Someone out there reading this may remember David Frye, who, during the Nixon Administration, made a short-lived but very successful career out of impersonating His Trickyness. On one of his comedy albums (yes, this was back in the days of vinyl), he performed a routine involving a conversation between Nixon and Jerry Rubin, one of the leaders of the so-called Yippie movement, dedicated to tearing down anything that might even be remotely part of the Establishment. In this routine, Frye has Nixon asking Rubin what will he do when he and his fellow Yippies finally destroy everything they don't like. Rubin replies "I dunno, man, maybe we'll all just lie around and groove on the rubble."
Ever since the so-called Gingrich Revolution, I've thought that what passes in America today for modern conservatism is little more than Boomers aging out of the Yippie phase and trying to mimic the lifestyles of the parents they used to rebel against--but still, at the end of the proverbial day, dedicated to grooving on the rubble. As it turns out, unfortunately, someone agrees with me.
I hope we're both wrong. I fear that we're not.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Last Generation?
As I get older--I'm 53, for whatever it's worth--I have spent a lot of time thinking about the proverbial meaning of life. Not my life exclusively, but the value of our individual lives. As a more-or-less classic liberal, I've always believed that, no matter how great or small our individual accomplishments are, they can all have value if they contribute to some degree toward building a better world for future generations--for the human race as a whole, to put it another way. Unfortunately, the more I see people, and Americans in particular, descend into the netherworld of unadulterated self-interest, the less inclined I am to believe that such a future is possible. It surely is not possible without some degree of self-sacrifice, a willingness to put aside at least some degree of convenience for the benefit of others, including others we will never live to meet.
Is life worth living, in such a world? Or should ours be the last generation? Would the world, and perhaps even the universe, be better off without us? This author has pondered the question, and decided with less than complete certainty that the answer is "yes."
I'd like to agree with him. I think I do. But, if I do, it is solely because I am deeply in love with the beauty and wisdom of what we will all lose if we all don't stop contemplating our navels, and start to understand that true self-interest lies not within our lives, but within the lives of others.
Is life worth living, in such a world? Or should ours be the last generation? Would the world, and perhaps even the universe, be better off without us? This author has pondered the question, and decided with less than complete certainty that the answer is "yes."
I'd like to agree with him. I think I do. But, if I do, it is solely because I am deeply in love with the beauty and wisdom of what we will all lose if we all don't stop contemplating our navels, and start to understand that true self-interest lies not within our lives, but within the lives of others.
How Did Reagan Win The Cold War?
Well (as the Gipper himself would say), in the first instance, he didn't. The Cold War didn't end until after he was out of office. And it ended the way liberals like George Kennan foresaw that it would--by giving a corrupt system enough time to collapse in on itself, which is exactly what happened. Conservatives always saw the Cold War in apocalyptic terms. Liberals understood that Soviet-style communism could never reach the point at which the Apocalypse would be forced upon us. They were right; it wasn't.
But this blog always gives the devil his due. To the extent that Reagan could be said to have contributed to the end of the Cold War, he did so primarily by acting like a liberal. He came into office as an ideologue, and left office showing that he had learned a great deal from the people with whom he disagreed.
Who would have thought I'd live long enough to miss Reagan, in that regard? Not to mention Barry Goldwater, another true believer who made peace with the fact that not everything he believed was true. If America needs conservatives at all, it needs conservatives like them--people who cared more about being Americans than they did about being conservatives.
But this blog always gives the devil his due. To the extent that Reagan could be said to have contributed to the end of the Cold War, he did so primarily by acting like a liberal. He came into office as an ideologue, and left office showing that he had learned a great deal from the people with whom he disagreed.
Who would have thought I'd live long enough to miss Reagan, in that regard? Not to mention Barry Goldwater, another true believer who made peace with the fact that not everything he believed was true. If America needs conservatives at all, it needs conservatives like them--people who cared more about being Americans than they did about being conservatives.
How To Create An American Aristocracy
This is how. Quite apart from revenue-raising, the estate tax has two enormous virtues: it stimulates charitable giving, which benefits a wide array of non-profit institutions, and it prevents a family or group of families from acquiring so much economic power that they can achieve a stranglehold on the rest of us, effectively ending democracy.
What do you think the odds are that the tax will be reinstated next year? Even if the "Democrats" in control of Congress are still in control of Congress in 2011, I can't imagine them having the backbone to do it. Not after their sorry track record over the past 17 months. And the Republicans aren't going to do it, especially with the Tea Bags in charge.
Why do we fear Big Government, which we can (theoretically) vote in and out of power every two years, but not Big Money, which needs a depression (a real one, not the near-miss of the past few years) to give the people any chance of fighting back against it. Are we so in love with the idea of individual wealth that we don't mind having it wrapped around our necks? Can't we tell when we're being subjugate by our own dreams?
These aren't rhetorical questions. If you're out there reading, answer them--if not for me, then for those you love, and those you leave behind.
What do you think the odds are that the tax will be reinstated next year? Even if the "Democrats" in control of Congress are still in control of Congress in 2011, I can't imagine them having the backbone to do it. Not after their sorry track record over the past 17 months. And the Republicans aren't going to do it, especially with the Tea Bags in charge.
Why do we fear Big Government, which we can (theoretically) vote in and out of power every two years, but not Big Money, which needs a depression (a real one, not the near-miss of the past few years) to give the people any chance of fighting back against it. Are we so in love with the idea of individual wealth that we don't mind having it wrapped around our necks? Can't we tell when we're being subjugate by our own dreams?
These aren't rhetorical questions. If you're out there reading, answer them--if not for me, then for those you love, and those you leave behind.
Friday, June 11, 2010
What Does Personal Responsibility Have To Do With It?
If you're a Republican, or otherwise a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, absolutely nothing, as this recent column by S.E. Cupp in the New York Daily News proves. In defending GOP Congressman Mark Souder from the charge of hypocrisy for preaching abstinence while practicing adultery, it doesn't seem to occur to her that, in modern politics, the messenger is supposed to be his or her own best message. And, in any event, democracy allows, and even demands, that people expect a single standard of conduct for everyone, especially when it comes to an aspect of life as universal, and as personally challenging, as sex.
This reflects the curse of Ayn Rand on modern conservatism--the belief that there is an "elect" that can do whatever they want, at the expense of everyone else, because their accumulation of wealth allows them to be considered "productive," while everyone who is systematically denied access to that wealth is labeled a "consumer"--or worse, a locust. This believe leads directly not only to Souder's hypocrisy, but also to Cupp's defense of it. Both stem from the same rotten Rand ideology that selfishness is the solution to our problems, rather than being our biggest problem itself.
The "consumers" are the real Atlas. Sadly, in our time and in this nation, they have seemingly forgotten how to shrug. One day, I pray that they will remember.
This reflects the curse of Ayn Rand on modern conservatism--the belief that there is an "elect" that can do whatever they want, at the expense of everyone else, because their accumulation of wealth allows them to be considered "productive," while everyone who is systematically denied access to that wealth is labeled a "consumer"--or worse, a locust. This believe leads directly not only to Souder's hypocrisy, but also to Cupp's defense of it. Both stem from the same rotten Rand ideology that selfishness is the solution to our problems, rather than being our biggest problem itself.
The "consumers" are the real Atlas. Sadly, in our time and in this nation, they have seemingly forgotten how to shrug. One day, I pray that they will remember.
A Lesson For Obama From Mandela, By Way Of Hollywood
Between lawyering and acting, I often don't see movies until months after they've been in multiplexes (I refuse to call them "theatres"). Thankfully, I have a stepson who, in addition to finding jobs at a time when few college graduates are able to do so, buys DVDs on a regular basis. As a result, last weekend, I got around to seeing "Invictus," the Clint Eastwood film that depicts how Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman) used the sport of rugby and the World Cup tournament as a vehicle for bridging the racial and cultural gap in post-apartheid South Africa. The film shows how Mandela's decision to do this, in some sense, was an act of desperation, a manufactured alternative at a time when there really were no others. That it worked as well as it did lies in the fact that sports possesses two qualities that Mandela understood would help build national unity: drama, and teamwork.
As I reflected on this, after the movie ended, I began to realize why so many people are disappointed in Barack Obama, and why the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf has become a kind of catalyst for that sense of disappointment. For all of his rhetorical ability to inspire a crown, Obama seems to instinctively shy away from conflict, from strong emotions, from the kind of focused passion that is often needed for a nation to become greater than the sum of its people's lives. Whether this lies in his upbringing, or in his genes, can and will be a subject for biographers one day. In any event, it explains why he has largely functioned as an in-box-out-box President, checking off issues (the stimulus, health care, financial reform and so on), delegating them to Congress or experts (or both), and then announcing how pleased he is with the results.
But what is missing, in the process, is any kind of effort on his part to show how the results connect with the larger story of our history as a nation, and to show or tell us where he wants to take us. Sadly, most Americans don't relate to politics through their minds, but through their hearts. This is where a sense of drama, and a visible appreciation for teamwork, is invaluable for a President, regardless of his party or his politics. F.D.R. demonstrated both qualities through his fireside chats; George W. Bush (to lesser ultimate effect) did it with a bullhorn amidst the devastation of the September 11 attacks.
What should Obama have done, as soon as the oil started spilling into the Gulf? Get angry? No, get involved. Get everyone involved. Go down to the Gulf, and invite everyone who wanted (and still wants) to help to come down and do whatever they can to help. Let Bobby Jindal and the Army Corps of Engineers build barrier islands. Let Kevin Costner try out his new oil-scrubbing technology. Let Eric Holder and the Justice Department go full-tilt after BP for their criminal negligence. Give the oil-eating microbes a chance to do their stuff. Hell, even invite Sarah Palin down for whatever she can contribute, based on the Exxon Valdez disaster (if nothing else, it would have taken her off the Tea Party trail and put her on the spot for her "drill, baby, drill" rhetoric. And yes, go down to the Senate personally (on national TV would be even better) and tell the World's Greatest Deliberative Body that they're not going anywhere--and neither is the House of Representatives) until they put a climate change bill on his desk that beings to wean us from our addiction to oil.
Drama. And teamwork. It's not too late for Obama to discover it and, for the sake of our nation, I pray that he does. Perhaps this week's start of another World Cup tournament (this time in soccer) can help.
As I reflected on this, after the movie ended, I began to realize why so many people are disappointed in Barack Obama, and why the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf has become a kind of catalyst for that sense of disappointment. For all of his rhetorical ability to inspire a crown, Obama seems to instinctively shy away from conflict, from strong emotions, from the kind of focused passion that is often needed for a nation to become greater than the sum of its people's lives. Whether this lies in his upbringing, or in his genes, can and will be a subject for biographers one day. In any event, it explains why he has largely functioned as an in-box-out-box President, checking off issues (the stimulus, health care, financial reform and so on), delegating them to Congress or experts (or both), and then announcing how pleased he is with the results.
But what is missing, in the process, is any kind of effort on his part to show how the results connect with the larger story of our history as a nation, and to show or tell us where he wants to take us. Sadly, most Americans don't relate to politics through their minds, but through their hearts. This is where a sense of drama, and a visible appreciation for teamwork, is invaluable for a President, regardless of his party or his politics. F.D.R. demonstrated both qualities through his fireside chats; George W. Bush (to lesser ultimate effect) did it with a bullhorn amidst the devastation of the September 11 attacks.
What should Obama have done, as soon as the oil started spilling into the Gulf? Get angry? No, get involved. Get everyone involved. Go down to the Gulf, and invite everyone who wanted (and still wants) to help to come down and do whatever they can to help. Let Bobby Jindal and the Army Corps of Engineers build barrier islands. Let Kevin Costner try out his new oil-scrubbing technology. Let Eric Holder and the Justice Department go full-tilt after BP for their criminal negligence. Give the oil-eating microbes a chance to do their stuff. Hell, even invite Sarah Palin down for whatever she can contribute, based on the Exxon Valdez disaster (if nothing else, it would have taken her off the Tea Party trail and put her on the spot for her "drill, baby, drill" rhetoric. And yes, go down to the Senate personally (on national TV would be even better) and tell the World's Greatest Deliberative Body that they're not going anywhere--and neither is the House of Representatives) until they put a climate change bill on his desk that beings to wean us from our addiction to oil.
Drama. And teamwork. It's not too late for Obama to discover it and, for the sake of our nation, I pray that he does. Perhaps this week's start of another World Cup tournament (this time in soccer) can help.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Still Lying After All These Years
Nate Silver really should know better. For reasons both unknown and incomprehensible to me, he's decided to help Newt Gingrich sell his latest book, by way of an interview published on Silver's generally excellent Web site, fivethirtyeight.com. Not surprisingly, the deservedly former House Speaker rewards this adulation by doing the one thing he absolutely does best: lying.
In this interview, he describes the 1980s and 1990s as a time of uninterrupted economic growth, thanks to Reagan-era tax policies. He conveniently overlooks the fact that there were, during this period, not one but two major recessions that were only reversed when Democrats took the lead and insisted on paying the bills Republicans were running up--by raising taxes.
Even more disingenuous is his arbitrary distinction between Obamacare, which he describes in starkly statist-socialist terms, and Medicare, which he describes as "part of the Bismarckian insurance state because it in fact pays all the money to the private sector." Well, guess what, Newt? So does what you call "Obamacare," which is why a lot of people on the left are unhappy with it. This quote illustrates Gingrich's other gift, relative to his lying: manipulation of words. By describing Medicare as "Bismarckian," he makes it sound like something conservatives supported from its inception, when he knows (or should know) that conservatives initially denounced Medicare with the same rhetoric they're using to denounce health care reform.
Obviously, Gingrich is attempting to re-introduce himself to the public in a way that allows him to lay the foundation for a presidential campaign. This speaks poorly of the potential Republican alternatives, if a politician as thoroughly discredited as Gingrich thinks of himself as having a shot. There are so many examples of the man's lowlife nature that it's difficult to list all of them, and nauseating to even try.
I'll settle for this, for right now. Back in 1994, he had the gall to use the unfortunate murder-suicide of a young South Carolina mother named Susan Smith and her two children to claim that "there's a sickness out there, and the only way to cure that sickness is to vote Republican." Wrong, Newt. The catastrophe in the Gulf, on top of the catastrophes of the Bush-Cheney Administration, on top of the double exercise of fascism known as the Reagan and Gingrich Revolutions, are all the evidence anyone needs of the real sickness afflicting America. It's a sickness that's afflicted this country for thirty years, and it may yet suck this great country down into the oil hole poisoning our waters.
And, as imperfect as it is, there's only one real cure: vote Democratic. On that note, I wish everyone a safe and happy Memorial Day, especially to those in uniform, here and in harm's way.
In this interview, he describes the 1980s and 1990s as a time of uninterrupted economic growth, thanks to Reagan-era tax policies. He conveniently overlooks the fact that there were, during this period, not one but two major recessions that were only reversed when Democrats took the lead and insisted on paying the bills Republicans were running up--by raising taxes.
Even more disingenuous is his arbitrary distinction between Obamacare, which he describes in starkly statist-socialist terms, and Medicare, which he describes as "part of the Bismarckian insurance state because it in fact pays all the money to the private sector." Well, guess what, Newt? So does what you call "Obamacare," which is why a lot of people on the left are unhappy with it. This quote illustrates Gingrich's other gift, relative to his lying: manipulation of words. By describing Medicare as "Bismarckian," he makes it sound like something conservatives supported from its inception, when he knows (or should know) that conservatives initially denounced Medicare with the same rhetoric they're using to denounce health care reform.
Obviously, Gingrich is attempting to re-introduce himself to the public in a way that allows him to lay the foundation for a presidential campaign. This speaks poorly of the potential Republican alternatives, if a politician as thoroughly discredited as Gingrich thinks of himself as having a shot. There are so many examples of the man's lowlife nature that it's difficult to list all of them, and nauseating to even try.
I'll settle for this, for right now. Back in 1994, he had the gall to use the unfortunate murder-suicide of a young South Carolina mother named Susan Smith and her two children to claim that "there's a sickness out there, and the only way to cure that sickness is to vote Republican." Wrong, Newt. The catastrophe in the Gulf, on top of the catastrophes of the Bush-Cheney Administration, on top of the double exercise of fascism known as the Reagan and Gingrich Revolutions, are all the evidence anyone needs of the real sickness afflicting America. It's a sickness that's afflicted this country for thirty years, and it may yet suck this great country down into the oil hole poisoning our waters.
And, as imperfect as it is, there's only one real cure: vote Democratic. On that note, I wish everyone a safe and happy Memorial Day, especially to those in uniform, here and in harm's way.
Can He Afford To Sit Back Any Longer? Can We?
The BP-induced, Louisiana-destroying (and possibly nation-destroying) oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has been dominating the national news for weeks. It will probably continue to do so for months, which is now the time frame being given for getting this environmental monster under control. And, in the middle of all of this, where has Barack Obama been?
He's been to the Gulf. Twice. On what amount to presidential drive-bys. And he still hasn't convinced anyone that he feels their pain, not even among his friends in the media, who seem to think that is all about the need for him to wear his heart on his sleeve.
Frankly, I couldn't disagree more. The media coverage of Obama's response to the Gulf disaster has, like so much in what passes for contemporary American culture, shown a preference for endlessly examining style at the expense of substance. For something a lot closer to the mark, take a look at a recent column by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times. In it, he rebuts the argument that the spill and Obama's response to it is his "Katrina." (If anything, it's an extension of the Katrina-sized lack of oversight the Bush administration gave to its oily friends in the petroleum industry.) Rather, he argues, "It's his 9/11"--that is, an opportunity to seize the moment and redirect ourselves away from a future based on oil.
But, since his inauguration, when has Obama seized the moment? He's been content to let others (particularly Democrats in Congress) drive the debate and, often, do his proverbial dirty work for him, and then step in at the last minute just in time to claim a victory he didn't really win. As Friedman himself says, "Why does everything have to emerge from the House and Senate? What does he want? What is his vision? What are his redlines? I don’t know." Neither do I, Tom. And I'd like to know. And there are about 300 million other Americans (not to mention billions in other countries) who would love to know.
Too often, Obama seems to be content to sit back and wait for some sort of national consensus to emerge on every major issue, so that he can then step in and "bless" it. To me, that makes him seem less like a latter-day FDR, and more like a latter-day Jimmy Carter. I admit to liking Carter more than many people (I voted for him twice), but even I couldn't stand his dithering on issues--especially when it seemed that, for the most part, he was on the right side of them.
Apart from my concern about the spill and its effects on the Gulf and, possibly, our nation, that's what worries me most right now. More and more, I don't think this moment is Obama's Katrina, or his 9/11. I fear that it is his Iranian hostage crisis--and that it may suck down a Presidency, a movement and a great nation with it.
I pray that I'm wrong. But I fear that I'm right. Please, Mr. President, prove me wrong.
He's been to the Gulf. Twice. On what amount to presidential drive-bys. And he still hasn't convinced anyone that he feels their pain, not even among his friends in the media, who seem to think that is all about the need for him to wear his heart on his sleeve.
Frankly, I couldn't disagree more. The media coverage of Obama's response to the Gulf disaster has, like so much in what passes for contemporary American culture, shown a preference for endlessly examining style at the expense of substance. For something a lot closer to the mark, take a look at a recent column by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times. In it, he rebuts the argument that the spill and Obama's response to it is his "Katrina." (If anything, it's an extension of the Katrina-sized lack of oversight the Bush administration gave to its oily friends in the petroleum industry.) Rather, he argues, "It's his 9/11"--that is, an opportunity to seize the moment and redirect ourselves away from a future based on oil.
But, since his inauguration, when has Obama seized the moment? He's been content to let others (particularly Democrats in Congress) drive the debate and, often, do his proverbial dirty work for him, and then step in at the last minute just in time to claim a victory he didn't really win. As Friedman himself says, "Why does everything have to emerge from the House and Senate? What does he want? What is his vision? What are his redlines? I don’t know." Neither do I, Tom. And I'd like to know. And there are about 300 million other Americans (not to mention billions in other countries) who would love to know.
Too often, Obama seems to be content to sit back and wait for some sort of national consensus to emerge on every major issue, so that he can then step in and "bless" it. To me, that makes him seem less like a latter-day FDR, and more like a latter-day Jimmy Carter. I admit to liking Carter more than many people (I voted for him twice), but even I couldn't stand his dithering on issues--especially when it seemed that, for the most part, he was on the right side of them.
Apart from my concern about the spill and its effects on the Gulf and, possibly, our nation, that's what worries me most right now. More and more, I don't think this moment is Obama's Katrina, or his 9/11. I fear that it is his Iranian hostage crisis--and that it may suck down a Presidency, a movement and a great nation with it.
I pray that I'm wrong. But I fear that I'm right. Please, Mr. President, prove me wrong.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
One Example Of Why I Think The Term "Sports Journalism" Is An Oxymoron
I have long been an admirer of New York Daily News baseball writer Bill Madden, regarding him as one of the Big Apple's least parochial sports reporters, as well as one who has written frequently and thoughtfully about the intersection of sports and various social issues. That's why I was shocked to see, in one of his recent columns, an endorsement of MLB Commissioner Bud Selig's refusal to withdraw the 2011 All-Star Game from Arizona, and thereby put pressure on the state to repeal its obnoxious new immigration law. His reasoning? "There are, after all, two sides to this issue, and why should Selig bow to political pressure over a law that 51% of Americans (to 39%) support."
Not to put too fine a point on it, Bill (and Bud), but there are ALWAYS two sides to an issue. Sometimes, there are more than two. The real question is whether MLB and you have the guts to land on the right side of the issue. And who says the popular thing always equates to being the right thing? If Branch Rickey had followed Madden's reasoning, Jackie Robinson would never have played for the Brooklyn Dodgers (and all of us, including the ones who hated Robinson at first, would have been the poorer for it).
Madden spends a lot of time in baseball clubhouses, clubhouses that in our time are filled with immigrants (and not just from Latin America, either). He's covered the sport long enough to first-hand how broken the immigration system is even for people who try to play by the rules; just ask any player who has been late for spring training due to visa problems. He should know better than to spew this kind of idiocy in a paper published in the most nationally and ethnically diverse metropolitan area in the world. I can only wonder how he's being greeted in clubhouses now.
"Sports journalism." If there's a bigger oxymoron in the English language, I don't know what it is.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Bill (and Bud), but there are ALWAYS two sides to an issue. Sometimes, there are more than two. The real question is whether MLB and you have the guts to land on the right side of the issue. And who says the popular thing always equates to being the right thing? If Branch Rickey had followed Madden's reasoning, Jackie Robinson would never have played for the Brooklyn Dodgers (and all of us, including the ones who hated Robinson at first, would have been the poorer for it).
Madden spends a lot of time in baseball clubhouses, clubhouses that in our time are filled with immigrants (and not just from Latin America, either). He's covered the sport long enough to first-hand how broken the immigration system is even for people who try to play by the rules; just ask any player who has been late for spring training due to visa problems. He should know better than to spew this kind of idiocy in a paper published in the most nationally and ethnically diverse metropolitan area in the world. I can only wonder how he's being greeted in clubhouses now.
"Sports journalism." If there's a bigger oxymoron in the English language, I don't know what it is.
The Real Reason Behind The "Pro-Life" Drift
I'm going to begin this post with a bit of a disclaimer: I hate the term "pro-life." I've never considered the opponents of abortion to be "pro-life." Their views of most social programs confirm Barney Frank's savagely funny joke that they view life as beginning at conception, and ending at birth. In fact, I don't think they can even be described as anti-abortion. Taken together, they're an anti-sex movement, one that wants to channel sexual energy for other conservative purposes, such as war or religion. If you remember the Anti-Sex League from George Orwell's "1984," you know exactly what I'm talking about.
That said, I will use the term "pro-life" as a term of communications convenience in this post, in order to discuss this article from Slate.com. The author notes that, according to polling data, more Americans are identifying with the pro-life position on abortion. In particular, young people are beginning to trend in that direction. The conclusion the article draws is that this is happening primarily for political rather than moral reasons--i.e., the presence of a liberal Democrat in the White House serves as fuel for those on the right generally, including pro-life activists.
That may be true for boomers on that side of the fence. For younger pro-lifers, I think it's a little different. The article quotes sources indicating that Gen Y may have had its views on abortion influenced by abstinence programs, or such scientific advances in the prenatal field such as ultrasound imaging. Those phenomenon may have had an influence, but I think something else is at work.
Post-boomer children constitute the first generation in American history that could have, in theory, been legally aborted, in whole or in part, thanks to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. Boomers expected that being born into such a world would make those children grateful for being wanted. Instead, it has made them feel more like lucky survivors. Instead of thinking "Isn't it great? My parents loved me," they may be thinking "Thank God they didn't abort me, and prevent me from living and loving."
Keep in mind: I say that as someone who agrees that the question of an abortion should lie between the prospective mother and her doctor, and no one else. But that is not going to stop post-boomers from having what-if moments. And, if that inclines them more in the pro-life direction, so be it. In the meantime, we should all be working to reduce the need for the raising of the issues, through adoption reform and public education programs that promote birth control (including programs aimed at young audiences).
That's a pro-life position that I'll be happy to take, any day.
That said, I will use the term "pro-life" as a term of communications convenience in this post, in order to discuss this article from Slate.com. The author notes that, according to polling data, more Americans are identifying with the pro-life position on abortion. In particular, young people are beginning to trend in that direction. The conclusion the article draws is that this is happening primarily for political rather than moral reasons--i.e., the presence of a liberal Democrat in the White House serves as fuel for those on the right generally, including pro-life activists.
That may be true for boomers on that side of the fence. For younger pro-lifers, I think it's a little different. The article quotes sources indicating that Gen Y may have had its views on abortion influenced by abstinence programs, or such scientific advances in the prenatal field such as ultrasound imaging. Those phenomenon may have had an influence, but I think something else is at work.
Post-boomer children constitute the first generation in American history that could have, in theory, been legally aborted, in whole or in part, thanks to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. Boomers expected that being born into such a world would make those children grateful for being wanted. Instead, it has made them feel more like lucky survivors. Instead of thinking "Isn't it great? My parents loved me," they may be thinking "Thank God they didn't abort me, and prevent me from living and loving."
Keep in mind: I say that as someone who agrees that the question of an abortion should lie between the prospective mother and her doctor, and no one else. But that is not going to stop post-boomers from having what-if moments. And, if that inclines them more in the pro-life direction, so be it. In the meantime, we should all be working to reduce the need for the raising of the issues, through adoption reform and public education programs that promote birth control (including programs aimed at young audiences).
That's a pro-life position that I'll be happy to take, any day.
And Now, For Something Different (From The World Of Baseball)
Another naked link, more or less. But, again, it speaks for itself. If you're any kind of baseball fan, I defy you not to be moved by this.
It's Time To Stop Pushing The "Hitler" Button
Newt Gingrich is not the first person who has compared a political opponent (in this case, President Obama) to Hitler (or Stalin, for that matter). But it's time to declare a moratorium on this rotten, putrid, pseudo-substitute for meaningful political discourse, once and for all.
Let's boil it down to basics: when President Obama systematically kills 10 million people, including 6 million Jews, you can compare him to Hitler. If he launches a program to accomplish this, you can compare him to Hitler. But to do so in the absence of such a horror, you not only diminish the evil of both Hitler and Stalin, you expose yourself as both a liar and a cheat, a person who manipulates words to distort reality for self-serving purposes (in this case, promoting his latest book and his own Presidential prospects). Gingrich, of course, has made a career out of this: he once went so far as to provide Republican candidates for office with a list of negative adjectives (e.g., "sick," "weird," and so on) that they could use against their opponents. I'm not sure which aspect of this is worse: the fact that Gingrich thought of this as a smart idea, or the the fact that he doubted the ability of his own party's candidates to come up with insults.
Truthfully, I'd be happy to have Gingrich run against Obama. He's an unbelievably juicy target, a gift to the left that just keeps on giving. How would you campaign against him? Where would you start? His messy personal life? His failed Speakership? His hypocritical opposition to "big government," in the face of the fact that he has benefited from public spending his entire life?
No, actually, you start with his willingness to push the Hitler button. The next time he does it, the reporter who is covering him should slam him with questions. And if he or she doesn't, they should be fired. As for Newt, contrary to his vibrant fantasies, the American people aren't going to be hiring him anytime soon.
Let's boil it down to basics: when President Obama systematically kills 10 million people, including 6 million Jews, you can compare him to Hitler. If he launches a program to accomplish this, you can compare him to Hitler. But to do so in the absence of such a horror, you not only diminish the evil of both Hitler and Stalin, you expose yourself as both a liar and a cheat, a person who manipulates words to distort reality for self-serving purposes (in this case, promoting his latest book and his own Presidential prospects). Gingrich, of course, has made a career out of this: he once went so far as to provide Republican candidates for office with a list of negative adjectives (e.g., "sick," "weird," and so on) that they could use against their opponents. I'm not sure which aspect of this is worse: the fact that Gingrich thought of this as a smart idea, or the the fact that he doubted the ability of his own party's candidates to come up with insults.
Truthfully, I'd be happy to have Gingrich run against Obama. He's an unbelievably juicy target, a gift to the left that just keeps on giving. How would you campaign against him? Where would you start? His messy personal life? His failed Speakership? His hypocritical opposition to "big government," in the face of the fact that he has benefited from public spending his entire life?
No, actually, you start with his willingness to push the Hitler button. The next time he does it, the reporter who is covering him should slam him with questions. And if he or she doesn't, they should be fired. As for Newt, contrary to his vibrant fantasies, the American people aren't going to be hiring him anytime soon.
This One REALLY Speaks For Itself
I've been trying to get away from just posting links, without adding some value of my own to them. But I came across this on Truthout.org, and I don't think I can add anything to it. With regard to the difference between the public and private sectors in their respective ability to handle finances, and the ridiculous way in which we tilt the field toward the private sector, this speaks for itself. Read it, and see if you disagree.
And then, for reinforcement, see my earlier post on North Dakota's bank.
And then, for reinforcement, see my earlier post on North Dakota's bank.
It's Only May, But He's Clearly No Mr. October
Or Mr. November, for that matter. What a coward. Less than a week ago, he was chomping at the bit to go to war on behalf of the tea baggers, promising not to "mince words." Instead, after an abbreviated media roll-out, during which time he couldn't figure out whether the Civil Rights Act was a good idea or not, he pulls this stunt.
Maybe the Civil Rights Act isn't the real problem, however. Maybe it's the rank hypocrisy of the tea baggers, who claim to be mad as hell and unwilling to take it anymore. But, when it comes to the thing they go on and on about--big government--they just go on taking and taking it. When they get a load of what Mr. Paul thinks about Social Security and Medicare, they'll do everything they can to keep his libertarian hands off of it.
Maybe the Civil Rights Act isn't the real problem, however. Maybe it's the rank hypocrisy of the tea baggers, who claim to be mad as hell and unwilling to take it anymore. But, when it comes to the thing they go on and on about--big government--they just go on taking and taking it. When they get a load of what Mr. Paul thinks about Social Security and Medicare, they'll do everything they can to keep his libertarian hands off of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)