone unnoticed, that seem designed to... well, to do the things he was elected to do.
I Don't Get It
I'm all for seeing multiple sides of an issue. I would love to see two or more parties having a free and fair discussion in which competing relevant ideas are expressed and debated. I wish this was what the GOP was offering right now, because by doing so, they could seriously contribute to moving this country along... unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. I've been stunned this week by what seems to be a new nation-wide tactic. It may or may not more harmful than the simple nay-saying strategy they so cherish, but it is far more baffling. It seems to be... mean-spiritedness.
- The as-of-today no-longer-in-operation Rocky Mountain News reports here on a Republican State Senator's opposition to a bill requiring HIV testing for expectant mothers (which would give doctors the opportunity to treat the babies against the virus' transfer). Senator Dave Shultheis said he "can't go there" because the disease "stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part." The article goes on to describe more of his remarks which are too hateful and depressing for me to reproduce here, in which he outlines his justification for condemning the unborn to living with AIDS. (I personally didn't have the stomach or the patience to read the article in its entirety... it also quotes one of Shultheis' Republican colleagues in a separate debate, in which he compares homosexuality to murder by referencing them as sins that should not be condoned... he backs himself up with quotations from the Bible.)
- Meanwhile, CPAC is underway in Washington, D.C., and the racist "Obama Waffles" cereal is on display (and Joe the Plumber gave a talk). Two big laughs so far from the gathered crowds have been in response to 1) an implication that our President was not born in America and 2) a remark by John Bolton about the possibility of a devastating nuclear attack on the city of Chicago... wow... hilarious...
- Sean Hannity had a poll on his website earlier this week asking which of three possible forms of violent revolution his listeners favored.
Most of the above came to my attention by way of MSNBC, which, I realize, is a network with a clear political bias. But they did not make these stories up, they simply shared them. Any one of these instances, on their own, might be taken as the mouthing-off of the radical fringe or, if we wanted to be really, really generous, as badly-calculated political missteps. But these are not simply rogue agents. The people responsible include a Republican State Senator, an Ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush, and one of the country's leading right-wing pundits.
The comments, taken together, are stunning in their spite and devastating in their hatefulness. If this is the new Republican Party, then I'm becoming less and less worried about "bipartisanship." These people can dig themselves ever deeper into a hole of hate and when they get to the bottom, they will realize that such a hole is dark and cold, and that the rest of us have forgotten them as we continue to seek the light up above.
I don't get it.
- The as-of-today no-longer-in-operation Rocky Mountain News reports here on a Republican State Senator's opposition to a bill requiring HIV testing for expectant mothers (which would give doctors the opportunity to treat the babies against the virus' transfer). Senator Dave Shultheis said he "can't go there" because the disease "stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part." The article goes on to describe more of his remarks which are too hateful and depressing for me to reproduce here, in which he outlines his justification for condemning the unborn to living with AIDS. (I personally didn't have the stomach or the patience to read the article in its entirety... it also quotes one of Shultheis' Republican colleagues in a separate debate, in which he compares homosexuality to murder by referencing them as sins that should not be condoned... he backs himself up with quotations from the Bible.)
- Meanwhile, CPAC is underway in Washington, D.C., and the racist "Obama Waffles" cereal is on display (and Joe the Plumber gave a talk). Two big laughs so far from the gathered crowds have been in response to 1) an implication that our President was not born in America and 2) a remark by John Bolton about the possibility of a devastating nuclear attack on the city of Chicago... wow... hilarious...
- Sean Hannity had a poll on his website earlier this week asking which of three possible forms of violent revolution his listeners favored.
Most of the above came to my attention by way of MSNBC, which, I realize, is a network with a clear political bias. But they did not make these stories up, they simply shared them. Any one of these instances, on their own, might be taken as the mouthing-off of the radical fringe or, if we wanted to be really, really generous, as badly-calculated political missteps. But these are not simply rogue agents. The people responsible include a Republican State Senator, an Ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush, and one of the country's leading right-wing pundits.
The comments, taken together, are stunning in their spite and devastating in their hatefulness. If this is the new Republican Party, then I'm becoming less and less worried about "bipartisanship." These people can dig themselves ever deeper into a hole of hate and when they get to the bottom, they will realize that such a hole is dark and cold, and that the rest of us have forgotten them as we continue to seek the light up above.
I don't get it.
25 February 2009
Spring Training Opens
Yankees and Cubs are getting underway today... that means the real Spring has to come soon, too!
Responsibility
Glad to see that just about everyone felt the way I did about Jindal's response. As for his rejection of government intervention, I don't think it carries much water with anyone anymore. As Roger Simon says, it's pretty clear that the government has been complicit in these crises from the very beginning. There is a line to be drawn between letting the markets be free and letting them run wild; there is a line to be drawn between standing by our values abroad and cramming them down the throats of others. There are tough decisions that need to be made, every day, on health care and energy, education and taxes, and many other issues. Those decisions have been put off, brushed aside, and this is where we are now. President Obama spent the evening talking about fixing those problems. The sputter of a Republican response, though it claimed to center on the idea that "Americans can do anything," seemed to be: "Don't look at us. We place our trust in you."
This is classic buck-passing, and subtly, but supremely, disingenuous. It sounds great to say "we'll spend less of your money and get out of your way," but that doesn't get near the truth. The truth is, the "American people" at large do not possess the tools to get credit flowing again, or to reform health care, or to force investment in green energy. That is why we elect people to represent us. If the Republicans don't want to be trusted with our problems, they should not be running for office. If they find it irresponsible to try to find solutions, they have no business at the table. They want us to think they are reaching out a hand when in fact they are stiff-arming progress.
There is another fundamental problem with their response. At its heart lies the standard conservative "answer" to the economy: "we must be fiscally responsible. Smaller government. Less spending." Now, I'm all for fiscal responsibility, but I do not think it can exist in a vacuum. What I would hope for is that all aspects of our government's actions be governed by responsibility. Now, when I was growing up, I was taught that an indispensable part of being responsible was the willingness to take responsibility. And that is what we are asking for now. Congress can not turn its back on the mess it has helped to create; instead, it must recognize the simple precept we all learn in kindergarten: when you make a mess, you clean it up. You do not stand around claiming that cleaning it up would be irresponsible.
This is classic buck-passing, and subtly, but supremely, disingenuous. It sounds great to say "we'll spend less of your money and get out of your way," but that doesn't get near the truth. The truth is, the "American people" at large do not possess the tools to get credit flowing again, or to reform health care, or to force investment in green energy. That is why we elect people to represent us. If the Republicans don't want to be trusted with our problems, they should not be running for office. If they find it irresponsible to try to find solutions, they have no business at the table. They want us to think they are reaching out a hand when in fact they are stiff-arming progress.
There is another fundamental problem with their response. At its heart lies the standard conservative "answer" to the economy: "we must be fiscally responsible. Smaller government. Less spending." Now, I'm all for fiscal responsibility, but I do not think it can exist in a vacuum. What I would hope for is that all aspects of our government's actions be governed by responsibility. Now, when I was growing up, I was taught that an indispensable part of being responsible was the willingness to take responsibility. And that is what we are asking for now. Congress can not turn its back on the mess it has helped to create; instead, it must recognize the simple precept we all learn in kindergarten: when you make a mess, you clean it up. You do not stand around claiming that cleaning it up would be irresponsible.
24 February 2009
Barack the House
President Obama nailed it tonight. In his first Presidential address to a joint session of Congress, he was calm, cool, and collected, with his trademark blend of style and substance. He took President Clinton's note to heart, mixing sobriety with hopefulness, not being too much of an economic Debbie Downer, and he provided something we haven't seen from a President before Congress in a long time: an ambitious domestic agenda guided by logic and by a desire to re-boot this country. (Also note the lack of fear-mongering, although Bobby Jindal threw in some in his rebuttal--shocker.)
It was also impossible to ignore Obama's clear rock-star status during his entrance and exit. I was reminded of a Salon.com article on Rachel Maddow's sex appeal--probably seems totally unrelated, but in it, Judy Berman argues that it is Maddow's intelligence and authenticity that make her so appealing to so many. Barack's mega-watt smile and well-tailored suits certainly don't hurt him, but it is his substance that has endeared him to the American people.
As for Bobby Jindal's response... pretty awkward. First, he tried the "I'm just like Barack" tactic with his back-story, but he just doesn't have the delivery. Michael Steele, Bobby Jindal... the GOP keeps trying to find a Barack equivalent. (Maybe they should be taking cues from his aforementioned substance, not his surface.) Anyway, Jindal sounded like the owner of a car dealership on a low-budget local commercial, with a dash of second-rate second-grade teacher reading a story aloud to her class: all false smiles and condescension. We'll see how stiffing his constituents of their stimulus dollars in last-time-I-checked-not-so-rich Louisiana affects his popularity. The whole thing was such a clear power grab ("I'm a possible nominee in 2012! Look at me! Look at me!") that it was mostly just uncomfortable to watch.
Again, though, great work by President Obama. I'm still not quite buying what he's selling when it comes to his claim to be anti-torture. I'm also sure he knows that the only thing out-pacing his popularity rating right now is his ambition, and he's got a lot to follow through on. Still, he's setting things in motion. From his notable denouncement of high-school dropouts to his referencing of everyday heroes, he showed a willingness to both lead and listen. The combination is refreshing.
It was also impossible to ignore Obama's clear rock-star status during his entrance and exit. I was reminded of a Salon.com article on Rachel Maddow's sex appeal--probably seems totally unrelated, but in it, Judy Berman argues that it is Maddow's intelligence and authenticity that make her so appealing to so many. Barack's mega-watt smile and well-tailored suits certainly don't hurt him, but it is his substance that has endeared him to the American people.
As for Bobby Jindal's response... pretty awkward. First, he tried the "I'm just like Barack" tactic with his back-story, but he just doesn't have the delivery. Michael Steele, Bobby Jindal... the GOP keeps trying to find a Barack equivalent. (Maybe they should be taking cues from his aforementioned substance, not his surface.) Anyway, Jindal sounded like the owner of a car dealership on a low-budget local commercial, with a dash of second-rate second-grade teacher reading a story aloud to her class: all false smiles and condescension. We'll see how stiffing his constituents of their stimulus dollars in last-time-I-checked-not-so-rich Louisiana affects his popularity. The whole thing was such a clear power grab ("I'm a possible nominee in 2012! Look at me! Look at me!") that it was mostly just uncomfortable to watch.
Again, though, great work by President Obama. I'm still not quite buying what he's selling when it comes to his claim to be anti-torture. I'm also sure he knows that the only thing out-pacing his popularity rating right now is his ambition, and he's got a lot to follow through on. Still, he's setting things in motion. From his notable denouncement of high-school dropouts to his referencing of everyday heroes, he showed a willingness to both lead and listen. The combination is refreshing.
Civil Discourse
I thoroughly enjoyed reading George Packer's intelligent reflection on the President's early initiatives and the response they've received from the opposition. Packer brilliantly points out that the scope of Obama's agenda is not being set by ideological opportunism, but necessitated by an inherited set of well-documented and wide-ranging failures (let's not forget, as he says, that "Facts drove the Republicans out of power").
Packer's article is, in part, a response to David Brooks, who gives a refreshingly civil and insightful response from the right. Brooks expresses concern, and rightly, that "we are operating far beyond our economic knowledge." Unlike many of his ideological counterparts, though, Brooks expresses a cautious optimism in the administration, a desire that his criticisms be proved wrong and that the country be set on the right path, even if it is not his recommended path. He is insightful, measured, respectful, and intelligent--a true breath of fresh air.
It seems to me that, considering our current state of affairs, we can neither afford nor tolerate the abundance of baseless accusations and posturing that seek to criticize without justification or the offering of an alternative; nor can we disdain and ignore criticism and rush forward unilaterally. Both must be avoided at all costs if we are to have a fruitful and ongoing debate.
If I remember correctly, I think that's the point of democracy.
Packer's article is, in part, a response to David Brooks, who gives a refreshingly civil and insightful response from the right. Brooks expresses concern, and rightly, that "we are operating far beyond our economic knowledge." Unlike many of his ideological counterparts, though, Brooks expresses a cautious optimism in the administration, a desire that his criticisms be proved wrong and that the country be set on the right path, even if it is not his recommended path. He is insightful, measured, respectful, and intelligent--a true breath of fresh air.
It seems to me that, considering our current state of affairs, we can neither afford nor tolerate the abundance of baseless accusations and posturing that seek to criticize without justification or the offering of an alternative; nor can we disdain and ignore criticism and rush forward unilaterally. Both must be avoided at all costs if we are to have a fruitful and ongoing debate.
If I remember correctly, I think that's the point of democracy.
First Steps into Virgin Snow
I've just moved to Chicago, and I'm in the process of constructing a new life here, just a few blocks from the Red Line, the only 24-hour L and my gateway to the world. I find myself surrounded by new streets and faces, new friends and places, new challenges, new opportunities, and lots and lots of new snow. It seemed only fitting to create a new blog to help document and sort through all of this newness...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
