A Word About Patriotism
I don't talk about my work here on the blog, but like a lot of our readers I am a federal employee. On the evening of Tuesday, September 11th, 2001, the day America was attacked by terrorists, President Bush, who had been put into office by sketchy court rulings and irregular vote counts, said:
I remember, I was drinking a martini while I listened to his speech, after sitting in front of the television all day with my children, watching and discussing what we saw. I said, "Okay, I'm going in." My wife looked at me in surprise and told me maybe I should take the day off. Nobody knew what was going to happen. I work a block from the Capitol, nobody knew if the attacks of that day were the start of an ongoing war or just a one-time assault.
My President was going to stand firm, he was going to keep the government operating. It's easy for me to take time off, I could easily have stayed home. I had kids in school, a wife, a mortgage they couldn't cover without me, why would I risk my life to go to work?
I know that families across the Washington area had the conversation we did, deciding whether to stay safe in the suburbs or go to work in the bulls-eye city. September 12th, everybody in my office went to work. Well, except for the one loudmouth Republican. Nobody worked very hard, everybody talked and worried and followed the news on the Internet, but we were there, the government was open for business.
Why did we go back? The feeling that I had at that time was patriotism. I went back to support my President in standing up to enemies who had sucker-punched us. I didn't agree with the guy, didn't like him, didn't vote for him, but he was the President according to the law of the land, and if we didn't back him up, who knew what would happen?
The day after tomorrow the President of the United States is going to give a special speech to students who are just starting a new school year. He will tell them to study hard and pay attention in class, probably tell some inspirational stories about overcoming hardships, get them jazzed up about the new school year.
Some people who live in this country don't want the President to speak in their kids' school. They don't accept the electoral process that put him in office, they do not respect the will of the majority, they are organizing and rabble-rousing to undermine our government and the leaders we chose to lead us as a country.
Some of us complained when GW Bush was President. I will speak for myself, I thought the guy was a moron and everything he did was bad for the country. I wanted to see the other party get back into control. I'm a little lazy and don't get involved very much in party politics, but I voted for the guys that are in now and was glad they won.
My point is, even though I did not agree with the last guy or like anything he did, I did not question his authority as President and did not see his incompetence as a reason to destroy what two centuries of history have built up. If Bush had wanted to address schoolchildren, nobody would have kept their kid home, every school with the capability would have shown it. We might have complained if he said some stupid stuff, which he always did, it might have been one of those teachable moments you hear about, where we have to explain to our kids later what the nice man meant to say. Some of what he said would likely have been political, scaring kids about terrorists and stuff, but nobody would have thought to be so unpatriotic as to demand that the President of the United States should not speak to schoolchildren.
The country is busy now with groups meeting to talk about secession, militias buying guns to fight the government, wild-eyed nuts on TV screaming that they want "their country" back. There is talk that the President is a Nazi, a socialist, a communist, a Muslim, a foreigner. There are racist jokes and cartoons that put a bone in his nose or mock him for being black. This isn't talk that the guy is unqualified or is making bad decisions, I don't mean that, this is hateful talk, intended to undermine his authority and sabotage the foundation of the republic. It is unpatriotic talk, bordering on treason. When you say you love America you don't just mean you love the land and natural resources, or that you love the nice people who live here, you are also talking about a method that we have developed for governing ourselves in freedom, a complicated and expensive method but one that guarantees each of us rights and sees that the guarantee is fairly enforced.
I always thought of loyalty as one of the better qualities of conservatism, well I don't agree with being loyal to someone who is wrong but it's better than just being greedy and shifty. A good example was Colin Powell, he was destroyed by his loyalty but you could respect him for it. You learned he can't be trusted, but you understood why he lied and respected him for sacrificing his personal reputation for the cause.
But these people today are disloyal, the teabaggers and birthers, the people who don't think the President's speech should be shown in schools. As soon as their side lost the election they abandoned the principles this country was based on. They don't love democracy, the republican form of government, they don't want fair courts, a powerful Presidency, a Congress that solves important problems in the way the majority of the people want them to. They only want to run it all down, because their side lost.
It's time for reasonable people to take the flag back. We've let the nuts run with it for too many years. And what we need, perhaps paradoxically, is a strong President. They can call him a socialist or whatever, the fact is he was elected to enact a progressive platform and he has wasted a lot of time and energy trying to compromise with people who only want to defeat him. He ran as a liberal and now has moved too far to the center, trying to make everybody happy. You won't make everybody happy, it just won't happen, the Republicans only want to win the next election, they are not interested in improving the economy, international diplomacy, education, security, the environment, rights for sexual minorities, they are only interested in winning the next election. We need a President who will strongly state, This is what I believe is right, and then who will put all his efforts into doing what he said he would do.
The antipatriots among us won't like it when things start to get better, it will take the wind out of their sails. The Republicans will lose even worse next time around, until they return to some sensible core values having to do with moderation in government and individual liberty. In the long run there is still hope, but if the President continues to negotiate away his integrity the whole thing can collapse into anarchy.
The functions of our government continue without interruption. Federal agencies in Washington which had to be evacuated today are reopening for essential personnel tonight and will be open for business tomorrow.
I remember, I was drinking a martini while I listened to his speech, after sitting in front of the television all day with my children, watching and discussing what we saw. I said, "Okay, I'm going in." My wife looked at me in surprise and told me maybe I should take the day off. Nobody knew what was going to happen. I work a block from the Capitol, nobody knew if the attacks of that day were the start of an ongoing war or just a one-time assault.
My President was going to stand firm, he was going to keep the government operating. It's easy for me to take time off, I could easily have stayed home. I had kids in school, a wife, a mortgage they couldn't cover without me, why would I risk my life to go to work?
I know that families across the Washington area had the conversation we did, deciding whether to stay safe in the suburbs or go to work in the bulls-eye city. September 12th, everybody in my office went to work. Well, except for the one loudmouth Republican. Nobody worked very hard, everybody talked and worried and followed the news on the Internet, but we were there, the government was open for business.
Why did we go back? The feeling that I had at that time was patriotism. I went back to support my President in standing up to enemies who had sucker-punched us. I didn't agree with the guy, didn't like him, didn't vote for him, but he was the President according to the law of the land, and if we didn't back him up, who knew what would happen?
The day after tomorrow the President of the United States is going to give a special speech to students who are just starting a new school year. He will tell them to study hard and pay attention in class, probably tell some inspirational stories about overcoming hardships, get them jazzed up about the new school year.
Some people who live in this country don't want the President to speak in their kids' school. They don't accept the electoral process that put him in office, they do not respect the will of the majority, they are organizing and rabble-rousing to undermine our government and the leaders we chose to lead us as a country.
Some of us complained when GW Bush was President. I will speak for myself, I thought the guy was a moron and everything he did was bad for the country. I wanted to see the other party get back into control. I'm a little lazy and don't get involved very much in party politics, but I voted for the guys that are in now and was glad they won.
My point is, even though I did not agree with the last guy or like anything he did, I did not question his authority as President and did not see his incompetence as a reason to destroy what two centuries of history have built up. If Bush had wanted to address schoolchildren, nobody would have kept their kid home, every school with the capability would have shown it. We might have complained if he said some stupid stuff, which he always did, it might have been one of those teachable moments you hear about, where we have to explain to our kids later what the nice man meant to say. Some of what he said would likely have been political, scaring kids about terrorists and stuff, but nobody would have thought to be so unpatriotic as to demand that the President of the United States should not speak to schoolchildren.
The country is busy now with groups meeting to talk about secession, militias buying guns to fight the government, wild-eyed nuts on TV screaming that they want "their country" back. There is talk that the President is a Nazi, a socialist, a communist, a Muslim, a foreigner. There are racist jokes and cartoons that put a bone in his nose or mock him for being black. This isn't talk that the guy is unqualified or is making bad decisions, I don't mean that, this is hateful talk, intended to undermine his authority and sabotage the foundation of the republic. It is unpatriotic talk, bordering on treason. When you say you love America you don't just mean you love the land and natural resources, or that you love the nice people who live here, you are also talking about a method that we have developed for governing ourselves in freedom, a complicated and expensive method but one that guarantees each of us rights and sees that the guarantee is fairly enforced.
I always thought of loyalty as one of the better qualities of conservatism, well I don't agree with being loyal to someone who is wrong but it's better than just being greedy and shifty. A good example was Colin Powell, he was destroyed by his loyalty but you could respect him for it. You learned he can't be trusted, but you understood why he lied and respected him for sacrificing his personal reputation for the cause.
But these people today are disloyal, the teabaggers and birthers, the people who don't think the President's speech should be shown in schools. As soon as their side lost the election they abandoned the principles this country was based on. They don't love democracy, the republican form of government, they don't want fair courts, a powerful Presidency, a Congress that solves important problems in the way the majority of the people want them to. They only want to run it all down, because their side lost.
It's time for reasonable people to take the flag back. We've let the nuts run with it for too many years. And what we need, perhaps paradoxically, is a strong President. They can call him a socialist or whatever, the fact is he was elected to enact a progressive platform and he has wasted a lot of time and energy trying to compromise with people who only want to defeat him. He ran as a liberal and now has moved too far to the center, trying to make everybody happy. You won't make everybody happy, it just won't happen, the Republicans only want to win the next election, they are not interested in improving the economy, international diplomacy, education, security, the environment, rights for sexual minorities, they are only interested in winning the next election. We need a President who will strongly state, This is what I believe is right, and then who will put all his efforts into doing what he said he would do.
The antipatriots among us won't like it when things start to get better, it will take the wind out of their sails. The Republicans will lose even worse next time around, until they return to some sensible core values having to do with moderation in government and individual liberty. In the long run there is still hope, but if the President continues to negotiate away his integrity the whole thing can collapse into anarchy.
posted by JimK at 12:02 PM
16 Comments:
Orin,
My comment about your cynicism was drawn from the tone of your remarks. I haven't concluded anything about this crime because the evidence so far is very sketchy. I agree with you about most physical assaults occurring between known individuals, but so far it looks like this was a hate crime. It's one thing to say, "This was a terrible act, inexcusable for whatever the reason it was perpetrated. Hate crimes directed against subgroups in our communities are vile acts of domestic terrorism, and should stop, regardless of one's political or religious beliefs."
At least you concur that a tragedy is a tragedy, and I respect you for that. >
Interesting that I don't hear any Christianist websites excoriating the white Christian couple who had abducted and raped that girl out.
For someone as educated as you are, that is a classic cheap shot, and it ought to be beneath what I have read you are capable of in making comments on this blog. I am all too painfully aware of the evil and the pain religion has caused; the year I became Roman Catholic the Boston Archdiocese was literally imploding from all the Priest sex-abuse scandals.
The evidence thus far in the case of Phillip Garrido though is mixed, at best. What does appear to be the case though is that Garrido made choices that lead him to a life of vice long before he found religion.
< My point here was simply that I don't see the so-called "good" Christians ever stepping up and politically condemning crime (or sin, for that matter), in their communities. Blame the divorce rates on the few marriages between gay people, rather than the deterioration in relations between men and women in their straight marriages. Ignore adultery, failure to pay child support, and all the other evils of straight life because, hey, you're probably guilty of some of that stuff yourself. Not gay or trans stuff -- that's a safe target because most of the critics are not gay or trans. Those attacks on the LGBT community are the cheap shots.
Again, this isn't directed at you, just taking advantage of your comments to point this out.
I don't care if Garrido was a product of sex, drugs and rock-and-roll. That was a product of a hyper-religious authoritarian culture that developed in the US in the post-war era. The McCarthyites gave birth to the Birchers who've now spawned the birthers and deathers and teabaggers . . .
Anyway, the guy was straight and white and Christian, whether lapsed or drugged or whatever. He, and not people like me, should be the primary concern of the political Christian community,
I also find it quite interesting to have seen live, as well as on the web, those white folks of my parents' cohort, the "greatest generation," going completely insane in Town Hall meetings, spouting inanities such as "Get government's hands off my Medicare," or "I want my country back." Even my 81 year old mother sees those outbursts as the simple result of racism enabled by the election of Barack Obama, and being expressed in a somewhat more socially acceptable manner through transference. This bespeaks a profound fear (of what? change? the "Other"?)when reality is completely ignored (thank you, Bush administration) and people have no inhibition to acting without any boundaries in front of the nation. What is going on here? Greed and blindness drove us to the brink of calamity, thousands go bankrupt every day because of medical bills, and those seniors and the Republican party apparatus wants to do exactly what? Nothing?>
Jim describing the opposition:
"wild-eyed nuts on TV screaming that they want "their country" back"
Jim describing the lunatic fringe:
"It's time for reasonable people to take the flag back"
"Some people who live in this country don't want the President to speak in their kids' school."
So what. Agree with them or not, that's their opinion.
It's not the end of civilization as we know it.
"They don't accept the electoral process that put him in office,"
That reminds me of you. Like when you said:
"President Bush, who had been put into office by sketchy court rulings and irregular vote counts"
Jim, this is an insult the extremist left hurled at democracy for eight years. The 2000 vote was too close to call. There were arguments on either side. It had to be decided somehow. Gore obviously wanted it to be done in such a way that he won but that didn't happen. After two months, our judiciary decided enough is enougn.
"The country is busy now with groups meeting to talk about secession, militias buying guns to fight the government,"
The only reason "the country is busy" with this now is because liberals are trying to give them as much publicity as possible. These type of people are always around.
"wild-eyed nuts on TV screaming that they want "their country" back"
Pretty standard political language. They are only "wild-eyed" in your estimation because they believe in such "wild-eyed" ideas as democracy and capitalism. A noted above, you use similar language, although I guess you feel you're not "wild-eyed".
"There is talk that the President is a Nazi,"
Your said the same about Bush regularly.
"a socialist,"
He has socialist tendencies. Like many Americans he went to a liberal arts school but, unfortunately, he never recovered.
btw, socialist parties who have dominated Western Europe for decades are now declining there. In Germany, France, Italy and Britain, they've lost or are down hopelessly in he polls.
Ironic that they've come to their senses just as we are losing our mind.
"a communist,"
I don't think I've heard that much.
"a Muslim,"
He attended a Muslim school, had a Muslim stepfather and went to the Middle East and gave a speech pointing that out.
You couldn't say that about any other President.
"a foreigner"
He spent a great deal of time out of the country during his youth, his mother married two foreigners, he has many foreign relatives. Even his grandmother has said she witnessed his birth in Africa.
To make matters worse, his supposed state of birth refuses to allow public viewing of his birth certificate.
"There are racist jokes and cartoons that put a bone in his nose or mock him for being black."
I haven't heard or seen that but he's the President of the United States, for heaven's sake. Unfair ridicule comes with the territory. Bush was unfairly ridiculed for his background too.
"we have developed for governing ourselves in freedom, a complicated and expensive method but one that guarantees each of us rights and sees that the guarantee is fairly enforced."
Such as the right to talk back to power. To publicly criticize leaders.
"But these people today are disloyal, the teabaggers and birthers, the people who don't think the President's speech should be shown in schools."
Throwing teabags to protest taxes:
how unAmerican
Asking to see the President's birth certificate:
a pretty easy request to comply with
Protesting a political speech to the kids:
dastardly
"And what we need, perhaps paradoxically, is a strong President."
Then, you probably should have worked to elect one.
We warned you that this guy had no executive experience. His brief political career was in the legislative branch and, even then, was mostly spent campaigning and telling people how wonderful he is.
He has never accomplished a thing other than self-promotion.
"They can call him a socialist or whatever, the fact is he was elected to enact a progressive platform"
No, he wasn't. He worked to convince people he was a moderate.
"and he has wasted a lot of time and energy trying to compromise"
That's his only hope.
He won when the Democratic party expolited a crisis to scare Americans. They made an economic crisis worse by exaggerating it. That sounds like the disloyalty you bemoan.
Obama's hope lies in trying to lead America and not in trying to champion the extreme leftists.
We will see soon which path he chooses.
"WASHINGTON (Sept. 6) - The Obama administration's bottom line on a government health insurance option blurred Sunday as White House officials stopped short of calling it a must-have part of an overhaul.
As President Barack Obama prepares for a Wednesday night speech to Congress in a risky bid to salvage his top domestic priority, no other issue is so highly charged. Obama's liberal supporters consider the proposal for a public plan to compete with private insurers do-or-die. Republicans say it's unacceptable. It's doubtful the public plan can pass the Senate."
Dana writes,
My point here was simply that I don't see the so-called "good" Christians ever stepping up and politically condemning crime (or sin, for that matter), in their communities.
I guess I see this differently than you in that I do not believe it is necessary to grab the nearest camera and mic and go off on how terrible such crimes are since decent people already know that and indecent people don't really care. Established religious communities have clear teachings about violence and make it clear in no uncertain terms that it is wrong.
Blame the divorce rates on the few marriages between gay people, rather than the deterioration in relations between men and women in their straight marriages. Ignore adultery, failure to pay child support, and all the other evils of straight life because, hey, you're probably guilty of some of that stuff yourself.
You make an excellent point...I do not blame sexual minorities for the dismal state of marriage: it is their own fault. I do wonder though why it is that the same folks that bought into "no fault" divorce, that stated (mostly to academic audiences) their desire to deconstruct marriage as a bourgeois relic, are now pushing same-sex "marriage".
Not gay or trans stuff -- that's a safe target because most of the critics are not gay or trans. Those attacks on the LGBT community are the cheap shots.
Is it enough for me to agree with what you have said...I agree. I am able to do this since I am more interested in the truth than getting elected, or scoring debater points. A loss of civility though is a human problem, as evidenced by the resignation of White House environmental adviser Van Jones.
Again, this isn't directed at you, just taking advantage of your comments to point this out.
Phew! I appreciate that...really, I do.
I don't care if Garrido was a product of sex, drugs and rock-and-roll. That was a product of a hyper-religious authoritarian culture that developed in the US in the post-war era. The McCarthyites gave birth to the Birchers who've now spawned the birthers and deathers and teabaggers . . .
Well, I do care...as do a majority of Americans (well, I hope so...though anymore I am not so sure). The rest of reasoning strikes me as more akin to psycho babble of the kind that attempts to morally absolve individuals and groups from the choices they have made. In fact the excuse you offer up reminds me of a scene in the film "Forrest Gump",
Jenny carries a backpack as she prepares to board a bus back to Berkeley.
FORREST: I wish you wouldn't go, Jenny.
JENNY: I have to, Forrest.
WESLEY: Jenny? Things got a little out of hand. It's just this war and that, that lyin' son-of-a-bitch Johnson. I would never hurt you. You know that.
********
And, of course, the audience recognizes this as both an excuse and a lie.
Anyway, the guy was straight and white and Christian, whether lapsed or drugged or whatever. He, and not people like me, should be the primary concern of the political Christian community,
I am sorry that you seem to be unwilling or unable to think in any terms beyond race, class or sexual orientation. I am partial to the POV of Viktor Frankl (who survived the Nazi death camps) when he stated there are only two races: the decent, and the indecent. I know, it sounds simplistic, but is it true or not true?
I also find it quite interesting to have seen live, as well as on the web, those white folks of my parents' cohort, the "greatest generation," going completely insane in Town Hall meetings, spouting inanities such as "Get government's hands off my Medicare," or "I want my country back." Even my 81 year old mother sees those outbursts as the simple result of racism enabled by the election of Barack Obama, and being expressed in a somewhat more socially acceptable manner through transference. This bespeaks a profound fear (of what? change? the "Other"?)when reality is completely ignored (thank you, Bush administration) and people have no inhibition to acting without any boundaries in front of the nation. What is going on here? Greed and blindness drove us to the brink of calamity, thousands go bankrupt every day because of medical bills, and those seniors and the Republican party apparatus wants to do exactly what? Nothing?>
I find it regrettable that far too many are now concerned with the growth of the federal government when they should have been concerned with it when Bush 43 pushed for and received the No Child Left Behind Act. The federal government has no business in K-12 education as it is clearly the responsibility of the States. Some will do it better than others, but just because some do it poorly does not create a justification for the federal government to step in.
(A digression: While I think the White House initially mishandled the back-to-school address by the President, I think adjustments have been made to get the message across in a way that is educational and not political. The local school district here in Fort Collins is allowing each school and classroom the discretion of showing or not showing the Pres. address, and I think that is the correct way to handle this learning opportunity.)
To attribute political opposition to racism is...how can I put it plainly? Ok, lazy.
I am proud that my fellow Americans were willing to elect Black American as our President. It shows how much social and political progress we have achieved as well as inspiring us to continue to work towards more of this sort of progress. That does not exempt Pres. Obama from the tough choices he will have to make for as long as he serves as President of this country. This reminds me of my younger daughter. She was running for the position of Youth Rep. to our local public library district (poudrelibraries.org). She wrote out a speech in which she promised to not disappoint anyone. I explained that whenever one is elected to ANY position they will make a decision at some point that will displease at least one person. I suggested she remove that promise.
Still I agree that too many conservative folk are listening to angry voices on the right, and that is as unfortunate as what we all heard for the 8 years that a Republican was in the White House.
Jim writes,
"President Bush, who had been put into office by sketchy court rulings and irregular vote counts"
And then Anonymous replies,
Jim, this is an insult the extremist left hurled at democracy for eight years. The 2000 vote was too close to call. There were arguments on either side. It had to be decided somehow. Gore obviously wanted it to be done in such a way that he won but that didn't happen. After two months, our judiciary decided enough is enougn.
What the Gore Campaign sought was nothing less than the re-writing of election rules the day after the election was held. While this is done in back water, tin pot dictatorships, this is not done in the US.
As to the "irregular vote counts"...this was investigated extensively by a newspaper and it found there was not foundation in fact. The only ones that accept this now are hardened partisans of the political left, just like those hardened partisans of the political left will never accept the fact Pres. Obama is a natural born citizen of the US.
What most struck me by Jim's comments here is that it now appears that dissent is no longer a sign of patriotism, and may even under the new regime, be treason. Amazing...
Orin,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
I think you know I don't view the world simplistically. I've attended Town Halls, and much of the hatred I witnessed was purely visceral, and ignoring that is extremely shortsighted. Is there room for rational debate -- yes. Has there been any? No, because the Republican Party has devolved completely into stupidity. I have never in over half a century seen such a complete loss of bearings on the part of a political party in America.
I would be very happy if Christian organizations kept their morality and preaching to themselves. If they did, I wouldn't care how they expressed themselves or what their message is. It doesn't bother me that the Archdiocese of Maine is doing a collection against marriage equality in church, even though it is probably a violation of federal law, like the many during the Bush administration. It is when they speak outside of the churches and organize politically that they overstep the bounds and have a responsibility to apply their beliefs across the board. Otherwise they are just hypocrites and bigots.
Well said, Jim.
A couple of weeks ago I was watching David Frum with Bill Moyers on PBS.
I don’t remember the particulars, but it was the first time I’d heard a cogent and articulate argument against Obama’s health care plan---and in favor of another/other plans.
It was a refreshing antithesis to the screaming mobs at the town halls, who’s end goal was/is literally, to quash the discussion itself.
Even if I disagreed with him, I could at least respect that he’d thought his position through.
“We warned you that this guy had no executive experience.”
And therefore we should have voted for the presidential candidate who felt that ignorance was a sufficient qualifier for the presidency:
Sarah Palin: “As for that VP talk all the time, I tell ya, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me; what is it exactly that the VP does, every day?”
Touché Lord ‘Pathanon, touché.
"I've attended Town Halls, and much of the hatred I witnessed was purely visceral, and ignoring that is extremely shortsighted."
When you open up a meeting to all comers, there will obviously be extremists, those misinformed and just some nuts. That's not new and Democrats are simply creating propaganda. Through it all, the message of Americans opposition to Obama's mishandling of this issue, which is quite rational, has come through loud and clear.
It's hard to believe the Democrats have the nerve to bring up visceral hatred after their attacks on Bush over the last eight years.
It's hard to believe the Democrats have the nerve to bring up "birthers'" nuttiness when Obama just had to release a senior policy advisor who believes George Bush orchestrated 9/11 as an excuse for military action.
It's hard to believe the Democrats have the nerve to bring up misinformation after falsely claiming:
1. the House bill will save money
2. the government won't pay for abortion
3. the bill doesn't encourage the elderly to write living wills to end life early
4. citizens' insurance premiums won't go up
5. hundreds of billions in Medicare won't hurt the elderly
et al and on to infinity and beyond
After this summer, Obama has a major credibility problem.
Look for it to get worse after Wednesday night.
"I would be very happy if Christian organizations kept their morality and preaching to themselves."
Don't hold your breathe. We have freedom of religion in this country.
If you want imposed secularism move to France.
"It doesn't bother me that the Archdiocese of Maine is doing a collection against marriage equality in church, even though it is probably a violation of federal law."
It probably is and the law is probably unconstitutional.
You notice the civil disobedience of churches last fall went unanswered by the IRS.
There's a reason for that.
The government realizes that regulating the speech of religious organizations is unconstitutional.
Emproph writes,
A couple of weeks ago I was watching David Frum with Bill Moyers on PBS.
I don’t remember the particulars, but it was the first time I’d heard a cogent and articulate argument against Obama’s health care plan---and in favor of another/other plans.
It was a refreshing antithesis to the screaming mobs at the town halls, who’s end goal was/is literally, to quash the discussion itself.
The difference here is that Frum has a background, both educationally and professionally, that gives him the ideas and the words to explain what is wrong with the health care reform as proposed by the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats, and to also be able to offer alternatives.
Why do I oppose such health care reform? Though this may sound glib, I oppose health care reform because I suspect like so many public policy proposals that are trotted out will only make matters worse. And I apply this rule to Republicans and Democrats alike.
Change can be good...change can also have unintended effects which can turn out to be worse than the original ill the cure was intended to address.
Even if I disagreed with him, I could at least respect that he’d thought his position through.
Or, as a former teacher once put it: reasonable can and will disagree regarding the disposition of any political question.
Anonymous wrote,
“We warned you that this guy had no executive experience.”
And Emproph replied,
And therefore we should have voted for the presidential candidate who felt that ignorance was a sufficient qualifier for the presidency:
Sarah Palin:
Ok, ok....can we all agree that Sarah Palin was not (and may never be) for the national stage? I did not vote for any Presidential ticket last year. Truth be told though Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket was not the deal-breaker for me; rather, it was McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform (there is that word again..."reform"). I was not about to vote for any candidate, especially not a candidate from the Party of Lincoln, that would so casually toss aside the First Amendment...besides, what part of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..." did McCain fail to understand???
That Sarah Palin was not the sharpest pencil in the pack does not take away from the fact that Barack Obama was elected to the job on one of the thinest of resumes. Still, seven years at war and an economy that very nearly imploded gave voters enough of a reason to give the job to someone who said he can do better.
Ok, I was going to reply to Dana's last posting but it appears that Anonymous beat me to the punch. I guess all I can add is that the imposed secularism in France may not last long as 1/5th of the population is Muslim and it is growing...a demographic ticking time bomb.
Still, I have a question about something Dana wrote,
It is when they speak outside of the churches and organize politically that they overstep the bounds and have a responsibility to apply their beliefs across the board. Otherwise they are just hypocrites and bigots.
So, what would it mean to "apply their beliefs across the board"?
Sorry, Orin. I should have given you a little longer to respond since Dana was actually addressing you.
Last year, Dana rode in a rickshaw with Duchy at the Labor Day Parade.
This year, just walking alone up and down the sidelines looking ready to punch someone- and walking on a discarded "Public Option Now!" sign.
What a difference a year makes.
This post has been removed by the author.
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...
No, you did just fine by answering Dana's post...I had any number of home projects going as part of a productive day off.
Thinking now about Dana's comment,
I would be very happy if Christian organizations kept their morality and preaching to themselves. and it reminded me of a fine book I read a while back. Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life, by Charles J. Chaput.
Now, I will admit that I am more than a little biased as he is my Bishop and I admire the example he has set. He at once embodies two of the most valuable personal characteristics: moral clarity and courage. I can understand why many can be unnerved by such clarity and courage.
So what would Chaput say if Dana asked him to keep his teaching and preaching inside the walls of the Catholic Church? He would smile and gently reply that such a request is not possible and then he would go on to explain why.
“The difference here is that Frum has a background, both educationally and professionally, that gives him the ideas and the words to explain what is wrong with the health care reform as proposed by the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats, and to also be able to offer alternatives.
So we can all agree that education, professionalism, ideas, words, and explanations are much better than the approach of screaming “Obama is a Nazi” at town hall meetings.
Orin, I’ve never felt more politically close to you than I do now...
Btw, here’s the link.
I have to listen to it again, myself.
Post a Comment
<< Home