Saturday, January 18, 2014
Sorry, Conservatives, But Liberal Policies Generate Wealth
After all, the highest concentration of millionaires just happens to be in a very blue state, in which I am proud to reside.
And, Speaking Of The Arts ...
... they can illustrate the growth of democracy where it had never existed previously, as is currently the case with Africa.
Guess What American Industry Is Worth $504 Billion?
The arts, of course. Which is why we should be spending more, not less on it. Including more of our public money. Cutting NEA/NEH budgets is insane at a time like this, when we need all the jobs we can get.
Which Is The Greater Culprit In The West Virginia Water Disaster?
A lack of regulations? Or a lack of leadership with anything resembling character?
The combination of the two surely is lethal. And, if West Virginia voters learn nothing from this at all, and demonstrate that ignorance at the polls this fall, none of us may be drinking the water.
The combination of the two surely is lethal. And, if West Virginia voters learn nothing from this at all, and demonstrate that ignorance at the polls this fall, none of us may be drinking the water.
Just Keep On Saying To Yourself: It's All A Hoax, It's All A Hoax, It's All A Hoax ...
... except, perhaps, if you're playing in the Australian Open.
And Conservatives Don't Understand What It Takes To "Be A Man"
There are many, many things that can and need to be said about the slow-motion collapsing house of cards that is Chris Christie and his unbelievably corrupt (even by New Jersey standards) administration. I'll be saying quite a number of them, as the scandals unfold and right-wingers increasingly desert this sinking ship. For the moment, however, it is enough--more than enough--to reflect on the sheer, unbelievable, unmitigated stupidity of this exchange between Bill O'Reilly and Brit Hume on the subject of Mr. Christie.
It's bad enough that some partisans in the right-wing loony bin have tried to justify Bridgegate as a run-of-the mill example of routine political payback. It isn't routine, of course, to engage in payback by endangering the public in the process, but we'll let that seemingly obvious point pass for now. As stupid as the everybody-does-it argument is in this context, it is eclipsed on every level by the apparent consensus between O'Reilly and Hume that Christie's only real problem is that he is too "masculine and muscular ... [t]oo rough around the edges."
This is sexism at its most absolutely stupid. First, because it denies femininity its own very special brand of toughness (ever given birth to a child, Mr. Reilly and Mr. Hume?). And second, because it defines masculinity solely in terms of a lack of restraint and/or a lack of respect for the rights and needs of others. Apparently, today's conservatives don't understand traditional masculinity any more than they understand traditional conservatism.
"Being a man" has never meant doing whatever it takes to get what you want. It has never meant gratifying every passion in your body. It has never meant coercing anyone into bending to your will. And it has never meant putting vulnerable citizens in harm's way. If anything, it has defined toughness in terms of being able to deal with not always getting what you want, and still living your life in a positive way, cherishing your blessings and confronting your weaknesses. Take sports, for example. At every level of competition, we are always taught to play hard but fairly, to celebrate winning and learn from our losses, and to treat our competitors and colleagues with equal respect. No one has ever accused a male athlete who embraces those principals as somehow "lacking in masculinity." For that matter, take our movies. All of our icons of masculinity, from Gary Cooper to John Wayne to Kevin Costner, have been defined as much by what they were not willing to do as much as by what they did, for themselves and others.
Neither O'Reilly nor Hume can tell the difference between being a man and being a thug. Chris Christie is, without a doubt, the latter, to a degree that might have made even Richard Nixon blush. His politics and his waistline have one thing in common: neither of them is defined by any sense of restraint. And there is only one true lesson to learn from a political career like his: if your ego is big enough, sooner or later you will trip over it. That lesson is true for both men and women, and the distinguishing feature of both real men and real women is that they both heed it.
It's bad enough that some partisans in the right-wing loony bin have tried to justify Bridgegate as a run-of-the mill example of routine political payback. It isn't routine, of course, to engage in payback by endangering the public in the process, but we'll let that seemingly obvious point pass for now. As stupid as the everybody-does-it argument is in this context, it is eclipsed on every level by the apparent consensus between O'Reilly and Hume that Christie's only real problem is that he is too "masculine and muscular ... [t]oo rough around the edges."
This is sexism at its most absolutely stupid. First, because it denies femininity its own very special brand of toughness (ever given birth to a child, Mr. Reilly and Mr. Hume?). And second, because it defines masculinity solely in terms of a lack of restraint and/or a lack of respect for the rights and needs of others. Apparently, today's conservatives don't understand traditional masculinity any more than they understand traditional conservatism.
"Being a man" has never meant doing whatever it takes to get what you want. It has never meant gratifying every passion in your body. It has never meant coercing anyone into bending to your will. And it has never meant putting vulnerable citizens in harm's way. If anything, it has defined toughness in terms of being able to deal with not always getting what you want, and still living your life in a positive way, cherishing your blessings and confronting your weaknesses. Take sports, for example. At every level of competition, we are always taught to play hard but fairly, to celebrate winning and learn from our losses, and to treat our competitors and colleagues with equal respect. No one has ever accused a male athlete who embraces those principals as somehow "lacking in masculinity." For that matter, take our movies. All of our icons of masculinity, from Gary Cooper to John Wayne to Kevin Costner, have been defined as much by what they were not willing to do as much as by what they did, for themselves and others.
Neither O'Reilly nor Hume can tell the difference between being a man and being a thug. Chris Christie is, without a doubt, the latter, to a degree that might have made even Richard Nixon blush. His politics and his waistline have one thing in common: neither of them is defined by any sense of restraint. And there is only one true lesson to learn from a political career like his: if your ego is big enough, sooner or later you will trip over it. That lesson is true for both men and women, and the distinguishing feature of both real men and real women is that they both heed it.
Conservatism Is No Longer About Conserving
This recent article about Bill O'Reilly's purchase and subsequent demolition of a 1940s beachfront property on Long Island led me to a little reflection about conservatism over the past three decades--not so much about how its power has grown, but about how its essence has changed.
Traditional conservatism is defined by its first two syllables--to conserve. It didn't fight change. It argued for making sure that change did not disrupt what worked, and did not damage the ideals and values all of us share. And, if it argued on behalf of the individual, it did not argue for exalting the individual over the society every individual is a part of. In short, it understood that a democratic society is a balancing act and, in that sense, it had something in common with traditional liberalism. Each perspective embraces a different side of the balancing act, but neither denies the need to maintain a balance.
Which leads me to point out the principal deficiency of conservatism in the Reagan and post-Reagan era. It has been defined mainly by its sacrifice of any semblance of balance, and by a Randian embrace of me-first principals across the board, principals that have corroded every area of public policy and has brought America to the brink of a new Gilded Age, where the suffering of many is embraced in all of the centers of power, in order to embrace the fleeting opulence of a power-hungry few. Freedom of religion is defined solely in terms of the interests of one religion. The international balance of power is defined solely in terms of the need to maintain our interests. The economic life of the nation is defined solely by the need to maintain the interests of capital, not labor--so much so that, when the nation faces an economic crisis brought on by the recklessness of capital, it is labor that must sacrifice to bail capital out. And the cultural life of the nation focuses not on celebrating the fruits of creation, but on sacrificing those fruits if they stand in the way of displaying our egos.
And that, in turn, leads me in a roundabout way to condemn what Mr. O'Reilly has done here. He has destroyed a valuable and even historic property solely for the purpose of getting a better view. He could, of course, have simply bought an existing property with that same view and ocean access, but he didn't. He clearly wanted to make a statement that the property is now HIS, and whatever had come before HIM was not going to be preserved for future generations. Never mind its value, its beauty, or the work and materials put into building it. None of these things should be allowed to get in the way of Mr. O'Reilly's celebration of his lack of awareness that none of us truly, ultimately own anything. Property rights are not natural rights, but rights granted by the State with an implicit covenant of good stewardship, both of the Earth's resources and the people around us. The truth is that any demolition should be balanced, and permitted, only in the context of how it relates to that stewardship.
Enjoy your property, and your proposed use of it, Mr. O'Reilly. It proves that you are just another modern conservative with no desire to conserve. And don't forget: the next person who owns it may put back what you destroyed. After all, they may have an ego to celebrate as well--but it may be an ego tempered by the knowledge that none of us are immortal, and all of us have only one planet to share.
Traditional conservatism is defined by its first two syllables--to conserve. It didn't fight change. It argued for making sure that change did not disrupt what worked, and did not damage the ideals and values all of us share. And, if it argued on behalf of the individual, it did not argue for exalting the individual over the society every individual is a part of. In short, it understood that a democratic society is a balancing act and, in that sense, it had something in common with traditional liberalism. Each perspective embraces a different side of the balancing act, but neither denies the need to maintain a balance.
Which leads me to point out the principal deficiency of conservatism in the Reagan and post-Reagan era. It has been defined mainly by its sacrifice of any semblance of balance, and by a Randian embrace of me-first principals across the board, principals that have corroded every area of public policy and has brought America to the brink of a new Gilded Age, where the suffering of many is embraced in all of the centers of power, in order to embrace the fleeting opulence of a power-hungry few. Freedom of religion is defined solely in terms of the interests of one religion. The international balance of power is defined solely in terms of the need to maintain our interests. The economic life of the nation is defined solely by the need to maintain the interests of capital, not labor--so much so that, when the nation faces an economic crisis brought on by the recklessness of capital, it is labor that must sacrifice to bail capital out. And the cultural life of the nation focuses not on celebrating the fruits of creation, but on sacrificing those fruits if they stand in the way of displaying our egos.
And that, in turn, leads me in a roundabout way to condemn what Mr. O'Reilly has done here. He has destroyed a valuable and even historic property solely for the purpose of getting a better view. He could, of course, have simply bought an existing property with that same view and ocean access, but he didn't. He clearly wanted to make a statement that the property is now HIS, and whatever had come before HIM was not going to be preserved for future generations. Never mind its value, its beauty, or the work and materials put into building it. None of these things should be allowed to get in the way of Mr. O'Reilly's celebration of his lack of awareness that none of us truly, ultimately own anything. Property rights are not natural rights, but rights granted by the State with an implicit covenant of good stewardship, both of the Earth's resources and the people around us. The truth is that any demolition should be balanced, and permitted, only in the context of how it relates to that stewardship.
Enjoy your property, and your proposed use of it, Mr. O'Reilly. It proves that you are just another modern conservative with no desire to conserve. And don't forget: the next person who owns it may put back what you destroyed. After all, they may have an ego to celebrate as well--but it may be an ego tempered by the knowledge that none of us are immortal, and all of us have only one planet to share.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
And, On A More Positive Note ...
Could this glass sphere revolutionize solar energy, and unleash its potential exponentially? Let's hope so.
Memo To Ralph Nader
You would never have needed to write to George W. Bush, if only you had found the class and the grace to check your ego at the door in 2000. I will never forgive you for that; in my opinion, it swallowed up a lifetime of good deeds on your part. And you know I'm right--and that I'm not the only progressive who feels that way. Shame on you.
One Less Bigot On The Air
That's all I can feel about the death of Bob Grant, a "legend" only if you believe spreading hatred and fear at the expense of the truth should be considered legendary. Much of the divisive nature of our politics can be traced to people like him, who discovered through radio a successful alternative to working for a living.
It says all you need to know about his career that people tried to sugar-coat his rancid on-air rants by calling him an "entertainer." That's the dodge these people use when the political heat they create gets too intense even for them. Like all bullies throughout history, Grant was a coward who could only find the "courage" of his "convictions" behind a microphone. Let's all hope and pray that more people realize this, and stop listening to his successors, like Sean Hannity and Curtis Sliwa, who are no better (and arguably worse).
It says all you need to know about his career that people tried to sugar-coat his rancid on-air rants by calling him an "entertainer." That's the dodge these people use when the political heat they create gets too intense even for them. Like all bullies throughout history, Grant was a coward who could only find the "courage" of his "convictions" behind a microphone. Let's all hope and pray that more people realize this, and stop listening to his successors, like Sean Hannity and Curtis Sliwa, who are no better (and arguably worse).
Forget About "Global Cooling"
The recent wave of sub-freezing weather has, in the short run, provided climate deniers with a field day for sniping at their betters. One incident annoyed me in particular, Stuart Varney, whose ignorance about business has been amply demonstrated on both CNN and Fox, decided to give us a fuller picture of his ignorance by saying that we should forget about global warming and start worrying about "global cooling."
We'll never have to worry about "global cooling," Mr. Varney, as look as the airwaves are filled with hot-air specialists like you. And as long as the facts point completely in the other direction.
But we'd better start worrying. Right now. And, once again, get out the vote this year.
We'll never have to worry about "global cooling," Mr. Varney, as look as the airwaves are filled with hot-air specialists like you. And as long as the facts point completely in the other direction.
But we'd better start worrying. Right now. And, once again, get out the vote this year.
Will Obamacare Jumpstart The Economy?
I believe it will, because I believe it will succeed in lowering health care costs. And, unlike conservatives, my beliefs (in this regard and others) are based on facts. The facts that can be found in articles like this one.
The more you face the facts, the easier it is to be a liberal. Some of us already have a head start. Let's hope that everyone else can catch up, before it's too late to matter.
The more you face the facts, the easier it is to be a liberal. Some of us already have a head start. Let's hope that everyone else can catch up, before it's too late to matter.
Are "Land Banks" The Key To Rebuilding Desolated Cities?
The City of Brotherly Love, as it turns out, is in the process of finding out. Take a look. Let's hope that it works; it could, as the article points out, be a model for cities elsewhere like Detroit (or Baltimore, for that matter).
And One More Parting Shot From 2013
This item from truthout (truth-out.org) has given me hope that, in at least one country, there will be a true test of whether or not raising taxes on the rich helps or hurts the national economy. Frankly, I would be very surprised if it does not have a huge positive effect on the French economy--and, if that's the case, I would hope (and all of us should hope) that lawmakers in this and other countries follow the French example.
What I appreciate most about this article is the way in which it lays out the 20th-century history of tax cuts and increases on the wealthy, and shows that, in almost every case, tax hikes had the effect of jump-starting the economy, while tax cuts merely created speculation that led to economic disaster--most recently, of course, in 2008. As counter-intuitive as those trends may seem, there's really nothing counter-intuitive about them.
As I have said before (most recently here), tax hikes on the wealthy are quite simply the equivalent of welfare reform for the 1%. This should, frankly, surprise no one. When one segment of society is given far more money, through tax policy and the tax code, than it could ever productively use, and at the expense of everyone else, that money can only go into two places--speculation, and tax shelters. The truthout item points this out; the Reagan-Bush tax cuts amounted to a foreign aid program for countries that feast off of wealth transfers from productive nations. There are, even as I write this, literally trillions of dollars being held hostage overseas, money that could and should be use to build an American future even greater than America's past. Instead, it's simply comforting the cash paranoia of plutocrats for whom no amount of money is enough. And, of course, as truthout points out, the history of speculative bubbles speaks for itself: from the 1929 crash to the S&L scandals of the 1980s to the housing-derivatives "bubble" of this century's first decade.
Why do tax hikes on the rich work? Simply put, they force the well-off to take their excess capital and put it to work in ways that actually make a profit--ways that, in turn, generates hiring, consumption, a forward-thinking orientation and, in short, all of the ingredients for economic growth. Our Puritan history tends to make us believe that wealthy people are inherently virtuous, and do not need the force of public policy to use their money wisely. But wealthy people are no different from poor people, in this regard and others. They will only use money wisely if society makes it clear at every turn that doing so is a requirement, and not an option.
I hope, and I expect, that the changes being made by the French will work, and that they will help other nations, including the U.S., understand that austerity is a warped, brutal mistake of a fiscal policy that increases misery needlessly. Just ask the Irish. We desperately need to get over our Reagan-era fantasies about how taxation works.
Yet another reason, by the way, not to sit at home in 2014.
What I appreciate most about this article is the way in which it lays out the 20th-century history of tax cuts and increases on the wealthy, and shows that, in almost every case, tax hikes had the effect of jump-starting the economy, while tax cuts merely created speculation that led to economic disaster--most recently, of course, in 2008. As counter-intuitive as those trends may seem, there's really nothing counter-intuitive about them.
As I have said before (most recently here), tax hikes on the wealthy are quite simply the equivalent of welfare reform for the 1%. This should, frankly, surprise no one. When one segment of society is given far more money, through tax policy and the tax code, than it could ever productively use, and at the expense of everyone else, that money can only go into two places--speculation, and tax shelters. The truthout item points this out; the Reagan-Bush tax cuts amounted to a foreign aid program for countries that feast off of wealth transfers from productive nations. There are, even as I write this, literally trillions of dollars being held hostage overseas, money that could and should be use to build an American future even greater than America's past. Instead, it's simply comforting the cash paranoia of plutocrats for whom no amount of money is enough. And, of course, as truthout points out, the history of speculative bubbles speaks for itself: from the 1929 crash to the S&L scandals of the 1980s to the housing-derivatives "bubble" of this century's first decade.
Why do tax hikes on the rich work? Simply put, they force the well-off to take their excess capital and put it to work in ways that actually make a profit--ways that, in turn, generates hiring, consumption, a forward-thinking orientation and, in short, all of the ingredients for economic growth. Our Puritan history tends to make us believe that wealthy people are inherently virtuous, and do not need the force of public policy to use their money wisely. But wealthy people are no different from poor people, in this regard and others. They will only use money wisely if society makes it clear at every turn that doing so is a requirement, and not an option.
I hope, and I expect, that the changes being made by the French will work, and that they will help other nations, including the U.S., understand that austerity is a warped, brutal mistake of a fiscal policy that increases misery needlessly. Just ask the Irish. We desperately need to get over our Reagan-era fantasies about how taxation works.
Yet another reason, by the way, not to sit at home in 2014.
It's 2014--LET'S GET BUSY!
A very belated Happy New Year to everyone. I said in my last post that I was taking a pause for the New Year. I didn't intend for it to be quite this long. There's a lot to catch up on, and I'll get there. But first, I want to take a moment (or a post) in an attempt to use 2013 as a springboard into positive action for 2014.
As a general rule, I am not a big fan of end-of-the-year-summation stories. I feel that they predictably veer between commenting on the obvious, and/or reaching for a grandiosity that they never quite achieve, except perhaps in their authors' minds. But this item from Think Progress (thinkprogess.org) caught my eye, and I'm glad it did. It provided a lot of food for thought on my part as we head into an election year that, although one without a presidential race, could be one of the most critical elections in our country's history.
Not surprisingly, Republicans are counting on a combination of low turnout and Obamacare anxiety to propel them into total control of Congress, as well as an expansion of their recent electoral successes at the state level. Regarding Obamacare, I don't think their optimism is warranted, and they are in part to blame for this. They have so overstated the case against the ACA that almost any successful level of implementation will saddle the GOP with an image of foolishness it richly deserves. And I believe there should be no doubt whatsoever that the White House is fully focused on making Obamacare a success--again, a tribute to the fact that the President's opponents have developed an Ahab-like focus on health care reform.
Turnout, however, is another matter. History is on the GOP's side: in off-year elections, especially during a President's second term, voters are more inclined to stay home, especially voters from the President's party. In the case of U.S. Senate races, it does not help that seven seats currently held by Democrats in GOP states are either open seats or find incumbents in close races. Picking up six of those seats would give America a Republican Congress for the first time in eight years, assuming that the House of Representatives doesn't flip in the other direction (and gerrymandering plus low turnout would ensure that it probably won't).
If you're a progressive voter, why should you care? Obama could just spend his last two years pushing new regulations and vetoing bad bills. Maybe. Obama might, unfortunately, decide instead like Bill Clinton to be a "good guy" and sign some of that bad legislation, to validate his earlier-expressed desire to b e a leader who "brings people together." Then again, an all-GOP Congress amped up by six years of blood lust for the President's political head could decide to just be an impeachment Congress, and give us two protracted years of hearings, votes and a Senate trial toward that end.
But, if that doesn't energize you to get out and vote, and get out others to vote, consider the contents of the Think Progress post. And remember, if you don't vote, you are responsible. You are responsible for more pension thefts, for more middle-class suicides, for more outbreaks of preventable and deadly diseases because of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. And you are also responsible for missed opportunities to expand the use of green energy, and to ensure undocumented immigrants of a future in this country.
It doesn't matter that this is an "off-year." It's still a chance to make a positive difference. The President was absolutely correct when he said that we are the change we seek. And there won't be any change at all, if you give the Republicans what they want--an electorate dominated by their voters. 2013 sucked. 2014 doesn't have to. And that's not up to the President. It's up to you.
As a general rule, I am not a big fan of end-of-the-year-summation stories. I feel that they predictably veer between commenting on the obvious, and/or reaching for a grandiosity that they never quite achieve, except perhaps in their authors' minds. But this item from Think Progress (thinkprogess.org) caught my eye, and I'm glad it did. It provided a lot of food for thought on my part as we head into an election year that, although one without a presidential race, could be one of the most critical elections in our country's history.
Not surprisingly, Republicans are counting on a combination of low turnout and Obamacare anxiety to propel them into total control of Congress, as well as an expansion of their recent electoral successes at the state level. Regarding Obamacare, I don't think their optimism is warranted, and they are in part to blame for this. They have so overstated the case against the ACA that almost any successful level of implementation will saddle the GOP with an image of foolishness it richly deserves. And I believe there should be no doubt whatsoever that the White House is fully focused on making Obamacare a success--again, a tribute to the fact that the President's opponents have developed an Ahab-like focus on health care reform.
Turnout, however, is another matter. History is on the GOP's side: in off-year elections, especially during a President's second term, voters are more inclined to stay home, especially voters from the President's party. In the case of U.S. Senate races, it does not help that seven seats currently held by Democrats in GOP states are either open seats or find incumbents in close races. Picking up six of those seats would give America a Republican Congress for the first time in eight years, assuming that the House of Representatives doesn't flip in the other direction (and gerrymandering plus low turnout would ensure that it probably won't).
If you're a progressive voter, why should you care? Obama could just spend his last two years pushing new regulations and vetoing bad bills. Maybe. Obama might, unfortunately, decide instead like Bill Clinton to be a "good guy" and sign some of that bad legislation, to validate his earlier-expressed desire to b e a leader who "brings people together." Then again, an all-GOP Congress amped up by six years of blood lust for the President's political head could decide to just be an impeachment Congress, and give us two protracted years of hearings, votes and a Senate trial toward that end.
But, if that doesn't energize you to get out and vote, and get out others to vote, consider the contents of the Think Progress post. And remember, if you don't vote, you are responsible. You are responsible for more pension thefts, for more middle-class suicides, for more outbreaks of preventable and deadly diseases because of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. And you are also responsible for missed opportunities to expand the use of green energy, and to ensure undocumented immigrants of a future in this country.
It doesn't matter that this is an "off-year." It's still a chance to make a positive difference. The President was absolutely correct when he said that we are the change we seek. And there won't be any change at all, if you give the Republicans what they want--an electorate dominated by their voters. 2013 sucked. 2014 doesn't have to. And that's not up to the President. It's up to you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)