Middle class voters and battered women's syndrome
As an advocate for abused women, I’ve heard the question a thousand times. Rather than asking why some men abuse or why society does not punish such criminals, people will invariably ask, “If women don’t like being abused, why do they stay?”
There are a number of incorrect assumptions in that question. First, it assumes the responsibility for abuse lies not with the abuser, but with the victim. This is obviously not true.
Second, the question assumes that abused women stay. Statistically, they don’t. It may takes months or years for a woman to safely extricate herself from a violent partner, but most women are so resourceful that eventually they do escape.
I understand the rationale for the question. Lately I’ve been wondering the same thing about middle class Republican voters. Year after year, Republican officials fleece the middle class. They regale us with promises of spending cuts, only to demand more pork than all their predecessors. They claim to be socially conservative while engaging in gay restroom hookups and chasing after teenage boys. They start wars they cannot finish and spend money we do not have. Even as they use patriotic language and religion to entice more recruits for their wars, they cut funding for veterans programs and wounded soldiers.
Throughout eight years of Bush, it has been discouraging to think that our children’s children will still be paying for this war. If McCain wins the 2008 election, our children’s children will still be fighting this war!
It is the middle class that bears the burden. Proportionally, ours is the greatest tax burden. Do middle class Republican voters really believe corporate welfare and tax cuts for rich people will “trickle down” to the average Joe? If it were true, Joe should be rich by now. Instead, Americans are poorer in real dollars than we have been in several decades.
The health care crisis also hits the middle class the hardest. The poorest citizens are still eligible for Medicaid, while programs like PeachCare that help the middle class are gutted and insurance companies are deregulated so they can invent more exceptions that fall outside covered expenses. These days it is hard to know which is rising fastest: deductibles, premiums or the cost of medicine.
Georgia Republican officials are no better than those on the national level. While middle class Georgians struggle with widespread fuel shortages, Governor Perdue and Senator Mullis run off to Spain. While Georgia public schools are failing (some so badly they actually lost their accreditation) and Georgia test scores are falling, school superintendent Kathy Cox goes on “Are You Smarter than a Fifth-grader?” to show off her knowledge. Middle class Georgians do not care how smart Kathy Cox is. We care what our own children are learning in the public schools we are funding with our tax dollars.
Like violent marriage partners, Republican politicians keep promising to change. Even though McCain and Palin support the Bush policies 100%, they somehow claim to be the party of change. Stealing Obama’s lines, they tell us to vote for them if we do not want “politics as usual.” Yet they cannot point out a single aspect where their policies will differ from the president who has the worst popularity rating ever.
Like other abusers, Republican politicians use religion and guilt to keep their victims in place. They set up “prayer groups,” non-profit organizations and TV preachers to proclaim that voting Democratic will imperil our souls. These are the same preachers who threaten women with the wrath of God if they divorce their abusers. When faced with a Democratic candidate who is a born-again Christian vs. a man who divorced his wife for his mistress, the abusers simply make up lies. Obama is a Muslim, they say. Since there is absolutely no evidence for this claim, they make him a closet Muslim, and an unpatriotic guy who befriends terrorists, to boot. None of this true, but lying is no big feat for an abuser trying to hold onto his prey.
Just like abusers everywhere, McCain and Palin claim to be mavericks to whom the rules do not apply. They condemn other politicians for pork barrel projects even though Alaska holds the record for per capita ear marks. They condemn lobbyists in politics, even though Sarah Palin was the first mayor to hire a lobbyist to bring pork barrel money to her little town of Wasilla. McCain continues to push for endless war in Iraq, even as American citizens and Iraqi officials call for an end to the occupation. They’re mavericks, all right.
Four more years of Bush-as-usual is not what voters want. In every state, middle class Americans are tired of war. Yet, for the presidential election, the Republican Party has selected the most crazed war hawk in American politics today. Why do they stay?
As with abused women, the question assumes too much. They don’t stay. They won’t stay. Sooner or later, middle class voters will be brave enough to leave the Republican Party behind.
Showing posts with label candidates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label candidates. Show all posts
Monday, October 6, 2008
Thursday, August 7, 2008
The M Word
Modern racists use religious attack to smear blacks
“I haven't voted in over twenty years,” an acquaintance recently confided. “But I went and registered to vote in this election, just so I can vote against Obama.”
“Why is that?” I inquired.
“Because he's a Muslim!”
I was silent for a moment, and then I pointed out the obvious. Everyone knows that Obama belongs to the Church of Christ. If he were a Muslim, the conservative attempt to smear him with the unpatriotic words of Rev. Jeremiah Wright would have fallen flat. In fact the presidential candidate recently renounced his association with Wright's church because of some extremist views and language – extremist Christian views, mind you.
I explained the facts patiently the first time my associate brought up the Muslim argument, but this individual was not swayed by facts. Finally I asked, “When you say 'Muslim,' does that mean black?”
The answer was affirmative. Since that conversation, I've received numerous emails (some spam and some, unfortunately, forwarded from well-meaning friends) claiming that Obama must be defeated because we do not want a Muslim in the White House.
Apparently the n-word, which is too vulgar to voice in polite company, has been replaced with the M-word: Muslim. As a white Christian, I can only imagine how this accusation sounds in the ears of black Christians.
Frankly, the M-word attack on Obama implies that black Christians cannot really be trusted. Since black Muslims do exist, any professing Christian with dark skin might be a secret Muslim! Yet the very idea of a “secret Muslim” is an oxymoron. A person cannot be a secret Muslim anymore than he can be a secret Christian. Both religions require adherents to practice faith openly, not “hide it under a bushel.”
If any of my dear readers find themselves swayed by “Obama is a Muslim” arguments, I invite you to investigate the claims using that quintessential urban legend spotlight, http://www.snopes.com/.
In case you're wondering, Obama was sworn in on the Bible, not the Quran. He attends church, not Mosque. He never attended a Madrassa or Wahabi school in Jakarta, as some news sources even claimed. Investigative reporting by CNN revealed that Obama's early education consisted of public schooling, plus two years of Catholic school.
Obama is no Muslim, closet or otherwise. In fact, he is more open than most politicians about his faith, speaking often of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He walked the aisle at Trinity United Church of Christ sixteen years ago. He knelt at the altar on a Sunday morning. He stood and professed Jesus Christ as his lord and savior.
But the M-word need not be accurate to deal its blow. In fact, it can be used as a sort of code word, the speaker and the hearer sharing a secret camaraderie. After all, not everyone is crass enough to don a t-shirt that says “Obama is my slave” or depicts him as Curious George. Likewise, the n-word is now considered too offensive for all but the most hateful bigots. Substituting the M-word for the n-word allows those racists who consider themselves civilized to engage in a bit of thinly disguised black-bashing while feigning innocence.
The tactic is not new. Racial prejudice has often been disguised as religious objection. Throughout history the targets of racism and genocide have been many – indigenous peoples, Jews, gypsies, etc. In nearly every case, racism is overlaid with religious complaint. Persecution is excused by the claim that the persecuted are heathens, pagans, savages, or cannibals.
Whether the Spanish wanted Mayan treasure or the USA wanted to own and occupy Hawai'i, the tactics were the same – they labeled the people heathens and suddenly it was acceptable to rape, pillage, steal and exterminate.
Hopefully Obama is in no danger of extermination, but the M-word could very well cost him the presidency. That will not hurt him too much. After all, he'll still be a senator, a wealthy author, and the first black American to secure a major party nomination. He has enough money, fame and connections to last a lifetime.
But what about the rest of us? Can we survive four more years of Bushism?
“I haven't voted in over twenty years,” an acquaintance recently confided. “But I went and registered to vote in this election, just so I can vote against Obama.”
“Why is that?” I inquired.
“Because he's a Muslim!”
I was silent for a moment, and then I pointed out the obvious. Everyone knows that Obama belongs to the Church of Christ. If he were a Muslim, the conservative attempt to smear him with the unpatriotic words of Rev. Jeremiah Wright would have fallen flat. In fact the presidential candidate recently renounced his association with Wright's church because of some extremist views and language – extremist Christian views, mind you.
I explained the facts patiently the first time my associate brought up the Muslim argument, but this individual was not swayed by facts. Finally I asked, “When you say 'Muslim,' does that mean black?”
The answer was affirmative. Since that conversation, I've received numerous emails (some spam and some, unfortunately, forwarded from well-meaning friends) claiming that Obama must be defeated because we do not want a Muslim in the White House.
Apparently the n-word, which is too vulgar to voice in polite company, has been replaced with the M-word: Muslim. As a white Christian, I can only imagine how this accusation sounds in the ears of black Christians.
Frankly, the M-word attack on Obama implies that black Christians cannot really be trusted. Since black Muslims do exist, any professing Christian with dark skin might be a secret Muslim! Yet the very idea of a “secret Muslim” is an oxymoron. A person cannot be a secret Muslim anymore than he can be a secret Christian. Both religions require adherents to practice faith openly, not “hide it under a bushel.”
If any of my dear readers find themselves swayed by “Obama is a Muslim” arguments, I invite you to investigate the claims using that quintessential urban legend spotlight, http://www.snopes.com/.
In case you're wondering, Obama was sworn in on the Bible, not the Quran. He attends church, not Mosque. He never attended a Madrassa or Wahabi school in Jakarta, as some news sources even claimed. Investigative reporting by CNN revealed that Obama's early education consisted of public schooling, plus two years of Catholic school.
Obama is no Muslim, closet or otherwise. In fact, he is more open than most politicians about his faith, speaking often of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He walked the aisle at Trinity United Church of Christ sixteen years ago. He knelt at the altar on a Sunday morning. He stood and professed Jesus Christ as his lord and savior.
But the M-word need not be accurate to deal its blow. In fact, it can be used as a sort of code word, the speaker and the hearer sharing a secret camaraderie. After all, not everyone is crass enough to don a t-shirt that says “Obama is my slave” or depicts him as Curious George. Likewise, the n-word is now considered too offensive for all but the most hateful bigots. Substituting the M-word for the n-word allows those racists who consider themselves civilized to engage in a bit of thinly disguised black-bashing while feigning innocence.
The tactic is not new. Racial prejudice has often been disguised as religious objection. Throughout history the targets of racism and genocide have been many – indigenous peoples, Jews, gypsies, etc. In nearly every case, racism is overlaid with religious complaint. Persecution is excused by the claim that the persecuted are heathens, pagans, savages, or cannibals.
Whether the Spanish wanted Mayan treasure or the USA wanted to own and occupy Hawai'i, the tactics were the same – they labeled the people heathens and suddenly it was acceptable to rape, pillage, steal and exterminate.
Hopefully Obama is in no danger of extermination, but the M-word could very well cost him the presidency. That will not hurt him too much. After all, he'll still be a senator, a wealthy author, and the first black American to secure a major party nomination. He has enough money, fame and connections to last a lifetime.
But what about the rest of us? Can we survive four more years of Bushism?
Friday, July 11, 2008
Better late than never
Better late than never:
Impeach Bush and Cheney
Finally, Democrats are moving to impeach the administration of criminals now controlling the Oval Office. For nearly eight years, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have lied to the American people. They have launched a war that is unconstitutional and unjustified. They have imprisoned thousands of people – some of them women and children – without due process, and then proceeded to torture them. They have spied on American households. They have laughed while they trashed the concepts of due process, habeas corpus, privacy, the Geneva Convention, and basic decency. No one has held them accountable for this tyrannical behavior – until now.
When Rep. Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, she became one of the most powerful women in the world. Pelosi has long been critical of the current administration’s “war on terror” and the propaganda that surrounds it. Yet, before she even ascended to her current position, she made it clear that impeaching Bush was not on her agenda. Thus for two years, Democrats have held a majority in Congress and yet have not moved to impeach.
Why did Pelosi think America put Democrats in office? To pat Bush’s back and wink at his crimes?
We can understand the reluctance to impeach. Democrats became quite allergic to the whole process after President Clinton was dragged through impeachment over what should have remained a private affair (pun intended.) Millions of dollars were wasted proving that the man had, indeed, cheated on his wife. Conservatives and progressives alike took umbrage at the President’s dalliance with a White House intern – but few Americans considered his personal failure a crime against the country.
Less than a decade later, Republicans are no longer bothered by adultery. Senator John McCain not only cheated on his wife Carol; when Carol became disabled, he ditched her for a younger model, marrying the blond 25-year-old Cindy within one month of his divorce. Aren’t Republicans, who claim to be the standard-bearers of moral behavior, appalled at McCain’s sexual behavior? On the contrary – they want to make him President of the United States! Adultery is now passé for Republican politicians.
President Clinton was found innocent of the charges leveled against him, yet his impeachment affects Democratic thinking today. Some Democratic leaders apparently forgot that our forefathers established impeachment as an avenue toward justice. Impeachment should not be used as a partisan act of character assassination, as it was in Clinton’s case. But when a president has used the office to thwart the Constitution and commit war crimes, then impeachment is not only justified; it is absolutely necessary.
Thank you, Rep. Kucinich, for having the courage to stand up for justice. At this late stage in Bush’s second term, some are tempted to just let things ride. Some would even say it is “too late” for impeachment.
In a democratic republic, it is never too late to hold our leaders accountable for senseless killing. It is never too late to hold an elected official accountable for propagating 935 documented lies in order to invade another nation. It is never too late to proclaim that America is about freedom, not imperialism. It is never too late for justice.
Read the actual articles of impeachment here.
Impeach Bush and Cheney
Finally, Democrats are moving to impeach the administration of criminals now controlling the Oval Office. For nearly eight years, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have lied to the American people. They have launched a war that is unconstitutional and unjustified. They have imprisoned thousands of people – some of them women and children – without due process, and then proceeded to torture them. They have spied on American households. They have laughed while they trashed the concepts of due process, habeas corpus, privacy, the Geneva Convention, and basic decency. No one has held them accountable for this tyrannical behavior – until now.
When Rep. Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, she became one of the most powerful women in the world. Pelosi has long been critical of the current administration’s “war on terror” and the propaganda that surrounds it. Yet, before she even ascended to her current position, she made it clear that impeaching Bush was not on her agenda. Thus for two years, Democrats have held a majority in Congress and yet have not moved to impeach.
Why did Pelosi think America put Democrats in office? To pat Bush’s back and wink at his crimes?
We can understand the reluctance to impeach. Democrats became quite allergic to the whole process after President Clinton was dragged through impeachment over what should have remained a private affair (pun intended.) Millions of dollars were wasted proving that the man had, indeed, cheated on his wife. Conservatives and progressives alike took umbrage at the President’s dalliance with a White House intern – but few Americans considered his personal failure a crime against the country.
Less than a decade later, Republicans are no longer bothered by adultery. Senator John McCain not only cheated on his wife Carol; when Carol became disabled, he ditched her for a younger model, marrying the blond 25-year-old Cindy within one month of his divorce. Aren’t Republicans, who claim to be the standard-bearers of moral behavior, appalled at McCain’s sexual behavior? On the contrary – they want to make him President of the United States! Adultery is now passé for Republican politicians.
President Clinton was found innocent of the charges leveled against him, yet his impeachment affects Democratic thinking today. Some Democratic leaders apparently forgot that our forefathers established impeachment as an avenue toward justice. Impeachment should not be used as a partisan act of character assassination, as it was in Clinton’s case. But when a president has used the office to thwart the Constitution and commit war crimes, then impeachment is not only justified; it is absolutely necessary.
Thank you, Rep. Kucinich, for having the courage to stand up for justice. At this late stage in Bush’s second term, some are tempted to just let things ride. Some would even say it is “too late” for impeachment.
In a democratic republic, it is never too late to hold our leaders accountable for senseless killing. It is never too late to hold an elected official accountable for propagating 935 documented lies in order to invade another nation. It is never too late to proclaim that America is about freedom, not imperialism. It is never too late for justice.
Read the actual articles of impeachment here.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Let them run
The past few weeks have been very interesting for runners of all kinds. An athlete who could not run was carried. An athlete who can run was finally told he could. And in politics, Hillary Clinton was barraged with yet more calls to stop running.
Over 200,000 viewers enjoyed the YouTube video of Western Oregon University athlete Sara Tucholsky’s first home run. In a game against Central Washington University, Tucholsky hit the ball over the fence. At first base, she tore a ligament in her knee. When the umpire mistakenly ruled that one of her own team members could not run the bases for her, two Central Washington players picked her up and carried her around the bases. All over the blogosphere, Mallory Holtman and Liz Wallace are heralded as heroes for the selfless act that cost them the game but won them a place in our hearts -- and an entry on Wikipedia.
In other sports victories, double amputee Oscar Pistorius won the right to compete for a spot in the Olympics. Pistorius was born without fibulas (the long thin bones that run from knee to ankle.) Surgeons amputated both his legs below the knee when he was eleven months old. Running on special carbon-fiber blades, Pistorius holds the 400-meter Paralympic word record at 46.56 seconds.
Pistorius is not quite there yet; the qualifying requirement for the 400-meter event in Beijing is 45.55 seconds. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) had barred Pistorius from all able-bodied competition including the Olympics, considering his carbon-fiber running blades a “mechanical advantage” over other runners. Their fear was not that he would fail, but that he might succeed.
If Pistorius makes the cut, he will not be the first Paralympian to qualify for the Olympics. Natalie du Toit, a swimmer from South Africa, qualified for the 2008 Olympics on May 3rd. Du Toit was already competing internationally when she lost her left leg in a motorcycle accident. Du Toit swims without a prosthetic, so fairness was never questioned. A poem on her wall states, “It is not a disgrace not to reach for the stars, But it is a disgrace not to have stars to reach for.”
Like Du Toit, Hillary Clinton is a person who is not easily contented by merely having stars out there. Both women are driven to win. In either case, a win represents far more than a personal victory. Clinton is hardly disabled in the political arena – indeed, America would be hard-pressed to come up with any candidate who is sharper, more well-known, or more qualified to lead our country than Hillary Clinton. Yet, in the political arena, merely being female is still a gigantic perception liability, almost like an athlete competing without a limb.
Throughout Clinton’s campaign, this column has recorded and analyzed a steady stream of media misogyny used to smear the senator and former first lady. While much of the onslaught is presented as humor, it is notable that comic references to Clinton’s sex are invariably negative, and frequently downright hateful.
Since Obama first became a serious challenger, pundits have called for Clinton to drop out of the race. As Clinton’s campaign noted, the drop out cries followed Clinton’s victories, not Obama’s. Clinton had become like the runner on carbon-fiber blades, and much of society wanted to deny her the right to even be a contender – not because she could not win, but because she just might.
Obama now commands a strong lead, but a Clinton nomination is still mathematically possible. Why should the Democratic nomination be ended prematurely? Some Democrats want to end it so the Democratic Party can unify against John McCain. Yet polls show that Clinton is a stronger candidate against McCain. Democrats may shoot themselves in the foot by trying to silence their best candidate.
Quitting now would not only mean giving up the nomination. It would also represent an enormous loss to women everywhere. What woman has not been pressured with these same tactics to “just go home?” Month after month, women continue to hear that they cannot “have it all” (i.e. family and career), even as the majority of American women continue to do just that. We are inundated with magazine articles, Internet essays and news items telling us that women are “opting out” and just going home in large numbers. The facts prove otherwise, but it does not stop the media from feeding the guilt complex carried by working mothers and discouraging us with claims that we cannot succeed.
Being female is still a disadvantage in many fields. Where women have made inroads, they still do not receive the same wages and honors accorded to men. The more education and training a woman has, the less likely she is to earn as much as her peers. The wage gap between male and female physicians, for example, is much greater than the wage gap between male and female cashiers.
Oddly, many feminists are among those calling for Hillary to pull out of the race. The Democratic contest has opened a generational divide between older and younger feminists. Younger feminists are apt to say that the gender of the candidate is completely immaterial, so long as he or she supports feminism.
Older feminists recognize a troubling historical parallel. In the 1800’s, the feminist movement was strong and suffragettes were closer than ever to their goal of votes for women. Many suffragettes were also abolitionists, and were willing to temporarily lay aside the cause of votes for women in order to fight slavery. After the Civil War, the feminist movement spent a great deal of energy and resources fighting for the rights of black men, including the right to vote. As a result, black men received the right to vote fifty years before women.
At a campaign stop in Kentucky, Hillary Clinton responds to those who urge her to quit. “You don’t stop democracy in its tracks. You don’t tell some states that they can’t vote and other states that have already had the opportunity that they’re somehow more important. I want everybody to vote and everybody to help pick our next president.”
So run for all you’re worth. Run in your dark pantsuit. Run on your carbon-fiber blades. Run till the wind in your ears drowns out the incessant whining of those who tell you to go home. They’re only afraid that somehow, against the odds, you just might win.
Over 200,000 viewers enjoyed the YouTube video of Western Oregon University athlete Sara Tucholsky’s first home run. In a game against Central Washington University, Tucholsky hit the ball over the fence. At first base, she tore a ligament in her knee. When the umpire mistakenly ruled that one of her own team members could not run the bases for her, two Central Washington players picked her up and carried her around the bases. All over the blogosphere, Mallory Holtman and Liz Wallace are heralded as heroes for the selfless act that cost them the game but won them a place in our hearts -- and an entry on Wikipedia.
In other sports victories, double amputee Oscar Pistorius won the right to compete for a spot in the Olympics. Pistorius was born without fibulas (the long thin bones that run from knee to ankle.) Surgeons amputated both his legs below the knee when he was eleven months old. Running on special carbon-fiber blades, Pistorius holds the 400-meter Paralympic word record at 46.56 seconds.
Pistorius is not quite there yet; the qualifying requirement for the 400-meter event in Beijing is 45.55 seconds. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) had barred Pistorius from all able-bodied competition including the Olympics, considering his carbon-fiber running blades a “mechanical advantage” over other runners. Their fear was not that he would fail, but that he might succeed.
If Pistorius makes the cut, he will not be the first Paralympian to qualify for the Olympics. Natalie du Toit, a swimmer from South Africa, qualified for the 2008 Olympics on May 3rd. Du Toit was already competing internationally when she lost her left leg in a motorcycle accident. Du Toit swims without a prosthetic, so fairness was never questioned. A poem on her wall states, “It is not a disgrace not to reach for the stars, But it is a disgrace not to have stars to reach for.”
Like Du Toit, Hillary Clinton is a person who is not easily contented by merely having stars out there. Both women are driven to win. In either case, a win represents far more than a personal victory. Clinton is hardly disabled in the political arena – indeed, America would be hard-pressed to come up with any candidate who is sharper, more well-known, or more qualified to lead our country than Hillary Clinton. Yet, in the political arena, merely being female is still a gigantic perception liability, almost like an athlete competing without a limb.
Throughout Clinton’s campaign, this column has recorded and analyzed a steady stream of media misogyny used to smear the senator and former first lady. While much of the onslaught is presented as humor, it is notable that comic references to Clinton’s sex are invariably negative, and frequently downright hateful.
Since Obama first became a serious challenger, pundits have called for Clinton to drop out of the race. As Clinton’s campaign noted, the drop out cries followed Clinton’s victories, not Obama’s. Clinton had become like the runner on carbon-fiber blades, and much of society wanted to deny her the right to even be a contender – not because she could not win, but because she just might.
Obama now commands a strong lead, but a Clinton nomination is still mathematically possible. Why should the Democratic nomination be ended prematurely? Some Democrats want to end it so the Democratic Party can unify against John McCain. Yet polls show that Clinton is a stronger candidate against McCain. Democrats may shoot themselves in the foot by trying to silence their best candidate.
Quitting now would not only mean giving up the nomination. It would also represent an enormous loss to women everywhere. What woman has not been pressured with these same tactics to “just go home?” Month after month, women continue to hear that they cannot “have it all” (i.e. family and career), even as the majority of American women continue to do just that. We are inundated with magazine articles, Internet essays and news items telling us that women are “opting out” and just going home in large numbers. The facts prove otherwise, but it does not stop the media from feeding the guilt complex carried by working mothers and discouraging us with claims that we cannot succeed.
Being female is still a disadvantage in many fields. Where women have made inroads, they still do not receive the same wages and honors accorded to men. The more education and training a woman has, the less likely she is to earn as much as her peers. The wage gap between male and female physicians, for example, is much greater than the wage gap between male and female cashiers.
Oddly, many feminists are among those calling for Hillary to pull out of the race. The Democratic contest has opened a generational divide between older and younger feminists. Younger feminists are apt to say that the gender of the candidate is completely immaterial, so long as he or she supports feminism.
Older feminists recognize a troubling historical parallel. In the 1800’s, the feminist movement was strong and suffragettes were closer than ever to their goal of votes for women. Many suffragettes were also abolitionists, and were willing to temporarily lay aside the cause of votes for women in order to fight slavery. After the Civil War, the feminist movement spent a great deal of energy and resources fighting for the rights of black men, including the right to vote. As a result, black men received the right to vote fifty years before women.
At a campaign stop in Kentucky, Hillary Clinton responds to those who urge her to quit. “You don’t stop democracy in its tracks. You don’t tell some states that they can’t vote and other states that have already had the opportunity that they’re somehow more important. I want everybody to vote and everybody to help pick our next president.”
So run for all you’re worth. Run in your dark pantsuit. Run on your carbon-fiber blades. Run till the wind in your ears drowns out the incessant whining of those who tell you to go home. They’re only afraid that somehow, against the odds, you just might win.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
What the issues are (and aren't)
As campaign season heats up to a rolling boil, voters are bombarded on every side by campaign slogans and media chatter. Everybody wants to tell you how to vote. Some people complain when I am transparent about my advice (“Vote Democratic!”), yet they are oblivious to the subtle pressure emanating from newscasters, preachers, and the guy in the next cubical at work.
Subtle campaign pressure uses tactics that have nothing to do with the real issues. Consider a bumper sticker shaped like a girl’s head with a big hair bow, and the words, “Do we really want a blonde for president?” Of course, such a sticker actually means, “Do we really want a woman for president?” – with an implied no. A man’s hair color (or lack of hair) is hardly fodder for comment. In fact, I wanted to list off a few blond presidents from the past, but presidential hair color is such a non-issue that my research turned up nothing.
Obviously, hair color is not a real election issue. Neither are other fashion statements, such as the wearing of a flag pin (or not). Beyond the trivial non-issues, there lies an entire field of pseudo-issues. These issues seem so compelling that special-interest groups use them to cultivate entire blocks of single-issue voters. Yet, these issues are as empty as hair color and jewelry when it comes to presidential selection.
Consider abortion. Certain candidates are identified as “pro-life” while others are identified as “pro-choice.” Church-goers, in particular, are bombarded with the message that they are not good Christians unless they vote Republican, because Republicans are supposedly “pro-life.”
These labels are nothing but campaign rhetoric. No serious presidential contender wants abortion to be criminalized. Huckabee liked the idea, but he could not even get the endorsement of Pat Robertson. Robertson, widely viewed as a pillar of the Christian right, instead backed “pro-choice” candidate Rudy Giuliani. Robertson’s choice (no pun intended) demonstrates that abortion never was an important issue to the religious right. They just used it to control voters.
Both parties intend to keep abortion legal. The only difference is that the Democrats are honest about it.
Republican officials call themselves “pro-life” and croon about creating “a culture of life,” while they not only keep it legal, but also pass legislation that increases the demand for abortion by impoverishing our nation and cutting programs that enabled poor families to afford another child. If you look at the statistics for various countries, the abortion rate is determined primarily by socioeconomic factors, not legal issues. Then there is the utter hypocrisy of a “pro-life” president presiding over so much killing overseas.
The other big pseudo-issue is gay marriage. Far right extremists would have us believe that gays are out to destroy traditional marriage. A look at divorce statistics suggests that heterosexuals are dismantling it pretty rapidly without any help.
There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican plans concerning gay marriage. Both Parties recognize the issue as a big, sticky mess and they tiptoe around it hoping history will do the work of settling the question.
Voters must not be distracted by these hot-button issues that have no substance behind them. Somehow we have to turn off the chatter, the moralizing and the guilt-laden messages, and instead pay attention to the real issues.
The real issues are those that matter to Americans every day. The issue that most directly impacts all Americans is the economy. We are also intensely interested in resolving the health care crisis and the wars abroad.
Fiscal responsibility is paramount. We need a president who understands how money works. Republicans repeat the mantra of “lower taxes,” but fail to acknowledge that without decreasing spending, tax cuts only increase our national debt. They say the right things (decrease the tax burden, reduce spending, common sense fiscal policy) but they do all the wrong things. Their tax cuts provide no relief for those of us who learn less than $200,000 a year, particularly when you take the tanking economy, wage stagnation, fuel prices and medical inflation into account. They spend our money as if it were burning a hole in their pocket, even while they cut funding for education and other middle class programs.
If the Democrats win in November, they will plug the leaks in the national pocketbook. One of those leaks is the no-bid contract. Under the Bush administration, no-bid contracts more than doubled in number, with spending increasing 121 percent to $103 billion from 2000 to 2006. No-bid contracts represented over half of federal procurement spending. Is it any surprise that companies like Halliburton enjoyed record profits during this time? It’s time to end no-bid contracts. Let legitimate businesses compete for government contracts. Let capitalism work.
Democrats will also end the Iraq war and bring our troops home. Lives will be saved, and dollars, too. It is disingenuous for McCain to promise lower taxes while he admits he will continue the occupation of Iraq for 100 years or more. Wars must be funded. The debts we are racking up today will eventually come calling. Taxes will be raised, if not for this generation then certainly for the next, to fund the war in Iraq.
But will the Democrats raise our taxes? Republican Party leaders keep saying so, but that does not make it true. Clinton’s plan involves a tax cut for the middle class. Only taxpayers earning more than $250,000 per year will experience any increase.
Obama’s tax plan is similar, providing relief for lower and middle class taxpayers and senior citizens. The tax cuts are offset by closing loopholes used by the wealthy and increasing the dividends and capital gains rate for the top tax bracket.
We have to stay focused on these issues. The TV media is not helping us do that. When George Stephanapoulos and Charles Gibson moderated the ABC debate in Philadelphia, we learned more about the moderators than we learned about Obama and Clinton. We learned that the moderators think the presidential election is just a grown-up form of American Idol, where the judges (that’s voters) will select a president based on popularity, performance and style.
It is time voters set aside the marketing glitz, the non-issues, and the pseudo-issues that occupy the national dialogue. Let’s look at the real issues and elect the person who will address them in ways that boost our economy, restore our international standing and strengthen ordinary Americans.
Subtle campaign pressure uses tactics that have nothing to do with the real issues. Consider a bumper sticker shaped like a girl’s head with a big hair bow, and the words, “Do we really want a blonde for president?” Of course, such a sticker actually means, “Do we really want a woman for president?” – with an implied no. A man’s hair color (or lack of hair) is hardly fodder for comment. In fact, I wanted to list off a few blond presidents from the past, but presidential hair color is such a non-issue that my research turned up nothing.
Obviously, hair color is not a real election issue. Neither are other fashion statements, such as the wearing of a flag pin (or not). Beyond the trivial non-issues, there lies an entire field of pseudo-issues. These issues seem so compelling that special-interest groups use them to cultivate entire blocks of single-issue voters. Yet, these issues are as empty as hair color and jewelry when it comes to presidential selection.
Consider abortion. Certain candidates are identified as “pro-life” while others are identified as “pro-choice.” Church-goers, in particular, are bombarded with the message that they are not good Christians unless they vote Republican, because Republicans are supposedly “pro-life.”
These labels are nothing but campaign rhetoric. No serious presidential contender wants abortion to be criminalized. Huckabee liked the idea, but he could not even get the endorsement of Pat Robertson. Robertson, widely viewed as a pillar of the Christian right, instead backed “pro-choice” candidate Rudy Giuliani. Robertson’s choice (no pun intended) demonstrates that abortion never was an important issue to the religious right. They just used it to control voters.
Both parties intend to keep abortion legal. The only difference is that the Democrats are honest about it.
Republican officials call themselves “pro-life” and croon about creating “a culture of life,” while they not only keep it legal, but also pass legislation that increases the demand for abortion by impoverishing our nation and cutting programs that enabled poor families to afford another child. If you look at the statistics for various countries, the abortion rate is determined primarily by socioeconomic factors, not legal issues. Then there is the utter hypocrisy of a “pro-life” president presiding over so much killing overseas.
The other big pseudo-issue is gay marriage. Far right extremists would have us believe that gays are out to destroy traditional marriage. A look at divorce statistics suggests that heterosexuals are dismantling it pretty rapidly without any help.
There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican plans concerning gay marriage. Both Parties recognize the issue as a big, sticky mess and they tiptoe around it hoping history will do the work of settling the question.
Voters must not be distracted by these hot-button issues that have no substance behind them. Somehow we have to turn off the chatter, the moralizing and the guilt-laden messages, and instead pay attention to the real issues.
The real issues are those that matter to Americans every day. The issue that most directly impacts all Americans is the economy. We are also intensely interested in resolving the health care crisis and the wars abroad.
Fiscal responsibility is paramount. We need a president who understands how money works. Republicans repeat the mantra of “lower taxes,” but fail to acknowledge that without decreasing spending, tax cuts only increase our national debt. They say the right things (decrease the tax burden, reduce spending, common sense fiscal policy) but they do all the wrong things. Their tax cuts provide no relief for those of us who learn less than $200,000 a year, particularly when you take the tanking economy, wage stagnation, fuel prices and medical inflation into account. They spend our money as if it were burning a hole in their pocket, even while they cut funding for education and other middle class programs.
If the Democrats win in November, they will plug the leaks in the national pocketbook. One of those leaks is the no-bid contract. Under the Bush administration, no-bid contracts more than doubled in number, with spending increasing 121 percent to $103 billion from 2000 to 2006. No-bid contracts represented over half of federal procurement spending. Is it any surprise that companies like Halliburton enjoyed record profits during this time? It’s time to end no-bid contracts. Let legitimate businesses compete for government contracts. Let capitalism work.
Democrats will also end the Iraq war and bring our troops home. Lives will be saved, and dollars, too. It is disingenuous for McCain to promise lower taxes while he admits he will continue the occupation of Iraq for 100 years or more. Wars must be funded. The debts we are racking up today will eventually come calling. Taxes will be raised, if not for this generation then certainly for the next, to fund the war in Iraq.
But will the Democrats raise our taxes? Republican Party leaders keep saying so, but that does not make it true. Clinton’s plan involves a tax cut for the middle class. Only taxpayers earning more than $250,000 per year will experience any increase.
Obama’s tax plan is similar, providing relief for lower and middle class taxpayers and senior citizens. The tax cuts are offset by closing loopholes used by the wealthy and increasing the dividends and capital gains rate for the top tax bracket.
We have to stay focused on these issues. The TV media is not helping us do that. When George Stephanapoulos and Charles Gibson moderated the ABC debate in Philadelphia, we learned more about the moderators than we learned about Obama and Clinton. We learned that the moderators think the presidential election is just a grown-up form of American Idol, where the judges (that’s voters) will select a president based on popularity, performance and style.
It is time voters set aside the marketing glitz, the non-issues, and the pseudo-issues that occupy the national dialogue. Let’s look at the real issues and elect the person who will address them in ways that boost our economy, restore our international standing and strengthen ordinary Americans.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The truth about universal healthcare
Republican Party spokespersons big and small are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to combat the positive message of the Democratic Party. Over the next few months, you will hear them call good evil and evil good in order to trick America into four more years of Bush-style fear-mongering, war-mongering and recession.
Healthcare may be the issue that shipwrecks their good-is-evil message. For years, Republicans told us that “universal healthcare” was a dangerous, wicked Democratic plan that must be opposed. They said if everyone had healthcare, there would be no healthcare at all! Back when most voters had adequate healthcare coverage, we swallowed the lies. We believed that if healthcare were extended to the masses, it would no longer be as good for us.
Times have changed. Many of us are finding ourselves under-insured, with huge deductibles to meet before our policy ever kicks in. Many more are uninsured altogether, either because we cannot afford the employee portion of the premium, or because our company can no longer afford to offer health insurance. Will people with little or no healthcare really buy the “universal healthcare is evil” mantra?
Michael Moore’s documentary “Sicko” really brought the issue to the forefront of the American conscience. It is not that Americans did not know about the crisis. Many of us have experienced it first hand. What the movie and the buzz about it revealed is that the healthcare crisis is widespread. We are not alone in our struggles.
In fact, one survey found that 30% of respondents had delayed seeing a doctor about a known and potentially serious medical condition, because of inability to pay. Medical inflation is currently twice as high as the standard rate of inflation, meaning this problem will not resolve itself. Workers are paying more but getting less, with premiums rising four times faster than wages.
Let’s consider it from another angle. Every American child has the right to an education, whether or not her parents can afford private school. There are schools on every corner – private schools, public schools, and kitchen-table home schools. To be sure, the public education system has flaws. (So do private schools and home schools, but nobody talks about that.) Despite the flaws, we can still say this: Any American child can walk through the doors of the public school house and receive an education.
Unfortunately, I know some people who would like to see public education abolished. As you can imagine, they are people who can easily afford to educate their children privately, and they do not appreciate having to foot the bill for other people’s children.
In the dreams of the selfish, their little Richie would never have to compete with the smart but poor kid down the road. Only the wealthy would be able to educate their children. As for the rest of Americans, well, they just need to be trained for manual labor and subordinate positions to little Richie.
Most of us would be appalled at such thinking. We have been raised to believe that a basic education is every child’s birth-rite. Aren’t health and life more important than education? If every child has the right to be taught to read, then does not every child have the right to receive treatment for a life-threatening condition like asthma?
Universal healthcare simply means healthcare for all. Private healthcare plans will not be eradicated any more than private schools have been eradicated. Those who are happy with their current healthcare can keep it.
Health care is at least as important as public education, public libraries, public transportation and other services that we make available to all citizens. It is time for the United States to step into the twenty-first century and provide healthcare for all Americans. To help us do that, vote Democratic!
Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.JeannieBabbTaylor.com
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Soaring fuel prices force trucks off the road
Relief may come in November
Everybody knows that fuel prices are sky-high. These increases inflate the price of every single product that we purchase. Other than locally-grown vegetables, every consumable that comes into our homes has ridden on an eighteen-wheeler at least once, and often more than once. Diesel has now topped $4.00 a gallon, inflating the price of everything from the produce aisle to the dairy section.
What if consumers are paying more than their fair share of the additional fuel costs? What if the brokers who schedule trucks are up-charging the shippers, then pocketing the additional funds and requiring truckers to fund the difference? What if truckers cannot take it anymore?
On April 1st, 250 trucks crawled up I-75 from Macon to Atlanta at 20 mph. The cause of the congestion was not road construction or a traffic accident, and it certainly was not an April Fool’s joke. The owner/operators were staging a public protest against high fuel prices and tight-lipped brokers who refuse to tell truckers what they’re charging shippers for fuel.
Most of us consider the high fuel prices an unfortunate side-effect of the Iraq war, or just a part of life. We continue filling our gas tanks and driving to the places we need to go. With a helpless shrug, we assume that nothing can be done.
Diesel is cheaper to produce than gasoline. Yet diesel now sells for about 70 cents per gallon more than gasoline. Only in the United States is diesel higher than gasoline. This contradiction is very telling. From a conservation point of view, it is disastrous. The disparate fuel prices reward frivolous oil use while punishing necessary industrial oil use. Part of the price difference is the 25-cent higher federal fuel tax, but most of it is simply excessive profit saddled onto a captive customer.
Truckers are a captive customer because they have no options. They cannot choose to drive fewer miles to make up for fuel inflation. They cannot select a lower, cheaper grade like gasoline users can. They cannot carpool or use public transportation instead of filling their fuel tanks. Any drop in consumption means a pay cut.
Their livelihood is tied directly to the fluctuations of oil prices. In a free market economy, you would think that increases or savings would simply be passed along to the customer. According to the truckers, it does not happen that way.
Independent owner/operators rely on brokers who link trucks with loads. The brokers charge the shippers a fuel surcharge, which is rolled into the product price along with other freight costs. However, many brokers refuse to disclose their fuel surcharge to the truckers. Although they charge the shipper more money to cover diesel price increases, only a portion of that fuel surcharge is passed along to the actual truck driver who must purchase the fuel.
Since April 1, the truckers have been protesting the surcharge rip-off in a variety of ways. The slow parade from Macon to Atlanta is just one of hundreds of protests taking place all over the United States. Other truckers have parked their trucks, declaring that they will not carry another load until the government listens to their concerns and enacts legislation to protect them.
Alfred Teeters is an owner-operator based out of Chickamauga, Georgia. Teeters says he and his wife, who have been trucking for twenty years, have written numerous emails to US Rep. Jay Neal (R-GA), US Rep Nathan Deal (R-GA), and State Senator Jeff Mullis (R-Chickamauga.) Teeters says none of the three politicians even bothered to reply.
Independent truckers say the fuel prices and broker practices are driving them out of business. Truckers are losing their rigs. Some are losing their homes as well.
Meanwhile, the shortage of trucks on the road increases freight costs and constricts business, hurting all Americans.
How will the protest rectify this situation? The truckers hope that they can get the attention of the public, who will then apply pressure to governors, lawmakers and the President.
What exactly are the truckers demanding? The laundry list looks something like this:
Suspension of all federal and state fuel taxes until the economy recovers.
Creation of a federal oversight committee to regulate insurance premiums on Class 8 truck insurance.
Prohibition of self insurance for large trucking fleets, in order to level the playing field for smaller companies.
Federal regulations for brokers and shippers, properly enforced, with set maximums.
Standardized safety violation fines from coast to coast.
No major trucking companies are backing the protest. The Teamsters union and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association deny organizing the protest. The association is legally prohibited from calling for a strike, because it is listed as a trade association.
Oil company executives say they sympathize with consumers regarding the high fuel price, but that they are not to blame. They claim their profits are in line with other industries. Oil profits hit another all-time high last year, totaling about $123 billion.
How long must we tolerate an economic structure that leaves us at the mercy of the oil barons? The answer may be “Only until November.” Democratic presidential candidates have unveiled detailed plans to reduce American’s dependence on foreign oil, provide stimulus for the alternative energy industry, and put bring Iraq’s oil industry back online. Hillary Clinton also wants to curtail the excessive oil profits, redirecting some of that money to fund energy research and create more jobs.
Of course, there are some voters who just do not mind paying such exorbitant prices for gasoline. They don’t care if truck drivers must pay $1,600 a week for diesel to keep their trucks on the road. They don’t mind paying $5.00 or $6.00 a gallon for milk. Those voters may try to put McCain in office.
A vote for McCain is a vote for the oil barons. A vote for McCain is a vote to escalate war in the Middle East, expanding the fighting from Afghanistan and Iraq to Iran and other areas for “a hundred years.” A vote for McCain is a vote to continue the manufactured oil shortage. A vote for McCain is a vote to put more and more truckers out of business. A vote for McCain is a vote to strangle the American economy.
Everybody knows that fuel prices are sky-high. These increases inflate the price of every single product that we purchase. Other than locally-grown vegetables, every consumable that comes into our homes has ridden on an eighteen-wheeler at least once, and often more than once. Diesel has now topped $4.00 a gallon, inflating the price of everything from the produce aisle to the dairy section.
What if consumers are paying more than their fair share of the additional fuel costs? What if the brokers who schedule trucks are up-charging the shippers, then pocketing the additional funds and requiring truckers to fund the difference? What if truckers cannot take it anymore?
On April 1st, 250 trucks crawled up I-75 from Macon to Atlanta at 20 mph. The cause of the congestion was not road construction or a traffic accident, and it certainly was not an April Fool’s joke. The owner/operators were staging a public protest against high fuel prices and tight-lipped brokers who refuse to tell truckers what they’re charging shippers for fuel.
Most of us consider the high fuel prices an unfortunate side-effect of the Iraq war, or just a part of life. We continue filling our gas tanks and driving to the places we need to go. With a helpless shrug, we assume that nothing can be done.
Diesel is cheaper to produce than gasoline. Yet diesel now sells for about 70 cents per gallon more than gasoline. Only in the United States is diesel higher than gasoline. This contradiction is very telling. From a conservation point of view, it is disastrous. The disparate fuel prices reward frivolous oil use while punishing necessary industrial oil use. Part of the price difference is the 25-cent higher federal fuel tax, but most of it is simply excessive profit saddled onto a captive customer.
Truckers are a captive customer because they have no options. They cannot choose to drive fewer miles to make up for fuel inflation. They cannot select a lower, cheaper grade like gasoline users can. They cannot carpool or use public transportation instead of filling their fuel tanks. Any drop in consumption means a pay cut.
Their livelihood is tied directly to the fluctuations of oil prices. In a free market economy, you would think that increases or savings would simply be passed along to the customer. According to the truckers, it does not happen that way.
Independent owner/operators rely on brokers who link trucks with loads. The brokers charge the shippers a fuel surcharge, which is rolled into the product price along with other freight costs. However, many brokers refuse to disclose their fuel surcharge to the truckers. Although they charge the shipper more money to cover diesel price increases, only a portion of that fuel surcharge is passed along to the actual truck driver who must purchase the fuel.
Since April 1, the truckers have been protesting the surcharge rip-off in a variety of ways. The slow parade from Macon to Atlanta is just one of hundreds of protests taking place all over the United States. Other truckers have parked their trucks, declaring that they will not carry another load until the government listens to their concerns and enacts legislation to protect them.
Alfred Teeters is an owner-operator based out of Chickamauga, Georgia. Teeters says he and his wife, who have been trucking for twenty years, have written numerous emails to US Rep. Jay Neal (R-GA), US Rep Nathan Deal (R-GA), and State Senator Jeff Mullis (R-Chickamauga.) Teeters says none of the three politicians even bothered to reply.
Independent truckers say the fuel prices and broker practices are driving them out of business. Truckers are losing their rigs. Some are losing their homes as well.
Meanwhile, the shortage of trucks on the road increases freight costs and constricts business, hurting all Americans.
How will the protest rectify this situation? The truckers hope that they can get the attention of the public, who will then apply pressure to governors, lawmakers and the President.
What exactly are the truckers demanding? The laundry list looks something like this:
Suspension of all federal and state fuel taxes until the economy recovers.
Creation of a federal oversight committee to regulate insurance premiums on Class 8 truck insurance.
Prohibition of self insurance for large trucking fleets, in order to level the playing field for smaller companies.
Federal regulations for brokers and shippers, properly enforced, with set maximums.
Standardized safety violation fines from coast to coast.
No major trucking companies are backing the protest. The Teamsters union and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association deny organizing the protest. The association is legally prohibited from calling for a strike, because it is listed as a trade association.
Oil company executives say they sympathize with consumers regarding the high fuel price, but that they are not to blame. They claim their profits are in line with other industries. Oil profits hit another all-time high last year, totaling about $123 billion.
How long must we tolerate an economic structure that leaves us at the mercy of the oil barons? The answer may be “Only until November.” Democratic presidential candidates have unveiled detailed plans to reduce American’s dependence on foreign oil, provide stimulus for the alternative energy industry, and put bring Iraq’s oil industry back online. Hillary Clinton also wants to curtail the excessive oil profits, redirecting some of that money to fund energy research and create more jobs.
Of course, there are some voters who just do not mind paying such exorbitant prices for gasoline. They don’t care if truck drivers must pay $1,600 a week for diesel to keep their trucks on the road. They don’t mind paying $5.00 or $6.00 a gallon for milk. Those voters may try to put McCain in office.
A vote for McCain is a vote for the oil barons. A vote for McCain is a vote to escalate war in the Middle East, expanding the fighting from Afghanistan and Iraq to Iran and other areas for “a hundred years.” A vote for McCain is a vote to continue the manufactured oil shortage. A vote for McCain is a vote to put more and more truckers out of business. A vote for McCain is a vote to strangle the American economy.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Setting the record straight
Evaluating election rumors
With a flimsy platform and no strong candidate, Republicans are hoping to win the November election on whisper campaigns and character assassination. Let’s check out some of their claims.
No, Hillary Clinton did not defend the Black Panthers who killed and tortured Alex Rackley. Hillary Clinton was a student at that time, not an attorney or a politician. She attended the trial as a volunteer observer for the ACLU, but had no impact on the outcome. Like many students, she was concerned about whether the black defendants were receiving a fair trial, and she participated in protests calling for a change of venue.
No, people who oppose the Clintons do not meet an untimely demise. The “Clinton Body Count” is so preposterous that no reasonable person could entertain the idea. For a body-by-body debunking, see http://www.snopes.com/. The shorter version is: If Hillary Clinton had a 50-person hit list, wouldn’t the Republicans be all over that? She would certainly be sitting in jail for connections to even one murder.
No, Secret Service agents did not claim Hillary Clinton was rude and arrogant, mistreating her agents and even charging them rent. As early as 1993 Time Magazine reported a known political trick in which spurious Clinton stories were “leaked” to the press. Often these stories were attributed to anonymous Secret Service agents as a way to lend credibility to the false claim. As for rent, the Clintons are entitled to receive $1,100 per month for housing Secret Service agents in their Chappaqua, NY home – but they turned down the money.
No, Obama does not refuse to pledge the flag and yes, he has flags on his website. Obama has been videotaped pledging the flag. His website is red, white and blue (mostly blue.) The background centers on an eagle holding a shield and flag. His logo, shown multiple times on every page, is an interpretation of the American flag and the theme of hope (the sun rising over a field) all framed as a big O.
No, Obama does not attend a covertly Muslim church that excludes whites. Obama is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC). The membership of TUCC is predominantly black, and the church places great emphasis on honoring African heritage and promoting the idea that “black is beautiful.” However, all people are welcome at the church, which adheres to the theology of the United Church of Christ.
No, Obama did not take the oath of office by swearing on the Koran. That would be a strange thing for a Christian to do. Obama was sworn in on the Bible.
No, John Edwards did not cause the 2004 flu vaccine shortage. The urban legend states that John Edwards sued a pharmaceutical company on behalf of a man who contracted the flu after receiving the vaccine. Supposedly the threat of further litigation ensures that no pharmaceutical company in the Unite States will dare to make the flu vaccine. The legend claims that the 2004 flu vaccine shortage resulted from contamination of a flu vaccine facility in the UK. This one is false all the way around. John Edwards never litigated a flu case. Anyway, the flu vaccine is manufactured in the United States. It was a US facility that was shut down due to contamination, resulting in the shortage. The real reason few pharmaceutical companies produce flu vaccine is because the profit margin for flu vaccine is very slim.
What about the Republican candidates? Is there a whisper campaign against them? Every email I have received has been against a Democrat. Even searching for GOP candidate names along with “urban legend,” I came up with very few stories, all of which are substantiated by reputable media outlets.
Yes, Senator McCain supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. In 2006 and 2007, McCain joined with Ted Kennedy in supporting Senate bills that would give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. He also denounced and voted against an amendment designed to stop illegal immigrants from receiving social security benefits through identity fraud. McCain co-sponsored the Dream Act, which provided in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants. Later he said he would have voted against his own legislation – but in fact he was absent when the vote was taken.
Yes, McCain is being swift-boated. There really is a group called Vietnam Veterans against John McCain. They claim that Senator McCain committed treason and does not deserve his medals because he gave the enemy information while he was being tortured as a POW. According to McCain’s own account, he did give the enemy information – some true and some false. For example, when asked to name the members of his squadron, he listed the names of the Green Bay Packers offensive line. McCain is a war hero as far as I am concerned, but it is true that this group exists and that they insist otherwise.
Yes, Mitt Romney transported his dog in a cage strapped to the top of the car during a 12-hour journey to visit his parents. The 1983 misadventure was reported in the Boston Globe last June. Romney clarified that he attempted to shield the dog with some sort of makeshift windshield. The scared pooch developed diarrhea, so Romney stopped at a gas station and hosed down the dog, the carrier, and the back of the car. Romney’s campaign-trail response to pet-loving critics: “They’re not happy that my dog loves fresh air.”
Speaking of dogs, Snopes confirms that Mike Huckabee’s son was fired from his job as a Boy Scout Camp counselor after he killed a dog by hanging. John Bailey, then director of Arkansas state police, claims Huckabee refused to allow police to investigate whether the boy violated animal cruelty laws. Huckabee says that Bailey is just a disgruntled employee. Huckabee says the dog was mangy, emaciated, and threatening, and that his son acted out of compassion.
Yes, Huckabee had a prominent role in the release of a serial rapist in Arkansas. Worse, the decision to release Wayne Dumond 25 years early appears to be politically motivated. Dumond was convicted and incarcerated while Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. One of the victims, a seventeen-year-old high school cheerleader named Ashley Stevens, was distantly related to Clinton. Republicans seized on the connection to claim that the man had been wrongfully convicted.
Soon after election, Governor Huckabee began to agitate for Wayne Dumond’s release. In his book, “From Hope to Higher Ground,” Huckabee states that he worried Dumond might be innocent. He was callous enough to say this to Ashley Stevens when she begged him to keep Dumond behind bars. According to the Huffington Post, Huckabee’s office kept the visit secret, as well as letters from numerous victims warning that Dumond would strike again. They were right. Dumond then raped and then suffocated a 39-year-old woman. He was arrested again, the day after he allegedly raped and murdered a pregnant woman. Huckabee’s response amounts to “Who knew?” Other times he has blamed Clinton for Dumond’s release, pretending the commutation happened before his term.
In an election of this import, voters must make the effort to find out the truth. Don’t go into the voting precinct next Tuesday with a head full of lies. Cut through the urban legends – and even the campaign rhetoric – to consider a candidate’s true stance on the issues. Past voting records are the best clue.
We can believe that Democrats will institute nationwide healthcare coverage – and that Republicans consider it unnecessary. We can believe that Huckabee will be soft on crime and add to his 1,000+ pardons. We cannot believe McCain on immigration or Romney on abortion, because their positions are shifting and do not match their voting patterns. We can believe the Republicans when they say they will extend the war in the Middle East for 100 years or more. We can believe Democrats when they say they will end the war and bring troops home.
With a flimsy platform and no strong candidate, Republicans are hoping to win the November election on whisper campaigns and character assassination. Let’s check out some of their claims.
No, Hillary Clinton did not defend the Black Panthers who killed and tortured Alex Rackley. Hillary Clinton was a student at that time, not an attorney or a politician. She attended the trial as a volunteer observer for the ACLU, but had no impact on the outcome. Like many students, she was concerned about whether the black defendants were receiving a fair trial, and she participated in protests calling for a change of venue.
No, people who oppose the Clintons do not meet an untimely demise. The “Clinton Body Count” is so preposterous that no reasonable person could entertain the idea. For a body-by-body debunking, see http://www.snopes.com/. The shorter version is: If Hillary Clinton had a 50-person hit list, wouldn’t the Republicans be all over that? She would certainly be sitting in jail for connections to even one murder.
No, Secret Service agents did not claim Hillary Clinton was rude and arrogant, mistreating her agents and even charging them rent. As early as 1993 Time Magazine reported a known political trick in which spurious Clinton stories were “leaked” to the press. Often these stories were attributed to anonymous Secret Service agents as a way to lend credibility to the false claim. As for rent, the Clintons are entitled to receive $1,100 per month for housing Secret Service agents in their Chappaqua, NY home – but they turned down the money.
No, Obama does not refuse to pledge the flag and yes, he has flags on his website. Obama has been videotaped pledging the flag. His website is red, white and blue (mostly blue.) The background centers on an eagle holding a shield and flag. His logo, shown multiple times on every page, is an interpretation of the American flag and the theme of hope (the sun rising over a field) all framed as a big O.
No, Obama does not attend a covertly Muslim church that excludes whites. Obama is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC). The membership of TUCC is predominantly black, and the church places great emphasis on honoring African heritage and promoting the idea that “black is beautiful.” However, all people are welcome at the church, which adheres to the theology of the United Church of Christ.
No, Obama did not take the oath of office by swearing on the Koran. That would be a strange thing for a Christian to do. Obama was sworn in on the Bible.
No, John Edwards did not cause the 2004 flu vaccine shortage. The urban legend states that John Edwards sued a pharmaceutical company on behalf of a man who contracted the flu after receiving the vaccine. Supposedly the threat of further litigation ensures that no pharmaceutical company in the Unite States will dare to make the flu vaccine. The legend claims that the 2004 flu vaccine shortage resulted from contamination of a flu vaccine facility in the UK. This one is false all the way around. John Edwards never litigated a flu case. Anyway, the flu vaccine is manufactured in the United States. It was a US facility that was shut down due to contamination, resulting in the shortage. The real reason few pharmaceutical companies produce flu vaccine is because the profit margin for flu vaccine is very slim.
What about the Republican candidates? Is there a whisper campaign against them? Every email I have received has been against a Democrat. Even searching for GOP candidate names along with “urban legend,” I came up with very few stories, all of which are substantiated by reputable media outlets.
Yes, Senator McCain supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. In 2006 and 2007, McCain joined with Ted Kennedy in supporting Senate bills that would give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. He also denounced and voted against an amendment designed to stop illegal immigrants from receiving social security benefits through identity fraud. McCain co-sponsored the Dream Act, which provided in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants. Later he said he would have voted against his own legislation – but in fact he was absent when the vote was taken.
Yes, McCain is being swift-boated. There really is a group called Vietnam Veterans against John McCain. They claim that Senator McCain committed treason and does not deserve his medals because he gave the enemy information while he was being tortured as a POW. According to McCain’s own account, he did give the enemy information – some true and some false. For example, when asked to name the members of his squadron, he listed the names of the Green Bay Packers offensive line. McCain is a war hero as far as I am concerned, but it is true that this group exists and that they insist otherwise.
Yes, Mitt Romney transported his dog in a cage strapped to the top of the car during a 12-hour journey to visit his parents. The 1983 misadventure was reported in the Boston Globe last June. Romney clarified that he attempted to shield the dog with some sort of makeshift windshield. The scared pooch developed diarrhea, so Romney stopped at a gas station and hosed down the dog, the carrier, and the back of the car. Romney’s campaign-trail response to pet-loving critics: “They’re not happy that my dog loves fresh air.”
Speaking of dogs, Snopes confirms that Mike Huckabee’s son was fired from his job as a Boy Scout Camp counselor after he killed a dog by hanging. John Bailey, then director of Arkansas state police, claims Huckabee refused to allow police to investigate whether the boy violated animal cruelty laws. Huckabee says that Bailey is just a disgruntled employee. Huckabee says the dog was mangy, emaciated, and threatening, and that his son acted out of compassion.
Yes, Huckabee had a prominent role in the release of a serial rapist in Arkansas. Worse, the decision to release Wayne Dumond 25 years early appears to be politically motivated. Dumond was convicted and incarcerated while Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. One of the victims, a seventeen-year-old high school cheerleader named Ashley Stevens, was distantly related to Clinton. Republicans seized on the connection to claim that the man had been wrongfully convicted.
Soon after election, Governor Huckabee began to agitate for Wayne Dumond’s release. In his book, “From Hope to Higher Ground,” Huckabee states that he worried Dumond might be innocent. He was callous enough to say this to Ashley Stevens when she begged him to keep Dumond behind bars. According to the Huffington Post, Huckabee’s office kept the visit secret, as well as letters from numerous victims warning that Dumond would strike again. They were right. Dumond then raped and then suffocated a 39-year-old woman. He was arrested again, the day after he allegedly raped and murdered a pregnant woman. Huckabee’s response amounts to “Who knew?” Other times he has blamed Clinton for Dumond’s release, pretending the commutation happened before his term.
In an election of this import, voters must make the effort to find out the truth. Don’t go into the voting precinct next Tuesday with a head full of lies. Cut through the urban legends – and even the campaign rhetoric – to consider a candidate’s true stance on the issues. Past voting records are the best clue.
We can believe that Democrats will institute nationwide healthcare coverage – and that Republicans consider it unnecessary. We can believe that Huckabee will be soft on crime and add to his 1,000+ pardons. We cannot believe McCain on immigration or Romney on abortion, because their positions are shifting and do not match their voting patterns. We can believe the Republicans when they say they will extend the war in the Middle East for 100 years or more. We can believe Democrats when they say they will end the war and bring troops home.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Who’s crying in their coffee now?
Media attempt to manipulate the election fails – this time
Just before the New Hampshire primary, the media was abuzz with the claim that Hillary Clinton was coming unraveled. Multiple sources claimed she had been crying. One columnist called it a “weepfest” while others speculated that it may be a calculated attempt to “cry her way to the White House.”
Most pundits said she was finished. AP writers even claimed to have inside information that she was planning a pull-out. Every story implied she was crying over her loss in Iowa and impending loss in New Hampshire.
Being the curious sort, I went to You-Tube for the video clip. She was not even talking about Iowa or New Hampshire. She did express herself passionately. At one point her voice, hoarse from campaigning, quavered a bit.
But there was not a single tear shed. How does one have a “weepfest” without tears? Yet this moment of perceived weakness was recounted and embellished in the media as they gloated over Clinton’s supposed political burial.
As the New Hampshire primary votes were counted, it was interesting to watch the news reports roll into Yahoo News and CNN. As Clinton took the lead, the AP article was updated to state that Clinton and Obama were “dueling for New Hampshire” -- yet it continued to claim she was considering dropping out. As her lead grew, reporters kept claiming the race was neck-and-neck.
When the New Hampshire primary was over, CNN put it like this: “Clinton wins back women, narrowly takes New Hampshire.” Actually, Clinton earned a higher percentage of votes in New Hampshire than Obama earned in Iowa.
Seems to me the pundits and reporters were intent on taking the woman candidate down. They presented to the world a caricature of Hillary Clinton crying in her coffee while her campaign team whispered about withdrawal. They believed, like all good Republicans, that if you repeat a story over and over, it becomes true. They hoped that voters would not cast their ballot for a “loser.”
When Clinton won New Hampshire, the pundits could not say “We were wrong.” They certainly would not admit “We misled the public.” So they had to say, “Wow, look what we did! We made all those silly women voters feel so sorry for Hillary Clinton that they actually voted for her!”
I have some news for the news people: Your projections were wrong. Hillary Clinton was always popular in New Hampshire. The primary voters did not cast a sympathy vote. They cast their votes based on a concept called issues.
In fact, exit polls showed that the greatest Clinton voting gap was not between men and women. It was between women with jobs and women without jobs. Women who are currently looking for work voted for Senator Clinton in faith that she can turn the economy around and strengthen the job market.
Although female voters were significant, Clinton was also favored among certain other groups, including college-educated voters of both sexes and voters over forty.
Hillary Clinton is well-respected among party Democrats. Democrats are well aware of Senator Clinton’s work. We know better than to believe the biased media that paints her as super-liberal or overly divisive. Clinton has a history of reaching across the aisle and getting things done. She is a known quantity. She’s a safe bet. In states where primary voting is limited to the parties, a strong Clinton showing is expected.
Radio preachers and Republicans always lament “the liberal media.” I’d like to know where this so-called liberal media can be found? You can’t tune the radio without coming across a horde of ranting, slobbering right-wing extremists, yet it is nearly impossible to find a left-leaning speaker.
Television and the air waves are owned, dominated, and narrated by conservatives. They falsely divide Democratic voters into groups, claiming “Obama will win the black vote” and “Hillary will win the woman vote.” Neither blacks nor women vote as a block – and if they did, it would create a real problem. Over half of black voters happen to be women. A fair number of female voters happen to be black.
The American media is not liberal. What we have is a sexist media that will prognosticate endlessly about Hillary Clinton’s hair, cleavage, laughter, voice, tears, clothes – anything that can be used to remotely suggest that women are something ‘other.’
Commentators make sexist remarks without impunity. Imus was publicly reprimanded for making racist comments toward female athletes, but what if those players had been white? Chattanooga radio personalities make sexist comments about female athletes, lamenting that they cannot watch sexy, half-clad models on the court rather than muscular women who know how to handle a ball. Few listeners complain, so long as race is not mentioned.
You would never hear the pundits discuss how well Obama meets their stereotypical perceptions of bi-racial men -- Not the same way Clinton’s femininity has been picked apart. That’s not to say that racism is not a major barrier in American life and politics, but at least it has been consigned to the whisper campaign. Woman-hating is still a public and accepted American pastime. Unfortunately, the media is no exception.
Media Matters has launched a campaign against MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews for his sexist remarks toward Clinton. His comments include referrals to Clinton as a "she devil," an “uppity woman” and a "strip-teaser." He called male Clinton supporters "castratos in the eunuch chorus." Other times he has called Senator Clinton "Madame Defarge,” a Charles Dickens character who spent her time knitting a register of people she wanted dead. On four occasions Matthews has depicted Clinton as a woman who wants to smother a baby in a crib – the baby, of course, being Senator Obama.
Chris Matthews and Rush Limbaugh both refer to Senator Clinton as "Nurse Ratched." Nurse Ratched is the sadistic woman who terrorizes mental patients in “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest.”
Intelligent voters make their choice based on the issues that are important to them, not media caricatures. I, for one, will vote my conscience.
copyright Jeannie Babb Taylor
http://www.jeanniebabbtaylor.com/
Just before the New Hampshire primary, the media was abuzz with the claim that Hillary Clinton was coming unraveled. Multiple sources claimed she had been crying. One columnist called it a “weepfest” while others speculated that it may be a calculated attempt to “cry her way to the White House.”
Most pundits said she was finished. AP writers even claimed to have inside information that she was planning a pull-out. Every story implied she was crying over her loss in Iowa and impending loss in New Hampshire.
Being the curious sort, I went to You-Tube for the video clip. She was not even talking about Iowa or New Hampshire. She did express herself passionately. At one point her voice, hoarse from campaigning, quavered a bit.
But there was not a single tear shed. How does one have a “weepfest” without tears? Yet this moment of perceived weakness was recounted and embellished in the media as they gloated over Clinton’s supposed political burial.
As the New Hampshire primary votes were counted, it was interesting to watch the news reports roll into Yahoo News and CNN. As Clinton took the lead, the AP article was updated to state that Clinton and Obama were “dueling for New Hampshire” -- yet it continued to claim she was considering dropping out. As her lead grew, reporters kept claiming the race was neck-and-neck.
When the New Hampshire primary was over, CNN put it like this: “Clinton wins back women, narrowly takes New Hampshire.” Actually, Clinton earned a higher percentage of votes in New Hampshire than Obama earned in Iowa.
Seems to me the pundits and reporters were intent on taking the woman candidate down. They presented to the world a caricature of Hillary Clinton crying in her coffee while her campaign team whispered about withdrawal. They believed, like all good Republicans, that if you repeat a story over and over, it becomes true. They hoped that voters would not cast their ballot for a “loser.”
When Clinton won New Hampshire, the pundits could not say “We were wrong.” They certainly would not admit “We misled the public.” So they had to say, “Wow, look what we did! We made all those silly women voters feel so sorry for Hillary Clinton that they actually voted for her!”
I have some news for the news people: Your projections were wrong. Hillary Clinton was always popular in New Hampshire. The primary voters did not cast a sympathy vote. They cast their votes based on a concept called issues.
In fact, exit polls showed that the greatest Clinton voting gap was not between men and women. It was between women with jobs and women without jobs. Women who are currently looking for work voted for Senator Clinton in faith that she can turn the economy around and strengthen the job market.
Although female voters were significant, Clinton was also favored among certain other groups, including college-educated voters of both sexes and voters over forty.
Hillary Clinton is well-respected among party Democrats. Democrats are well aware of Senator Clinton’s work. We know better than to believe the biased media that paints her as super-liberal or overly divisive. Clinton has a history of reaching across the aisle and getting things done. She is a known quantity. She’s a safe bet. In states where primary voting is limited to the parties, a strong Clinton showing is expected.
Radio preachers and Republicans always lament “the liberal media.” I’d like to know where this so-called liberal media can be found? You can’t tune the radio without coming across a horde of ranting, slobbering right-wing extremists, yet it is nearly impossible to find a left-leaning speaker.
Television and the air waves are owned, dominated, and narrated by conservatives. They falsely divide Democratic voters into groups, claiming “Obama will win the black vote” and “Hillary will win the woman vote.” Neither blacks nor women vote as a block – and if they did, it would create a real problem. Over half of black voters happen to be women. A fair number of female voters happen to be black.
The American media is not liberal. What we have is a sexist media that will prognosticate endlessly about Hillary Clinton’s hair, cleavage, laughter, voice, tears, clothes – anything that can be used to remotely suggest that women are something ‘other.’
Commentators make sexist remarks without impunity. Imus was publicly reprimanded for making racist comments toward female athletes, but what if those players had been white? Chattanooga radio personalities make sexist comments about female athletes, lamenting that they cannot watch sexy, half-clad models on the court rather than muscular women who know how to handle a ball. Few listeners complain, so long as race is not mentioned.
You would never hear the pundits discuss how well Obama meets their stereotypical perceptions of bi-racial men -- Not the same way Clinton’s femininity has been picked apart. That’s not to say that racism is not a major barrier in American life and politics, but at least it has been consigned to the whisper campaign. Woman-hating is still a public and accepted American pastime. Unfortunately, the media is no exception.
Media Matters has launched a campaign against MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews for his sexist remarks toward Clinton. His comments include referrals to Clinton as a "she devil," an “uppity woman” and a "strip-teaser." He called male Clinton supporters "castratos in the eunuch chorus." Other times he has called Senator Clinton "Madame Defarge,” a Charles Dickens character who spent her time knitting a register of people she wanted dead. On four occasions Matthews has depicted Clinton as a woman who wants to smother a baby in a crib – the baby, of course, being Senator Obama.
Chris Matthews and Rush Limbaugh both refer to Senator Clinton as "Nurse Ratched." Nurse Ratched is the sadistic woman who terrorizes mental patients in “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest.”
Intelligent voters make their choice based on the issues that are important to them, not media caricatures. I, for one, will vote my conscience.
copyright Jeannie Babb Taylor
http://www.jeanniebabbtaylor.com/
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Racism, sexism and representation
Primary picks to make your vote count in 2008
Several readers have requested my primary picks. Here they are, from numerous angles and with a humorous twist.
If I were a super-conservative religious male (Christian, Muslim or otherwise) who believes that men are created in God’s image and women are lesser beings, I’d vote for Mike Huckabee. I’d sing hymns in my head while standing in line, and whisper “Amen” when I put my hand on the TV screen. On the way home, I would buy six months worth of groceries in anticipation of the 23% “Fair Tax” to come.
If I were a rich libertarian who wants to tell other Americans that their education and health care are none of my concern, I’d vote for Ron Paul. I would still have to stop for groceries on the way home. I would especially stock up on medicines, meats and other FDA-approved goods. There is no telling what toxins might be added once Ron Paul eliminates the FDA and gives us back our “health freedom.”
If I were the head of a powerful and corrupt corporation, I would vote for Mitt Romney. He’d be someone I could work with -- someone who understands that the bottom line is far more important than the lives of a few babies or the long-term health of women. Romney understands that government is just another form of business.
If I were a secretly gay conservative male bent on suppressing the lifestyles of openly gay liberal males, I’d vote for Rudy Giuliani. With his quick flip-flop from supporting Gay Pride to suddenly endorsing a marriage amendment, it is obvious he has no real scruples and will comply with whatever his handlers say on the matter. I’d try to remember to remove my lipstick before going the polls, and make sure my slip was not showing.
If I were a war-hawk with a T-shirt reading, “Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out,” I’d vote for John McCain. I’d invest some money in Dyancorp and Halliburton. Then I’d send my son to Canada, knowing that McCain has stated he does not mind if the troops are in Iraq for a hundred, a thousand, a million or even ten million years.
If my greatest concern were the economy or healthcare – perhaps as a plant worker, a school teacher, a parent, an honest business owner or just a middle-class American struggling to pay the bills on time -- I would vote for a Democrat. Any Democrat I liked.
Then I would breathe a big sigh of relief, confident that if Democrats win the economy will soon improve and taxes will be held at bay. Democrats are historically much better at managing the national budget, and they don’t tax things like groceries and medical bills.
I’d go home with a smile on my face, knowing that soon our borders will be secure and the government will be targeting the corporations who bus in illegal workers – not raiding and breaking up families. I would feel relieved that our men and women in uniform will soon be coming home – with solid veteran’s benefits when they return. I’d take my family out to eat, hopeful that my candidate will win and the American economy will at last begin to recover from eight devastating years of Bush.
The differences between the top three Democratic candidates are slim. Barack Obama, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are all intelligent people with a solid history of serving Americans. I would be honored to cast my vote for any of them.
The differences between the Republican candidates are greater, and the chasm between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is gaping wider every day. Republicans want to kill, and Democrats want to heal. Republicans want to squeeze the life out of the American lower and middle class, while Democrats want to salvage the economy and strengthen the middle class. Most Republicans want to expand and escalate the war in the Middle East. Democrats want to bring ‘em home.
On February 5th, Georgia voters have the opportunity to make history. We can help put the first black person or the first woman on the national ballot. People of color are underrepresented in American government, as are women.
Women comprise the majority of voters, but only 16% of Congress. No female presidential candidate has ever before appeared on the national ballot for either major party.
Point this out to some Republicans and they will act like they’re vaguely sorry they didn’t think of it first. “It’s not that I’m against a woman president,” they’ll say, “just not THAT WOMAN.”
Very few can give a substantive reason for opposing Hillary Clinton. More common are knee-jerk reactions based on mischaracterizations or outright lies. Republicans frequently characterize Clinton as a super-divisive liberal, but anyone who follows her actual votes and agendas sees a very different picture. Clinton is a moderate.
Then there is the so-called “Clinton Body Count” that has been regurgitated from the 1990s and is re-circling the Internet. This piece of work claims to be a list of all the people who have died “mysteriously” because of their connections to the Clintons. The connection may be tenuous (such as Bill’s chiropractor’s mother, or a person who once lived in Arkansas) and the mysterious death usually is not mysterious at all. Nonetheless, it’s good fodder for fools who say “I got it in an email, so it must be true.”
Sadly, the United States is far behind the times in granting women full access to the government. Other countries have had women in the highest office as far back as the sixties. Great Britain has had Margaret Thatcher, India had Indira Ghandi, and Israel had Golda Meir. Pakistan, Turkey and Bangldesh are all Muslim countries that have placed women at the helm. This short list does not even touch on the extensive list of women who have ruled as royals, stretching from pre-history to modern times.
Who could have imagined that America would cross into the new millennium and journalists would still be asking, “Is America ready for a woman in the White House?”
We should ask ourselves how satisfied we are with the male who has been in office the last seven years. If we elect another man like Bush, we can expect four more years like the last seven.
Hardly anyone favors a candidate solely on sex or skin color. Such traits illicit more votes against than for. Yet there are many people who consider Clinton’s sex and Obama’s color an important part of who they are and how they will lead. All else being equal, many women (and indeed some men) prefer a female candidate. Likewise, many people consider Obama’s skin tone a perk rather than a liability.
What do you call it when a woman votes for Hillary Clinton because she’s female, or a black person prefers Obama because of the color of his skin? It’s called representation.
Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.JeannieBabbTaylor.com
Several readers have requested my primary picks. Here they are, from numerous angles and with a humorous twist.
If I were a super-conservative religious male (Christian, Muslim or otherwise) who believes that men are created in God’s image and women are lesser beings, I’d vote for Mike Huckabee. I’d sing hymns in my head while standing in line, and whisper “Amen” when I put my hand on the TV screen. On the way home, I would buy six months worth of groceries in anticipation of the 23% “Fair Tax” to come.
If I were a rich libertarian who wants to tell other Americans that their education and health care are none of my concern, I’d vote for Ron Paul. I would still have to stop for groceries on the way home. I would especially stock up on medicines, meats and other FDA-approved goods. There is no telling what toxins might be added once Ron Paul eliminates the FDA and gives us back our “health freedom.”
If I were the head of a powerful and corrupt corporation, I would vote for Mitt Romney. He’d be someone I could work with -- someone who understands that the bottom line is far more important than the lives of a few babies or the long-term health of women. Romney understands that government is just another form of business.
If I were a secretly gay conservative male bent on suppressing the lifestyles of openly gay liberal males, I’d vote for Rudy Giuliani. With his quick flip-flop from supporting Gay Pride to suddenly endorsing a marriage amendment, it is obvious he has no real scruples and will comply with whatever his handlers say on the matter. I’d try to remember to remove my lipstick before going the polls, and make sure my slip was not showing.
If I were a war-hawk with a T-shirt reading, “Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out,” I’d vote for John McCain. I’d invest some money in Dyancorp and Halliburton. Then I’d send my son to Canada, knowing that McCain has stated he does not mind if the troops are in Iraq for a hundred, a thousand, a million or even ten million years.
If my greatest concern were the economy or healthcare – perhaps as a plant worker, a school teacher, a parent, an honest business owner or just a middle-class American struggling to pay the bills on time -- I would vote for a Democrat. Any Democrat I liked.
Then I would breathe a big sigh of relief, confident that if Democrats win the economy will soon improve and taxes will be held at bay. Democrats are historically much better at managing the national budget, and they don’t tax things like groceries and medical bills.
I’d go home with a smile on my face, knowing that soon our borders will be secure and the government will be targeting the corporations who bus in illegal workers – not raiding and breaking up families. I would feel relieved that our men and women in uniform will soon be coming home – with solid veteran’s benefits when they return. I’d take my family out to eat, hopeful that my candidate will win and the American economy will at last begin to recover from eight devastating years of Bush.
The differences between the top three Democratic candidates are slim. Barack Obama, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are all intelligent people with a solid history of serving Americans. I would be honored to cast my vote for any of them.
The differences between the Republican candidates are greater, and the chasm between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is gaping wider every day. Republicans want to kill, and Democrats want to heal. Republicans want to squeeze the life out of the American lower and middle class, while Democrats want to salvage the economy and strengthen the middle class. Most Republicans want to expand and escalate the war in the Middle East. Democrats want to bring ‘em home.
On February 5th, Georgia voters have the opportunity to make history. We can help put the first black person or the first woman on the national ballot. People of color are underrepresented in American government, as are women.
Women comprise the majority of voters, but only 16% of Congress. No female presidential candidate has ever before appeared on the national ballot for either major party.
Point this out to some Republicans and they will act like they’re vaguely sorry they didn’t think of it first. “It’s not that I’m against a woman president,” they’ll say, “just not THAT WOMAN.”
Very few can give a substantive reason for opposing Hillary Clinton. More common are knee-jerk reactions based on mischaracterizations or outright lies. Republicans frequently characterize Clinton as a super-divisive liberal, but anyone who follows her actual votes and agendas sees a very different picture. Clinton is a moderate.
Then there is the so-called “Clinton Body Count” that has been regurgitated from the 1990s and is re-circling the Internet. This piece of work claims to be a list of all the people who have died “mysteriously” because of their connections to the Clintons. The connection may be tenuous (such as Bill’s chiropractor’s mother, or a person who once lived in Arkansas) and the mysterious death usually is not mysterious at all. Nonetheless, it’s good fodder for fools who say “I got it in an email, so it must be true.”
Sadly, the United States is far behind the times in granting women full access to the government. Other countries have had women in the highest office as far back as the sixties. Great Britain has had Margaret Thatcher, India had Indira Ghandi, and Israel had Golda Meir. Pakistan, Turkey and Bangldesh are all Muslim countries that have placed women at the helm. This short list does not even touch on the extensive list of women who have ruled as royals, stretching from pre-history to modern times.
Who could have imagined that America would cross into the new millennium and journalists would still be asking, “Is America ready for a woman in the White House?”
We should ask ourselves how satisfied we are with the male who has been in office the last seven years. If we elect another man like Bush, we can expect four more years like the last seven.
Hardly anyone favors a candidate solely on sex or skin color. Such traits illicit more votes against than for. Yet there are many people who consider Clinton’s sex and Obama’s color an important part of who they are and how they will lead. All else being equal, many women (and indeed some men) prefer a female candidate. Likewise, many people consider Obama’s skin tone a perk rather than a liability.
What do you call it when a woman votes for Hillary Clinton because she’s female, or a black person prefers Obama because of the color of his skin? It’s called representation.
Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.JeannieBabbTaylor.com
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Baptist drop-out vs. Mormon priest
Religious battle for the Oval Office
Will the real Republican candidate please stand up? It surely can’t be drag queen Giuliani or “Bomb, Bomb Iran” McCain. Fred Thompson’s act as a candidate is not very convincing, either. Thompson did not even make the Delaware primary ballot; he failed to locate even 500 registered Republicans who wanted him on the ticket.
Perhaps the real candidate is Mitt Romney. Sure, Romney is a slick corporate thug that should never be trusted with the presidency – but that’s just the sort of candidate Republican Party leaders want.
Now Mike Huckabee is finally getting some press. The former governor and Baptist pastor is everything conservatives say they want: anti-abortion, anti-immigration and anti-homosexual. Huckabee claims that “nothing in our society matters more” than heterosexual marriage.
Of course he is sold out to all the usual Republican lobbies. He wants to protect gun-makers from lawsuits, he scoffs at the idea that all Americans need healthcare, and he wants to dump more dollars into Iraq and other wars. Sounds like a perfect Republican candidate!
Yet Huckabee has been rejected by his own. Pat Robertson chose to endorse the drag queen instead of the Baptist pastor, revealing that politics are really more important to him than faith. Huckabee is gaining popularity now in spite of the snub.
Huckabee’s rise to the top may be short-lived. With public notice comes public scrutiny, and Huckabee just cannot pass muster. Already his campaign staff has had to defend the preacher’s repeated false claim of being “the only guy on that stage with a theology degree.” Turns out, Huckabee has no theology degree either. He dropped out of seminary after only one year.
Huckabee is also taking some heat for wondering out loud if Mormonism holds that Jesus and Satan are brothers. Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his followers characterize the comment as a religious smear tactic.
While I am hardly a Huckabee fan, I have to defend the preacher-turned-politician on this issue. Huckabee may have lied about his education, but it hardly takes a theology degree to perform a Google search. The official Latter Day Saints (LDS) website states “Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer's older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)”
As usual, Christians are asking the wrong question. A church’s theology on Satan is not a major criterion for inclusion beneath the Christian umbrella. The question is not what they do with Satan, but rather what they do with Jesus. Nearly everyone in the world believes that Jesus existed and was a good guy. Even Muslims accord him the status of prophet. The defining point of Christianity, however, is a belief that Jesus is in fact fully God.
Romney said in his carefully-crafted religion speech that Jesus is the savior of the world, hoping Christians would breathe a sigh of relief. However, there is an important theological distinction between the LDS church and those that are considered Christian churches. The LDS Church does not teach that Jesus is the eternal God. This is why Huckabee’s church and mine both consider the Mormon church to be a cult, not a Christian denomination.
You see, it is not enough to like or respect Jesus. According to the basic tenants of Christianity followed by every Christian church from the Southern Baptists to the Roman Catholics, Jesus is the eternal God who created the Universe. People who cannot agree with this statement are simply not Christians. They may be nice people. They may be intelligent, moral, strong, or even presidential. But they are not Christians.
According to LDS theology, Jesus was a created being who became God. Likewise, LDS men claim to be passing through mortal bodies on their way to becoming Gods. What we should be asking Romney is, “Do you consider Jesus God?” or even “Do you consider yourself God?”
As in Muslim theology, Mormons teach that women can only be saved through their husbands, not through faith in Christ. The LDS church no longer endorses polygamy – and yet, LDS writings claim that Jesus Christ himself was polygamous. If Christians were scandalized by Jesus’s fictional marriage to Mary Magdalene in“The Da Vinci Code,” how much more should we recoil from the Mormon claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany and her sister Martha all at the same time?
Mitt Romney would like for us to believe he is unaware of such teachings, as if he were just a lay member of the LDS church. What voters must understand is that the LDS church has no lay members. Every male who joins becomes a priest of Aaron, and with any sort of time and devotion, moves right on up the ecclesiastical ladder. Mitt Romney has, in fact, served as a foreign missionary, a bishop, and the Stake President of his region.
As Stake President, Mitt Romney commanded hundreds --maybe thousands -- of Mormons under his charge. (No one really knows, since this information has been kept from public view, as have Huckabee’s sermons.) Stake presidents sit in judgment and determine who should be excommunicated for failing to live up to LDS standards. The position is somewhat analogous to that of a Catholic Archbishop.
Mitt Romney certainly knows what the LDS Church teaches – including the bit about women having no salvation apart from husbands – because he was responsible for making sure that all those members in his care followed the teachings.
When John F. Kennedy gave his famous speech on religion, he quipped, “I am a presidential candidate who happens to be Catholic.” Romney sought to give a similar vague answer, shrugging off his Mormon beliefs as if they were coincidental, like being left-handed. But Romney is not a barely-practicing LDS member by accident of birth. Romney wants to be the first Mormon high priest in the White House.
Nowhere in our Constitution is it written that presidential candidates must be professing Christians. In fact, Article VI prohibits using a religious test as qualification for any office. In other words, it is perfectly constitutional to put a Mormon or a Muslim or an atheist on the ballot. The Constitution agrees with Mitt Romney that "one's faith should be no barrier to the right to vote, the right to run for office, nor the right to hold office."
What Romney implies is that we have no right to consider his religion when we go to the polls. This is patently false. It is the government, not the voters, who are prohibited from employing a religious test. Our own religious freedom mandates that we have the right to bring our personal convictions into the polling booth. We can vote against a candidate just because he is a Mormon or a Muslim or an atheist. That’s the First Amendment, Mitt, and neither your good looks nor your clever manipulation of words will wrest it from us.
Will the real Republican candidate please stand up? It surely can’t be drag queen Giuliani or “Bomb, Bomb Iran” McCain. Fred Thompson’s act as a candidate is not very convincing, either. Thompson did not even make the Delaware primary ballot; he failed to locate even 500 registered Republicans who wanted him on the ticket.
Perhaps the real candidate is Mitt Romney. Sure, Romney is a slick corporate thug that should never be trusted with the presidency – but that’s just the sort of candidate Republican Party leaders want.
Now Mike Huckabee is finally getting some press. The former governor and Baptist pastor is everything conservatives say they want: anti-abortion, anti-immigration and anti-homosexual. Huckabee claims that “nothing in our society matters more” than heterosexual marriage.
Of course he is sold out to all the usual Republican lobbies. He wants to protect gun-makers from lawsuits, he scoffs at the idea that all Americans need healthcare, and he wants to dump more dollars into Iraq and other wars. Sounds like a perfect Republican candidate!
Yet Huckabee has been rejected by his own. Pat Robertson chose to endorse the drag queen instead of the Baptist pastor, revealing that politics are really more important to him than faith. Huckabee is gaining popularity now in spite of the snub.
Huckabee’s rise to the top may be short-lived. With public notice comes public scrutiny, and Huckabee just cannot pass muster. Already his campaign staff has had to defend the preacher’s repeated false claim of being “the only guy on that stage with a theology degree.” Turns out, Huckabee has no theology degree either. He dropped out of seminary after only one year.
Huckabee is also taking some heat for wondering out loud if Mormonism holds that Jesus and Satan are brothers. Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his followers characterize the comment as a religious smear tactic.
While I am hardly a Huckabee fan, I have to defend the preacher-turned-politician on this issue. Huckabee may have lied about his education, but it hardly takes a theology degree to perform a Google search. The official Latter Day Saints (LDS) website states “Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer's older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)”
As usual, Christians are asking the wrong question. A church’s theology on Satan is not a major criterion for inclusion beneath the Christian umbrella. The question is not what they do with Satan, but rather what they do with Jesus. Nearly everyone in the world believes that Jesus existed and was a good guy. Even Muslims accord him the status of prophet. The defining point of Christianity, however, is a belief that Jesus is in fact fully God.
Romney said in his carefully-crafted religion speech that Jesus is the savior of the world, hoping Christians would breathe a sigh of relief. However, there is an important theological distinction between the LDS church and those that are considered Christian churches. The LDS Church does not teach that Jesus is the eternal God. This is why Huckabee’s church and mine both consider the Mormon church to be a cult, not a Christian denomination.
You see, it is not enough to like or respect Jesus. According to the basic tenants of Christianity followed by every Christian church from the Southern Baptists to the Roman Catholics, Jesus is the eternal God who created the Universe. People who cannot agree with this statement are simply not Christians. They may be nice people. They may be intelligent, moral, strong, or even presidential. But they are not Christians.
According to LDS theology, Jesus was a created being who became God. Likewise, LDS men claim to be passing through mortal bodies on their way to becoming Gods. What we should be asking Romney is, “Do you consider Jesus God?” or even “Do you consider yourself God?”
As in Muslim theology, Mormons teach that women can only be saved through their husbands, not through faith in Christ. The LDS church no longer endorses polygamy – and yet, LDS writings claim that Jesus Christ himself was polygamous. If Christians were scandalized by Jesus’s fictional marriage to Mary Magdalene in“The Da Vinci Code,” how much more should we recoil from the Mormon claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany and her sister Martha all at the same time?
Mitt Romney would like for us to believe he is unaware of such teachings, as if he were just a lay member of the LDS church. What voters must understand is that the LDS church has no lay members. Every male who joins becomes a priest of Aaron, and with any sort of time and devotion, moves right on up the ecclesiastical ladder. Mitt Romney has, in fact, served as a foreign missionary, a bishop, and the Stake President of his region.
As Stake President, Mitt Romney commanded hundreds --maybe thousands -- of Mormons under his charge. (No one really knows, since this information has been kept from public view, as have Huckabee’s sermons.) Stake presidents sit in judgment and determine who should be excommunicated for failing to live up to LDS standards. The position is somewhat analogous to that of a Catholic Archbishop.
Mitt Romney certainly knows what the LDS Church teaches – including the bit about women having no salvation apart from husbands – because he was responsible for making sure that all those members in his care followed the teachings.
When John F. Kennedy gave his famous speech on religion, he quipped, “I am a presidential candidate who happens to be Catholic.” Romney sought to give a similar vague answer, shrugging off his Mormon beliefs as if they were coincidental, like being left-handed. But Romney is not a barely-practicing LDS member by accident of birth. Romney wants to be the first Mormon high priest in the White House.
Nowhere in our Constitution is it written that presidential candidates must be professing Christians. In fact, Article VI prohibits using a religious test as qualification for any office. In other words, it is perfectly constitutional to put a Mormon or a Muslim or an atheist on the ballot. The Constitution agrees with Mitt Romney that "one's faith should be no barrier to the right to vote, the right to run for office, nor the right to hold office."
What Romney implies is that we have no right to consider his religion when we go to the polls. This is patently false. It is the government, not the voters, who are prohibited from employing a religious test. Our own religious freedom mandates that we have the right to bring our personal convictions into the polling booth. We can vote against a candidate just because he is a Mormon or a Muslim or an atheist. That’s the First Amendment, Mitt, and neither your good looks nor your clever manipulation of words will wrest it from us.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
The Golden Compass: Pointing kids to atheism?
A really dangerous series of books has become popular. The first book is so innocuous that many people give it to their children. The tale begins with a couple of innocent kids exploring the simple goodness of the world around them. Soon they find out that humans are not alone in the universe, and that there are other realms we cannot see. They discover that their world is full of warring factions, evil spirits, armies of good and bad angels, conniving witches, greedy kings and corrupt religious establishments. The series reaches a furious climax with the characters committing the most heinous act you can imagine: They kill God.
Perhaps you received an email titled “Do not see The Golden Compass!” According to the apocalyptic warning, the movie and the books are a trap designed to tear children away from the bosom of Christ. But the above passage is not a review of “The Golden Compass.” It is a summary of the Bible.
Yet it is not the Bible that has people up in arms. The Catholic League is boycotting “The Golden Compass” for fear that it may encourage children to read the author’s books.
League president Bill Donohue wrote, “Atheism for kids. That is what Philip Pullman sells. It is his hope that ‘The Golden Compass,’ which stars Nicole Kidman and opens December 7, will entice parents to buy his trilogy as a Christmas gift.”
Donohue’s statement almost sounds like a plug for Pullman’s work – complete with celebrity name-dropping and opening date. In an age of X-box and continuous television programming, a movie that makes children want to read is a godsend. A movie that inspires parents to buy books rather than lead-tainted toys for Christmas would normally be greeted with eagerness.
But are the books really atheism for kids? In a 2002 interview with Huw Spanner of Thirdway, Philip Pullman said, “I’m not making an argument, or preaching a sermon or setting out a political tract: I’m telling a story.”
What a rich, vibrant story he tells! I’ve read the award-winning trilogy with my family. When I say “with my family” you should picture mild bickering over who lost whose place, mad chases around the house, and excited dinner conversations that invariably end with, “Don’t tell me! I’m not there yet.”
The movie is based on the first book, The Golden Compass, but the dire warning is directed at the third book, The Amber Spyglass. According to the email circulating through millions of inboxes, it is in the third book that the characters kill God.
For the sake of argument, suppose they really do kill God. Any movie with God as a character cannot be atheistic. Atheists, by definition, do not believe that God exists. Thus The Tale of Peter Rabbit is more atheistic than The Golden Compass.
Should Christians be offended by the killing of God? Our entire religion is based on it. Remember Jesus? The Bible plainly and repeatedly asserts that God came to earth in human form and we killed him. All Christians, by definition, believe that people killed God.
Actually, the characters in this book do not kill God. The Authority is in fact an angel, not the immortal Creator. He is very old and ready to die, but is being used by the Church for its own purposes. When two children release him, his angelic body dissolves back into the universe.
Paul talks about The Authority in Romans. He calls it the law. According to Paul, the law was good for teaching us right from wrong, but it became a yoke of slavery because of our inability to comply. The law brings death. Christ came to bring us life, freeing us from the law of sin and death. Jesus greatly disrupted the religious establishment of that day, which was based on the law.
Pullman’s trilogy is theologically provocative, but none of the three books attack true Christianity. In fact, his tale reflects the biblical story of humankind. Will and Lyra explicitly represent Adam and Eve – not only in the fall from grace, but also in redemption. The Apostle Paul calls Jesus “the second Adam.” Adam is the original transgressor, but Adam is also the bringer of salvation.
There are other parallels as well. In the third book, Lyra and Will descend into the underworld to free those souls who have been trapped by death. In order to do so, they must be willing to be torn away from their very spirits, undergoing a sort of death. This is similar to the torment Jesus experienced on the cross when he was separated from the divine to descend into hell and destroy death for our sake.
Pullman may not profess a literal belief in the Bible, but we find biblical themes running throughout his literature. This is not surprising, considering that he was raised by his grandfather who was an Anglican rector. Pullman names Milton’s “Paradise Lost” as one of the works that inspired the trilogy.
These books are not a consistent parallel to the Bible by any means. Neither are The Chronicles of Narnia, which Christians everywhere praise, study, and use as the basis of English curriculum.
Likewise, The Lord of the Rings has been embraced by the same people who battled to censor the magical Harry Potter series. Although The Lord of the Rings contains a similar mix of myth and magic, its defenders claim it holds a Christian message. Author J.R.R. Tolkien adamantly opposed such an interpretation during his lifetime. He said, “I dislike allegory whenever I smell it.”
Why do Christians defend some fantasy books as harmless magical tales while others are condemned as occultist books? Michael D. O’Brien, Catholic author and fantasy critic, makes this distinction: The Lord of the Rings is acceptable for Christians because the magic exists within a distinct hierarchy. Harry Potter’s magic is anti-Christian because anyone can obtain it through education and exercise. In other words, the Catholic Church does not really mind your child reading about witches or warlocks. That’s a clever ruse to oppose any books that don’t tow the line regarding ecclesiastical hierarchy. Given this distinction, it is clear why Pullman is drawing Catholic ire.
The Golden Compass portrays a very corrupt church that wields unchecked political power. In an interview, Pullman gave the Taliban as a real-life example of such a church. The term “Catholic” is not used in the book or movie, so any church that identifies with the depiction is essentially condemning itself.
The Vatican claims Roman Catholicism is the only true church, so its visceral reaction is to spin any criticism of itself as an attack against God. It’s difficult to imagine that a mere storybook could mar a reputation which already includes hundreds of years of church-sanctioned slaughter, inquisition, witch-hunts, slavery, pedophilia and misogyny.
The emails urge me to pass on the message, so I believe I will: Don’t see this movie! At least not until you’ve read the book. You certainly should not see it this weekend, because you might get ahead of me in line.
Perhaps you received an email titled “Do not see The Golden Compass!” According to the apocalyptic warning, the movie and the books are a trap designed to tear children away from the bosom of Christ. But the above passage is not a review of “The Golden Compass.” It is a summary of the Bible.
Yet it is not the Bible that has people up in arms. The Catholic League is boycotting “The Golden Compass” for fear that it may encourage children to read the author’s books.
League president Bill Donohue wrote, “Atheism for kids. That is what Philip Pullman sells. It is his hope that ‘The Golden Compass,’ which stars Nicole Kidman and opens December 7, will entice parents to buy his trilogy as a Christmas gift.”
Donohue’s statement almost sounds like a plug for Pullman’s work – complete with celebrity name-dropping and opening date. In an age of X-box and continuous television programming, a movie that makes children want to read is a godsend. A movie that inspires parents to buy books rather than lead-tainted toys for Christmas would normally be greeted with eagerness.
But are the books really atheism for kids? In a 2002 interview with Huw Spanner of Thirdway, Philip Pullman said, “I’m not making an argument, or preaching a sermon or setting out a political tract: I’m telling a story.”
What a rich, vibrant story he tells! I’ve read the award-winning trilogy with my family. When I say “with my family” you should picture mild bickering over who lost whose place, mad chases around the house, and excited dinner conversations that invariably end with, “Don’t tell me! I’m not there yet.”
The movie is based on the first book, The Golden Compass, but the dire warning is directed at the third book, The Amber Spyglass. According to the email circulating through millions of inboxes, it is in the third book that the characters kill God.
For the sake of argument, suppose they really do kill God. Any movie with God as a character cannot be atheistic. Atheists, by definition, do not believe that God exists. Thus The Tale of Peter Rabbit is more atheistic than The Golden Compass.
Should Christians be offended by the killing of God? Our entire religion is based on it. Remember Jesus? The Bible plainly and repeatedly asserts that God came to earth in human form and we killed him. All Christians, by definition, believe that people killed God.
Actually, the characters in this book do not kill God. The Authority is in fact an angel, not the immortal Creator. He is very old and ready to die, but is being used by the Church for its own purposes. When two children release him, his angelic body dissolves back into the universe.
Paul talks about The Authority in Romans. He calls it the law. According to Paul, the law was good for teaching us right from wrong, but it became a yoke of slavery because of our inability to comply. The law brings death. Christ came to bring us life, freeing us from the law of sin and death. Jesus greatly disrupted the religious establishment of that day, which was based on the law.
Pullman’s trilogy is theologically provocative, but none of the three books attack true Christianity. In fact, his tale reflects the biblical story of humankind. Will and Lyra explicitly represent Adam and Eve – not only in the fall from grace, but also in redemption. The Apostle Paul calls Jesus “the second Adam.” Adam is the original transgressor, but Adam is also the bringer of salvation.
There are other parallels as well. In the third book, Lyra and Will descend into the underworld to free those souls who have been trapped by death. In order to do so, they must be willing to be torn away from their very spirits, undergoing a sort of death. This is similar to the torment Jesus experienced on the cross when he was separated from the divine to descend into hell and destroy death for our sake.
Pullman may not profess a literal belief in the Bible, but we find biblical themes running throughout his literature. This is not surprising, considering that he was raised by his grandfather who was an Anglican rector. Pullman names Milton’s “Paradise Lost” as one of the works that inspired the trilogy.
These books are not a consistent parallel to the Bible by any means. Neither are The Chronicles of Narnia, which Christians everywhere praise, study, and use as the basis of English curriculum.
Likewise, The Lord of the Rings has been embraced by the same people who battled to censor the magical Harry Potter series. Although The Lord of the Rings contains a similar mix of myth and magic, its defenders claim it holds a Christian message. Author J.R.R. Tolkien adamantly opposed such an interpretation during his lifetime. He said, “I dislike allegory whenever I smell it.”
Why do Christians defend some fantasy books as harmless magical tales while others are condemned as occultist books? Michael D. O’Brien, Catholic author and fantasy critic, makes this distinction: The Lord of the Rings is acceptable for Christians because the magic exists within a distinct hierarchy. Harry Potter’s magic is anti-Christian because anyone can obtain it through education and exercise. In other words, the Catholic Church does not really mind your child reading about witches or warlocks. That’s a clever ruse to oppose any books that don’t tow the line regarding ecclesiastical hierarchy. Given this distinction, it is clear why Pullman is drawing Catholic ire.
The Golden Compass portrays a very corrupt church that wields unchecked political power. In an interview, Pullman gave the Taliban as a real-life example of such a church. The term “Catholic” is not used in the book or movie, so any church that identifies with the depiction is essentially condemning itself.
The Vatican claims Roman Catholicism is the only true church, so its visceral reaction is to spin any criticism of itself as an attack against God. It’s difficult to imagine that a mere storybook could mar a reputation which already includes hundreds of years of church-sanctioned slaughter, inquisition, witch-hunts, slavery, pedophilia and misogyny.
The emails urge me to pass on the message, so I believe I will: Don’t see this movie! At least not until you’ve read the book. You certainly should not see it this weekend, because you might get ahead of me in line.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
It's called democracy
A group of men sat down to fire off a letter to some politicians who were overstepping their bounds. Searching for the perfect phrase, Benjamin Franklin borrowed the words of his Italian friend, Phillip Mazzei. He wrote, “All men are created equal.”
The Declaration of Independence was not merely a letter from a colony to her mother country. It was a rallying cry for justice to the oppressed. What is remarkable is that the men who wrote it were hardly oppressed. These individuals had in fact enjoyed the privilege of money and status, both in England and in colonial America. It was their own rights they were laying down. In declaring independence from England, they were not so much seeking equality as offering it.
Some speculate that they did not fully appreciate the import of their statement. Did they really understand that some of their own offspring would find these very words used against them, to dismiss their black slaves and scatter their fortunes?
Did any of them guess that their granddaughters would someday see their own destiny in these documents and demand the right to vote? We can only guess.
The women’s movement and the abolitionist movement were born in that pen stroke, but it would be over a hundred years before every American adult acquired voting rights. It would be even longer before non-white children were granted equal access to education. Women are still not guaranteed equal rights under the law.
Since the framers of America first put pen to paper, our country has continued toward the dream of democracy – but the progress is not linear. There are fits and starts. Certain forces propel us forward, even as certain constraints yank us backward. At the heart of those opposite pressures, there is always a vision – a vision for democracy, or a vision for elitism and inequality.
We see these opposing forces on local, state, and national levels. Locally, the forces of progress want to see our counties and municipalities grow, expand and move forward. We want our children to have theatre opportunities. We want the student who drops out of school because of poverty or pregnancy to have another chance through GED programs. We want abundant libraries, strong health departments, and adequately funded fire and police departments.
Then there are the conservative curmudgeons. They would prefer to play politics with the futures of our police officers and firefighters, tax the YMCA, and de-fund the learning center. They especially hate every vestige of fine arts or culture, such as the Colonnade, Catoosa County’s theatre and banquet hall. They talk about stripping the Colonnade of funds, but the gleam in their eye makes me think they would prefer to burn it to the ground.
They do not appreciate the value these entities bring to our community, and they certainly do not think that ten or twenty dollars of their property taxes should go to support such a thing! After all, they can afford a private gym. They don’t use the library or the health department and they certainly have no need for a learning center.
The same divide exists at the state level. From the time of the Reconstruction until the turn of the Millennium, Democrats lead Georgians to greater freedom and greater opportunity. Democrats worked to make Georgia a leader among the Southern states. They brought rural regions into the modern era through the power of electricity. They built health departments and hospitals. They supported local governments and focused resources on education. Democrats instituted the HOPE Scholarship, and they fight every year to protect it from Republican raids.
As a result of these efforts, economic opportunities abounded, education improved and was offered to all, and average Georgians began to live the American Dream. They finished school. They bought homes. They found rewarding work. They started businesses.
For a while, the forces of progress propelled Georgia forward. As a result, our strong schools and good job market lured more people to the state. These people brought their own ideas, including their own politics. Soon the tide turned and Republicans were in control of Georgia for the first time since Reconstruction. Ever the enemies of progress, Republican leaders cut funds for education, tossed children off PeachCare, brought back gerrymandering, and passed laws to take away the homes of the elderly on Medicaid.
The contrast between democracy and the GOP is seen clearly at the national level. If you’re not sure what the Republican vision is, just take a look at the places where they have forcibly taken control. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Their vision resembles oligarchy more than democracy. A few powerful people or corporations reign over a huge population of poverty-ridden little people with no hope, no future, and no opportunity.
You can predict the Republican stance on most any issue simply by asking, “Who does this policy benefit, Big Business or the common citizen?” At every turn, the GOP protects the interests of “the haves” at the expense of “the have-nots.”
It’s not that Republican leaders hate the poor. Actually, they love poor people – the same way hawks love crunchy little squirrels. They need a steady supply of desperate families to rent their slums, take out their high-interest payday loans, supply property for their foreclosure mills, and otherwise support Republican nobility.
But we Democrats have a different vision for America. We can imagine living in a land where no child ever dies from an abscessed tooth. We believe that the heritage of every American child should include healthcare, education and opportunity – not national debt, trade deficits and lead-tainted toys.
It is because of this vision Democrats founded the Department of Education and the school lunch program. Democrats also implemented the State Children’s Health Insurance (SCHIP) program that provides health care for millions of children -- and Democrats continue to fight valiantly for the program in the face of repeated vetoes by President Bush.
It was the Democrats who instituted Medicare and Social Security to provide a safety net for the elderly and the disabled. Democrats launched the GI Bill to provide educational and economic opportunities to returning servicemen. Democrats also started Medicaid, interest-free student loans, and low-interest home loans.
Democrats instituted the minimum wage. Under Republican national leadership, the minimum wage stagnated for ten years, even as the cost of living soared. Only when the balance of power tipped back to democracy did the working poor find relief through a Democrat-lead minimum wage increase.
Democrats have always been the ones to stand up to social injustice, demand political accountability, champion education and healthcare, regulate the industry giants who would exploit children for profit, fight for the common people, and balance the checkbook. Democracy made this country great.
We believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We stand with Benjamin Franklin and say “all men are created equal.” Republicans may call us “socialists” or “communists” for such ideals, but we remember that we are in good company. No new label is needed for the sentiment that Benjamin Franklin expressed. It’s called democracy.
The Declaration of Independence was not merely a letter from a colony to her mother country. It was a rallying cry for justice to the oppressed. What is remarkable is that the men who wrote it were hardly oppressed. These individuals had in fact enjoyed the privilege of money and status, both in England and in colonial America. It was their own rights they were laying down. In declaring independence from England, they were not so much seeking equality as offering it.
Some speculate that they did not fully appreciate the import of their statement. Did they really understand that some of their own offspring would find these very words used against them, to dismiss their black slaves and scatter their fortunes?
Did any of them guess that their granddaughters would someday see their own destiny in these documents and demand the right to vote? We can only guess.
The women’s movement and the abolitionist movement were born in that pen stroke, but it would be over a hundred years before every American adult acquired voting rights. It would be even longer before non-white children were granted equal access to education. Women are still not guaranteed equal rights under the law.
Since the framers of America first put pen to paper, our country has continued toward the dream of democracy – but the progress is not linear. There are fits and starts. Certain forces propel us forward, even as certain constraints yank us backward. At the heart of those opposite pressures, there is always a vision – a vision for democracy, or a vision for elitism and inequality.
We see these opposing forces on local, state, and national levels. Locally, the forces of progress want to see our counties and municipalities grow, expand and move forward. We want our children to have theatre opportunities. We want the student who drops out of school because of poverty or pregnancy to have another chance through GED programs. We want abundant libraries, strong health departments, and adequately funded fire and police departments.
Then there are the conservative curmudgeons. They would prefer to play politics with the futures of our police officers and firefighters, tax the YMCA, and de-fund the learning center. They especially hate every vestige of fine arts or culture, such as the Colonnade, Catoosa County’s theatre and banquet hall. They talk about stripping the Colonnade of funds, but the gleam in their eye makes me think they would prefer to burn it to the ground.
They do not appreciate the value these entities bring to our community, and they certainly do not think that ten or twenty dollars of their property taxes should go to support such a thing! After all, they can afford a private gym. They don’t use the library or the health department and they certainly have no need for a learning center.
The same divide exists at the state level. From the time of the Reconstruction until the turn of the Millennium, Democrats lead Georgians to greater freedom and greater opportunity. Democrats worked to make Georgia a leader among the Southern states. They brought rural regions into the modern era through the power of electricity. They built health departments and hospitals. They supported local governments and focused resources on education. Democrats instituted the HOPE Scholarship, and they fight every year to protect it from Republican raids.
As a result of these efforts, economic opportunities abounded, education improved and was offered to all, and average Georgians began to live the American Dream. They finished school. They bought homes. They found rewarding work. They started businesses.
For a while, the forces of progress propelled Georgia forward. As a result, our strong schools and good job market lured more people to the state. These people brought their own ideas, including their own politics. Soon the tide turned and Republicans were in control of Georgia for the first time since Reconstruction. Ever the enemies of progress, Republican leaders cut funds for education, tossed children off PeachCare, brought back gerrymandering, and passed laws to take away the homes of the elderly on Medicaid.
The contrast between democracy and the GOP is seen clearly at the national level. If you’re not sure what the Republican vision is, just take a look at the places where they have forcibly taken control. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Their vision resembles oligarchy more than democracy. A few powerful people or corporations reign over a huge population of poverty-ridden little people with no hope, no future, and no opportunity.
You can predict the Republican stance on most any issue simply by asking, “Who does this policy benefit, Big Business or the common citizen?” At every turn, the GOP protects the interests of “the haves” at the expense of “the have-nots.”
It’s not that Republican leaders hate the poor. Actually, they love poor people – the same way hawks love crunchy little squirrels. They need a steady supply of desperate families to rent their slums, take out their high-interest payday loans, supply property for their foreclosure mills, and otherwise support Republican nobility.
But we Democrats have a different vision for America. We can imagine living in a land where no child ever dies from an abscessed tooth. We believe that the heritage of every American child should include healthcare, education and opportunity – not national debt, trade deficits and lead-tainted toys.
It is because of this vision Democrats founded the Department of Education and the school lunch program. Democrats also implemented the State Children’s Health Insurance (SCHIP) program that provides health care for millions of children -- and Democrats continue to fight valiantly for the program in the face of repeated vetoes by President Bush.
It was the Democrats who instituted Medicare and Social Security to provide a safety net for the elderly and the disabled. Democrats launched the GI Bill to provide educational and economic opportunities to returning servicemen. Democrats also started Medicaid, interest-free student loans, and low-interest home loans.
Democrats instituted the minimum wage. Under Republican national leadership, the minimum wage stagnated for ten years, even as the cost of living soared. Only when the balance of power tipped back to democracy did the working poor find relief through a Democrat-lead minimum wage increase.
Democrats have always been the ones to stand up to social injustice, demand political accountability, champion education and healthcare, regulate the industry giants who would exploit children for profit, fight for the common people, and balance the checkbook. Democracy made this country great.
We believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We stand with Benjamin Franklin and say “all men are created equal.” Republicans may call us “socialists” or “communists” for such ideals, but we remember that we are in good company. No new label is needed for the sentiment that Benjamin Franklin expressed. It’s called democracy.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Bush wants money for Iraq occupation, not America’s children
Last Wednesday, President Bush demanded another $189 billion to extend his occupation of Iraq for another year – even as he stripped low-income children of their healthcare. The cost of funding an expanded State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP, pronounced s-chip) is only $12 billion per year, less than a tenth the money he wants for Iraq.
“Apples and oranges,” replies the White House, apparently not understanding the concept of opportunity cost. Every dollar that is spent on the occupation is a dollar that could have been put to a different use. Bush’s SCHIP proposal does not even include funds to continue insuring the children who are insured today. He claims he vetoed the expanded plan because it would federalize health care. Read: If we make sure children can go to the doctor, we’ll all turn into a bunch of Commies.
The implication is patently false. SCHIP is a stop-gap measure to aid state programs like PeachCare that help uninsured working families buy medical coverage. Under SCHIP, health care is delivered by private doctors and administered by private insurance plans, and thus is hardly “government health care.” Bush had polyps removed from his colon using government health care funded by taxpayers. Apparently it’s not socialist when Bush does it.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a key sponsor of the SCHIP reauthorization, takes issue with Bush’s federalization claim. “To call this a march toward one-size-fits-all, government-mandated health care, is just political, in my opinion, because this is a block grant to the states.”
Recent headlines painted US Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson (both R- GA) as Georgia’s child health champions. Georgia was still reeling from the impact of the four-month-long PeachCare freeze that left thousands of children without health care, and these two were poised to come to the rescue. Instead, Chambliss and Isakson voted against SCHIP.
In a Gainesville Times interview, Chambliss defended his vote, falsely claiming that the Democratic proposal would give free health care to families making $80,000 per year. In fact, the plan only provides block grants to states, which set their own guidelines for how those funds are used. In Georgia, SCHIP funds are used to insure 273,000 children of working class families.
Some Republicans are wise enough to consider how their SCHIP vote will affect their future election prospects. Senator Lamar Alexander (R- Tenn) was among 18 Republican senators who voted to re-authorize SCHIP. The Senate vote is strong enough to override Bush’s veto, but the House vote is currently two dozen votes short.
Don’t count on Rep. Nathan Deal for help, either. Forget the headline “Ga. Congressman will try to save PeachCare.” Deal voted against SCHIP. His proposed alternative is even skimpier than Bush’s, conveniently running out just after the 2008 election. Deal’s deal will result in thousands of kids losing insurance coverage.
90% of Americans favor providing healthcare for uninsured children. Anticipating such a reaction, Bush made a pre-emptive strike against children’s healthcare. “I mean, people have access to health care in America,” he claimed in a July 10 visit to Cleveland, Ohio. “After all, you just go to the emergency room.”
The emergency room is exactly where Americans do not want to see children with minor illnesses. We want their runny noses and sore throats remedied by doctors at $50 visits, not in the ER to the tune of $900 or more. Either way, taxpayers foot the bill. We’ll pay the lower amount, thanks – and reserve the ER for serious injuries.
If SCHIP is reauthorized at the old levels set ten years ago, 100,000 Georgia children will lose coverage. Clearly Georgia needs an expanded grant just to meet current PeachCare obligations. The expanded reauthorization proposed by Congress covers these children plus 200,000 more kids who are currently uninsured.
Some culpability remains for State Speaker Glenn Richardson, Rep. Ron Forster, Sen. Jeff Mullis and all the other state politicians we put in office. All year the Speaker and the Governor have played politics with PeachCare kids, letting thousands fall through the cracks. At the same time, they claimed to have a state budget surplus. They fought over who should receive a tax credit – Perdue’s seniors, or $68 for every citizen as Richardson proposed?
In spite of the so-called surplus, Georgia’s officials chose to freeze PeachCare enrollments when federal funds were exhausted. Clearly they are not willing to expend more state funds on these children – but why aren’t they fighting to hang on to the federal funds? Why aren’t they taking Georgia’s US Congressmen to task?
It may be that Georgia Republicans are not good at math. SCHIP is a sweet deal for Georgia. Since 1999, PeachCare has brought $1.3 billion into Georgia through SCHIP. For every dollar the state invests, Georgia receives $2.70 from SCHIP. That’s the equivalent of a 270% return on investment! The rate is even higher when you calculate the dollars saved by using preventive care instead of hospitalization.
Maybe they do understand the math, though. Maybe the health of American children is just not on the Republican agenda. The Bible says, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matt 6:21) In other words, our priorities are revealed by what we do with money.
Let’s pretend that America actually has the $189 billion Bush wants to pump into the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and on top of the regular Depart of Defense budget of $460 billion. The cost of the war has now hit half a million dollars per minute.
What is the opportunity cost of that money? For what Bush is spending each year in Iraq, we could provide health care coverage for every man, woman and child in America. Republicans are hard-set against such an idea, because their campaign accounts are bloated with the skimmings of exorbitant healthcare profits.
According to www.opensecrets.com, Isakson has received over $50,000 from Blue Cross, and over $44,000 from AFLAC. Saxby Chambliss is mostly an Agribusiness sell-out. That could explain why he whined that funding SHIP with a higher cigarette tax increase might cause cigarette sales to fall. Chambliss raked in nearly $300,000 from insurance companies as well. Are these politicians serving the voters who elected them, or the industries that fund their expensive campaigns?
The United States and South Africa are the only developed countries that fail to provide health care for all their citizens. Under the Health Choices Plan proposed by Hillary Clinton, every man, woman and child can enjoy reliable health care coverage using private doctors. And the cost to American tax payers? It’s a net tax cut.
For that matter, $189 billion could go a long way to shoring up our ailing education system, repairing bridges and Interstates, and taking better care of our veterans and the elderly. Republican politicians would rather dump dollars into Iraq, where they line the pockets of Blackwater and Halliburton.
Bush is fond of saying “We have a lot of money, here in Washington.” No, Mr. President, we don’t have that $189 billion. We didn’t have the $455 billion you already burned in Iraq, either. You continue to pile deficits onto the backs of American children, even as you take away their health care.
“Apples and oranges,” replies the White House, apparently not understanding the concept of opportunity cost. Every dollar that is spent on the occupation is a dollar that could have been put to a different use. Bush’s SCHIP proposal does not even include funds to continue insuring the children who are insured today. He claims he vetoed the expanded plan because it would federalize health care. Read: If we make sure children can go to the doctor, we’ll all turn into a bunch of Commies.
The implication is patently false. SCHIP is a stop-gap measure to aid state programs like PeachCare that help uninsured working families buy medical coverage. Under SCHIP, health care is delivered by private doctors and administered by private insurance plans, and thus is hardly “government health care.” Bush had polyps removed from his colon using government health care funded by taxpayers. Apparently it’s not socialist when Bush does it.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a key sponsor of the SCHIP reauthorization, takes issue with Bush’s federalization claim. “To call this a march toward one-size-fits-all, government-mandated health care, is just political, in my opinion, because this is a block grant to the states.”
Recent headlines painted US Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson (both R- GA) as Georgia’s child health champions. Georgia was still reeling from the impact of the four-month-long PeachCare freeze that left thousands of children without health care, and these two were poised to come to the rescue. Instead, Chambliss and Isakson voted against SCHIP.
In a Gainesville Times interview, Chambliss defended his vote, falsely claiming that the Democratic proposal would give free health care to families making $80,000 per year. In fact, the plan only provides block grants to states, which set their own guidelines for how those funds are used. In Georgia, SCHIP funds are used to insure 273,000 children of working class families.
Some Republicans are wise enough to consider how their SCHIP vote will affect their future election prospects. Senator Lamar Alexander (R- Tenn) was among 18 Republican senators who voted to re-authorize SCHIP. The Senate vote is strong enough to override Bush’s veto, but the House vote is currently two dozen votes short.
Don’t count on Rep. Nathan Deal for help, either. Forget the headline “Ga. Congressman will try to save PeachCare.” Deal voted against SCHIP. His proposed alternative is even skimpier than Bush’s, conveniently running out just after the 2008 election. Deal’s deal will result in thousands of kids losing insurance coverage.
90% of Americans favor providing healthcare for uninsured children. Anticipating such a reaction, Bush made a pre-emptive strike against children’s healthcare. “I mean, people have access to health care in America,” he claimed in a July 10 visit to Cleveland, Ohio. “After all, you just go to the emergency room.”
The emergency room is exactly where Americans do not want to see children with minor illnesses. We want their runny noses and sore throats remedied by doctors at $50 visits, not in the ER to the tune of $900 or more. Either way, taxpayers foot the bill. We’ll pay the lower amount, thanks – and reserve the ER for serious injuries.
If SCHIP is reauthorized at the old levels set ten years ago, 100,000 Georgia children will lose coverage. Clearly Georgia needs an expanded grant just to meet current PeachCare obligations. The expanded reauthorization proposed by Congress covers these children plus 200,000 more kids who are currently uninsured.
Some culpability remains for State Speaker Glenn Richardson, Rep. Ron Forster, Sen. Jeff Mullis and all the other state politicians we put in office. All year the Speaker and the Governor have played politics with PeachCare kids, letting thousands fall through the cracks. At the same time, they claimed to have a state budget surplus. They fought over who should receive a tax credit – Perdue’s seniors, or $68 for every citizen as Richardson proposed?
In spite of the so-called surplus, Georgia’s officials chose to freeze PeachCare enrollments when federal funds were exhausted. Clearly they are not willing to expend more state funds on these children – but why aren’t they fighting to hang on to the federal funds? Why aren’t they taking Georgia’s US Congressmen to task?
It may be that Georgia Republicans are not good at math. SCHIP is a sweet deal for Georgia. Since 1999, PeachCare has brought $1.3 billion into Georgia through SCHIP. For every dollar the state invests, Georgia receives $2.70 from SCHIP. That’s the equivalent of a 270% return on investment! The rate is even higher when you calculate the dollars saved by using preventive care instead of hospitalization.
Maybe they do understand the math, though. Maybe the health of American children is just not on the Republican agenda. The Bible says, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matt 6:21) In other words, our priorities are revealed by what we do with money.
Let’s pretend that America actually has the $189 billion Bush wants to pump into the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and on top of the regular Depart of Defense budget of $460 billion. The cost of the war has now hit half a million dollars per minute.
What is the opportunity cost of that money? For what Bush is spending each year in Iraq, we could provide health care coverage for every man, woman and child in America. Republicans are hard-set against such an idea, because their campaign accounts are bloated with the skimmings of exorbitant healthcare profits.
According to www.opensecrets.com, Isakson has received over $50,000 from Blue Cross, and over $44,000 from AFLAC. Saxby Chambliss is mostly an Agribusiness sell-out. That could explain why he whined that funding SHIP with a higher cigarette tax increase might cause cigarette sales to fall. Chambliss raked in nearly $300,000 from insurance companies as well. Are these politicians serving the voters who elected them, or the industries that fund their expensive campaigns?
The United States and South Africa are the only developed countries that fail to provide health care for all their citizens. Under the Health Choices Plan proposed by Hillary Clinton, every man, woman and child can enjoy reliable health care coverage using private doctors. And the cost to American tax payers? It’s a net tax cut.
For that matter, $189 billion could go a long way to shoring up our ailing education system, repairing bridges and Interstates, and taking better care of our veterans and the elderly. Republican politicians would rather dump dollars into Iraq, where they line the pockets of Blackwater and Halliburton.
Bush is fond of saying “We have a lot of money, here in Washington.” No, Mr. President, we don’t have that $189 billion. We didn’t have the $455 billion you already burned in Iraq, either. You continue to pile deficits onto the backs of American children, even as you take away their health care.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
A Christian and a Democrat
“I can’t vote for a Democrat,” a man once told me. “I’m a Christian.” He spoke these two labels as if they were a set of antonyms. He could not grasp my attempts to explain that one label referred to a religion while the other referred to a political party. Some preacher had told him that all Christians are Republicans, and he had accepted this factoid without thinking.
I tried another approach. “Do you know how the Democratic Party meetings are opened?” I asked.
He raised one eyebrow warily, as if he expected to hear that we sacrificed infants or pledged our souls to the devil.
“We open with prayer,” I told him. “Then we say the Pledge of Allegiance.”
He stood there for a moment, dazed. “Including the ‘under God’ part?”
“That part, too,” I answered, and watched as he walked away, wheels turning in his head.
The Republican Party claims to be God’s party, even while they oppress the fatherless, the foreigner and the poor – the very people God warned us not to oppress. (Zech 7:10.)
Rev. Jim Nelson, who will be speaking at the Catoosa County Democratic Rally & Barbecue at Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School Saturday night, puts it like this, “I am not a Democrat in spite of being a Christian. I am a Democrat because I am a Christian.”
As for the current crop of Republicans, there is hardly a moral conservative among them. It seems another GOP member comes out of the closet (or the airport restroom stall) every week. These days we’re just happy if we can keep them off the under-age congressional pages.
A bizarre conversion is sweeping the Republican Party, though. Mitt Romney, who pandered to the gay and lesbian community in 1994, has become their biggest opponent. Rudy Giuliani, who worked to increase gun control as mayor of New York City, has suddenly become a believer in the 2nd Amendment and a fan of the NRA. Meanwhile, Episcopalian candidate John McCain has suddenly realized that he is a Baptist – and has been for many years even as his campaign materials called him an Episcopalian. What’s next? Will Mitt Romney reveal that he is actually a black woman? No, that might conflict with his Latter Day Saints Bible, which calls black skin a curse.
If Baptist is what the voters want, then McCain will retroactively become a Baptist. It’s hard to say whether that will help him, as there have been more Episcopalians than Baptists in the White House. In fact, Baptist presidents have typically been judged harshly by those affiliated with the Baptist church.
The first Baptist president was Warren G. Harding. Harding, a Republican, is often listed among a handful of “worst presidents” in terms of lackluster leadership and widespread corruption. The other three Baptist presidents were all Democrats: Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Let’s talk about Jimmy Carter. As President, Carter orchestrated peace between Egypt and Israel, and talked the Soviet Union through the SALT II treaty to reduce nuclear arms. He advanced equal opportunity for women and minorities. He created the Department of Education and the Department of Energy to make sure that every American had access to quality education and reliable electricity – things we now take for granted. Carter introduced the concept of environmental protection legislation. After leaving office, Carter participated in numerous projects and foundations to help people all around the world. Habitat for Humanity is probably the most widely known. In 2002, Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize for his continued diplomatic work around the world. Yet most Baptists hate him.
Carter always showed himself to be a statesman, a faithful husband, and a strong Christian. He was never caught using lewd words when he did not realize the microphone was on, like Bush. Carter has published numerous devotional books which you can borrow from our county library. Since age 18, he has taught Sunday school at a Baptist church. Even while in Washington, he taught a Sunday school class there. Do you think our current president even attends church on Sunday? Hint: No.
It’s not that Bush’s pew is empty. He doesn’t have one. The man who claims God speaks to him directly, has no church at all. And don’t tell me the free leader of the world can’t find time to go to church. If he can find time to spend a third of his presidency on vacation, he can find time to go to the House of God.
Reagan did not bother with church either, even though he was often called the nation’s “pastor.” Reagan’s excuse for being unchurched was that the security detail required to protect him would be a burden, causing parishioners to leave. The Clintons, who were active members of Foundry United Methodist Church during Bill Clinton’s term in the White House, had no problem attending.
According to his biographers, Carter may be the most personally devout president America ever had. Yet Baptist leaders inexplicably loathe Carter. Many preachers have called him godless, denying that he was ever a Christian.
Meanwhile, these same people support President Bush as God’s man of the hour, even though he has rarely darkens the door of a church, supports killing and torture rather than working for peace, has demonstrated no knowledge of Scripture, and would have trouble coming up with a bedtime prayer without help from Karl Rove.
The fact is, Baptist leaders don’t support Baptists. Baptist leaders support Republicans. You will even see them support a Mormon, if Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination. Mitt Romney has already spoken at Pat Robertson’s Regent University’s commencement– even though Robertson’s website lists Mormons as a cult for denying salvation through faith in Christ. Maybe faith in Christ is less important to Robertson than imagining himself a kingmaker.
Republicans often charge that Democrats are immoral. They forget that the moral values held by most Americans include compassion, honesty, integrity, and respect for all people. Let’s consider how our current president stacks up on these values.
Compassion: Bush cut Head Start and school lunch programs, and has now promised to cut health care to millions of children all over the country.
Honesty: Bush lied about WMD’s in Iraq and repeatedly insinuated that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Integrity: Bush sought to prevent both the independent investigation and the congressional investigation of the 9/11 attacks.
Respect for all people: Would that include the thousands of American soldiers and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children slaughtered in a war founded on lies?
My Christian faith does not allow me to vote for more lies, war, sickness and poverty.
I tried another approach. “Do you know how the Democratic Party meetings are opened?” I asked.
He raised one eyebrow warily, as if he expected to hear that we sacrificed infants or pledged our souls to the devil.
“We open with prayer,” I told him. “Then we say the Pledge of Allegiance.”
He stood there for a moment, dazed. “Including the ‘under God’ part?”
“That part, too,” I answered, and watched as he walked away, wheels turning in his head.
The Republican Party claims to be God’s party, even while they oppress the fatherless, the foreigner and the poor – the very people God warned us not to oppress. (Zech 7:10.)
Rev. Jim Nelson, who will be speaking at the Catoosa County Democratic Rally & Barbecue at Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School Saturday night, puts it like this, “I am not a Democrat in spite of being a Christian. I am a Democrat because I am a Christian.”
As for the current crop of Republicans, there is hardly a moral conservative among them. It seems another GOP member comes out of the closet (or the airport restroom stall) every week. These days we’re just happy if we can keep them off the under-age congressional pages.
A bizarre conversion is sweeping the Republican Party, though. Mitt Romney, who pandered to the gay and lesbian community in 1994, has become their biggest opponent. Rudy Giuliani, who worked to increase gun control as mayor of New York City, has suddenly become a believer in the 2nd Amendment and a fan of the NRA. Meanwhile, Episcopalian candidate John McCain has suddenly realized that he is a Baptist – and has been for many years even as his campaign materials called him an Episcopalian. What’s next? Will Mitt Romney reveal that he is actually a black woman? No, that might conflict with his Latter Day Saints Bible, which calls black skin a curse.
If Baptist is what the voters want, then McCain will retroactively become a Baptist. It’s hard to say whether that will help him, as there have been more Episcopalians than Baptists in the White House. In fact, Baptist presidents have typically been judged harshly by those affiliated with the Baptist church.
The first Baptist president was Warren G. Harding. Harding, a Republican, is often listed among a handful of “worst presidents” in terms of lackluster leadership and widespread corruption. The other three Baptist presidents were all Democrats: Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Let’s talk about Jimmy Carter. As President, Carter orchestrated peace between Egypt and Israel, and talked the Soviet Union through the SALT II treaty to reduce nuclear arms. He advanced equal opportunity for women and minorities. He created the Department of Education and the Department of Energy to make sure that every American had access to quality education and reliable electricity – things we now take for granted. Carter introduced the concept of environmental protection legislation. After leaving office, Carter participated in numerous projects and foundations to help people all around the world. Habitat for Humanity is probably the most widely known. In 2002, Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize for his continued diplomatic work around the world. Yet most Baptists hate him.
Carter always showed himself to be a statesman, a faithful husband, and a strong Christian. He was never caught using lewd words when he did not realize the microphone was on, like Bush. Carter has published numerous devotional books which you can borrow from our county library. Since age 18, he has taught Sunday school at a Baptist church. Even while in Washington, he taught a Sunday school class there. Do you think our current president even attends church on Sunday? Hint: No.
It’s not that Bush’s pew is empty. He doesn’t have one. The man who claims God speaks to him directly, has no church at all. And don’t tell me the free leader of the world can’t find time to go to church. If he can find time to spend a third of his presidency on vacation, he can find time to go to the House of God.
Reagan did not bother with church either, even though he was often called the nation’s “pastor.” Reagan’s excuse for being unchurched was that the security detail required to protect him would be a burden, causing parishioners to leave. The Clintons, who were active members of Foundry United Methodist Church during Bill Clinton’s term in the White House, had no problem attending.
According to his biographers, Carter may be the most personally devout president America ever had. Yet Baptist leaders inexplicably loathe Carter. Many preachers have called him godless, denying that he was ever a Christian.
Meanwhile, these same people support President Bush as God’s man of the hour, even though he has rarely darkens the door of a church, supports killing and torture rather than working for peace, has demonstrated no knowledge of Scripture, and would have trouble coming up with a bedtime prayer without help from Karl Rove.
The fact is, Baptist leaders don’t support Baptists. Baptist leaders support Republicans. You will even see them support a Mormon, if Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination. Mitt Romney has already spoken at Pat Robertson’s Regent University’s commencement– even though Robertson’s website lists Mormons as a cult for denying salvation through faith in Christ. Maybe faith in Christ is less important to Robertson than imagining himself a kingmaker.
Republicans often charge that Democrats are immoral. They forget that the moral values held by most Americans include compassion, honesty, integrity, and respect for all people. Let’s consider how our current president stacks up on these values.
Compassion: Bush cut Head Start and school lunch programs, and has now promised to cut health care to millions of children all over the country.
Honesty: Bush lied about WMD’s in Iraq and repeatedly insinuated that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Integrity: Bush sought to prevent both the independent investigation and the congressional investigation of the 9/11 attacks.
Respect for all people: Would that include the thousands of American soldiers and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children slaughtered in a war founded on lies?
My Christian faith does not allow me to vote for more lies, war, sickness and poverty.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Finding good in the worst president ever
Finding good in the worst president ever
Leading historians, professors, Nobel Prize laureates and even President Carter (who rarely denounces anyone) have all granted George W. Bush the title “worst president ever.” Even the Republican candidates who hope to succeed Bush are trying to distance and differentiate themselves from this president.
Surely GWB can’t be all bad. How could he be a worse president than Nixon, whose behind-the-scenes actions caused him to bail out prior to impeachment? Come to think of it, Nixon’s sins were in the arena of illegal surveillance – an activity in which GWB has engaged with gusto. Some say GWB makes Nixon look like a civil libertarian. One professional historian, responding to a survey by George Mason University’s History News Network, put it like this, “Indeed, Bush puts Nixon into a more favorable light. He has trashed the image and reputation of the United States throughout the world; he has offended many of our previously close allies; he has burdened future generations with incredible debt; he has created an unnecessary war to further his domestic political objectives; he has suborned the civil rights of our citizens; he has destroyed previous environmental efforts by government in favor of his coterie of exploiters; he has surrounded himself with a cabal ideological adventurers . . . .”
However, there have been no student protestors shot during this war, as happened at Kent State on Nixon’s watch. That may be because so few are protesting. Some experts say a lot more protest is warranted.
George A. Akerlof, Nobel Prize laureate for Economics, is one of those people. According to Akerlof, GWB’s economic policy is as irresponsible as his foreign policy and his environmental policy. Akerlof, who says positive things about the older Bush, sums up GWB’s economic policy as “a form of looting.” Akerlof says civil disobedience is in order for a president who overshadows Herbert Hoover (and his resulting Great Depression) in terms of bad economic policy.
So maybe George W. Bush is the worst president in modern history or even, say, the worst since the Civil War era. He could not possibly be worse than Andrew Johnson, who campaigned against the 14th Amendment and vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 – though there are many who also see racism behind Bush’s Katrina debacle. And surely GWB is a better president than Buchanan, who allowed the discord between the states to simmer to the point of no return. Yet Buchanan did not launch ill-conceived wars on nations half-way across the world with no winning strategy.
Grant, another notoriously corrupt president, did at least serve in the military. By contrast, GWB went AWOL from the National Guard, opening himself to charges of “chickenhawk” as he deploys more and more young people into hostile territory with no personal concept of the dangers they face. Neither Grant nor any other US president attempted to invade other countries without declaring war. No other US president ever sought to normalize torture.
But enough people are writing terrible things (and terribly true things) about GWB. I decided to write some nice things about the current presidency. After a few days pondering, I was able to come up with three positives.
First of all, he cannot run again. After a terribly long six and a half years, the end is in sight. GWB is on the way out. The rest of the world may laugh (or curse) at America for giving this man a second term. Mercifully, we are saved from a third term by the 22nd Amendment.
Another good thing about GWB is that even if he could run again, he could not be elected again. With the national deficit now mushrooming at over a billion a day, thousands of American deaths in Iraq after “mission accomplished,” and an Iraq body count in the hundreds of thousands, even Republicans have had their fill. Maybe they’re tired of the scandals and cover-ups, the mishandled funds, the lying officials, the military abuses, the outings and the firings. For a myriad of reasons, polls show that Americans are more dissatisfied with the presidency of George W. Bush than with any man who preceded him.
The third good thing is that by his deplorable actions, GWB has opened wide the White House door to whomever wins the Democratic nomination. In fact, GWB has made such a mess of the American presidency, one wonders if any Republican has an honest shot at the White House in 2008. Maybe the Republicans are just throwing this election. Perhaps no candidate of quality dares to pick up the soiled mantle of George W. Bush. That could be why the Republican Party is putting forth such a strange crop of odd-ball candidates that no true Conservative could vote for any one of them.
Leading historians, professors, Nobel Prize laureates and even President Carter (who rarely denounces anyone) have all granted George W. Bush the title “worst president ever.” Even the Republican candidates who hope to succeed Bush are trying to distance and differentiate themselves from this president.
Surely GWB can’t be all bad. How could he be a worse president than Nixon, whose behind-the-scenes actions caused him to bail out prior to impeachment? Come to think of it, Nixon’s sins were in the arena of illegal surveillance – an activity in which GWB has engaged with gusto. Some say GWB makes Nixon look like a civil libertarian. One professional historian, responding to a survey by George Mason University’s History News Network, put it like this, “Indeed, Bush puts Nixon into a more favorable light. He has trashed the image and reputation of the United States throughout the world; he has offended many of our previously close allies; he has burdened future generations with incredible debt; he has created an unnecessary war to further his domestic political objectives; he has suborned the civil rights of our citizens; he has destroyed previous environmental efforts by government in favor of his coterie of exploiters; he has surrounded himself with a cabal ideological adventurers . . . .”
However, there have been no student protestors shot during this war, as happened at Kent State on Nixon’s watch. That may be because so few are protesting. Some experts say a lot more protest is warranted.
George A. Akerlof, Nobel Prize laureate for Economics, is one of those people. According to Akerlof, GWB’s economic policy is as irresponsible as his foreign policy and his environmental policy. Akerlof, who says positive things about the older Bush, sums up GWB’s economic policy as “a form of looting.” Akerlof says civil disobedience is in order for a president who overshadows Herbert Hoover (and his resulting Great Depression) in terms of bad economic policy.
So maybe George W. Bush is the worst president in modern history or even, say, the worst since the Civil War era. He could not possibly be worse than Andrew Johnson, who campaigned against the 14th Amendment and vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 – though there are many who also see racism behind Bush’s Katrina debacle. And surely GWB is a better president than Buchanan, who allowed the discord between the states to simmer to the point of no return. Yet Buchanan did not launch ill-conceived wars on nations half-way across the world with no winning strategy.
Grant, another notoriously corrupt president, did at least serve in the military. By contrast, GWB went AWOL from the National Guard, opening himself to charges of “chickenhawk” as he deploys more and more young people into hostile territory with no personal concept of the dangers they face. Neither Grant nor any other US president attempted to invade other countries without declaring war. No other US president ever sought to normalize torture.
But enough people are writing terrible things (and terribly true things) about GWB. I decided to write some nice things about the current presidency. After a few days pondering, I was able to come up with three positives.
First of all, he cannot run again. After a terribly long six and a half years, the end is in sight. GWB is on the way out. The rest of the world may laugh (or curse) at America for giving this man a second term. Mercifully, we are saved from a third term by the 22nd Amendment.
Another good thing about GWB is that even if he could run again, he could not be elected again. With the national deficit now mushrooming at over a billion a day, thousands of American deaths in Iraq after “mission accomplished,” and an Iraq body count in the hundreds of thousands, even Republicans have had their fill. Maybe they’re tired of the scandals and cover-ups, the mishandled funds, the lying officials, the military abuses, the outings and the firings. For a myriad of reasons, polls show that Americans are more dissatisfied with the presidency of George W. Bush than with any man who preceded him.
The third good thing is that by his deplorable actions, GWB has opened wide the White House door to whomever wins the Democratic nomination. In fact, GWB has made such a mess of the American presidency, one wonders if any Republican has an honest shot at the White House in 2008. Maybe the Republicans are just throwing this election. Perhaps no candidate of quality dares to pick up the soiled mantle of George W. Bush. That could be why the Republican Party is putting forth such a strange crop of odd-ball candidates that no true Conservative could vote for any one of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
