A Gentleman’s view.

The dirty game of politics played by gangsters with degrees cloaked in Brooks Brothers proper!

Archive for the ‘Media’


Church And State: They Shall Be As One, Amen!

The Devil and Rick Santorum: Dilemmas of a Holy Owned Subsidiary By Thomas Ferguson

Election night in Iowa was a heavenly moment for Rick Santorum. As he marveled over the late breaking tidal wave of support that in just weeks had swept him from nowhere into a virtual tie with Mitt Romney for first place in the state’s Republican caucuses, the former Pennsylvania Senator gushed to supporters about the secret of his campaign’s success: “I’ve survived the challenges so far by the daily grace that comes from God. . . . I offer a public thanks to God.’’

But it was not God who saved Rick Santorum. He survived Iowa rather like a blind mole rat might someday outlive a nuclear exchange – by simply burrowing underground while Romney’s Super Pac incinerated Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, and while Perry tried to demolish Ron Paul, whom he considered a more dangerous rival. In a state where 60% of those attending the 2008 GOP caucuses described themselves as “born again” or evangelicals, Santorum was the only ultra-conservative left for resigned evangelical leaders to swing behind.

Now, as the wall of Super Money comes down on him like a ton of gold bricks, Santorum is likely fated, like Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Perry himself, to flame out after a brief moment of glory and go back to working with the energy and health care enterprises that helped make him a millionaire after leaving the Senate.

But this leaves a larger question: Why does this curious “shooting star” pattern of flare ups and flame outs distinguish the quest of hopefuls for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination? The answer lies in the party’s tricky long-term strategy to steer ordinary voters into focusing on wedge issues rather than the economic policies. The party establishment wants Romney, but its voters have been so thoroughly trained to focus on gays and abortion that they cannot sit still behind a candidate who concentrates on business and economic growth.

A Party Built for the 1 Percent

Beginning in the Nixon era, and then with ever greater determination and force after Reagan, GOP leaders have carefully built out a very special party structure. But at what should by all rights be a moment of easy triumph, thanks to the combination of the Great Recession and the Obama administration’s repeated economic policy blunders, the GOP is on the verge of chaos. The carefully elaborated structure of primaries, group appeals, and elaborately layered leadership structures is coming apart. Republican leaders now find themselves superlatively prepared to fight exactly the wrong war.

Their dilemma is easy to understand, if one tears oneself away from media talking heads and the endless election chatter that now fills the US press. As perhaps most painstakingly documented by Larry Bartels, in his ‘Unequal Democracy,’ Republican policies are stunningly orientated toward making the richest Americans richer and they have consistently done exactly that, by comparison with Democratic regimes.

This is not to say the Democrats do not also cater to segments of the rich – Bartels, like nearly everyone else writing about American politics, jumped too quickly to the conclusion that the partisan differences he detected followed immediately from the direct influence of mass constituencies rather than the choices different blocs of investors made as they appealed to different segments of the electorate while competing to control the parties. But as far as it goes, his point is true and important.

To summarize and retranslate into the language of my investment theory of political parties: Republicans historically secure the incomes of upper income Americans, whatever else they do. By contrast, Democrats typically compete by offering something – and these days, not much at all – to more of the 99%, even as they go whole hog for financial deregulation amid a raft of money from Vampire Squids, telecom monopolists, and other dark forces.

Republican leaders from Nixon, through Reagan, Gingrich, and the Bushes all understood their situation. They knew that to win consistently, they needed to do two things.  First, they had to discourage as many poorer Americans from voting as possible. A succession of Republican administrations, sometimes abetted by conservative Democrats, have worked overtime at this. Once centered on punitive registration requirements, such efforts nowadays focus more on state measures to curtail early voting and, especially, add demands for photo ids.

No less important were the implications for GOP campaigns and political rhetoric. Once GOP leaders got past bromides about encouraging economic growth, to have any chance of appealing to the normal Americans their policies were first to squeeze, and over a generation, to impoverish, the party needed to change the subject from economics when campaigning. Fast.

Wedge Issues: the Weapon That Backfired

Thus it was that Republican leaders tried out one wedge issue after another, looking for anything that would stick. Nixon, Helms, and nearly the whole party played the race card for a long time; some still do. In the eighties, conservative Republicans built alliances with evangelicals and attacked gays. Many also attacked immigrants, while, of course, virtually everyone talked up defense, national security, and guns 24/7. After 9/11, with much help from Fox News and the other networks, they kept Americans on high alert for low reasons, to the point that Republicans in Oklahoma and other states sometimes run against the threat of Islamic law with a straight face. The party also looked with benign neglect at the rise of a libertarian right, though Ron Paul’s current challenge is a bit more than the party establishment, which lives and dies by the Federal Reserve and the Department of Defense, bargained for.

This brings us to the conflicts that are now chewing up the GOP. Most Americans, if they think about electorates at all, probably think of the American voting universe as a natural fact, akin to the tides or the moon. But as Walter Dean Burnham and I have never stopped emphasizing, that is not true. Electorates are like Japanese gardens. They have to be cultivated over long periods if they are to flourish. A host of rules, institutional practices, and careful appeals mobilize some blocs and demobilize others, including decisions about where to spend money to encourage turnout or make sure enough voting machines are available.

In 2012, history has dealt the GOP a hand it hadn’t counted on. The Democrats should be hopelessly vulnerable on the economy just now. The Obama administration’s failure to stimulate the economy sufficiently and address the mortgage problem, along with its single-minded focus on rescuing the financial sector, has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many Americans on both the left and the right. The opportunity for the Republicans is so huge that that the GOP establishment can almost taste it. As Haley Barbour, a former chair of the Republican National Committee who is also one of the most closely connected of all Republican leaders to big business observed recently, “If the 2012 election is about President Obama’s policies and the negative results of those policies, he won’t be reelected; so if I were campaigning, I’d talk about how his policies have made economic growth and job creation harder.”

So the party establishment rallied quickly behind Mitt Romney, though he is the first choice of comparatively few and mistrusted still by many.

The establishment’s problem, however, is that the electorate it so laboriously built over the last generation still has all those wedge issues on their minds. This doesn’t mean they don’t think also about economic issues – the Iowa polls, for example, show plainly that they do. But many GOP voters are in the party now because of the earlier recruiting efforts and habits that reflected their other deep interests. They aren’t going away. Nor are they going to stop caring about those issues, whether the GOP establishment likes it or not.

So the Republican leaders have a problem. A huge percentage – in Iowa it was three quarters – of the electorate that it presides over doesn’t want to follow its lead. In 1953, after riots broke out in the self-styled worker’s paradise of East Germany, Bertolt Brecht famously suggested that the government should dissolve the people and go find another one. That prospect is not open to the GOP establishment. It will need them in the general election, especially if the economy were to improve. So all it can do right now is to unroll its mighty bankroll and bulldoze through its opponents, hoping that none of those being squashed defects to some third party.

But it might just take divine intervention to make this strategy work.

Share

As The Countdown Returns: Olbermann

Dear Keith,

I hope you don’t mind that I address you by your first name. I’ve been a fan for years, so long that I almost feel I know you…or at least as much as you can know someone you’ve seen only on a television screen.

From your time at ESPN forward, I’ve watched your career unfold. I’ve found myself eagerly looking forward to seeing you on my TV. Your intellect, your sardonic wit, your “no sacred cows” philosophy, and your surpassing skill and talent have never been in doubt. Your ability to entertain and inform have always been top-notch and well worth whatever time I’ve invested in watching you.

Having said that, though, I must confess to being greatly disturbed and concerned. I’ve watched you evolve from an erudite sportscaster into a strong and forceful Liberal voice. I’ve been a devotee of “Countdown”, first on MSNBC and now on Current TV, for years…and I’m beginning to fear that you’re becoming a willing victim of your own success.

 

I get that you’re opinionated, always have been, and don’t suffer fools lightly. I admire that about you, because we share those qualities. Somewhere along the line, though, you’ve lost the ability tostep back from the stories you report on. The stories, and the silliness and hypocrisy too often behind them, have become personal. You’ve traveled from the realm of trenchant, insightful analysis to the domain of name-calling, personal insults, and screaming. You’ve become a Liberal version of the clowns on Fox News Channel you so frequently excoriate. You’ve become a thinking man’s Ed Schultz…and that’s NOT a compliment.

It seems that everywhere you’ve gone conflict has followed. For whatever reason, you find yourself at loggerheads with your employer early on. Perhaps the reasons for the conflicts are legitimate, but given that this has been the story wherever you’ve plied your trade, it seems clear that the problem isn’t with those who sign your checks. The problem is YOU. Whether it’s rampant ego, a sense of entitlement, an over-cooked sense of your own value and worth, or combinations of the former, you’ve demonstrated yourself incapable of playing well with others. How much longer do you think media outlets will tolerate your immaturity and inability to play by the rules? How many bridges will you burn before there are no bridges left and, even worse, no one left willing to build bridges for you?

I understand that objective journalism died with the advent of Fox News Channel. Ideologues and moral midgets like Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Megyn Kelly may have carved out their niche among those who like their news wrapped with outrage and Right-wing propaganda. That truth doesn’t convey upon you license to engage in the same sort of incivility on the other end of ideological spectrum. Shouldn’t you be able to rise above such narrow pettiness?

I’ve enjoyed “Countdown” for its insightful analysis, its reliance on facts, and it devotion to divining the truth. The “Countdown” I occasionally watch now is but a shell of the principled work of journalistic excellence that used to be offered up every night at 8pm ET. What I see now is you shouting, exercising your considerable anger, and engaging in personal insults directed at those with whom you clearly disagree. I admire your commitment, and I generally find myself in agreement with your point of view. What I can’t stomach is the anger, the vitriol, and the insults directed at those with whom you differ. Must you so willingly descend to the realm of those you excoriate??

Your on-air conduct reveals an angry, intolerant personality who differs from Fox News’ talking heads only on ideological terms. Your off-air conflicts with your employers leaves me wondering if you’re incapable of playing well with others. Your screaming, your profanity, and your childish conduct are unworthy of someone who fancies himself a journalist who admires Edward R. Murrow. It’s time to grow up and show that you’re the better person…but your behavior leaves me fearingthat you’re not.

I recognize that you long ago abandoned any pretense of objectivity. In today’s hyper-partisan media environment, that’s understandable. There’s nothing wrong with pushing a Liberal agenda, especially given that there’s an entire network devoted to openly pushing Right-wing propaganda. That said, I cannot continue to give you a free pass for your immaturity, incivility, and screaming. It solves nothing, and it serves only to widen the gaping ideological chasm that exists in this country. Somewhere, somehow, Americans need to stand up to the hyper-partisan incivility and voluble intolerance that characterizes the state of our public discourse.

You may think someone an ass…but that doesn’t convey license to be an ass yourself…and yes, I recognize that I haven’t always done a stellar job of living up to that admonition myself.

As much as it pains me to say this, I can no longer condone your behavior. I can’t in good conscience continue watching “Countdown”, knowing what it could be, and recognizing what’s it’s devolved into. Some time ago, I resolved to boycott Ed Schultz for the same reasons. Scream loud and long enough, and eventually your audience will begin to tune you out. Congratulations, Keith; you’ve succeeded in alienating one of your biggest fans.

I’ll return when and if you can conduct yourself like a journalist…but I suspect that you’re too busy burning bridges to notice or care. Good luck to you.

 

Share

Rick’s An Ugly New Flav

 

Rick Santorum’s surprising second-place finish in Iowa comes after months of dogged campaigning throughout the sate’s 99 counties and more than 350 town halls. ThinkProgress tracked the former Pennsylvania senator throughout this period and has compiled a list of his top 10 most outrageous claims:

1) ANNUL ALL SAME-SEX MARRIAGES: Arguing that gay relationships “destabilize” society, Santorum wouldn’t offer any legal protections to gay relationships and has pledged to annul all same-sex marriages if elected president. During his 99-country tour of Iowa, Santorum frequently compared same-sex relationships to inanimate objects like treesbasketballsbeer, and paper towels and even tried to blame the economic crisis on gay people. As Santorum explained back in August, religious people have a constitutional right to discriminate against gays: “We have a right the Constitution of religious liberty but now the courts have created a super-right that’s above a right that’s actually in the Constitution, and that’s of sexual liberty. And I think that’s a wrong, that’s a destructive element.”

2) ‘I’M FOR INCOME INEQUALITY’: “They talk about income inequality. I’m for income inequality,” Santorum said during an event in Pella, Iowa in December. “I think some people should make more than other people, because some people work harder and have better ideas and take more risk, and they should be rewarded for it. I have no problem with income inequality.”

3) CONTRACEPTION IS ‘A LICENSE TO DO THINGS’: Santorum has pledged to repeal all federal funding for contraception and allow the states to outlaw birth control, insisting that “it’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

4) GAY SOLDIERS ‘CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN CLOSE QUARTERS’: During an appearance on Fox News Sunday in October, Santorum defended his support for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell by arguing that gay soldiers would disrupt the military because “they’re in close quarters, they live with people, they obviously shower with people.” He also suggested that “there are people who were gay and lived the gay lifestyle and aren’t anymore.”

5) OBAMA SHOULD OPPOSE ABORTION BECAUSE HE’S BLACK: During an appearance on Christian television in January, Santorum said he was surprised that President Obama didn’t know when life began — given his skin color. “I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people,” he explained.

6) WE DON’T NEED FOOD STAMPS BECAUSE OBESITY RATES ARE SO HIGH: Speaking in Le Mars, Iowa in December, Santorum promised to significantly reduce federal funding for food stamps, arguing that the nation’s increasing obesity rates render the program unnecessary.

7) ABORTION EXCEPTIONS TO PROTECT WOMEN’S HEALTH ARE ‘PHONY’: While discussing his track record as a champion of the partial birth abortion ban in June, Santorum dismissed exceptions other senators wanted to carve out to protect the life and health of mothers, calling such exceptions “phony.” “They wanted a health exception, which of course is a phony exceptionwhich would make the ban ineffective,” he said.

8) HEALTH REFORM WILL KILL MY CHILD: Santorum, who claims that Obamacare motivated him to run for president, told reporters in April that his daughter Bella — who was born with a genetic abnormality — wouldn’t survive in a country with “socialized medicine.” “Children like Bella are not given the treatment that other children are given.”

9) UNINSURED AMERICANS SHOULD SPEND LESS ON CELL-PHONE BILLS: During a meeting with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register in August, Santorum said that people who can’t afford health care should stop whining about the high costs of medical treatments and medications and spend less on non essentials. Answering a question about the uninsured, Santorum explained that health care, like a car, is a luxury resource that is rationed by society and recalled the story of a woman who said she was spending $200 a month on life-saving prescriptions. Santorum told her to stop complaining and instead lower her cable and cell phone bills.

10) INSURERS SHOULD DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS:Santorum sounded like a representative from the health insurance industry when he addressed a small group of high school students in Merrimack, New Hampshire in December. The former Pennsylvania senator not only defended insurers for denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, he also argued that individuals who are sick should pay higher premiums because they cost more money to insure.

Share

The Hypocrisy: Education and Sports

The College Sports Cartel By

Twice a year in Vienna, the members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries gather to decide on the short-term direction of oil prices. Sometimes, O.P.E.C. agrees to cut back on oil production, pushing up the price of oil. Other times, it decides to boost production. Always, the goal is to fix the price of oil, rather than allow it to be set by the competitive marketplace. Indeed, collusion and price-fixing are the main reasons cartels exist — and why they are illegal in America.

Yet, in Indianapolis a few weeks from now, a home-grown cartel will hold its annual meeting, where it, too, will be working to collude and fix prices. This cartel is the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The N.C.A.A. would have you believe that it is the great protector of amateur athletics, preventing college athletes from being tainted by the river of money pouring over college sports.

In fact, the N.C.A.A.’s real role is to oversee the collusion of university athletic departments, whose goal is to maximize revenue and suppress the wages of its captive labor force, a k a the players. Rarely, however, will the cartel nature of the N.C.A.A. be so nakedly on display as at this year’s convention.

In The Times Magazine this weekend, I lay out a proposal to pay the players in the two big revenue sports, college football and men’s basketball, something the N.C.A.A. won’t countenance. In the course of my reporting, I gained a new appreciation for the cartel characteristics of sports leagues.

Sports leagues can’t exist without at least some collusion. As Andy Schwarz, an economist and litigation consultant, puts it, “If steel companies got together to decide when and where to produce steel, that would violate the antitrust laws. But if sports teams in a league get together to decide when and where to play games, that’s generally allowed.” Major League Baseball has long had an antitrust exemption; other professional leagues have salary caps, which are legal because they have been agreed to by the players.

The N.C.A.A. has neither an antitrust exemption nor a player’s union to negotiate with. In other words, it lacks some of the legal protections that shield professional sports from antitrust suits. What it has, instead, is a work force full of young adults dreaming of becoming pros and willing to sign any document, no matter how onerous, if it will help them reach that goal. The document the N.C.A.A. forces them to sign completely stacks the deck against them. To cite just one outrageous example, if a player runs afoul of an N.C.A.A. rule, he isn’t allowed legal counsel to defend himself.

Recently, Mark Emmert, the president of the N.C.A.A., tried to make the rules a tad less onerous. He got the N.C.A.A. board of directors to approve an optional $2,000 stipend as well as a four-year scholarship instead of the current one-year deal for players.

And how did the cartel react to these modest changes? It rose up in revolt. Enough universities signed an override petition to temporarily ice the new stipend. The same thing happened with the four-year scholarship.

A lawyer in Fort Worth, Christian Dennie, who specializes in sports law, got ahold of an internal N.C.A.A. document outlining some of the objections. One is especially worth repeating: “The new coach may have a completely different style of offense/defense that the student athlete no longer fits into,” wrote Indiana State. Four-year scholarships might mean that the school would be stuck with “someone that is of no ‘athletic’ usefulness to the program.” Thus does at least one school show how it truly views its “student athletes.” (Andy Staples at Sports Illustrated first reported on this document.)

At the N.C.A.A. convention in mid-January, both of these rules will be reviewed. In all likelihood, the N.C.A.A. will roll them back. However benignly it characterizes this action, it will be as clear-cut an example of collusion as anything that goes on at an OPEC meeting.

How can it be that the N.C.A.A. can define amateurism in one moment as allowing a $2,000 stipend and in the next moment as forbidding such a stipend? How can it justify rolling back a change that would truly help student athletes, such as the four-year scholarship, simply because coaches want to continue to have life-or-death power over their charges? How can the labor force that generates so much money for everyone else be kept in shackles by the N.C.A.A.?

The N.C.A.A. claims it has the legal right to do all the above and more. And maybe it does. But it certainly would be worthwhile to see someone challenge its cartel behavior in court. The inevitable rollback of the $2,000 stipend and the four-year scholarship would be an awfully good place to start.

Share

Hey Jeb: You Next?

2008: George W. Bush is the term-limited president.

2004: George W. Bush is the incumbent president, winning re-election.

2000: George W. Bush is elected to the presidency, though losing the national popular vote.

1996: George W. Bush is the governor of Texas.

1992: George H.W. Bush is the incumbent president, but loses re-election.

1988: George H.W. Bush is elected to the presidency.

1984: George H.W. Bush is re-elected Vice President of the United States, on the Republican ticket with Ronald Reagan.

1980: George H.W. Bush is elected Vice President of the United States, on the Republican ticket with Ronald Reagan.

1976: George H.W. Bush is the country’s Director of Central Intelligence, having been appointed to the office by President Gerald Ford.

1972: George H.W. Bush is the country’s Ambassador to the United Nations, having been appointed to the office by President Richard Nixon.

1968: George H.W. Bush is a Congressman from Texas.

1964: George H.W. Bush is the Republican nominee for Senate from Texas, losing to incumbent Democrat Ralph Yarborough.

1960: Prescott Bush — George H.W. Bush’s father — is a Senator from Connecticut.

1956: Prescott Bush is re-elected as a Senator from Connecticut.

1952: Prescott Bush is first elected as Senator from Connecticut, winning a special election held at the same time as the presidential race.

1948: Here we are — as near as we can tell — the last time that a member of the Bush family did not currently hold, or run for, a significant national or state office.

(But just to be complete, in 1948 Prescott Bush was a delegate to the Republican national 

Share

Which One Are You?

16 TYPES OF PEOPLE ON FACEBOOK
Here its goes ,Too funny! We all have one of each of these types of friends on our list:

1) The “Lurker” – Never posts anything or comments on your post, but reads everything, and might make reference to your status if they… see you in public.
2) The “Hyena” – Doesn’t ever really say anything, just LOLs and LMAOs at everything…..
3) “Mr/Ms Popular” – Has 4367 ……friends for NO reason
4) The “Gamer” – Plays Words With Friends, Mafia Wars, Bakes virtual cakes and stuff, etc., ALL DAY.)
5)The “Prophet” – Every post makes reference to God or Jesus
6) The “Thief” – Steals status updates.. and will probably steal this one.
7) The “Cynic” – Hates their life, and everything in it, as evidenced by the somber tone in ALL of their status updates.
8) The “Collector” – Never posts anything either, but joins every group and becomes fans of the most random stuff.
9) The “Promoter” – Always sends event invitations to things that you delete or ignore.
10) The “Liker” -Never actually says anything, buy always clicks the “like” button
11) The “Hater” – Every post revolves around someone hating on them, and they swear people are trying to ruin their life
12) The “Anti-Proofreader” – This person would benefit greatly from Spell check, and sometimes you feel bad for them because you don’t know if they were typing fast, or really can’t spell.
13) “Drama Queen/ King” – This person always posts stuff like “I can’t believe this!”, or “They gonna make me snap today!”, in the hopes that you will ask what happened, or what’s wrong…but then they never finish telling the story.
14) “Womp Womp” – This person consistently tries to be funny…but never is.
15) The “News” – Always updates you on what they are doing and who they are doing it with, no matter how arbitrary
16) The “Rooster” – Feels that it is their job to tell Facebook “Good Morning” every day.

Which one are you?

Share

Why I Am Progressive

This Is Why We Are Progressives By 

 

 

Those conservatives say the darnedest things, and unfortunately for the connoisseurs of common sense, they actually believe in much of their outlandishness. So, prepare to go where no grain of reason has dared to go before, as you will now take a trip into the mind of a conservative. Whether it’s a Tea Party conservative, a Republican conservative, a religious conservative, or a social conservative; the differences are minimal, and the boundaries are imaginary, as they have all been cut from the same, self-appointed, ideological cloth of the overall, conservative, belief system that happily and confidently espouses that to vote with or for God is to vote conservative.

 

So to all of the liberals and progressives in the world, hopefully you don’t need me to explain the opposite side of that credence. But just in case there are those who do need my help in explaining it, the opposite of conservative is liberal, and the opposite of God is the guy with a capital D at the beginning of his name. But before progressives and liberals agree to start purchasing their tickets to Hell, they should all take a much closer look at the rationale of these so-called, conservative, afterlife designators.

As many of you may know, there is a local group of conservatives led by a brash woman I call Holly the Holy Roller, who actually believes that the greatest threat against the United States is liberalism, and they have done everything in their power to convince me of that. But after the most recent conservations with this conservative flock, my resolve for the progressive mindset has never been stronger.

First, let’s take on sex education in the public schools and in the media. According to these conservatives, all forms of sex education should be banned from the public school curriculum, especially contraceptives and the existence of homosexuality, which is a core belief shared by the overall conservative brand, which includes people like Bill O’Reilly and his ‘Culture Warriors’ who echo this ideology regularly on Fox News.

So, Holly gets up and addresses a room full of conservatives and a couple of progressives and says: “It’s all that Obama’s fault! This is where Bill Ayers’ influence comes through the strongest. Both of these guys are ethical terrorists, and they are destroying the moral fiber of this country by allowing this Sodom and Gomorrah way of thinking to be resurrected through homosexuality and abortions with the help of the media and the school systems.”

So I asked Holly: “Doesn’t the public have the right to access basic information? Shouldn’t people in general, younger ones in particular, be taught about the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases like the HIV virus, or should we still be foolishly trying to teach this younger, Internet savvy generation that the UPS stork still swoops down and drops babies on our rooftops?” And in a statement very similar to what many conservatives like Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum have routinely said in the past, Holly responds by saying: “Everyone should be taught abstinence, and then the rest of that crap won’t matter. It’s the parent’s responsibility and no one else’s.”

This is why we are progressives, because any modernized ideology that would have Biology taken out of the educational curriculum, just because it explains the pros and cons of sexuality should follow the dinosaurs into extinction. While conservative idiots will make fear mongering claims that Godless liberals are trying to teach kindergarteners about sexual intercourse, there is no legitimate reason why young people in High School, especially 11th and 12th graders should be sent out into an uncensored world with blinders of naivety on. School should be there to help take the blinders off, not reinforce them based on personal beliefs. So the next time you hear someone like Herman Cain, Rush Limbaugh, or Rick Perry talking about gutting the Department of Education, maybe it will concern you just a little more than it probably alreadydoes.

Lastly, let’s take on religion in America. The second part of the Holy Roller’s pow-wow was about putting prayer back in the schools. According to the accepted, conservative belief, the United States is a Christian nation that was founded on the principles of Christianity, which should ultimately give Christianity an exemption from the Separation of Church and State intentions of the Constitution.

So Holly gets up again and says: “Christianity is above man’s law or man’s constitution. There is no real Separation of Church and State. All of that freedom of religion stuff just means that people have the right to be wrong religiously. They can come over here to our country and worship Allah or Buddha all they want, as long as they don’t try to replace Christianity as the dominant, foundational religion of our society and our government.”

This time my response to the conservative banshees seemed to go in their favor as I agreed that religion should be taught in schools, but not in the way that they would assume. My reply was simple, as I said: “Why not teach 11th and 12 graders about religion. After all, the history books are already filled with religious references anyway. So, why not teach young, soon-to-be adults about the pros, the cons, the rare peacefulness, and the many wars of religion—all religions, or at least a handful of them?

Now one might expect the conservatives to agree with me on this, but they did not! They objected by declaring that it’s the parents responsibility to teach their kids about religion, not the school’s responsibility. So then I asked the question that was just begging to be asked, which is: “If it is the parent’s responsibility, then why do you want the responsibility of leading the Lord’s Prayer to be mandated back in the school system, since all of this is the responsibility of the parent and not the school?” There was no response given to that question. They all left the room in silence.

Now there was no victory achieved here, but a better understanding of the conservative mind was unveiled.  When these conservatives demanded that sex education or religion can only be taught by the parents, what they are honestly stating is their brutal intent to define their dictatorship by enslaving their offspring onto the path that they, the parents, have designated as the best path for those offspring, which just happens to also be the best path for the parent’s comfort-zoned expectations. In other words, as long as the schools agreed to encompass Christianity through the Lord’s Prayer, it’s okay for them to do it, but as soon as all religions are included, it becomes the responsibility of the parents.

It’s not that the school system is such a bad institution. The real concern is the availability of and the access to knowledge, because the more knowledge that a person has, the more options and choices there are available to that person. The best way to lead the sleepwalking sheep is to control the ability of the sheep to be awakened to the alarms of choice. This is a dynamic that almost embodies the very definition of conservatism. In fact, one could even hypothesize that the true goal of conservatism is purely to try to limit or contain the number of challengers and challenges that it will face by minimizing choice.

There is a saying that progressives were sending around Facebook that suggested that just because an individual stands in a garage, it doesn’t make that person a mechanic, and just because you can teach someone about football, it doesn’t make that person a quarterback. Exposure does not guarantee membership. If so, we’d all be under the same ideological tent.

This is why we are progressives. We understand this reality, instead of manipulated into living in fear of it like an American ostrich with its head buried in the conservative sand as the Chinese bulls, the Indian bulls, and a host of Middle-Eastern bulls all stand just a few yards back throwing dirt in the air with their heads lowered!

 

Share

Newt’s Last Hurrah!

The Most Important Election Ever       By JULIET LAPIDOS         December 5, 2011.

While campaigning in New York last weekend, Newt Gingrich described the 2012 presidential race as “the most important election since 1860.” He told Tea Party activists gathered in Dallas the same thing in October. Perhaps out of modesty, Mr. Gingrich did not explicitly compare himself to Abraham Lincoln, who won that particular contest. (And a good thing, since he has nothing in common with Lincoln or that era’s Republican party.)

Since Mr. Gingrich is a historian, I wonder what he thinks about the election of 1864, when Lincoln defeated George McClellan. In March of that year, a pro-Lincoln campaigner told the New York Times: “We have had many important elections, but never one so important as that now approaching.” How does 1864 compare to 1860 and 2012 on Mr. Gingrich’s importance meter?

It seems like every presidential race is the most important, or at least the most important since the Civil War, or the most important in a generation, or something like that. In 2004, Tom Kuntz of the New York Times amply demonstrated this fact with a catalog of “most important election” statements.

In 1924, Joseph Levenson, a New York Republican, said he looked upon the coming election between Calvin Coolidge and John Davis “as the most important in the history of this country since the Civil War.” In 1976, President Gerald Ford said his contest with Jimmy Carter was “one of the most vital in the history of America.”

Bush v. Kerry really brought out the hyperbole, not only from politicians including then-Vice President Dick Cheney and Mr. Kerry himself, but also from celebrities. Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam, Al Franken (then a comedian, not a senator), and Bruce Springsteen all claimed 2004 had unusual historical importance. (Mr. Vedder said: “This is the fourth presidential election which Pearl Jam has engaged in as a band, and we feel it’s the most important of our lifetime.”)

The journalist Michael Tomasky of the Guardian must have remembered some of these statements when he wrote, in 2008: “In 2004, many Americans, particularly liberals fearful about a second Bush term, took to calling that election ‘the most important of my lifetime.’ And it was, for a while. Now this one is.”

And now this one is.

Share
A Gentleman’s view.0.918 Return to Top ▲Return to Top ▲ Copy Protected by Tech Tips's CopyProtect Wordpress Blogs.