The Relation Between Radicals, Moderates, and Conservatives

 NYT columnist David Brooks explains, in this OpEd,  that the "radicals" don't bring change; it's the moderates that do.

What is it that makes a person "conservative"? I think it's personality, it's the go-to, default, setting for the individual. Brooks has been a conservative, and as he says in his piece, over the years he moved right on certain issues that are more emotional (family, country, etc), and moved left on issues that can be rationally analyzed, like social programs, justice, etc.   For the same reason I don't like religion, I don't like conservatives..... and, I came to this by thinking and learning. The more I did the more ..radical I became in opposing conservatism and religion. They're both go hand in hand, most of the time, and they both want to hold progress back. By progress I mean positive change, not destructive radicalism.

Brooks says, " The people who come in their wake and actually make change are conservative radicals. They believe in many of the radicals’ goals, but know how to work within the democratic framework to achieve them."  He calls "radicals" those who aren't really radicals but are more vocal advocating for a sensible, more just society--which is already in place elsewhere. That's not ..radicalism, unless you compare it to a big mass in the US that is very conservative.  In this sense it's the ..perceived moderates (like Biden) or the "conservative radicals" as Brooks labels them, that facilitate change, because of the big mass who's afraid of "socialism".  But, yes, the envelope has to be pushed by the radicals in order for the moderates to have a chance of implementing reform.

Voting by itself is not enough. Activism and movements are necessary to stir up the status quo and usher new choices. These assaults on the status quo may be seen inconvenient or even threatening to many Americans, but they're important in accelerating change.

RESIST!

Sorry, I couldn't help it..

Yes, it's been a long while since my last post, but I've been mulling about the nature of blogging in this age of social media. When I started blogging, in 2004, this medium was very, very young. I had many followers soon after, some even outside the US, as people were getting more familiar with online blogs and sites. I was more eager to write posts and I believed it was necessary for the progressive movement. Then everybody came to posting online and most people began to get most of their information on the Internet. Newspapers and dedicated news/opinion/information sites abound today. Many bloggers I knew from the early days have moved on to other things. It's amazing how the media have changed in the last 15 years...


I was working for the Kerry campaign in Cleveland, Ohio, when I started Liberal Citizen. After George Bush's reelection, it became imperative for progressives to resist the kind of conservatism and the policies, including the wars, Bush had been pushing.  You see, the 2000 election was disappointing but most didn't think Bush would do crazy shit, and we believed in 2004, the blue side would retake the White House.  But, 9-11 happened, and it changed everything!

Blogging was great for us. We connected, we learned, we organized, we acted, we helped each other through this free social medium. It was good to feel part of a greater family with regular exchanges via posts and comments. 

So, I'll make an attempt to re-invigorate this blog. I think it'll be good therapy for me. I should raise another "Resist" flag on the Internet, and this will be it.

 

The Pope's Message Supports Many Progressive Causes.

Is the pope Catholic? Well, of course he is, even though he's challenging traditional conservatism in the church. OK, he says he believes in the devil and that exorcisms make sense. Plus, he's turning some really obnoxious people into saints. But, you know he's hitting a wall of criticism with the economic elites,  and the socio-political conservatives. He's also popular with the masses and the intellectuals who want the church to leave the dark ages and come forward. 

Obviously, a church has to be conservative in many ways, but religious dogma changes over time. What is practiced today in several important ways is not what the church did just a couple centuries ago. The Enlightenment and the formation of another heavyweight--the modern state--curtailed the influence of the church.

It's funny to watch the faithful complain when they taste what they had prescribed for others. Oh, the Xtians are persecuted, they shout. Like Ted Cruz and Mike Hackabee said coming to the defense of the Kentucky city clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses, because, heck, that's against her religion. Hey, have you heard of the Amish who works at the Motor Vehicle Dpt and refuses to register any ..machines of the devil? Haha.

But, we have to applaud the pope when he makes speeches that help move people in the right direction. The environment, health care, immigration, the income-wealth distribution, etc, are some of the issues championed by progressives. We know that some people and leaders aren't moved by rational arguments and facts when these come from their opponents. So, it's important to have someone they respect say these things. It moves the needle of our national dialogue in the right direction. Thank you, Pope Francis.

Let's Celebrate a Great Victory for Equal Marriage Rights for All People. Conservatives Are Still in Sodom and Gomorrah Time & Place

What a month it has been for progressive causes in the US; the latest is that people have a right to marry a person of their choice--a right that should have been recognized long time ago. It's definitely a victory for human rights as our country is inching to the 21st century while the conservatives are kicking and screaming.

A divided supreme court (5-4) finally took the reasonable path to expanding on a couple previous decisions and making same-sex marriage legal in the whole country. In the 1960s, the Loving v. Virginia case the high court established the right to interracial marriage. Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 had tried to preserve racial purity, as many states, primarily in the deep south, forbade interracial marriages.


There have been instances of horrible treatment of homosexuals in the US, but slowly a movement began to form and push on many fronts within America society. Look, LGBT people have been in every society throughout our human history; often they were oppressed into silence and denial of who they were. Societies have benefited, because such individuals contributed to arts, sciences, culture, politics, and every other domain you can think of. It was criminal to punish them for their nature and deny them their constitutional rights.

Almost to the day, 40 years ago, a police raid on a gay bar--the Stonewall Inn in the Village section of New York City--touched off days of violent clashes and riots, events that galvanized the gay community and it became clear to all progressives that this kind of treatment of the LGBT community had to change. In the 1960s and early 1970s, it was a time of rapid change when important questions about the nature of American society were seen as a big challenge. Too much too soon--beginning with women arriving in the marketplace, civil rights for blacks, sexual revolution, political instability--usually triggers a counter-reaction. And, it did. It was the conservatives who pushed back and eventually dominated the highest levels of our political system for at least 25 years, from 1980 to the dawn of the 21st century.

A Long Arduous Road

But, even if progress can be slow, painful, and challenging, it usually marches on.

In 2003, the court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Texas v. Lawrence. Justice Kennedy--a Republican-nominated judge, but with a centrist (swing vote) flair--wrong both that majority opinions, then and last Friday.  In 2012, the same court struck down the DOMA, which had passed by Congress and signed into law by president Clinton in 1996, not so long ago as far as important laws go.

So, what happened? Well, one thing is that once Hawaii and Massachusetts passed laws allowing same-sex marriage, then it became apparent--in the eyes of the conservatives, which include Democrats and traditionalists--that giving rights to those who are entitled to but denied because of religious superstition, nothing bad happens! These two states and a couple dozen more than followed created more happiness and, surprise surprise, God didn't destroy them like Sodom and Gomorrah. Who knew, right?...

But, let's not forget what happened in 2008 and 2012, that is, the election of a Democratic president. We would not have had two liberal judges, Kagan and Sotomayor on the court today if it hadn't been for president Obama! You see presidents nominate judges to the supreme court and these judges aren't all the same in that they have a particular judicial philosophy. The conservatives--Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts--voted against giving people the right to marry a spouse of their choice. The liberals--Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer--and the centrist Kennedy decided that it is a constitutional right in the US for adults to marry any person of their choice, and that every state not only has to recognize marriages from other states but every state must allow same-sex marriage!

A present for the conservatives

The conservatives, including the likes of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts in their dissent proposed laughable arguments. It's incredible that Scalia and Roberts are considered intellectuals. If you look at their arguments they sound sophisticated bullshit, ignorant of historical framework, and the constitutional liberal democracy we're supposed to have here. 

For example, they say unelected judges shouldn't be undone the work of legislatures, referring to the state legislatures that had passed constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage. But, a liberal democracy that has enshrined rights in the federal constitution is not a pure democracy, whereas the majority can take rights from the minority. That was the old south, keeping slaves because, guess what, the majority thought it was fine and dandy! Rights are meaningful when they're given to the minority. Justice Elena Kagan stated that the US is not a pure democracy (majority rules on everything), but it's rather a constitutional (liberal) democracy!

Or, that activist judges [yes, them liberals.... because when conservative judges do the same activism (remember Bush v. Gore?) it's ..legal!] destroy what society wants in defining marriage! What kind of ridiculous argument is this? We've always redefined the institution of marriage. The cases listed above did just that. Oh, you mean the Biblical definition? [You didn't think religion had nothing to do with this argument, did you?] Well, the Bible sanctioned marriage between a man and several women, plus many more concubines (sex servants). Oh, and underage girls given as brides to usually much older men. We call such practice today rape and it's illegal.

In Obergefell v. Hodges [check this out, how Jim Obergefell became the face of the in front of the supreme court] the majority of the court agreed that the US constitution is a living document, applied to contemporary circumstances within the greater framework of its liberal democratic principles. The strict constructionists, like Scalia, believe it's a dead document, thus accusing activist judges of inventing stuff not explicitly stated in the constitution. This is, of course, a stinking bullcrap pile of an argument...

Article 2, Section 2, clause 1 of the US constitution: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States...".   Hmm, so then who should be in charge of the US Air Force then?


Let's salute this important moment in our history for civil rights and liberties. In the words of president Obama,

“This ruling is a victory for America. This decision affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts. When all Americans are truly treated as equal, we are more free.”

However, we still have a presidential race developing. This decision will further expose the bigotry and backwardness of the Republicans. Already their candidates (and not only) are talking about how to reverse this ruling. Unfortunately for them, the country has moved while their party has regressed further into the dark ages. Let's not stop pointing this out, because quality of life issues aren't only based on economics but on law and culture as well.  

 The Supreme Court's Opinion as Written by Justice Anthony Kennedy

"Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations."

The swinger on the high court, justice Anthony Kennedy. His vote proved crucial in the 5-4 decision

"As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. ... Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. 

The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples."
"In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. 

The Constitution grants them that right."

Intellectual Honesty and Our Defective Politics

As I'm writing this, May day celebrations and demonstrations are taking place in many countries, where millions of people are basically asking for a better life. Now, of course the definition of a better life is not agreed upon--especially when it involves very different cultures--but, yet, there are common desires, like to have a long, healthy life, economic opportunity that leads to meeting human needs, freedom from oppression, choice, etc. The good life is desirable.

When we disagree about something, at least we have to agree on what we're actually talking about. Agree on reality first, before we evaluate the arguments for and against. It's OK for people to have different values and priorities. For me, for example, leisure and individual liberty is more valuable and a higher priority than money and material possessions. Although, I do need money and possessions to have a good life. This is true for everyone, even if the threshold varies depending on time, place, and subjective conditions.

Paul Krugman writes in this New York Times editorial that intellectual integrity matters; acknowledging mistakes, and having an open mind. Wanting to know the truth, the facts, should be a priority, but it isn't--not in the political, not in the economic, and even in the personal universes. Indeed, people get comfortable with an idea, a situation, an image, and then resort to confirmation bias, which becomes an ordinary response that often isn't even noticed.

I normally don't republish long quoted articles, but this one by Krugman deserves a longer mention. Go to the NYT page to read in its entirety.

The 2016 campaign should be almost entirely about issues. The parties are far apart on everything from the environment to fiscal policy to health care, and history tells us that what politicians say during a campaign is a good guide to how they will govern.

Nonetheless, many in the news media will try to make the campaign about personalities and character instead. And character isn’t totally irrelevant. The next president will surely encounter issues that aren’t currently on anyone’s agenda, so it matters how he or she is likely to react. But the character trait that will matter most isn’t one the press likes to focus on. In fact, it’s actively discouraged.

You see, you shouldn’t care whether a candidate is someone you’d like to have a beer with. Nor should you care about politicians’ sex lives, or even their spending habits unless they involve clear corruption. No, what you should really look for, in a world that keeps throwing nasty surprises at us, is intellectual integrity: the willingness to face facts even if they’re at odds with one’s preconceptions, the willingness to admit mistakes and change course.
And that’s a virtue in very short supply.
 ....
Times like these call for a combination of open-mindedness — willingness to entertain different ideas — and determination to do the best you can. As Franklin Roosevelt put it in a celebrated speech, “The country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”
What we see instead in many public figures is, however, the behavior George Orwell described in one of his essays: “Believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right.” ......

Just to be clear, I’m not calling for an end to ideology in politics, because that’s impossible. Everyone has an ideology, a view about how the world does and should work. Indeed, the most reckless and dangerous ideologues are often those who imagine themselves ideology-free ....

The press, I’m sorry to say, tends to punish open-mindedness, because gotcha journalism is easier and safer than policy analysis. Hillary Clinton supported trade agreements in the 1990s, but now she’s critical. It’s a flip-flop! Or, possibly, a case of learning from experience, which is something we should praise, not deride.

So what’s the state of intellectual integrity at this point in the election cycle? Pretty bad, at least on the Republican side of the field. Jeb Bush, for example, has declared that “I’m my own man” on foreign policy, but the list of advisers circulated by his aides included the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, who predicted that Iraqis would welcome us as liberators, and shows no signs of having learned from the blood bath that actually took place.

Meanwhile, as far as I can tell no important Republican figure has admitted that none of the terrible consequences that were supposed to follow health reform — mass cancellation of existing policies, soaring premiums, job destruction — has actually happened.

The point is that we’re not just talking about being wrong on specific policy questions. We’re talking about never admitting error, and never revising one’s views. Never being able to say that you were wrong is a serious character flaw even if the consequences of that refusal to admit error fall only on a few people. But moral cowardice should be outright disqualifying in anyone seeking high office.

Think about it. Suppose, as is all too possible, that the next president ends up confronting some kind of crisis — economic, environmental, foreign — undreamed of in his or her current political philosophy. We really, really don’t want the job of responding to that crisis dictated by someone who still can’t bring himself to admit that invading Iraq was a disaster but health reform wasn’t.

I still think this election should turn almost entirely on the issues. But if we must talk about character, let’s talk about what matters, namely intellectual integrity.

In Politics, Non-Optimal Choices Can be Acceptable. After All, Democracy Depends on Consensus

I had an interesting conversation with colleagues during lunch today and at least one said that they won't vote for Hillary Clinton should she run for president. Some of the reasons cited was that she's openly for big business, that she didn't do anything while at the State Department, and that it's not appropriate to have an oligarchy of the Bushes and Clinton.

Well, I get all that, but in a democracy--as many times in life--we, personally, don't have the ideal choice. We may not have great choices either. We often take the "lesser of the two evils" and it makes sense, especially when one is truly evil, as I believe any serious Republican contender has been in my lifetime and will be in 2016.

Plus, elections have consequences as they can steer the country in a certain direction, elevate certain priorities, and articulate ideas. Successful policies, despite their flaws, convince people about their merits. Let's not forget, many people are conservative--can't imagine in the abstract or analyze ideology. There are many narratives out there. Sure, leadership matters, and that's why we have so many people choosing the ridiculous and want a society more fit for the Dark Ages. However, once they see that, say, Obamacare is generally good, that same-sex marriage doesn't destroy a state, etc, they accept it.

In the same light, I don't think most people readily accepted the ideas of the Enlightenment, of liberalism, or of civil rights for everyone. But, once those took hold (often imposed by elites like Jefferson, Madison, et al), people accepted them. We can see this today in our own country, from state to state--different sub-cultures with very opposing views on, say, gun control, religion, sex, political parties choice, etc. This also shows that most issues aren't decided on their merits, on evaluating the facts, because otherwise we wouldn't still be debating whether humans are responsible for global warming, evolution (and science in general), and the age of the Earth!

In yesterday's NYT, C. Blow's oped titled, "Religious Constriction," makes a similar point about the religiosity of our citizens--highest among affluent countries. You have to look to Greece, Italy, and the oil-rich Gulf countries to find higher religiosity. I maintain that--for most domains, issues, ideas, morality--if religion informs opinion then, most certainly, it's wrong, and imprudent. It is precisely because such opinions are held by so many of our citizens that we don't see the progress we could get nor do we solve many of our own problems.

***

I have to give another shout to a favorite, Paul Krugman, who he recently wrote [link] along the same lines of my argument:

"The fact that climate concerns rest on scientific consensus makes things even worse, because it plays into the anti-intellectualism that has always been a powerful force in American life, mainly on the right. It’s not really surprising that so many right-wing politicians and pundits quickly turned to conspiracy theories, to accusations that thousands of researchers around the world were colluding in a gigantic hoax whose real purpose was to justify a big-government power grab. After all, right-wingers never liked or trusted scientists in the first place.

So the real obstacle, as we try to confront global warming, is economic ideology reinforced by hostility to science. In some ways this makes the task easier: we do not, in fact, have to force people to accept large monetary losses. But we do have to overcome pride and willful ignorance, which is hard indeed." 

We Are So Much Better than the Syrians and the Zimbabwans. Shut Up then, and Wave the Flag!

As the new academic year begins, one has to think about the benefits of education and whether a country is better off with educated citizens. Of course, getting a job is important and a formal education makes is easier to get better paying jobs. Most countries realize that a basic education--to read and write--is necessary so they've instituted mandatory and free public education. 

But, it's getting harder, due to the rising tuition, to get into a higher education, either a 2 or 4 year college. Recently, student debt became larger than mortgage debt! In other words, graduates begin their professional life in a deep hole and now owe more that more established homeowners, who presumably have a job (or had one when they got their mortgage) and perhaps are more financially better off than a young, unemployed graduate.

We may be heading back to the old days when the children of the elite could go to college, and, perhaps, a few other token students from the lower classes. Since the 1970s, real wages have remained stagnant over all. The consumers' buying power increased however since those days, because most of the goods have become cheaper. Food, clothing, appliances, cars, etc, are now cheaper. A sense of prosperity also fueled by personal debt, plus a constant barrage of a mythic narrative about the American dream made many people content if not happy. Yet, reality eventually sinks in.

Rising Inequality

Aristotle argued that extremes aren't good for a good society, or for a society to be good for the majority of the people. Extremes of power of wealth work in the interest who have wealth, and who in turn acquire political power, at the very least to protect (and enhance, 'cause you can never have enough) their interests. The elites try to control (and they go a great job) the narrative--the story about who we are, what the country is, our greatness, the land of opportunity, freedom, etc. It seems that a system that allows some people to rise demands (and gets) that they adopt the narrative. After all, once you climb a few rungs of the ladder it may be natural to belief that anyone can make it. Those who don't have personal faults. Look at individuals like Gates, Jobs, Jordan who made it. It must be true what they say about the American dream.

Yes, we have been more mobile, successful, free in comparison to other countries over the last two centuries. But, we had slavery, oppression of women & minorities, limited free speech, authoritarian government, the Great Depression and the Gilded Age whose attributes we're began to emulate in the last 20-30 years. This is not good. We're going back to extremes.

There's been lots of reports over those years about the rising inequality. [Here's a collection from NPR/WNYC] Let me give you some food for thought. Sasha Abramsky's book, "The American Way of Poverty" is one source. This is from WNYC's interview [link]
 "Poverty in America is made up of both the long-term chronically poor and the new working poor—the tens of millions seriously affected by the economic downturn and cutbacks in social welfare programs. Sasha Abramsky argues that for the majority of Americans, financial insecurity has become the new norm. He looks at economic inequality and poverty, and suggests ways for devising a fairer and more equitable social contract. In The American Way of Poverty, he looks at topics from housing policy to wage protections to affordable higher education, and calls political changes and a new, more effective War on Poverty."


Paul Krugman [blog, The Conscience of a Liberal] wrote a recent article about "Rich Man's Recovery" showing that since 2009, 95% of the economic gains have been captured by the top 1%. It's even worse, as 60% of the same gains have gone to even a smaller number of Americans, the 1/10th of 1%! Those are the ones with incomes over $1.9 million a year! I'm sure that the same people have been racking it in for many years before this period.

The Roosevelt Institute (yes, it's about FDR's progressiveness) shows a study that last year, the top 1% took home the largest share of income since 1928. But, the rich pay a bigger share of the taxes, we often hear! Well, this is indeed outrageous! The system that allows them to have so much more money while the middle class and the poor can't pay more is unconscionable! 

Romney pays 12.9% in income taxes while I'm paying 30% of my meager income, while I feel this pain a lot more.  How ridiculous is to say that a billionaire who pays 5% in taxes, writes a check of $50 million, while a teacher with a $50K/yr, pays only $15K?!! I know, how dare those laggards, the teachers, complain about tax policies? The super rich pay more in taxes that all the teachers in America. It's a scandal. Tsk.

Pro-capitalist publications, like the Economist and the Wall Street Journal, aside from their editorials, have published numerous articles about the widening of the gap in the US, that we're falling behind class-conscious and glass-ceiling old Europe. 

Which brings us back to the value of education which has a way to open people's minds just by exposing them to possibilities, knowledge, and hopefully how to evaluate, reason, and enhance the ability to ask questions and to amend. A better affluent, secure, less stressful life also enhances citizenship. You're more likely to be engaged, interested, voting, mobilizing citizen if you have the resources and the time to do so.

But, maybe that's what the elites don't want. Instead they invest heavily in the narrative of "feel good and proud American" while cutting the social safety net. This while higher education is getting more expensive. Oh, and you know what else follows the same track? Politics! 

But, don't you worry, the rich have lots of spare change to finance multi-billion dollar campaigns. We just sit back and relax and enjoy the show. They love tired and passive viewers for the show they've designed for us. Popcorn anyone? You poor with your refrigerators, microwaves, and flat-screen tvs... what more do you want? Have you noticed how deplorable the conditions are in Syria and Zimbabwe? Shut up then.

Obama's SOTU Address: A Progressive View

There were two distinct views on the role of government as their speeches demonstrated by president Obama and GOP Senator Rubio on Tuesday. It also demonstrated the conservatives' anachronistic view of liberalism. 

The notion of freedom that came out of the Enlightenment was to define it by the individual; free countries weren't necessarily free unless their citizens had individual freedoms which were guaranteed by a social contract. 

After the American Revolution, the question was, what kind of political system should we have here?

Those early leaders of the new country-to-be chose liberalism, representative government, popular consensus, and the radical idea that the new entity should be a commonwealth--that is, work for the benefit of the people.

Ever since, and in order to fulfill this goal, government is engaged in the redistribution of resources, enhancing access to opportunity and maintain fair play. At least this has been the principle.  

Of-For-By The People

 Now, let's think how this social contract principle was implemented in the early days. "Of the people"? Well, not so much. Common people weren't invited into government. "By the people"? Not so much either. Only white men with property were allowed to vote. "For the people"? OK, more or less, if you excluded the slaves, the very poor, and the absence of a social safety net.

Since those days, there has been an evolution in the role of government, culture, society, gender roles, racial relations, economic activities, all sorts of ideas and views, etc, etc. And, our country has been better off, because of it. Look at any country where most of its citizens are faring well and you'll see that's a liberal, social democracy with an activist state.

FDR's New Deal put in practice the evolved liberalism--an expanded notion of freedom--which went beyond the narrow definition of the absence of restraint. What prevents a person from enjoying freedom is the absence of access to opportunity, lack of meaningful choices and actions. An in the absence of an activist state, the marketplace alone or even charity and human fellowship weren't enough to give individuals of the middle and lower classes a pathway to freedom.

It's the activist state--which according to the main principle of the social contract should serve the people--that helped create a more even playing field and ensured the rule of law. We still have a long way to go, so the conservatives' and libertarians' view that the state should be limited makes no sense whatsoever, unless, of course, this is designed to further the gap between the classes and ensure our system becomes plutocratic, unjust, immobile, and unfree!

The SOTU, 2013

 

Federal budget reflects the values and priorities of government. Here are some of the president's points that I share:

• Wages and benefits haven't risen in decades
• We're in this together
• Fairer tax burden; not fair for wealthy to pay less of a share than working class people
• Debt: health care costs rising; tuition debt
• Cuts in social services, job training, green economy are not good for us
• Medicare reform; Affordable Health Care Act necessary to improve the health of the nation, including access to medical treatment
• Social Contract should be maintained, and paid for; it's what a modern country does for its citizens.
• We shouldn't cut medicare and education, ss, for the benefit of preserving tax breaks to the wealthy.
• don't play with the credit and credibility of the USA
• A strong economy is based on a strong middle class
• Gov investing in green energy, innovation, scientific research
• Climate change is upon us, not a coincidence; Science v. wishful thinking
• Internet, infrastructure, efficient, less corrupt system, educated workforce, tolerance, etc.
• investment in education, early access to learning, makes individuals more productive, more successful, less prone to crime, etc. Better for US
• comprehensive immigration reform, now!
• Women's rights, like paycheck fairness act, more protection from violence
• minimum wage should rise
• shared prosperity
• end of war (started by previous prez)
• gay and straight in the military should have equal benefits and treatment
• right to vote, fundamental right; why do we place obstacles to voting? 
• reduce gun violence; sensible gun control laws;

Rubio

• I made it on my own; don't need Washington's help
• Free enterprise economy is the solution
• More government is the problem; but not if it has to do with intrusion into our privacy,  abortion, and the .."moral fitness of America"
• More government breeds more rules, laws, and taxes. Who needs that, right?
• No Obama care; without explaining the particulars since most Americans are in favor of the new health care law if its provisions are explained.
• Role of gov: security, night watchman, not much more
•  blah, blah, blah
• ....
• have some of the same medicine that got you sick in the first place....

Obama: "This Must End!" But, he Speaks More Like a Preacher than a Secular Leader Who Must Pass Federal Laws on Gun Ownership

Yes, it's time to politicize the Newtown massacre and change our politics and gun laws

I don't know if the president has a plan other than to reassert his Xtian credentials, because he sounded more like a preacher tonight than a leader who has to change the gun laws of this country as the public by overwhelming majority now demands. Will he, or will he ..lead from the rear as in many other issues (immigration, DOMA, DADT, etc)?

I reserve my judgment until I see what he does in the next few days regarding federal legislation to ban assault weapons, high capacity magazines, require strict controls on handguns, etc. Maybe it's his strategy to grieve his the families and through the emotional path try to bring the necessary change.

Obama: "God called those children home."

Sadly, perpetuating stupidity and superstition still the norm in the US!

However, enough with superstition and ignorance. What the hell is this supposed to mean, "God called back those children"??!!! Really, Mr. president? Then if God wanted to call those children in such horrible way--and you assume you know that--why should we blame the gunman or demand any change? If God is able and willing, he'll do whatever is necessary. Or, he won't... Why should we bother with anything really if this is the motto?

Someone has to speak up against this primitive superstitious and ignorant approach/reaction to tragedies. This should end. I'd like those who have access to megaphones and want a more critical thinking public would not bring out the voodoo dolls during times of crisis. It's the 21st century, we should be mature enough to handle reality, so references to the supernatural is a disservice and an action that further perpetuates wishful thinking, prejudice, servility, and superstition.

Federal laws must be passed as to what kind of firearms are allowed. It's a political choice of a secular regime! No hunter should get guided missiles, bombs, or machine guns to enjoy their sport. No one should get clips that hold dozens of bullets, and of course no assault weapons. The Second Amendment--written by people over 2 centuries ago whose idea of "arms" was much different than ours--has already been modified by reality: "the right to bear arms" doesn't mean today the right to have tanks, F16s, and nukes. Oh, and the argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government is so 18th century too. Out duty as engaged and informed citizens is to never reach that point of having to violently resist our own government, because if we do it'll be too late! The government will always have more, bigger, and powerful weapons.

There are more gun shops than grocery stores (or McDonalds, or Walmarts or gas stations) in the US!

It's absolutely ridiculous that in order to get a car you need to be tested for ability, obtain insurance, while the vehicle is registered and inspected, but getting a gun is simple matter of going to a gun show and buy one with no background check! This is totally insane. I'm fed up with going through the same motions of sadness, anger, grieving, promises of "never again", every time such a bloody event happens, but we don't do anything about it!

Children under 14 are 13 time more likely to be killed in the US (in advanced countries). Guns kill 30,000 Americans every year. The murder rate in other advanced countries is in the dozens whereas in the US is in the tens of thousands. Yes, there are complex reasons for having such a violent society--and we should start a national dialogue on this--but we certainly can do something about the means of violence.

Obama has done this kind of consoling after massacres 4 times during his tenure. Has he learned that the mass murderers used legally-obtained assault weapons? But, this is the president who signed 2 gun bills into law. One, to allow firearms into national parks and one to allow them on Amtrak! How's this for a radical president who'd confiscate all guns as the conservative nuts argued in 2008?...

Time is now for serious action and the president to lead. I understand the script, I understand that Obama has to speak a certain language, but no amount of comfort can bring back the innocent dead. However, if we change our attitudes and public policies we can prevent tragedies in the future. We'll all gain from this. We should come together when we face adversity and pain, but we should stop being masochists and fatalists now!

PS>Yes, more readily available guns lead to more violence and homicides. Here's a study among advanced countries. Yes, it's also the culture that plays a role, but even formerly violent countries (Japan, Germany) have changed due to gun control and other sensible laws! The US can too.

Where Job Creation Come From. [Hint: Not From Tax Breaks to the Super Rich!]

There are lots of myths in our society, some are good some are horrible. A good one is the idea of natural rights. That is, every person is born with certain unalienable rights, so the concept of a social contract is easier to imagine. I'm not questioning whether every human being should have fundamental rights, but how do you prove that everyone is born with equal rights? At any rate, the point of this essay is to discuss another harmful  myth, and that is, the notion that tax cuts for the rich is a good thing. This belief is an article of faith being constantly repeated by the conservatives, while leaders like president Obama and many in the Democratic Party are afraid to challenge it!

Class warfare is the term that scares many, like an actual war might be. Relax everybody, the war is over and the elites have won it. But, I was very surprised to hear that TED Talks censored a speech critical of this article of faith.

Watch this video by a rich person who clearly makes sense about where job creation comes from. 

 

The Winds of Change. It Takes a Village (and the right inhabitants)

I've been thinking about social change. In a system where people are free to participate, it takes a wave, a critical mass, to bring about change. Leadership is very important too, because it articulates the need for change. What we're witnessing with OWS is a grass-roots movement that has spread from NYC to the rest of the US and now the globe.

Many people are instinctively conservative, in that they want stability, the prefer the devil they know to the unknown. This is the first hurdle a successful movement has to overcome--that change won't lead to chaos or something worse than the status quo. When people feel threatened or unsure, they don't want change.

But, the OWS without leadership and concrete laid-out proposals for reform has played a crucial role in raising awareness about the unfairness and terrible outcomes of our political-economic system. Most Americans don't know how much the top 10% own but they realize it's "too much." They have experienced the bad effects while the elites are bragging who's got the biggest bonuses--some of which came after their failed companies got a public bailout!

This is a good visual, I found:

Change by Public Consensus

Change also comes when the public moves in certain direction. For example, what was radical a generation ago--same sex marriage, gays in the military, etc--is mainstream today. The political parties usually move to cover the public sentiment. Traditionally, one of our two major parties is more progressive but, up until the mid to late 1980s, the Republican party became more conservative. The reason is the influx of very religious conservatives.

Today, the Tea Party has made the Republican party even more conservative, to the point of extremism. It's extremism, because this is not where the bulk of the country is nor where it's heading. Unfortunately, even the GOP leadership, and now the presidential candidates seem to care more about this extremist element because they think this is where the votes are in the party's primaries.

There have been several polls that demonstrate the increasingly conservative bend of many Republicans today. Here's one by Research 2000:

• 63% think Obama is a socialist ("not sure" 16%)
• only 42% believe he was born in US ("not sure" 22%)
• 39% want Obama impeached.
• 53% think Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama
• 23% want to secede from US
• 24% believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win ("not sure" 33%)
• 31% believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people
• 73% think gay men and women shouldn't be allowed to teach in public schools
• 31% want contraceptives outlawed

Note the "unsure" category.

Going Backwards

In other words, if the village wants a witch hunt, the leadership will oblige. Poor John Huntsman who called himself crazy for believing in science, like evolution, climate change, age of the earth, etc. Here's a "reasonable" conservative who can't get any traction. Maybe if the Republicans suffer another big defeat, they'll finally turn their ship around and become a party of the 21st century. It'd be good for the country. Then, hopefully, the Democratic party will become more progressive.

My Reasons for Protesting at Occupy Wall Street

I've heard from many that this protest doesn't have a concrete demand or a message. Apparently some 50,000+ protesters showed up on Wednesday and the numbers are growing. I think those who dismiss this proto-movement are making a mistake. People are angry, people are suffering, and, most importantly, they express concerns that most Americans share today! This has the potential of spreading like a wild fire.

OK, Wall Street has been a convenient target and a great focus point for people to coalesce, but the demand for a fair, egalitarian, decent system resonates across all groups and individuals who participate in this "occupation" and are hurting. They know others who have been hurt by this economy and by the system we have in place to deal with crises and address the needs of Americans. Something's is terribly wrong all around us.

I was interviewed a couple times while I was there. I didn't have the chance to include all of the following points, as the interviewers were looking for sound bites and I was trying to answer in sentences and paragraphs. So I came up with a few sound bites:

• It's time to (re)define the American dream--that success depends on access to opportunity.
• Our government has to be of, by, and for the people. This is a good principle, let's now put it in practice.
• Like Adam Smith (father of capitalism) said, the wealth of a country shouldn't be measured by the gold the elites hold but by the number of people who are able to share the wealth.
• Privatizing profits while socializing the risk is bad economics and fundamentally unjust.
• It's about the vision of the future and the direction of our country. It's about science and the scientific method. It's about modernity versus anachronism.
• It's about education--the kind of enrichment we all benefit from!
• It's about asking why aren't we "number one"? Why aren't we healthier, aren't living longer, and aren't more educated as a country? Why do we work more and earn less? Why we are less safe and so much more stressed? Where's the social safety net a modern society should have?
• It's about defeating the conservative narrative that the status quo is working for the working people.
• It's about our country turning into a plutocracy, whereas the system increasingly benefits the elites, who have closed the doors on the rest of us. They're denying us access to education, health care, clean environment, good jobs, and even to our own government.

 

.....
Update, 10/08/11:

 Here's a source for the OWS groups and activities: Map & Connect Groups


....

Who's complaining?

Some politicians get 12% of the eligible voters [yeah, if only 20% of the electorate bothers to vote, that's what those leaders actually get] in a given election and they come out to say "the American people spoke"...  

 When 50,000+ people show up to protest, they're labeled as a mob, or fringe elements, and un-Americans! The mayor of our city, incredibly said that the salaries of the city workers are partly paid by Wall Street. So what? He should have said that Wall Street should actually pay more, and that Wall Street or any economic system that benefits the rich shouldn't be given the keys to our society.

Republican leader Cantor called the protesters a "mob." Romney said "it's class warfare!"  Tsk. What war? The one the upper class has already won?...

On the other hand, there are still many Americans who believe that they can, too, be part of the elite. The game is fixed. Who can be like Michael Jordan, Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates? Talent alone without access to opportunity ain't gonna allow you to join the gilded club.

Meanwhile in Alabama...

Can't have water if you can't prove your residency in Alabama! Now the Water Co. is a depository of IDs.

....

[to be continued...]

Occupy Wall Street Movement Still Going Strong [topic frequently updated]

View of Liberty Square, 10/2/11.

Occupy Wall Street web site

 
I'm guessing that Fox won't air this interview.

The "kitchen"

The media center

The "message plaza"

After a couple weeks, this movement is not fading. As more and more people find out about and venture to Liberty square in NYC, this leaderless mass of ordinary Americans are making waves. Still, it's a small movement in comparison to "uprisings" in other countries, but I think it has managed to raise some important questions: What is the role of government? and, What is the Mission Statement of our civil society?

Civil disobedience--and in this case rather non-violent actions--is one way for the people to "petition" their government when they believe their social contract is being violated.

Here's a video from the march on the Brooklyn bridge. Perhaps the police told those in front of the march that they weren't allowed on the bridge, but most people, in the thousands, did not know. The police appeared to facilitate this march only to coral the marchers and arrest anywhere from 400 to 700 people. Not nice. Here's the story on PBS/Newshour [link]

 

I know many people who are sympathetic to the demands of the protesters but are afraid to participate, however, let me assure you that it's very safe. There are no extremists in charge and no plan for violent action. Most marches, like the one to City Hall (this Wed. @ 4 pm) have legal permits. It's important to maintain this behavior while asking for a re-evaluation of our political/economic system and the role of our government. More people should participate because a critical mass is fundamental in creating a movement.

If you have the time, drop by Liberty square (between Broadway & Trinity, on Liberty St.). If you decide to participate or stick around for a few hours, there's free food & beverages. There's lots of material support by ordinary citizens, from food to printing, to all necessary goods and services. This is not a fringe protest. See it for yourself.

Occupy Boston.... It's Spreading

This video is great as it shows all sorts of common people who are participating in these events asking for change. There's a lot of hurt out there and more and more Americans are realizing that there's something seriously wrong with how we allocate our resources, who benefits, who pays, and where our country is headed to...

[to be continued.... with frequent updates, some of them in the main body of the post, like the video of the Fox interview below the first picture above.]

Imagine a Better World. May Happy World Become a Reality Soon

First, may we all have a happy new year! I thought I should start this new year with a positive post, so I'm going to talk about pleasure--one of the two masters (the other being pain) according to the utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham and J. S. Mill. Most would prefer pleasure to pain and maximizing the former is a moral stance. Should societies try to advance the conditions that make people happy? This is a serious question.

Now, what do you think of freeloaders? Those who want to get something that results not from their own efforts but by the efforts of others? Why should anyone be coerced to give up the fruits of their labor? As long as those fruits/benefits came from legal activity and an open/free marketplace. Right? Besides, who can really determine who needs what and what does a person deserve?

Yet, voluntary contributions may be necessary to preserve and enhance a society. Because, everyone benefits from a good, stable, progressive, healthy, educated, happier society! No one operates in the vacuum of space, nor do they make their wealth over there. Now, what's voluntary? Is it a social contract we're part of?

Personally, I think the definition of pleasure should be left to the individual who should be in charge of themselves. However, there's a great value, a higher moral standard, to support conditions that allow individual growth but also a positive social growth. The trick is to find the proper balance. Individualism and a progressive society aren't mutually opposites. On the contrary, this is the essence of liberal democracy.

As for pleasure in the new year, I'd like to see more people pursuing fulfilling activities--as long as they don't impose on the rights of others. For example, they can devote all the energy, money, and time to worshiping god(s) or the sun or whatever else they feel it makes them happy. I'd like to see healthier people--and we know how to do this if we have the political will.

I'd like to see more people thinking rationally because they appreciate the quest for knowledge and understanding, without surperstition and prejudice. I'd like to see more humans cooperating instead of fighting on illusions and pettiness. During the next trip around the sun, on spaceship Earth, let's remind ourselves that, for a long while, we have no where to go except to exist within a narrow band of a small planet in a hostile universe.

Finally, I'd like to image this...




In essence, I support the conditions that make me happy... and, I believe such conditions give opportunity to others to pursue their own bliss. Have a great year ahead!

President Obama Lifts the Gag Rule and the Ban on Science

Elections have consequences. President Obama is lifting a ban & a gag rule, but also ending the war on science that Bush and the Republicans have been waging. Scientific reason, method, and integrity will be the norm in the policies of our federal government. Many states are treading backwards, and it is there that the conservatives are making a stand. Well, it might take a couple more elections--and big defeats--for the moderate Republicans to muster enough courage and support and pull the GOP into the 21st century.




Please watch the video, because it shows that the new president "gets it." He understands what science is and realizes that it's to the country's advantage to seek new frontiers, be on the path of progess, and that the scientific way is the way to go forward.

The Party of Beavis and Butthead

In all of my classes today, we've been discussing Obama's first speech to Congress and the Republican response by gov. Jindal. The two men delivered two very different views on the role of government. Obviously one was a much better messenger but the point of their differences should not be missed. I now think that they both are addressing a different audience. If Jindal and the conservatives think this kind of idiotic appeal works, I hope they keep using it. I wouldn't be surprised if the hard-core conservatives thought Jindal scored big... they thought the same about Sarah Palin!

On the other hand, Obama must win his bet, that is, like FDR, he has to show that sensible government can be a powerful means for improving the lives of most Americans. The conservatives have opposed every single worthwhile policy that today we take for granted and don't want to give up. Social security, medicare, seat belts, collective bargaining (unions), and electrification--just to name a few. If Obama passes a meaningful health care reform, it will further limit the conservative appeal and reduce their maneuvering space . Likewise with immigration reform--Latinos have been voting Democratic by 3-1. If this group solidifies behing the Dems, there will be a new political realignment that can last generations.

Last November, the Economist published an article, Ship of Fools, referring to the Republican party.

The Republicans lost the battle of ideas even more comprehensively than they lost the battle for educated votes, marching into the election armed with nothing more than slogans. Energy? Just drill, baby, drill. Global warming? Crack a joke about Ozone Al. Immigration? Send the bums home. Torture and Guantánamo? Wear a T-shirt saying you would rather be water-boarding. Ha ha. During the primary debates, three out of ten Republican candidates admitted that they did not believe in evolution...

..The Republican Party’s divorce from the intelligentsia has been a while in the making. The born-again Mr Bush preferred listening to his “heart” rather than his “head”. He also filled the government with incompetent toadies like Michael “heck-of-a-job” Brown, who bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina. Mr McCain, once the chattering classes’ favourite Republican, refused to grapple with the intricacies of the financial meltdown, preferring instead to look for cartoonish villains. And in a desperate attempt to serve boob bait to Bubba, he appointed Sarah Palin to his ticket...

The public seems to be supporting the president, and a sizeable majority wants Obama to pursue his policies with or without Republican support. As we've seen before the election, there are some noticeable trends in American society. There are majorities that support more regulation, a stronger social safety net, an active government for the commonwealth, and 7 in 10 Americans would favor the government's influence over the health care system in an attempt to reduce costs and expand coverage!

When liberalism's revolutionary ideas broke the Old Regime, and with the American political experiment (post-war of independence), the government was seen as a threat to liberty. For thousands of years, the government was controlled by the aristocracy, the very few who had ascribed status. But, with an evolving political system, and changing conditions, the liberals realized that the government can be "re-captured." Of, by, for, the people means a government where the people can participate in, that it relies on popular consent, and it operates for the benefit of all. We progressives expect the government to empower and protect--with an expanded definition of these two words.



UPDATE, 2/26/09
Wait, there's more. In their own words....






The Conservatives are having their annual get-together at CPAC. I hope more Americans paid attention to this gathering, because the conservative parade is very interesting and clearly show their core beliefs. I wrote this post a couple years ago, but not much has changed since then. In 2007, the cons' CPAC took place after a severe beating of the GOP at the polls (Nov. 2006). It's the same situation this year. The more the lose, the more bitter and extreme they get. This regressive party must be pushed aside and a newer, more modern, should take its place--much like some of the (western & northern) European conservative parties.