Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Good Christian people
I really can't stand good people. I am not a good person myself. I'm more of a bad person who's been burnt by karma enough times that I try to be a good person, but underneath it all I'm not a good person. I have an instinct towards anger, and I have a knack for cruelty, plus I'm lazy and greedy, and I won't mention my talent for lying, which is immense. Because I'm a bad person trying to be good, I am good at being self critical. I know my own motivation much of the time, and because I suspect myself I often question myself before taking rash actions. This is a system that works well for me. I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've lied to my kids (this includes talking about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy). So why don't I like good people? Why can't I stand people who are good naturally? I'll tell you - because good people are by and large the worst people of all. See, if you're a good person, this is how you think - "I want to so something, and I know it's a good thing because I'm a good person, so whatever I want to do must also be good." Unfair? Judgemental? Not at all. Having spent time among "Good" Catholics, Christians and other "good people" I have seen this play out all too often. I know a guy who is very quick to condemn "bad" people, the politician who cheats on his wife, the guy who's caught cheating at a game, etc. However he makes it a habit of writing manufacturers and lying to get free samples of different products. He's a liar, con artist and thief, but because he knows he's a good person, he does it anyway, because, well, he's a good person, and those large companies send the stuff out for free so who loses? My wife used to do the same thing to get materials for making jewelry. Companies that make epoxy would send her samples, companies that make flooring or counter tops would send her samples, all for free, and because she's a good person and Catholic (who used to be rather judgemental herself) she had no problem with it. What people don't get is that every morning Hitler woke up he didn't say "I'm a real evil badass and I'm gonna start me a war." For all the evil Hitler (or Stalin, or Mao) did, and it was a lot, I'm guessing he always thought he had a good reason . See, "good people" tend to be very aware of those crimes/sins they'd never be tempted to commit (say gay sex) and judge others for committing them. Mark Twain noticed the same thing 150 years ago. A financially secure person is very fast to condemn a thief or a murderer, because he never is in a position where these crimes might seem like the only way out. Plenty of people who are practically asexual (have little or no interest in sex) are no doubt proud of their virtue and condemn those folks who engaged in pre-marital sex. These same good people also no doubt do all sorts of bad things - cheat on their taxes, lie to get ahead, break traffic laws - but they "always have a good reason" so it's OK. Well, it's not OK. Look at the "war on terror". Our country (the USA) has sunk to the level of detaining people without charge, torturing people and carrying out assassinations that kill ten or more civilians for every "terrorist" we strike. We've killed somewhere between 100,000 and million Iraqi civilians, yet without too much trouble I can find people who admire our President, calling him "brave" for doing these things, or saying "if it all works out in the end, isn't it worth it?" If Iran, Russia or China did the same thing these same folks would be calling them (correctly) "war crimes". Really, there are too many examples I could make, and do I need to? Ya get the point? Recently Senator McCain was asked "Does Evil Exist and how do we fight it?", and to me that's the central flaw in thinking. If you want to fight evil, start with yourself. You don't have to go to Pakistan or Iran to find evil. You don't have to go to Washington DC to find evil. Just look in the mirror and you will see evil staring back at you. That's the evil you can fight, and once you conquer that evil, than maybe you can start fighting evil in others.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Why does the media support Republicans so much?
Why is the major media so often reduced to mouthing Republican talking points? I'm kind of old (47 this year) and I recall a time when the media (both press and television) were tough on Republicans and Democrats alike. In 1976 the media went after Gerald Ford for stating that Poland was free of Soviet influence. During Carter's years in the White House the media made no secret of Carter's problems governing, and after the hostages were taken in Iran the media kept up a daily drumbeat of "It's day 366 of the Iranian hostage crisis".
And than Reagan came along.
Certainly early coverage of Reagan was somewhat critical. Reagan's factual errors and lies filled books (look up Reagan's Reign of Error sometime), but somewhere between 1981 and 1989 the media became afraid of criticizing Republicans in any meaningful way. When hostages were taken in Lebanon, there was no "day 400 of the Lebanon hostage crisis". Heck most of those hostages were held far longer than the hostages in Iran, but somehow under a Republican it wasn't an issue. When Reagan ran in 1984 there were questions about his advanced age and fitness for office, well founded questions as it turns out, as during Reagan's final years he was at best senile. But all Reagan had to do was deliver a well rehearsed line about Mondale's youth and the Washington Pundits proclaimed he'd "put the issue away". When it was obvious that vice President George H. W. Bush was lying about his involvement in Iran Contra, and newsman Dan Rather's called him on it, the "liberal media" only covered Bush's well rehearsed comeback, pretending that Bush had cleared his name by refusing to answer a question regarding his own illegal behavior. When Bush left office in 1993 he pardoned all the people involved in Iran/Contra just to save his hide. Through the 1990s the media became worse, declaring a "scandal" whenever the Republicans made an accusation against President Clinton (and every accusation the Republicans against Clinton were lies accept one) the media covered it without question. When President Clinton was being impeached for cheating on his wife, the Washington Media knew full well that Speaker Gingrich has been having a longtime affair with a staffer, and they knew that the leader of the impeachment trial Henry Hyde had himself been in a 5 year affair with a married woman that destroyed her family - yet the inside-the-beltway media remained silent. During the 2000 election the media was all too happy to repeat the lie that "Al Gore said he invented the Internet" while at the same time none dared speak the obvious truth about Governor Bush - that he was a bit of a boob. Only Micheal Kinsley in October of 2000 had the guts to point out that Bush had a sub par intelligence, but the media was too in love with their story that "Gore is a liar". Since than President Bush allowed the attacks of 9/11, invaded Iraq using lies to get the public to go along, broken the law more times than anyone can remember, lost a city....need one go on? Now lets look at the present election. We have John McCain and Barack Obama - and does the media cover the election in a way that approached fairness? Of course not - they continue to repeat Republican talking points on a daily basis. The Washington Post prints 2-3 anti-Obama pro-McCain opinion pieces every day. Most of the media cooperating with the McCain campaign, making Obama the issue rather than who's better, Obama or McCain.
I think it comes down to the well organized campaign by conservatives, whom for decades have been bleating about a "liberal media", and the weak kneed media bends over backwards to accommodate them. Of course the conservatives never let up, so stations like CNN still report falsehoods against Democratic candidates and don't touch real questions about the character of Republicans.
And than Reagan came along.
Certainly early coverage of Reagan was somewhat critical. Reagan's factual errors and lies filled books (look up Reagan's Reign of Error sometime), but somewhere between 1981 and 1989 the media became afraid of criticizing Republicans in any meaningful way. When hostages were taken in Lebanon, there was no "day 400 of the Lebanon hostage crisis". Heck most of those hostages were held far longer than the hostages in Iran, but somehow under a Republican it wasn't an issue. When Reagan ran in 1984 there were questions about his advanced age and fitness for office, well founded questions as it turns out, as during Reagan's final years he was at best senile. But all Reagan had to do was deliver a well rehearsed line about Mondale's youth and the Washington Pundits proclaimed he'd "put the issue away". When it was obvious that vice President George H. W. Bush was lying about his involvement in Iran Contra, and newsman Dan Rather's called him on it, the "liberal media" only covered Bush's well rehearsed comeback, pretending that Bush had cleared his name by refusing to answer a question regarding his own illegal behavior. When Bush left office in 1993 he pardoned all the people involved in Iran/Contra just to save his hide. Through the 1990s the media became worse, declaring a "scandal" whenever the Republicans made an accusation against President Clinton (and every accusation the Republicans against Clinton were lies accept one) the media covered it without question. When President Clinton was being impeached for cheating on his wife, the Washington Media knew full well that Speaker Gingrich has been having a longtime affair with a staffer, and they knew that the leader of the impeachment trial Henry Hyde had himself been in a 5 year affair with a married woman that destroyed her family - yet the inside-the-beltway media remained silent. During the 2000 election the media was all too happy to repeat the lie that "Al Gore said he invented the Internet" while at the same time none dared speak the obvious truth about Governor Bush - that he was a bit of a boob. Only Micheal Kinsley in October of 2000 had the guts to point out that Bush had a sub par intelligence, but the media was too in love with their story that "Gore is a liar". Since than President Bush allowed the attacks of 9/11, invaded Iraq using lies to get the public to go along, broken the law more times than anyone can remember, lost a city....need one go on? Now lets look at the present election. We have John McCain and Barack Obama - and does the media cover the election in a way that approached fairness? Of course not - they continue to repeat Republican talking points on a daily basis. The Washington Post prints 2-3 anti-Obama pro-McCain opinion pieces every day. Most of the media cooperating with the McCain campaign, making Obama the issue rather than who's better, Obama or McCain.
I think it comes down to the well organized campaign by conservatives, whom for decades have been bleating about a "liberal media", and the weak kneed media bends over backwards to accommodate them. Of course the conservatives never let up, so stations like CNN still report falsehoods against Democratic candidates and don't touch real questions about the character of Republicans.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Pro-life Hucksters
Back in the bad old days before the 2004 election I was in a history class over at UNC, talking politics with my teacher. He was speculating about the effects of President Bush appointing more justices to the SCOTUS (that's the Supreme Court of the United States for those of you who prefer words), what that would do for women's rights, and was surprised when I said "Well, the Republicans have no intention of ending legal abortion, ever"
At the time this seemed a bit crazy. After all Republicans have been calling every single abortion "a murder" and legal abortion was "a Holocaust" for decades. Reagan ran on, among other things, ending abortion. Every Republican party platform has called for overturning Roe (that's short for Roe vs. Wade, the legal opinion that prevents the government from interfering with a woman's right to get an abortion). President Bush43 even called for a "culture of life." It's little wonder my teacher looked at me like I might be crazy or ignorant (that latter of which I confess to). However as somebody who had been thinking about the issue for decades, I was pretty sure of myself, and the Republicans have confirmed the truth of my words by their own actions, and it illustrates a major difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.
The fact is that despite their words, the Republican party has never done anything to end legal abortion in the USA. No amendments to the constitution, no "holding the budget hostage" like they might for a tax cut - nothing. Why is this? The answer is that opposition to abortion has been the issue that brings a lot of people to politics. Opposition to legal abortion has been a gold mine for the Republican party. Well meaning pro-life folks give their money, time and votes to the Republican party every 2-4 years, because the Republicans "talk the talk" on opposition to abortion. Of course if the Republicans actually ended legal abortion in the USA (their stated goal after all) what would pro-life folks do? It's reasonable to assume that having ended "murder" and "a holocaust" many would leave politics, or at least start looking at other issues to decide their votes. On the other hand, if the Republicans came close to ending legal abortion in the USA, the majority of Americans would turn against them. Not that I think a majority of Americans really care the much for legal abortion, but they certainly care when their freedoms are taken away by government. One might never need or want an abortion, and even see abortion as, at best, a tragic decision. However to take the option away completely would be a step too far, and the Republican leadership knows this. Hence they have to walk a tightrope of calling for the end of abortion but in their actions doing nothing. More disgusting is it's clear the Pro-Life leadership knows this - they don't get to be head of their massive and wealthy organizations by being stupid after all. But they like their well paying jobs, the media attention, and of course the access to high level Republicans, so they say nothing. Why should they? If "the holocaust of abortion" continues forever, these hucksters can continue to gather up money from their well meaning followers, enrich themselves, and continue to enjoy all the perks and benefits of their jobs which pretty much demand nothing of them.
Contrast this with the Democratic Party. President Johnson knew that by passing Civil Rights legislation (which would certainly please their African American supporters) the Democratic Party would lose the South for a generation. Many southern Democrats switched parties to the Republican side. Most of the South went from being solidly Democratic to solidly Republican. Yet President Johnson didn't flinch, he rammed the legislation through congress, signed it, and accepted the consequences. President Johnson did the right thing for the country, period.
What I ponder is how long can the Republican pimping of the pro-life community go on? Rick Warren, representing a new generation of evangelical hucksters, continues to embrace opposition to abortion as a key issue for voting. The Catholic leadership in Rome threatens damnation on those who support legal abortion. Clearly the Pro-Life leadership wants the money to keep rolling in, so they will never, ever tell the truth that legal abortion is here to stay in the USA. They will never tell the truth that the Republicans they embrace will never lift a finger to "save the unborn". Of course the Republican party will never change their policy of "talk only" when it comes to their "culture of life". So how long will the people on the ground, the pro-life folks who sincerely and deeply care for the millions of "babies" that have been killed by abortion, continue to blindly support their own leadership and the Republican party?
At the time this seemed a bit crazy. After all Republicans have been calling every single abortion "a murder" and legal abortion was "a Holocaust" for decades. Reagan ran on, among other things, ending abortion. Every Republican party platform has called for overturning Roe (that's short for Roe vs. Wade, the legal opinion that prevents the government from interfering with a woman's right to get an abortion). President Bush43 even called for a "culture of life." It's little wonder my teacher looked at me like I might be crazy or ignorant (that latter of which I confess to). However as somebody who had been thinking about the issue for decades, I was pretty sure of myself, and the Republicans have confirmed the truth of my words by their own actions, and it illustrates a major difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.
The fact is that despite their words, the Republican party has never done anything to end legal abortion in the USA. No amendments to the constitution, no "holding the budget hostage" like they might for a tax cut - nothing. Why is this? The answer is that opposition to abortion has been the issue that brings a lot of people to politics. Opposition to legal abortion has been a gold mine for the Republican party. Well meaning pro-life folks give their money, time and votes to the Republican party every 2-4 years, because the Republicans "talk the talk" on opposition to abortion. Of course if the Republicans actually ended legal abortion in the USA (their stated goal after all) what would pro-life folks do? It's reasonable to assume that having ended "murder" and "a holocaust" many would leave politics, or at least start looking at other issues to decide their votes. On the other hand, if the Republicans came close to ending legal abortion in the USA, the majority of Americans would turn against them. Not that I think a majority of Americans really care the much for legal abortion, but they certainly care when their freedoms are taken away by government. One might never need or want an abortion, and even see abortion as, at best, a tragic decision. However to take the option away completely would be a step too far, and the Republican leadership knows this. Hence they have to walk a tightrope of calling for the end of abortion but in their actions doing nothing. More disgusting is it's clear the Pro-Life leadership knows this - they don't get to be head of their massive and wealthy organizations by being stupid after all. But they like their well paying jobs, the media attention, and of course the access to high level Republicans, so they say nothing. Why should they? If "the holocaust of abortion" continues forever, these hucksters can continue to gather up money from their well meaning followers, enrich themselves, and continue to enjoy all the perks and benefits of their jobs which pretty much demand nothing of them.
Contrast this with the Democratic Party. President Johnson knew that by passing Civil Rights legislation (which would certainly please their African American supporters) the Democratic Party would lose the South for a generation. Many southern Democrats switched parties to the Republican side. Most of the South went from being solidly Democratic to solidly Republican. Yet President Johnson didn't flinch, he rammed the legislation through congress, signed it, and accepted the consequences. President Johnson did the right thing for the country, period.
What I ponder is how long can the Republican pimping of the pro-life community go on? Rick Warren, representing a new generation of evangelical hucksters, continues to embrace opposition to abortion as a key issue for voting. The Catholic leadership in Rome threatens damnation on those who support legal abortion. Clearly the Pro-Life leadership wants the money to keep rolling in, so they will never, ever tell the truth that legal abortion is here to stay in the USA. They will never tell the truth that the Republicans they embrace will never lift a finger to "save the unborn". Of course the Republican party will never change their policy of "talk only" when it comes to their "culture of life". So how long will the people on the ground, the pro-life folks who sincerely and deeply care for the millions of "babies" that have been killed by abortion, continue to blindly support their own leadership and the Republican party?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
