Lest anyone think a liberal 'blogger is calling for laws about what politicians and media folk are allowed to say, I thought I'd better clarify.
Nope, that's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, it's time we grow the F up. We shouldn't need a law for adults to WANT to behave like adults in public. The law shouldn't have anything to do with it. What we need is for the rest of us to voice it when we disagree with the childish behavior of both our politicians and our big media personalities... or even with that guy in Wal-Mart talking on his cell phone in the diaper aisle screaming the F-word in every sentence!
You know me, I LOVE the F word, but when did it become acceptable for it to be part of every sentence someone's yelling in Wal-Mart?? I suspect it hasn't become acceptable, but rather, we've lost the adult skill of addressing the unacceptable-ness of it. Instead, we childishly stew, letting our anger at it, or at our own inability to address it grow into some hostile seething. The seething is then somewhat soothed when we hear Keith Olberman or Rush Limbaugh complaining about the same thing on the radio, but then hyperbolically calling for some drastic measure - in a PURELY entertainment-esque metaphor - NOT to be taken literatlly! tirade that makes us feel better. But it doesn't really. It just makes us feel less alone in our powerlessness. Then we confuse our own ineptitude with the EIB or MSNBC proposed solution and start believing such exaggerated silliness is an actual solution.
The thing is, the solution is simply, politely, asking the "gentleman" at Wal-mart to please use more appropriate language in public...around your mom, or your children. The solution is for all of us to grow the F up.
Have there been moments when, in the angry aftermath of some ridiculous statement made by a politician that I felt some childish satisfaction at a mean comment Olberman, or Rush made about the comment? Sure, then I remembered I'm an adult, that neither side in that childish spat was getting us closer to solving the issue, and that this particular form of entertainment is nothing more than that. I remembered that when it comes time for me to figure out where I actually stand on an issue, I need to think for myself and try to tune out the BS... the entertainment. Like what Jersey Shore characters, or AM radio "characters" say and actually tune in on what really should matter.
It's no surprise that this has been the theme of the week on The Daily Show. Many fans who stood in line for the free tickets in recent miserable New York City weather this past Monday might have felt a little slighted as the Monday show's entire first segment was Stewart intelligently and carefully explaining why it's not fun to make fun of the news when the news involves the tragedy of the previous weekend. As it was, he probably lost half his audience in that brief speech but it was eloquent, needed to be said, and probably wasn't and won't be heard anywhere else.
Later in the week, The Daily Show hosted Tim Pawlenty, who admitted to having said things in public he later wished he hadn't, but remained defensive as Stewart laid out his plea for SELF restraint. It was as if Pawlenty assumed Stewart was calling for repealing the 1st amendment. He didn't seem able to grasp what Stewart actually said: that we and our politicians should WANT to use speech that made a clearer distinction between them and crazed gunmen or extreme talk show hosts.
Am I the only one saddened by the fact that the only "news" show that's handled the truly important topics of the week with an adult approach and an appropriate and respectful deference and urgency is on Comedy Central?
So, back to the point: Yes, I believe Keith, Rush, Rachel, and Glenn should be ALLOWED to say whatever the hell they want. And, as a legion of idiots, we should be allowed to hang on and repeat their every word. No, there shouldn't be a LAW that prevents this.
What there should be is an adult segment of our population, say those over 17, who are able to see this for what it is, react negatively when appropriate rather than embrace it as the solution to the world's problems, and then to be able to seek more appropriate, relevant, and useful information upon which to form their opinions. They should then act on and voice those adult opinions in grown up ways. We should tell our politicians when their speech is inappropriate and worse, when their actions (or lack of) are ineffective. We should ignore entertainers whose idea of entertaining is simply preying on the ignorant who can't form their own opinions.
The dude using the F word in Wal-Mart only thinks that's ok because as a society, we have agreed that it is. This is in no small part because we hear and pay lots of money for very similar language on afternoon radio and evening cable tv. The initial confrontations of our collective childishness won't be smooth. They will require the MOST adult among us to use all of our skills to do it. But that's what we have to do - it's not legislation I'm calling for.
We should just all grow the F up.
Luth
Out
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
After the hangover... more on hate speech
Funny you should come back now, Ray. When I awoke from the hangover of yesterday's post, even I felt it was reactionary, premature, maybe even immature. I was thinking all day about posting something to that effect, but when I read it again, I noticed how short I stopped from drawing any direct link between the right's hate speech and political violence. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that I simply extrapolated Krugman's point: that there's a difference between strong rhetoric (even emotionally charged strong rhetoric...even if it's less than researched, ie opinion) and inciting violence. One is common only to the right. One is ubiquitous.
It doesn't take long to Google Limbaugh or Beck and find either carefully couched but obvious, or downright violent samples...here are the initial hits:
RUSH:
"It's called Operation Chaos! The dream end... I mean, if people say what's your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That's the objective here..." (April 2008)
BECK:
"...let's line em up and shoot em in the head..."
"I'd like to kill Charlie Rangel with a shovel..."
"I put poison in your (nancy Pelosi's) wine..."
"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore..."
Not to mention the calculated build ups that don't actually come right out and say it but leave little to the imagination...
"the president is a racist...has a deep seated hatred of white culture..."
(How do you think Beck expects Klansmen to receive those remarks?)
Or how about "The razor wire is coming." after a riff on the American Revolution and how it only took 12% of Americans to start it... and at least 30% of today's Americans don't want to live inside the razor wire, do we people? Sure, that's not a direct call for violence, but if you don't see Beck's call for revolution (and NOT just in the voting booths) in this speech, you're blind.
Show me samples like this from Olberman or Maddow... (do I even need to include Williams, Brokaw, Rather??) or even Stewart or Colbert (who are clearly comedians... a title Limbaugh and Beck deny for themselves vehemently)
Nope, I stand by this one. Reactionary? Sure. Inaccurate? I don't think so. I should trust my reactionary gut more often.
True, there's no direct link, but I'm sticking with the notion that if a lefty said these kinds of things, he or she would be shunned by the Democrats. The Dems thus endorse CIVIL discourse NOT violent elimination of the opposition.
The GOP has embraced violent rhetoric. Most of the Arizona Tea Bag politicos would rather bankrupt the state than write a gun law, let people with brown skin walk their streets without papers, or raise taxes. Palin tweets about pitbulls, mama grizzlies, and reloading. There's no denying the Beck/Limbaugh connection and the way actual Repubs talk. That's the difference. That's endorsement. That's what foments cultural shifts. That's the link, indirect as it may be, between violent acts and Beck/Limbaugh cum Republican hate speech. This kind of endorsement is undeniably absent from the Dems and even the Left's cable media.
We're not talking about emotions or strong language here. Those have a place in debate/argument. You should be passionate about what you believe, but you should be able to argue for it on its merits, not by calling for the elimination of your opponents. You're allowed to get angry during the course of a debate, but you don't specifically name someone you'd hit with a shovel.(that's often referred to as "assault") I think even you can see the difference between that and invoking the expression (with no PERSON as the target) about bringing a knife to a gunfight when speaking VERY clearly about FUNDRAISING.
There's a slight difference between direct speech and figurative language...even if the direct speech is presented as a tasteless joke, it's direct, almost literal, NOT about fundraising. Calling for a Chicago'68-like riot at the Denver Democratic Convention is NOT a metaphor. It's a direct call. Poisoning Pelosi's wine or killing Charlie Rangel by hitting him in the head with a shovel may be just jokes, but they are also explicit, violent statements. I guess that's what makes them funny... among a circle of like-minded friends, but not in a public broadcast.
There's also a considerable difference between a psychopath stating some connection for his acts, and a culture that condones the acts. John Hinckley shot Reagan to get the attention of Jodie Foster. Mark Chapman killed John Lennon because it somehow fit with his world view based on The Catcher in the Rye. So are Foster and Salinger to blame? Uh, no, but that's not quite the same as Klansman, encouraged by their culture and their political leaders, lynching blacks in the 50s and 60s now is it. I think it's fair to say there's a connection in the latter, but not in the former.
Richard Nixon and his buddy, then VP at CBS, had the Smothers Brothers removed from television for far less inflammatory, far less specific, and far more sophisticated humor than what Beck and Limbaugh have gotten away with for years. And THAT was when the Republicans still pretended to be civil. Today, they don't even bother pretending anymore. Do you honestly think it's not just a matter of time? If this kind of thing DID go on in the left, it would have been outlawed in Arizona by now!
Luth
Out
It doesn't take long to Google Limbaugh or Beck and find either carefully couched but obvious, or downright violent samples...here are the initial hits:
RUSH:
"It's called Operation Chaos! The dream end... I mean, if people say what's your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That's the objective here..." (April 2008)
BECK:
"...let's line em up and shoot em in the head..."
"I'd like to kill Charlie Rangel with a shovel..."
"I put poison in your (nancy Pelosi's) wine..."
"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore..."
Not to mention the calculated build ups that don't actually come right out and say it but leave little to the imagination...
"the president is a racist...has a deep seated hatred of white culture..."
(How do you think Beck expects Klansmen to receive those remarks?)
Or how about "The razor wire is coming." after a riff on the American Revolution and how it only took 12% of Americans to start it... and at least 30% of today's Americans don't want to live inside the razor wire, do we people? Sure, that's not a direct call for violence, but if you don't see Beck's call for revolution (and NOT just in the voting booths) in this speech, you're blind.
Show me samples like this from Olberman or Maddow... (do I even need to include Williams, Brokaw, Rather??) or even Stewart or Colbert (who are clearly comedians... a title Limbaugh and Beck deny for themselves vehemently)
Nope, I stand by this one. Reactionary? Sure. Inaccurate? I don't think so. I should trust my reactionary gut more often.
True, there's no direct link, but I'm sticking with the notion that if a lefty said these kinds of things, he or she would be shunned by the Democrats. The Dems thus endorse CIVIL discourse NOT violent elimination of the opposition.
The GOP has embraced violent rhetoric. Most of the Arizona Tea Bag politicos would rather bankrupt the state than write a gun law, let people with brown skin walk their streets without papers, or raise taxes. Palin tweets about pitbulls, mama grizzlies, and reloading. There's no denying the Beck/Limbaugh connection and the way actual Repubs talk. That's the difference. That's endorsement. That's what foments cultural shifts. That's the link, indirect as it may be, between violent acts and Beck/Limbaugh cum Republican hate speech. This kind of endorsement is undeniably absent from the Dems and even the Left's cable media.
We're not talking about emotions or strong language here. Those have a place in debate/argument. You should be passionate about what you believe, but you should be able to argue for it on its merits, not by calling for the elimination of your opponents. You're allowed to get angry during the course of a debate, but you don't specifically name someone you'd hit with a shovel.(that's often referred to as "assault") I think even you can see the difference between that and invoking the expression (with no PERSON as the target) about bringing a knife to a gunfight when speaking VERY clearly about FUNDRAISING.
There's a slight difference between direct speech and figurative language...even if the direct speech is presented as a tasteless joke, it's direct, almost literal, NOT about fundraising. Calling for a Chicago'68-like riot at the Denver Democratic Convention is NOT a metaphor. It's a direct call. Poisoning Pelosi's wine or killing Charlie Rangel by hitting him in the head with a shovel may be just jokes, but they are also explicit, violent statements. I guess that's what makes them funny... among a circle of like-minded friends, but not in a public broadcast.
There's also a considerable difference between a psychopath stating some connection for his acts, and a culture that condones the acts. John Hinckley shot Reagan to get the attention of Jodie Foster. Mark Chapman killed John Lennon because it somehow fit with his world view based on The Catcher in the Rye. So are Foster and Salinger to blame? Uh, no, but that's not quite the same as Klansman, encouraged by their culture and their political leaders, lynching blacks in the 50s and 60s now is it. I think it's fair to say there's a connection in the latter, but not in the former.
Richard Nixon and his buddy, then VP at CBS, had the Smothers Brothers removed from television for far less inflammatory, far less specific, and far more sophisticated humor than what Beck and Limbaugh have gotten away with for years. And THAT was when the Republicans still pretended to be civil. Today, they don't even bother pretending anymore. Do you honestly think it's not just a matter of time? If this kind of thing DID go on in the left, it would have been outlawed in Arizona by now!
Luth
Out
Monday, January 10, 2011
Hate Speech and The Right
Let's start with this link to Paul Krugman's op-ed piece in the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1
From there, let's talk about the real difference between emotional, biased reporting... say the kinds you'll find plenty of examples of on MSNBC, and hate speech, the kind you find examples of on Fox. Or better yet, let's let Krugman sum it up with a few quotes from the article at that link:
Krugman begins by asking this question:
When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?
By way of an answer, Krugman pieces together some crazy shit that Fox and the right will certainly begin to wildly explain away, but a few of the more salient points follow (from Krugman's piece):
As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.” The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line.
... there’s a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren’t the same as incitement.
The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.
And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.
Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
I know... I know... Krugman, like so many Yale and MIT trained, Harvard Published, and Stanford, Yale, and Princeton-employed economists is clearly one of those liberal wackos who's long since fallen off the left end of the flat earth...nevermind the Nobel Prize, or the John Bates Clark Medal. He's clearly an idiot who knows not what he's talking about! Right.
I don't even know how to respond to the kind of blindness that doesn't allow folks to see exactly where the rhetoric of the right has led us. If you can't or won't see it for yourself, there's likely no changing your mind, but the fact remains that incitements to, and the use of the language of violence, and all out calls for it are found on just one "news" network, and, at least as far as a cultural swing, just one end of the political spectrum... and one end alone.
There may be childish, emotional arguments, name-calling, and jabs coming from the MSNBC end of the spectrum, but folks there don't protest funerals or urge their followers to pick up guns or behead people... they don't Tweet for them to "reload."
In order to avoid having to use the F-word in this post, I'm going to finish with some more from Krugman's piece:
Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.
...Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly are responding to popular demand.
But even if hate is what many want to hear, that doesn’t excuse those who pander to that desire. They should be shunned by all decent people.
Unfortunately, that hasn’t been happening: the purveyors of hate have been treated with respect, even deference, by the G.O.P. establishment. As David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, has put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox.”
I gotta tell ya, to hear this ivy-leaguer point out many of the same observations I've noticed throughout my years of surveying Fox, CNN, and MSNBC kind of makes me feel a little better about the state U diploma I FINALLY got in the mail this week. I also gotta tell ya these observations are about more than a little disagreement based solely on one's political bias. They represent a decisive difference in one's actual respect for one's fellow man. I suspect this difference may have something to do with some kind of ulterior motive... say, perhaps, a reward in another life...one that justifies all manner of horrible behavior in this life, eh?
Ah, but that's a line Krugman will not cross. Our current paradigm is such that social scientists, no matter how dismal, would rather fail to explain a phenomena than suggest there may be a religious cause to it. And with that, before I either use, or incite use of the F-word...
Luth
Out
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1
From there, let's talk about the real difference between emotional, biased reporting... say the kinds you'll find plenty of examples of on MSNBC, and hate speech, the kind you find examples of on Fox. Or better yet, let's let Krugman sum it up with a few quotes from the article at that link:
Krugman begins by asking this question:
When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?
By way of an answer, Krugman pieces together some crazy shit that Fox and the right will certainly begin to wildly explain away, but a few of the more salient points follow (from Krugman's piece):
As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.” The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line.
... there’s a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren’t the same as incitement.
The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.
And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.
Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
I know... I know... Krugman, like so many Yale and MIT trained, Harvard Published, and Stanford, Yale, and Princeton-employed economists is clearly one of those liberal wackos who's long since fallen off the left end of the flat earth...nevermind the Nobel Prize, or the John Bates Clark Medal. He's clearly an idiot who knows not what he's talking about! Right.
I don't even know how to respond to the kind of blindness that doesn't allow folks to see exactly where the rhetoric of the right has led us. If you can't or won't see it for yourself, there's likely no changing your mind, but the fact remains that incitements to, and the use of the language of violence, and all out calls for it are found on just one "news" network, and, at least as far as a cultural swing, just one end of the political spectrum... and one end alone.
There may be childish, emotional arguments, name-calling, and jabs coming from the MSNBC end of the spectrum, but folks there don't protest funerals or urge their followers to pick up guns or behead people... they don't Tweet for them to "reload."
In order to avoid having to use the F-word in this post, I'm going to finish with some more from Krugman's piece:
Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.
...Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly are responding to popular demand.
But even if hate is what many want to hear, that doesn’t excuse those who pander to that desire. They should be shunned by all decent people.
Unfortunately, that hasn’t been happening: the purveyors of hate have been treated with respect, even deference, by the G.O.P. establishment. As David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, has put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox.”
I gotta tell ya, to hear this ivy-leaguer point out many of the same observations I've noticed throughout my years of surveying Fox, CNN, and MSNBC kind of makes me feel a little better about the state U diploma I FINALLY got in the mail this week. I also gotta tell ya these observations are about more than a little disagreement based solely on one's political bias. They represent a decisive difference in one's actual respect for one's fellow man. I suspect this difference may have something to do with some kind of ulterior motive... say, perhaps, a reward in another life...one that justifies all manner of horrible behavior in this life, eh?
Ah, but that's a line Krugman will not cross. Our current paradigm is such that social scientists, no matter how dismal, would rather fail to explain a phenomena than suggest there may be a religious cause to it. And with that, before I either use, or incite use of the F-word...
Luth
Out
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Mandatory Insurance Unconstitutional?
Somebody needs to tell the BMV that. I know, I know, health insurance is different than auto insurance. People can just choose not to drive, then they won't need to buy auto insurance. As you might imagine, I don't quite see it like that.
Let's start with the whole "you don't HAVE to drive" reasoning. This is simply not true for most Americans. Here in Ohio, Gov-elect Kasich is turning down $400 million of federal money to make sure it stays not true. The money was marked for a high speed rail system connecting Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. OK, that may not have been the public transportation silver bullet that made it possible for everyone in Ohio to get rid of their rides, but it was at least a step in the right direction. It might even have created a local job or two. Ohio isn't the only place where most of us don't have access to public transportation. Those of us who don't have access also probably don't have that one big employer right down the street allowing us to walk to work either. Therefore, if we want to work, we HAVE to drive. If we want groceries, prescriptions, food, then we have to drive AND work. These things aren't optional. Humans need them to survive. And for most humans, we have to drive to get them. So most of us do NOT have the option to simply not drive in order to avoid mandatory auto insurance.
But let's just pretend for a minute that driving really is optional... something people do just for recreation, or because they didn't achieve what they thought they should and bought a really expensive, impractical car instead. If that were actually the case, then wouldn't it make even more sense to make auto insurance OPTIONAL but health insurance MANDATORY. If driving were really just for kicks, then it would be LESS important than healthcare, right? So why would we make the important insurance optional, but the recreational insurance mandatory? That just seems kind of backward.
No, I get this - it was explained to me before. Since driving is optional, it's OK to mandate that those who choose to do it have insurance so if they hit YOU, you don't have to pay for the damage they caused... and if people don't like it, they don't have to drive. If I choose to drive, I shouldn't have to worry about some bonehead without insurance hitting me. In essence, this law keeps the cost of YOUR insurance lower. OK, that makes sense. Hey, wouldn't that work for other types of insurance too?! Like, what if I also want that kind of assurance that my insurance for other things wouldn't get prohibitively expensive due to all the people out there who choose not to buy it, but sill participate in the activity? Don't I deserve the same protection there as I do when I pay for auto insurance?
OK, where was I? Oh yeah, so mandatory insurance keeps the costs down for all of us who choose to partake of that particular system. And ya see, right now, without any kind of law like that regarding health insurance, people who choose not to buy insurance, also choose not to get healthcare. It's kind of like a rationing system we have in place right now. Health care is rationed to people with money. People without have to wait until their health is in an emergency condition, go to an emergency room, and then the rest of us pay for that via increased health insurance premiums. The average cost per visit for the people for whom health care is rationed in this fashion is sky high because they've received very little if any maintenance or preventive care (that's the part that's rationed) and so we all pay too much for the care they get... if it's not too late. Let's sum up: our current system rations care, is paid for socially by those of us who buy insurance, and is costly because of this. If only there were a way to take advantage of the way we made auto insurance cheaper by making it mandatory! Hmmm. How might we do that?
While you ponder that, I'll go on. A third reason why I believe the "unconstitutional" argument is flawed is because just like folks who choose not to drive, folks may also choose not to get healthcare. Seriously. Who ever died because of a missed healthcare appointment? I think it was Mark Twain who said doctors make people sick. There are even plenty of Americans whose religious beliefs prohibit them from going to the doctor. So there are folks out there right now who shoot down the whole "driving is optional, healthcare is not" line of thought. We'd need an opt out for these folks anyway, so what's so unconstitutional about it if we can make exceptions for folks like that? Furthermore, why couldn't folks who want to opt out of the mandatory health insurance just pay cash for their care and be required to maintain a $100,000 bond in the event they require emergency healthcare? Ohio does that for drivers. They can drive AND opt out of the mandatory insurance as long as they have the cash to pay for damage they cause.
Fourth, based on their recent reluctance to shoot down federal law, even THIS Supreme Court isn't very likely to side with the complainants. They've failed to limit federal reach into homegrown medicinal marijuana, so why wouldn't they fail to limit it here too? Yup, I'm afraid this whole lawsuit against the constitutionality of mandatory health insurance is just a political event purely to get attention and steer the ignorant toward some hasty illogical conclusion. I for one, am disappointed with my countrymen.
Luth
Out
Let's start with the whole "you don't HAVE to drive" reasoning. This is simply not true for most Americans. Here in Ohio, Gov-elect Kasich is turning down $400 million of federal money to make sure it stays not true. The money was marked for a high speed rail system connecting Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. OK, that may not have been the public transportation silver bullet that made it possible for everyone in Ohio to get rid of their rides, but it was at least a step in the right direction. It might even have created a local job or two. Ohio isn't the only place where most of us don't have access to public transportation. Those of us who don't have access also probably don't have that one big employer right down the street allowing us to walk to work either. Therefore, if we want to work, we HAVE to drive. If we want groceries, prescriptions, food, then we have to drive AND work. These things aren't optional. Humans need them to survive. And for most humans, we have to drive to get them. So most of us do NOT have the option to simply not drive in order to avoid mandatory auto insurance.
But let's just pretend for a minute that driving really is optional... something people do just for recreation, or because they didn't achieve what they thought they should and bought a really expensive, impractical car instead. If that were actually the case, then wouldn't it make even more sense to make auto insurance OPTIONAL but health insurance MANDATORY. If driving were really just for kicks, then it would be LESS important than healthcare, right? So why would we make the important insurance optional, but the recreational insurance mandatory? That just seems kind of backward.
No, I get this - it was explained to me before. Since driving is optional, it's OK to mandate that those who choose to do it have insurance so if they hit YOU, you don't have to pay for the damage they caused... and if people don't like it, they don't have to drive. If I choose to drive, I shouldn't have to worry about some bonehead without insurance hitting me. In essence, this law keeps the cost of YOUR insurance lower. OK, that makes sense. Hey, wouldn't that work for other types of insurance too?! Like, what if I also want that kind of assurance that my insurance for other things wouldn't get prohibitively expensive due to all the people out there who choose not to buy it, but sill participate in the activity? Don't I deserve the same protection there as I do when I pay for auto insurance?
OK, where was I? Oh yeah, so mandatory insurance keeps the costs down for all of us who choose to partake of that particular system. And ya see, right now, without any kind of law like that regarding health insurance, people who choose not to buy insurance, also choose not to get healthcare. It's kind of like a rationing system we have in place right now. Health care is rationed to people with money. People without have to wait until their health is in an emergency condition, go to an emergency room, and then the rest of us pay for that via increased health insurance premiums. The average cost per visit for the people for whom health care is rationed in this fashion is sky high because they've received very little if any maintenance or preventive care (that's the part that's rationed) and so we all pay too much for the care they get... if it's not too late. Let's sum up: our current system rations care, is paid for socially by those of us who buy insurance, and is costly because of this. If only there were a way to take advantage of the way we made auto insurance cheaper by making it mandatory! Hmmm. How might we do that?
While you ponder that, I'll go on. A third reason why I believe the "unconstitutional" argument is flawed is because just like folks who choose not to drive, folks may also choose not to get healthcare. Seriously. Who ever died because of a missed healthcare appointment? I think it was Mark Twain who said doctors make people sick. There are even plenty of Americans whose religious beliefs prohibit them from going to the doctor. So there are folks out there right now who shoot down the whole "driving is optional, healthcare is not" line of thought. We'd need an opt out for these folks anyway, so what's so unconstitutional about it if we can make exceptions for folks like that? Furthermore, why couldn't folks who want to opt out of the mandatory health insurance just pay cash for their care and be required to maintain a $100,000 bond in the event they require emergency healthcare? Ohio does that for drivers. They can drive AND opt out of the mandatory insurance as long as they have the cash to pay for damage they cause.
Fourth, based on their recent reluctance to shoot down federal law, even THIS Supreme Court isn't very likely to side with the complainants. They've failed to limit federal reach into homegrown medicinal marijuana, so why wouldn't they fail to limit it here too? Yup, I'm afraid this whole lawsuit against the constitutionality of mandatory health insurance is just a political event purely to get attention and steer the ignorant toward some hasty illogical conclusion. I for one, am disappointed with my countrymen.
Luth
Out
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't be a bigot!
Senator McCain is out of excuses. The same ambivalence that cost him a presidential campaign now threatens to destroy what little respect anyone still has for him. He said he'd support the repeal when the generals supported it. Now he's changed his mind. He's one of many who don't seem to have learned from history and can't approach the issue of don't ask, don't tell from any kind of rational perspective.
It comes down to this: you're not in the military to pick up a date, so who or how you date shouldn't matter. Any personal issues you have with gays in the military are your issues, not the military's, and since it's an all volunteer force, you have the option of not joining rather than asking the military to discriminate against people you don't like.
It's that simple.
Just as simple is the word for military chaplains (or others) who oppose the repeal of this discriminatory policy: BIGOTS. Citing one's religious beliefs is no excuse. There was a time when the military only enlisted white males. There was a time when units and occupations were segregated. This too was bigoted policy, and this too was supported by the bible's take on slavery. We now admit how wrong that was. We need to do the same with don't ask, don't tell.
Bigots are not good for morale. They detract from the mission far more than anyone else. If our military is going to discriminate against anyone, it should discriminate against bigots.
Luth
Out
It comes down to this: you're not in the military to pick up a date, so who or how you date shouldn't matter. Any personal issues you have with gays in the military are your issues, not the military's, and since it's an all volunteer force, you have the option of not joining rather than asking the military to discriminate against people you don't like.
It's that simple.
Just as simple is the word for military chaplains (or others) who oppose the repeal of this discriminatory policy: BIGOTS. Citing one's religious beliefs is no excuse. There was a time when the military only enlisted white males. There was a time when units and occupations were segregated. This too was bigoted policy, and this too was supported by the bible's take on slavery. We now admit how wrong that was. We need to do the same with don't ask, don't tell.
Bigots are not good for morale. They detract from the mission far more than anyone else. If our military is going to discriminate against anyone, it should discriminate against bigots.
Luth
Out
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Secrets Gold Dealers Don't Want YOU To Know!
1. Buy low, sell high (duh)
2. Gold is HIGHER right now than it's been in my lifetime
3. So do NOT buy gold right now
Which, of course, means Glenn Beck truly is full of shit! But how many people are going out and actually BUYING gold right now? I know... I know... I might as well ask how many people are idiots. Anyhoo, an ad in the back of the VFW magazine caught my eye with a title similar to the one of this post and I just had to get this off my chest. You'd think an organization like VFW would be a little more careful about taking money from advertisers trying to swindle money from their clientele. But WTF do I know? I'm foolish enough to believe people will actually apply logic to things like this.
Luth
Out
2. Gold is HIGHER right now than it's been in my lifetime
3. So do NOT buy gold right now
Which, of course, means Glenn Beck truly is full of shit! But how many people are going out and actually BUYING gold right now? I know... I know... I might as well ask how many people are idiots. Anyhoo, an ad in the back of the VFW magazine caught my eye with a title similar to the one of this post and I just had to get this off my chest. You'd think an organization like VFW would be a little more careful about taking money from advertisers trying to swindle money from their clientele. But WTF do I know? I'm foolish enough to believe people will actually apply logic to things like this.
Luth
Out
Monday, October 25, 2010
but still... ya gotta vote!
Lest the subtitle of this 'blog fool you into thinking otherwise, you HAVE to vote. It is not just a right of citizenship, it is your duty.
Ya wanna know reason numero uno why politicians don't respond to their constituents these days? Cuz they don't have to! Only 40% of us bother voting for them, so what do they have to lose?
Next Tuesday, get off your asses and vote. I don't care if you vote like I do or not, just do it. Until we consistently show up in FAR greater numbers than we have in my lifetime, we'll never have any control over what these bastards are up to. Until we give them reason to fear us, they'll just continue with their own agendas.
And if you don't vote, don't bitch - just shut the hell up and deal with the results, cuz what we have these days is because of lazy hypocrites just like you! I'll actually be out of town next Tuesday, so Mrs. HorsePoup and I got up early on a Saturday and drove all the way to the board of elections in our county to make our voices heard. There were no lines. There was no waiting. Grandma HorsePoup got a ballot mailed to her and voted in the comfort of her home, where she had plenty of time, and a newspaper to consult if she wanted.
We can't make it any easier and there are no excuses. Even if you believe Obama should've been able to reverse two terms of horribly reckless fiscal policy in his first two years, even if you believe the party of NO hasn't blocked progress enough already, even if you're dumb enough to believe Gov. Strickland caused, rather than inherited a tanked economy and the highest unemployment since the Reagan era, I still want you to vote.
As Americans, we've been voting uninformed for years. That doesn't frighten at all compared to how scary our unaccountable politicians might become if our voter turn out drops even lower. Think they don't listen now? Then go ahead and surf the couch next Tuesday instead of stopping by the polls after "job hunting." If our turn out gets any lower, the current class will likely vote themselves 100% raises and extend their terms indefinitely cuz they know only 25% of us even give a shit.
I know it's only a mid-term election... no president to vote for or anything exciting like that, but next Tuesday is the day. Get off your butt and vote.
Luth
Out
Ya wanna know reason numero uno why politicians don't respond to their constituents these days? Cuz they don't have to! Only 40% of us bother voting for them, so what do they have to lose?
Next Tuesday, get off your asses and vote. I don't care if you vote like I do or not, just do it. Until we consistently show up in FAR greater numbers than we have in my lifetime, we'll never have any control over what these bastards are up to. Until we give them reason to fear us, they'll just continue with their own agendas.
And if you don't vote, don't bitch - just shut the hell up and deal with the results, cuz what we have these days is because of lazy hypocrites just like you! I'll actually be out of town next Tuesday, so Mrs. HorsePoup and I got up early on a Saturday and drove all the way to the board of elections in our county to make our voices heard. There were no lines. There was no waiting. Grandma HorsePoup got a ballot mailed to her and voted in the comfort of her home, where she had plenty of time, and a newspaper to consult if she wanted.
We can't make it any easier and there are no excuses. Even if you believe Obama should've been able to reverse two terms of horribly reckless fiscal policy in his first two years, even if you believe the party of NO hasn't blocked progress enough already, even if you're dumb enough to believe Gov. Strickland caused, rather than inherited a tanked economy and the highest unemployment since the Reagan era, I still want you to vote.
As Americans, we've been voting uninformed for years. That doesn't frighten at all compared to how scary our unaccountable politicians might become if our voter turn out drops even lower. Think they don't listen now? Then go ahead and surf the couch next Tuesday instead of stopping by the polls after "job hunting." If our turn out gets any lower, the current class will likely vote themselves 100% raises and extend their terms indefinitely cuz they know only 25% of us even give a shit.
I know it's only a mid-term election... no president to vote for or anything exciting like that, but next Tuesday is the day. Get off your butt and vote.
Luth
Out
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Money Equals Speech...
...but not for "games of skill" prizes in Ohio. So, my lawyer friends, explain this to me. When it comes to campaign contributions, the U.S. Supreme Court says money does in fact equal speech, and as such can't be limited without violating the constitution. However, the Ohio Supreme Court says when it comes to prizes awarded for a single "game of skill," this particular form of speech must be limited to $10.
Far be it from me to argue in favor of anything that might make gambling more enticing, but what's the difference? Why can't the owners of these increasingly ubiquitous storefront gambling operations exercise their "speech" the same way anonymous corporate donors get to exercise theirs during campaign time? I read somewhere that anonymous donors from all over the world are spending record amounts to influence Ohio's elections. (Repubs outspending Dems 7-1, for whatever that's worth) So why can't Ohio business owners spend more than $10 on a prize? Wouldn't this prize be a form of congratulations i.e. speech? And where are all the free-market, smaller-government, pro-business supporters to support these businessmen/women? What's wrong, exactly, with offering a bigger prize... especially if that prize (cash) has already been defined as speech by the U.S. Supreme Court?
Speaking of pro-business people and questions I'm having trouble answering as the elections approach, what is it Jim Renacci wants to provide for my congressional district? I mean, I've seen all the campaign talk - a flyer promising he'll protect my gun rights, commercials promising he'll support Ohio businesses, but what is it he's actually going to do. We all know that outside the context of a campaign, campaign speeches, commericals, flyers don't really mean much. If we go by past behavior, all I can figure is that when he says he supports businesses, what he really means is he ignores his constituents. The two things that stand out in my mind are two heated eminent domain decisions made in Wadsworth during, or shortly after his term as mayor there, and a vote by the city's electric linemen to unionize during his term.
I can see how the eminent domain decisions allowing Wal-Mart and CVS to evict property owners could be viewed as pro-business, or at last pro Wal-Mart and pro CVS, but what of the thousands of residents who voiced clear and strong opinions that the property owners evicted were more important to Wadsworth than a new Wal-Mart or a newly relocated CVS? If Renacci believes government should leave business alone, then why was he, as mayor, so involved in these businesses getting their way in Wadsworth?
As for the unionized electric linemen, they'd voted against unionizing for years until the mayor's business-ization of the city left them with no say in their operation - they who climb poles in storms to restore half-price power to city residents in less time than it takes for an Ohio Edison customer to even report an outage-drove them to finally give in to their union's bargaining power. I believe they're the first department in the city's history to unionize, and it wasn't a decision they came to easily.
Then there's that empty stretch of road that used to be Wadsworth's own little "auto mile," and which once included Renacci-Doraty Chevrolet - the dealership he bought from convicted money-launderer, Mickey Miller. Renacci claims he put up the good fight with GM to keep it open, and then he blamed Obama for closing it. I'm going out on a limb here to guess that the employees of that dealership lost a lot more in that deal than Renacci did.
Based on what I'm able to put together from all of this, what I guess Renacci means when he says he supports business is he supports that which makes him richer. And that's cool. We're capitalists after all, but I know plenty of pro-business people who have managed to survive these tough economic times without padding their own pockets at the expense of or with absolutely no regard for their employees. Renacci says he wants to bring jobs back to Ohio, but from what I can see, his only interest in creating jobs is creating wealth for himself...with absolutely no regard for, and quite possibly at the expense of, those who actually do the work of those jobs. Seems to be a theme.
The bigger theme that he and his ilk are foisting on us during this campaign is this myth that government would be better run like a business... by businessmen. I'm all for more responsible fiscal policy - seriously, it's the one area where I might even lean a little to the right, but there's simply no truth to the notion that government, which is clearly different than business- should be run more like a business. If Ohio's history doesn't demonstrate that, then perhaps our nation's pro-business handling of the banking industry should. (One might also compare Wadsworth's Electric and Communications services and prices to Ohio Edison and Time Warner's for another example.) Government has regulatory responsibility. Businesses don't. Ohio's government has responsibility for funding education, Ohio businesses don't. The so-called businessmen who ran Ohio for the past 30 years mismanaged education funds (and the general fund too for that matter) even while everyone else got rich. And the first governor to pay any more than lip service to righting three decades of wrongs came into office during the worst economy (note - "came into office during," NOT "created") since the Great Depression. We owe it to him to see past the "get rid of all the incumbents" BS and see what he can pull off as we continue to climb out of the economy our current leaders inherited from their "pro-business" predecessors.
Speaking of education funding. If there's one area where we can tackle jobs, the economy, and slipping test scores all in one swoop, it's getting behind our public schools. No business yet has come up with a solution to educate every Ohio student the way Ohio's public schools have. Anecdotal evidence from a handful of private or religious schools whose roles are filled with the top students prove only that good students beget good schools. Public schools don't have the luxury of kicking out less than profitable students, low performers, or kids whose parents aren't even remotely involved. Ohio's schools, like all schools have some issues, but there's simply no better alternative for most Ohio students. A for-profit education system will never be able to serve the range and number of students like our public system has. It needs help and Gov. Strickland is the first governor in over thirty years who has focused on it outside of a campaign speech. Hmm, sounds like another example of how government's responsibilities are different from, and thus require different leadership, than business.
One look at Ohio communities whose public systems are sound (and look quickly cuz even they won't last the way things are looking) tells you that jobs and good schools go together. Pick a place you'd want to live and it'll have a good school system. Parents choose to move there. Employers locate there knowing they'll have a solid workforce and a supportive, involved community - people who can afford to buy shit. The way our past "education governors" have rewarded this effort is by siphoning state education funds into the general fund to balance their budgets leaving the burden on those communities to support their school system. This violates Ohio's constitution and leaves those successful communities indirectly subsidizing communities who've given up on their school system. Talk about socialism! That's exactly what Ohio's past governors have chosen as their preferred method for school funding. It's not what our founders had in mind. It's also what critics of Strickland have accused HIM of doing... but he's the first guy who's tried to UNdo it!!
So it's time to look a little closer at the whole business argument. I'm all for good businessmen (and women) running Ohio's government, but good businessmen have integrity after the campaign ends. They consider more than just what they can take from the backs of their employees. I'm reminded of an old saying, "those who can run a business run a business, and those who can't run for office." How about we leave business to businessmen, and leave public office for those who actually want to serve the public, which, when you think about it, should include the public involved in business as well. Anyone who feels the need to separate those two, and especially those who stake their claim solely on such a separation, don't seem to have much to offer the general public.
Luth
Out
Far be it from me to argue in favor of anything that might make gambling more enticing, but what's the difference? Why can't the owners of these increasingly ubiquitous storefront gambling operations exercise their "speech" the same way anonymous corporate donors get to exercise theirs during campaign time? I read somewhere that anonymous donors from all over the world are spending record amounts to influence Ohio's elections. (Repubs outspending Dems 7-1, for whatever that's worth) So why can't Ohio business owners spend more than $10 on a prize? Wouldn't this prize be a form of congratulations i.e. speech? And where are all the free-market, smaller-government, pro-business supporters to support these businessmen/women? What's wrong, exactly, with offering a bigger prize... especially if that prize (cash) has already been defined as speech by the U.S. Supreme Court?
Speaking of pro-business people and questions I'm having trouble answering as the elections approach, what is it Jim Renacci wants to provide for my congressional district? I mean, I've seen all the campaign talk - a flyer promising he'll protect my gun rights, commercials promising he'll support Ohio businesses, but what is it he's actually going to do. We all know that outside the context of a campaign, campaign speeches, commericals, flyers don't really mean much. If we go by past behavior, all I can figure is that when he says he supports businesses, what he really means is he ignores his constituents. The two things that stand out in my mind are two heated eminent domain decisions made in Wadsworth during, or shortly after his term as mayor there, and a vote by the city's electric linemen to unionize during his term.
I can see how the eminent domain decisions allowing Wal-Mart and CVS to evict property owners could be viewed as pro-business, or at last pro Wal-Mart and pro CVS, but what of the thousands of residents who voiced clear and strong opinions that the property owners evicted were more important to Wadsworth than a new Wal-Mart or a newly relocated CVS? If Renacci believes government should leave business alone, then why was he, as mayor, so involved in these businesses getting their way in Wadsworth?
As for the unionized electric linemen, they'd voted against unionizing for years until the mayor's business-ization of the city left them with no say in their operation - they who climb poles in storms to restore half-price power to city residents in less time than it takes for an Ohio Edison customer to even report an outage-drove them to finally give in to their union's bargaining power. I believe they're the first department in the city's history to unionize, and it wasn't a decision they came to easily.
Then there's that empty stretch of road that used to be Wadsworth's own little "auto mile," and which once included Renacci-Doraty Chevrolet - the dealership he bought from convicted money-launderer, Mickey Miller. Renacci claims he put up the good fight with GM to keep it open, and then he blamed Obama for closing it. I'm going out on a limb here to guess that the employees of that dealership lost a lot more in that deal than Renacci did.
Based on what I'm able to put together from all of this, what I guess Renacci means when he says he supports business is he supports that which makes him richer. And that's cool. We're capitalists after all, but I know plenty of pro-business people who have managed to survive these tough economic times without padding their own pockets at the expense of or with absolutely no regard for their employees. Renacci says he wants to bring jobs back to Ohio, but from what I can see, his only interest in creating jobs is creating wealth for himself...with absolutely no regard for, and quite possibly at the expense of, those who actually do the work of those jobs. Seems to be a theme.
The bigger theme that he and his ilk are foisting on us during this campaign is this myth that government would be better run like a business... by businessmen. I'm all for more responsible fiscal policy - seriously, it's the one area where I might even lean a little to the right, but there's simply no truth to the notion that government, which is clearly different than business- should be run more like a business. If Ohio's history doesn't demonstrate that, then perhaps our nation's pro-business handling of the banking industry should. (One might also compare Wadsworth's Electric and Communications services and prices to Ohio Edison and Time Warner's for another example.) Government has regulatory responsibility. Businesses don't. Ohio's government has responsibility for funding education, Ohio businesses don't. The so-called businessmen who ran Ohio for the past 30 years mismanaged education funds (and the general fund too for that matter) even while everyone else got rich. And the first governor to pay any more than lip service to righting three decades of wrongs came into office during the worst economy (note - "came into office during," NOT "created") since the Great Depression. We owe it to him to see past the "get rid of all the incumbents" BS and see what he can pull off as we continue to climb out of the economy our current leaders inherited from their "pro-business" predecessors.
Speaking of education funding. If there's one area where we can tackle jobs, the economy, and slipping test scores all in one swoop, it's getting behind our public schools. No business yet has come up with a solution to educate every Ohio student the way Ohio's public schools have. Anecdotal evidence from a handful of private or religious schools whose roles are filled with the top students prove only that good students beget good schools. Public schools don't have the luxury of kicking out less than profitable students, low performers, or kids whose parents aren't even remotely involved. Ohio's schools, like all schools have some issues, but there's simply no better alternative for most Ohio students. A for-profit education system will never be able to serve the range and number of students like our public system has. It needs help and Gov. Strickland is the first governor in over thirty years who has focused on it outside of a campaign speech. Hmm, sounds like another example of how government's responsibilities are different from, and thus require different leadership, than business.
One look at Ohio communities whose public systems are sound (and look quickly cuz even they won't last the way things are looking) tells you that jobs and good schools go together. Pick a place you'd want to live and it'll have a good school system. Parents choose to move there. Employers locate there knowing they'll have a solid workforce and a supportive, involved community - people who can afford to buy shit. The way our past "education governors" have rewarded this effort is by siphoning state education funds into the general fund to balance their budgets leaving the burden on those communities to support their school system. This violates Ohio's constitution and leaves those successful communities indirectly subsidizing communities who've given up on their school system. Talk about socialism! That's exactly what Ohio's past governors have chosen as their preferred method for school funding. It's not what our founders had in mind. It's also what critics of Strickland have accused HIM of doing... but he's the first guy who's tried to UNdo it!!
So it's time to look a little closer at the whole business argument. I'm all for good businessmen (and women) running Ohio's government, but good businessmen have integrity after the campaign ends. They consider more than just what they can take from the backs of their employees. I'm reminded of an old saying, "those who can run a business run a business, and those who can't run for office." How about we leave business to businessmen, and leave public office for those who actually want to serve the public, which, when you think about it, should include the public involved in business as well. Anyone who feels the need to separate those two, and especially those who stake their claim solely on such a separation, don't seem to have much to offer the general public.
Luth
Out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)