Is it perfect? No. Is it even that good? Eh, I think it's ok. History was definitely made last night with the passage of the healthcare reform bill, but the bill doesn't do anywhere what needs to be done like ban basic healthcare insurance for profit, like every other developed country has.
The pluses are that discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and other nasty insurance practices will be done away with; thirty some million people in the next four years will have coverage; and healthcare insurance will be mandated. With the first and third items in effect, hopefully we can get some of the people with poorer health off medicaid and medicare and onto private plans. Oh and this plan actually seeks to pay for itself and not add to the deficit. Something that can't be said about Medicare part D which was passed under Bush.
As for the "American people's" feelings. I honestly could give a crap. I don't really care what the polls say. There's been so much disinformation put out there by the fear factory known as Fox News that I don't think most people have the slightest clue what they are talking about. Also most people have insurance that they are happy with, and it seems that unless one has personally been screwed by the current healthcare system one is less likely to be for changing it.
I thought Chuck Todd made a valid point yesterday on Meet the Press. A Democrat and Republican leader were on earlier in the show stating that they could maybe find some agreement on energy and immigration. Todd pointed out that those issues were regional, so we should expect some agreement, as where healthcare is philosophical, so we should expect the intense partisanship we have seen. My feeling is that next year this will be all history, and Americans will be as happy with this legislation as they are with another piece of legislation the Right said would take our freedom away-- Medicare.
Lastly, out of this whole mess also comes proof that pro-lifers do have a real voice in the Democratic party. So much for the Obama is the most hardcore pro-abortionist ever crap.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Monday, March 22, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
The Healthcare Summit
I'm watching the healthcare summit. The president has pointed out that where the gov't steps in is to create a baseline standard of care. I've thought this should happen even when I was still a conservative. It seems like an obvious point. I have yet to see a Republican take this point on. Instead I hear from Republicans: "if people pay less then they will get less coverage, and if people pay more they'll get more coverage." But the people paying less are only getting high deductible catastrophic coverage which doesn't do crap for preventative medicine and routine medical needs. And that's a big part of the problem.
But to be fair. I would like to see a Democrat address the claim that employers will be more willing to drop people from their coverage and pay the fine because the fine will be cheaper.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
REPEAL DON'T ASK DON'T TELL!!!... later?
I used to support Don't Ask, Don't Tell on the grounds that it would be just weird and gross to shower with openly gay men. I argued that since we don't put men and women in the same bunks and have them shower together, then we shouldn't allow gay men and women to shower with other men and women. Later, however, I changed my mind. For one, I argued that the policy was dumb because gay men and women already serve in the military. The situation already was a reality and there hasn't been any huge incidents that I'm aware of. Two, we have fired many valuable soldiers who just wanted to serve their country like their hetro counterparts, and this is especially troubling since our troops are spread thin. And three, because we wouldn't expect any hetro soldier not to talk openly about his wife or girlfriend, so why should we force gay soldiers to stay silent on the subject of their loved ones. But as of late, I have kind of been on the fence about this issue.
I was listening to NPR today, and they did a story where they interviewed several marines concerning Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Many of the soldiers preferred not to talk about it, one said he was for repealing it, but another said he thought we needed to leave it alone... at least for now. His argument was that soldiers are increasingly becoming more and more stressed. And indeed, suicide among soldiers is up, and many are suffering from PTSD and other psycho-social problems. This soldier believed that if DADT is repealed right now, then we could possibly see another Matthew Shepherd incident. Repealing DADT right now, he said, could be bad for the military, the country, and the gay community.
Yet often times doing the right thing comes with a price. Should we have kept slavery legal because a lot of people died making it illegal? Still, we've lived with this policy for well over a decade, gay people technically can serve in the military, and I have to heed the warning of an individual who has been a marine for a long time and knows what that life is like. So while I'm for repealing it, maybe it won't hurt to wait.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Why I Love the Daily Dish
This is just awesome. I almost peed my pants.
Also, interestingly enough, a libertarian defense of the health care bill.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Another Victory for Plutocracy
Years ago when I took political science we started off our first class discussion on the topic of power. I didn't understand the significance at the time. I thought politics was all about being a conservative or liberal, and I thought we'd be spending our time discussing that. But politics, as it turns out, is really all about power, and so is the rest of life. And just like everything else in politics and government yesterday's Supreme Court decision wasn't really about freedom of speech, like the Right argues. It was about the concentration of power.
Yesterday's decision essentially allows corporations and unions (but let's face it, unions are weaker than they have every been, and don't have nearly as much money as corporations do) to use as much money as they can to create political ads supporting candidates, with the stipulation that the ad identifies who is sponsoring it. Republicans hail this decision as a victory for free speech. They argue that we have an open market place of ideas and anyone should be allowed to pay for any ad supporting any political candidate or view one wants. Add to that the warped idea that corporations are people, and the denial of allowing corporations to do this amounts to denying a person their freedom of speech. The problem is, there are good reasons why we've restricted this.
The main reason is the issue of corruption by money in politics, not that there isn't already enough of that. If a corporation spends millions on ads supporting a candidate, then that corporation will have significant influence over that politician. Furthermore, a corporation can bribe or blackmail politicians with the threat or offer to spend millions on getting him or her elected. Politicians are already representing the interests of corporations rather than the interests of the people, but now things are only going to get worse. Because let's face it, my letter to my congressman is going to have much less influence than Lehman Brothers letter that includes a 2 million dollar check. What this amounts to is the further concentration of power into the hands of the wealthy few and out of the hands of the people. This decision was anti-democratic and anti-freedom. Which shows that despite all the freedom rhetoric, Republicans don't really give a damn about freedom since the majority of corporate dollars goes to their candidates. Just like they really don't give a damn about judiciary activism, seeing as this decision was a result of that and I have yet to hear a Republican point that out.
So if you hated the amount of political ads that aired in the last election year then get ready, because you ain't seen nothing yet. And just know that most of those ads won't be for candidates that have your interest at heart, but rather for the banks, Wall Street, big insurance and energy companies.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Negro Please!
This whole Harry Reid "scandal" is absolutely absurd, and is nothing more than a symptom of the vile political climate in this country. Was what he said less than tactful? Of course. Did he use an archaic term from a more racially fractured time in American history? Yes, and he probably used that term because he grew up in said period of time. And lastly, is what he said true? I think that if we were honest with ourselves we would have to answer in the affirmative. So he made an off the cuff remark using a racially insensitive word that just so happened to be true. He apologized to the person he made the statement about and that person forgave him. So what's the big deal?
The big deal is that our system is so screwed up that either side will do anything to score cheap political points. The idea that Reid should resign over what he said is ludicrous-- almost as ludicrous as these disingenuous schmucks on the right feigning outrage. And then to make it worse, the arguments Republicans are making about double standards, citing the Trent Lott remarks about Strom Thurmond, further displays their dimwittedness on race matters. Trent Lott lamented that a man who ran on a segregationist platform did not win the presidency. Let me see, saying "Gee Strom, I wish you would have become president and crushed the civil rights movement" is a little worse than Reid's inappropriate comment. But they don't seem to grasp that. The second a drop of blood hits the water, they just swarm. Because really, the truth is that they could give a damn about what Harry Reid said, they just want to take him down and gain power.
And that's a shame, because I really want to believe that there are good Republicans and Democrats who actually do want to work together for the good of the country. But as the Obama presidency has gone through it's first year, I struggle more so every day in believing that. And if I was honest, I would say that one side is worse. Above I said that "either side" will do anything to score cheap political points, and in the past that has probably been true, but the more I pay attention to politics (especially with the last election), the more I see the cheapest, most desperate and underhanded attacks coming from the right. For instance, the right has used everything from fear mongering about government takeovers to fear mongering about death panels to derail meaningful healthcare reform. And I can't help but believe they're now playing the race card to that end as well.
Monday, October 12, 2009
How About Now?
Maybe this will finally get middle-American, populist conservatives on board with health care reform. Just wondering...
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Holy Crap!
The ground doesn't feel too cold, but it seems that hell may have frozen over, because Sean Hannity and Michael Moore recently debated on Sean's show and it was.... a really good discussion. If this sort of exchange was the norm for these type of shows this country might just be in better shape. I'm just stunned. And I also couldn't agree more with Moore on this. The borrowers, the average joe's, are to blame for the whole economic collapse?? Really? And the people who have all the wealth, power and smarts in this are only partially responsible? Anyways I found this to be a good, reasoned but passionate discussion, and wish there were more of this on cable news.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The Anatomy and Physiology of the Social Organism (Culture and Social Change)
The last part of the social organism is not a social institution, yet I think it might be the most important part; it is culture. Culture can be seen as the soul, the DNA or the genes of the social organism. Culture saturates and envelopes the SO, affecting it in every way. It is what the SO looks like; how it behaves; what it values and believes in etc... It is who the SO is at its core. This is why changing the morals, values and ethics of a culture-- because morals, values and ethics are cultural-- is the key to social change.
We tend to overlook the penetrating role culture plays in our lives. We regularly speak of freedom in this country, all the while forgetting how tremendously limited our freedom is. We are, in fact, products of our culture, and this truth is central to post-modern thought. So when one thinks of social change, it is imperative to note that true change only takes hold when there is cultural change. For instance, we may have outlawed slavery, but it still remained in the South in different forms for decades; and even after progress was made in the area of civil rights, harsh and abusive racism lingered on. Additionally, outlawing it didn't happen just on its own, as it may not have even been outlawed if not for huge developments in the economy which came through the industrial revolution. Yet still, religion also played a large role via the abolitionists and other religious movements, as well as, the civil rights movement as lead by Dr. King.
So slavery was defeated by different efforts and changes in different SI's, but one could argue that all of these efforts may have not been enough had they not changed the culture of the U.S. It was major generational shifts in attitudes towards racism that really solidified the progress made by civil rights leaders. And ultimately the religious hope of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech drove, and continues to drive, our SO towards the reality of a post-racial America.
Culture can be seen not just simply as the water we swim in, but as a water that influences us in a multitude of ways, and that we have the power to influence as well.
The last observation I want to make is how culture interacts with relationship and religious hope. Thinking of culture as the soul of the SO makes incredible sense when we begin thinking about the transcendent feelings we get in church worship services, or political rallies, or sporting events. In those moments we tap into the soul, or culture, of a SO sharing the same religious hope as it, and feel like the strangers around us are as close as family. Our souls become one with the soul of the SO. The reality that we are part of one organism becomes an experience we feel deep in our bones.
Culture is the underlying force behind the behavior of the social organism. Imagine being able to extract the DNA from one person and inject it into another. If this were to occur, the individual's entire organism would be transformed. This is essentially what is possible with cultural change. The entire SO can change, and I think this truth is the key to maybe all of our social problems.
We tend to overlook the penetrating role culture plays in our lives. We regularly speak of freedom in this country, all the while forgetting how tremendously limited our freedom is. We are, in fact, products of our culture, and this truth is central to post-modern thought. So when one thinks of social change, it is imperative to note that true change only takes hold when there is cultural change. For instance, we may have outlawed slavery, but it still remained in the South in different forms for decades; and even after progress was made in the area of civil rights, harsh and abusive racism lingered on. Additionally, outlawing it didn't happen just on its own, as it may not have even been outlawed if not for huge developments in the economy which came through the industrial revolution. Yet still, religion also played a large role via the abolitionists and other religious movements, as well as, the civil rights movement as lead by Dr. King.
So slavery was defeated by different efforts and changes in different SI's, but one could argue that all of these efforts may have not been enough had they not changed the culture of the U.S. It was major generational shifts in attitudes towards racism that really solidified the progress made by civil rights leaders. And ultimately the religious hope of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech drove, and continues to drive, our SO towards the reality of a post-racial America.
Culture can be seen not just simply as the water we swim in, but as a water that influences us in a multitude of ways, and that we have the power to influence as well.
The last observation I want to make is how culture interacts with relationship and religious hope. Thinking of culture as the soul of the SO makes incredible sense when we begin thinking about the transcendent feelings we get in church worship services, or political rallies, or sporting events. In those moments we tap into the soul, or culture, of a SO sharing the same religious hope as it, and feel like the strangers around us are as close as family. Our souls become one with the soul of the SO. The reality that we are part of one organism becomes an experience we feel deep in our bones.
Culture is the underlying force behind the behavior of the social organism. Imagine being able to extract the DNA from one person and inject it into another. If this were to occur, the individual's entire organism would be transformed. This is essentially what is possible with cultural change. The entire SO can change, and I think this truth is the key to maybe all of our social problems.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The Anatomy and Physiology of the Social Organism (The Family and Religion)
If people are like cells in the SO, then family is the substance that holds the cells together. However, for this analogy to work, family needs a broader definition that I'll call family-quality relationships. What I mean by this is that we tend to compare some relationships (co-workers, friends etc.) in our lives family. "My work place is like one big family" we might say. So the better the quality of the relationship, the more we compare it to "family." Good relationships then, the more family like the better, holds the social organism together. Bad, chaotic relationships tend to tear the social organism apart.
Religion also needs a bit of redefinition. In many ways, religion has been replaced in our culture with science, and many people do not consider themselves religious at all, including myself. What then is the quality that religion has that still thrives even in, say, an atheist country like China? The answer is hope. Hope is what drives us on an individual level, and it is also what drives the social organism. When we get out of bed in the morning, most of us believe there is some sort of purpose or meaning behind our life, and this feeling is what pushes us forward. Likewise the social organism has a sense of transcendent meaning or hope that drives it through history. Many times this hope is some sort of Utopian future. The Nazis believed they could bring about a Utopian society by destroying what they understood to be inferior races and people. Marxist Soviets believed they would bring about a Utopian, classless society of workers. So whether it be going to heaven when one dies or creating an earthly utopia, religious hope moves the individual or SO forward by providing a belief in a transcendent purpose.
So in sum, the three of the five social institutions function in the social organism similarly to how the nervous, circulatory and digestive systems function in the human organism. Relationship binds humans, which can be thought of as cells, together. And religious hope, a belief in some sort of transcendent purpose, propels the social organism through history, similarly to how our belief in purpose and meaning propel us through each day.
Religion also needs a bit of redefinition. In many ways, religion has been replaced in our culture with science, and many people do not consider themselves religious at all, including myself. What then is the quality that religion has that still thrives even in, say, an atheist country like China? The answer is hope. Hope is what drives us on an individual level, and it is also what drives the social organism. When we get out of bed in the morning, most of us believe there is some sort of purpose or meaning behind our life, and this feeling is what pushes us forward. Likewise the social organism has a sense of transcendent meaning or hope that drives it through history. Many times this hope is some sort of Utopian future. The Nazis believed they could bring about a Utopian society by destroying what they understood to be inferior races and people. Marxist Soviets believed they would bring about a Utopian, classless society of workers. So whether it be going to heaven when one dies or creating an earthly utopia, religious hope moves the individual or SO forward by providing a belief in a transcendent purpose.
So in sum, the three of the five social institutions function in the social organism similarly to how the nervous, circulatory and digestive systems function in the human organism. Relationship binds humans, which can be thought of as cells, together. And religious hope, a belief in some sort of transcendent purpose, propels the social organism through history, similarly to how our belief in purpose and meaning propel us through each day.
Monday, September 7, 2009
A Quick Comment on the Whacko Right...
For whatever twisted, demented reason, I have been torturing myself by listening to Glenn Beck. His show always happens to be on when I'm in the car and, like staring at the proverbial car crash, I just have to listen.
I honestly feel sorry for conservatives in this country that he is one of their major spokes people. His show is nothing but tin-hatted rants laced with shameless religious rhetoric. I really find it hard to believe that GB actually even believes what he's saying. I can't believe that he's stupid, because he's just not. The guy made it into Yale. And I would believe he's just bat-shit insane, but I can't believe Fox and CNN would let a complete loon have a prime-time show. So I have no choice but to believe he's just being paid to stir up the most ignorant of the right (which unfortunately there seems to be a lot of), and scare people, who wouldn't otherwise care about politics, into thinking Obama is trying to create a fascist dictatorship. Which is sad.
Conservatism in this country is becoming synonymous with nut-jobs and morons. Granted, the left has their nuts, but they're not hosting prime time news shows. Rather than simply trying to present better ideas conservatives are putting forth absurdities like: Obama is forming a secret police with the Peace Corps and Americorps; Obama is going to brainwash the country's children on the first day of school; Obama's creating a shadow government of Czar's; and Obama's gonna pull the plug on grandma.
What's that? This nutjobery is part of the right-wing fringe you say? Witness the resignation of Van Jones, and schools not carrying the president's address because of angry parents. Conservatives have gone to crazytown, and good ones like Joe Scarborough, George Will, David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan need to call this idiocy what it is and elevate the discourse before something tragic occurs.
I honestly feel sorry for conservatives in this country that he is one of their major spokes people. His show is nothing but tin-hatted rants laced with shameless religious rhetoric. I really find it hard to believe that GB actually even believes what he's saying. I can't believe that he's stupid, because he's just not. The guy made it into Yale. And I would believe he's just bat-shit insane, but I can't believe Fox and CNN would let a complete loon have a prime-time show. So I have no choice but to believe he's just being paid to stir up the most ignorant of the right (which unfortunately there seems to be a lot of), and scare people, who wouldn't otherwise care about politics, into thinking Obama is trying to create a fascist dictatorship. Which is sad.
Conservatism in this country is becoming synonymous with nut-jobs and morons. Granted, the left has their nuts, but they're not hosting prime time news shows. Rather than simply trying to present better ideas conservatives are putting forth absurdities like: Obama is forming a secret police with the Peace Corps and Americorps; Obama is going to brainwash the country's children on the first day of school; Obama's creating a shadow government of Czar's; and Obama's gonna pull the plug on grandma.
What's that? This nutjobery is part of the right-wing fringe you say? Witness the resignation of Van Jones, and schools not carrying the president's address because of angry parents. Conservatives have gone to crazytown, and good ones like Joe Scarborough, George Will, David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan need to call this idiocy what it is and elevate the discourse before something tragic occurs.
Friday, September 4, 2009
The Anatomy and Physiology of the Social Organism (Government, Economy, Education)
The government functions as the brain and/or the nervous system of the social organism. Just like our brain regulates and organizes the other systems in order to maintain homeostasis, the government regulates, passes laws, creates programs and budgets in order to maintain socioeconomic homeostasis. It's the government's job to organize society, similarly to how our brain orders our other systems.
The economy and wealth (wealth in it's most general sense) can be viewed as the circulatory system and the blood of the SO. The circulatory system distributes blood throughout the body. Blood functions as the vehicle for oxygen and nutrients for the growth and development cells. This is very much like how wealth functions as the vehicle for the things needed to develop and sustain the SO. Put another way, wealth represents the materials and resources the SO needs to survive, develop and grow; and the economy, like our circulatory system, is how those resources and materials are distributed.
While the government's role is to organize and regulate the economy, just like the brain's role is to regulate blood flow (e.g. when it gets cold, the brain directs blood to our internal organs away from our extremities), it's crucial to point out that the brain needs a healthy blood supply to function properly. Likewise, government needs a robust economy to function. Thus a balance has to be struck so that the government does not over-regulate depressing the economy, but regulates and redistributes enough to maintain socioeconomic homeostasis. When Herbert Spencer argued that the five SI's formed the social organism, he said that this was because of the natural evolutionary process. But as an anarchist and social darwinist, Spencer said that the government must be done away with, so that mankind can reach his ultimate potential and build a utopia. For Spencer, the government prevented this by not letting the poor (read unfit) die off and the rich (read fit) procreate. Many conservatives and libertarians make the same mistake Spencer did by not recognizing the important organizing, homeostatic role of gov't. And while not being social darwinists, many argue for an economic darwinism, emphasizing competition over cooperation.
Education and information are to the SO, as the digestive system and food are to the human organism. Information is brought into the social organism from the outside like food is brought into the body from the outside. Info is then processed into curriculums, theories, formulas and technology and combined with wealth to increase the growth and development of the SO. It is also worth noting that just like there is bad food and good food which can damage or develop cells, there is bad and good information which can damage or develop the cells, or people, of the social organism.
To summarize, in the human body, the blood keeps cells alive by acting as a vehicle for nutrients and oxygen. Likewise, the social organism uses information in the form of technology for its development and growth which flows throughout the SO via the vehicle of economy and wealth. Thus info and knowledge come into the SO and is processed by its education system which turns said info into formulas, theories and technology. This technology is then distributed by the economy with the gov't organizing the whole thing. Of course, this is incredibly simplified, but this provides a rough sketch at how these SI's function like our own organ systems.
These three SI's operate on a relatively objective level, while the remaining two SI's and culture operate on a much more subjective level. I think it's important not to view one group as being more important than the other for all of them are in constant interaction, affecting one another and creating the whole SO.
The economy and wealth (wealth in it's most general sense) can be viewed as the circulatory system and the blood of the SO. The circulatory system distributes blood throughout the body. Blood functions as the vehicle for oxygen and nutrients for the growth and development cells. This is very much like how wealth functions as the vehicle for the things needed to develop and sustain the SO. Put another way, wealth represents the materials and resources the SO needs to survive, develop and grow; and the economy, like our circulatory system, is how those resources and materials are distributed.
While the government's role is to organize and regulate the economy, just like the brain's role is to regulate blood flow (e.g. when it gets cold, the brain directs blood to our internal organs away from our extremities), it's crucial to point out that the brain needs a healthy blood supply to function properly. Likewise, government needs a robust economy to function. Thus a balance has to be struck so that the government does not over-regulate depressing the economy, but regulates and redistributes enough to maintain socioeconomic homeostasis. When Herbert Spencer argued that the five SI's formed the social organism, he said that this was because of the natural evolutionary process. But as an anarchist and social darwinist, Spencer said that the government must be done away with, so that mankind can reach his ultimate potential and build a utopia. For Spencer, the government prevented this by not letting the poor (read unfit) die off and the rich (read fit) procreate. Many conservatives and libertarians make the same mistake Spencer did by not recognizing the important organizing, homeostatic role of gov't. And while not being social darwinists, many argue for an economic darwinism, emphasizing competition over cooperation.
Education and information are to the SO, as the digestive system and food are to the human organism. Information is brought into the social organism from the outside like food is brought into the body from the outside. Info is then processed into curriculums, theories, formulas and technology and combined with wealth to increase the growth and development of the SO. It is also worth noting that just like there is bad food and good food which can damage or develop cells, there is bad and good information which can damage or develop the cells, or people, of the social organism.
To summarize, in the human body, the blood keeps cells alive by acting as a vehicle for nutrients and oxygen. Likewise, the social organism uses information in the form of technology for its development and growth which flows throughout the SO via the vehicle of economy and wealth. Thus info and knowledge come into the SO and is processed by its education system which turns said info into formulas, theories and technology. This technology is then distributed by the economy with the gov't organizing the whole thing. Of course, this is incredibly simplified, but this provides a rough sketch at how these SI's function like our own organ systems.
These three SI's operate on a relatively objective level, while the remaining two SI's and culture operate on a much more subjective level. I think it's important not to view one group as being more important than the other for all of them are in constant interaction, affecting one another and creating the whole SO.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
The Anatomy and Physiology of the Social Organism (Intro)
For the past few years I have struggled to formulate a way to explain how I see the world. What I have had are chunks and pieces of things I believe, but not a way to put them all together into one complete picture or worldview. I was envious of people whom, even though I believed it was a mistake, bought into and ideological system, because at the very least they could explain their view of the world in an orderly and systemized way. I, on the other hand, believed in a theory here and a theory there, but overall felt all over the map. However, now, I am hoping that this has finally changed.
Over the course of my years reading and thinking and blogging I, like many other thinkers and writers, have been trying to view the world in a way that transcends liberal and conservative, and religious and secular. And I believe that I have found a way to do this that makes the most sense, at least to me. This is my first attempt at really putting what's been going on in my head into words, and I'm doing this as much for myself as for anyone interested in reading. A lot of what I'll say isn't new, but the way I am going to present it is (or at least it is to me). So with that, I will begin.
I'll start by saying what I've pointed out on my other blog-- that all reality is made up of things are whole, yet are also parts e.g. atoms, molecules, cells etc. all the way up to us. And just like the rest of reality, we indeed make up something as well-- society. Or still more accurately, we make up the things that make up society-- social institutions. The five social institutions (SI's) are the institutions that have made up every civilization ever studied, and they are: Government, Economy, Education, Family and Religion. This is incredibly significant, and is no coincidence. Spanning all cultures, human beings, when forming a society always have the same basic institutions. With that said, if we think of society like one big organism, or social organism (SO) as coined by Durkheim, then would it not make sense that SI's function and work together just like other systems within an organism (e.g. our organ systems) do?
If the answer is yes, then it becomes clear that it is a mistake to, as people often do, champion one's preferred SI as the solution to all of society's ills. For example, in left v.s. right debates, the left often insists that government involvement or social programs are what is needed to fix society, while the right argues that less government involvement with the free-market is what is needed. Thus one sided argues for government while the other for the economy. Yet, in other debates one might often hear the preservation of the family as the key to fixing society. Still in other circles, you'll find education being touted as the cure-all for society's ills. And finally, and more frequently, I hear that the church as the solution. The church, the argument goes, has ignored its role at taking care of the poor, the sick and the widow and handed that responsibility over to government.
However, in viewing society as an organism, all of these parts come together, and each SI becomes integral for social change and betterment. It is reductionistic to focus upon one SI, for the SO is more than the sum of its parts. Indeed, I think it is possible that some SI's mirror our own organ systems functioning very similarly in the SO, and that the best lens for comprehending society is to view it how we would any other organism. Thus, arguing that one SI be removed or tremendously minimized to fix social problems, is akin to arguing for the removal of one of our own organ systems to cure our body.
The question of how I think the SI's function in a SO, will be discussed from here on out. I have virtually this whole series done; I just need to edit sections before I post them. Government, Economy and Education will be next, with Religion, Family and Culture after that.
Over the course of my years reading and thinking and blogging I, like many other thinkers and writers, have been trying to view the world in a way that transcends liberal and conservative, and religious and secular. And I believe that I have found a way to do this that makes the most sense, at least to me. This is my first attempt at really putting what's been going on in my head into words, and I'm doing this as much for myself as for anyone interested in reading. A lot of what I'll say isn't new, but the way I am going to present it is (or at least it is to me). So with that, I will begin.
I'll start by saying what I've pointed out on my other blog-- that all reality is made up of things are whole, yet are also parts e.g. atoms, molecules, cells etc. all the way up to us. And just like the rest of reality, we indeed make up something as well-- society. Or still more accurately, we make up the things that make up society-- social institutions. The five social institutions (SI's) are the institutions that have made up every civilization ever studied, and they are: Government, Economy, Education, Family and Religion. This is incredibly significant, and is no coincidence. Spanning all cultures, human beings, when forming a society always have the same basic institutions. With that said, if we think of society like one big organism, or social organism (SO) as coined by Durkheim, then would it not make sense that SI's function and work together just like other systems within an organism (e.g. our organ systems) do?
If the answer is yes, then it becomes clear that it is a mistake to, as people often do, champion one's preferred SI as the solution to all of society's ills. For example, in left v.s. right debates, the left often insists that government involvement or social programs are what is needed to fix society, while the right argues that less government involvement with the free-market is what is needed. Thus one sided argues for government while the other for the economy. Yet, in other debates one might often hear the preservation of the family as the key to fixing society. Still in other circles, you'll find education being touted as the cure-all for society's ills. And finally, and more frequently, I hear that the church as the solution. The church, the argument goes, has ignored its role at taking care of the poor, the sick and the widow and handed that responsibility over to government.
However, in viewing society as an organism, all of these parts come together, and each SI becomes integral for social change and betterment. It is reductionistic to focus upon one SI, for the SO is more than the sum of its parts. Indeed, I think it is possible that some SI's mirror our own organ systems functioning very similarly in the SO, and that the best lens for comprehending society is to view it how we would any other organism. Thus, arguing that one SI be removed or tremendously minimized to fix social problems, is akin to arguing for the removal of one of our own organ systems to cure our body.
The question of how I think the SI's function in a SO, will be discussed from here on out. I have virtually this whole series done; I just need to edit sections before I post them. Government, Economy and Education will be next, with Religion, Family and Culture after that.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The Missing Piece in the Healthcare Reform Puzzle
Massive healthcare reform is currently in the works, and hopefully some good changes will be made. There are at least two unchangable certainties that will continue to increase the cost of healthcare, and while I'm in favor of a government option to compete with private companies, and the various other ideas to reduce costs, I believe one of the root causes of the rising cost of healthare are not being addressed. This is because, even though it directly affects the rise in healthcare, it is beyond the scope of healthcare policy. Yet, I believe, it is imperative that changes in this area need to happen in order to balance out the two certainties that will contintue to make costs rise.
Two things that are unchangable that affect cost:
-The baby-boomers are aging, which means that more and more people are going to need more and more care. Demand raises the cost, thus the price of healthcare is destined to increase and there is nothing we can do to change this. For more on this go here.
-New technology is always incredibly expensive when it comes out. I can buy an older cheaper Ipod and still listen to music; I don't need the latest version of it. But getting the newest and best healthcare could mean life or death, so the constantly developing technology in healthcare also means it will invariably become more expensive.
Some ways to decrease cost:
I think we need a national program to compete with private plans. I believe this because A. competition is good for consumers and B. as Paul Krugman recently argued, a national plan would keep private plans honest. Having a national plan would also ensure that everyone could have healthcare, and access to cost reducing preventative care. But here's the problem. I have good health insurance, yet I don't get a yearly check-up even though I know I should. The reality is that a lot of other people might not as well. Outside of forcing people to get check-ups, there is just no easy solution to this problem except for providers to create huge incentives for people who participate in preventative care. I know that if my premium would go way up if I didn't get my check-ups or screenings, I would start seeing a doctor regularly. Another problem is that people just might not get insurance even if they can afford it, which is why mandating healthcare is important. I understand the concern with "forcing" people to get healthcare, but realistically, everyone participating in this is important not only for the health of individuals, but for the economic well-being of the country.
But even with univeral coverage and prevention, there is still remains a missing component. Other countries aren't healthier than us because they have universal healthcare. They are healthier because they eat and live differently.
The cost-reducing issue in the healthcare debate that no one is talking about is the atrocious American diet. To deal with this, I would argue that taxes should be raised on junk food and foods that contribute to poor health, and we should stop subsidizing corn and soy beans and begin subsidizing crops that promote healthy diets. Part of the reason people are obese is because unhealthy food is cheap and healthy food is more expensive. Most fast food items, for example, are made from corn or soy products so they are cheap. And high-fructose corn syrup, a contributor to obesity, is in everything because corn is cheaper than sugar or natural sweeteners. Reducing subsidies on these crops and increasing subsidies on crops that promote a healthy diet; taxing unhealthy food; and educating the public more on a healthy diet might, by hitting Americans in their pocketbook, cause people to eat better and live healthier.
To cope with the large swath of our population getting older, we all need to live healthier lives. Eating healthier and preventative care will drive down costs making universal coverage affordable. If we tax junk food, that would generate additional revenue for the purpose of healthcare as well. The bottom line is whether it's the insurance companies or the masses, everyone needs to change their ways, but unfortunately I don't see much coming out of Washington on getting Americans to put down their Big Mac and pick up some veggies and whole grains.
Two things that are unchangable that affect cost:
-The baby-boomers are aging, which means that more and more people are going to need more and more care. Demand raises the cost, thus the price of healthcare is destined to increase and there is nothing we can do to change this. For more on this go here.
-New technology is always incredibly expensive when it comes out. I can buy an older cheaper Ipod and still listen to music; I don't need the latest version of it. But getting the newest and best healthcare could mean life or death, so the constantly developing technology in healthcare also means it will invariably become more expensive.
Some ways to decrease cost:
I think we need a national program to compete with private plans. I believe this because A. competition is good for consumers and B. as Paul Krugman recently argued, a national plan would keep private plans honest. Having a national plan would also ensure that everyone could have healthcare, and access to cost reducing preventative care. But here's the problem. I have good health insurance, yet I don't get a yearly check-up even though I know I should. The reality is that a lot of other people might not as well. Outside of forcing people to get check-ups, there is just no easy solution to this problem except for providers to create huge incentives for people who participate in preventative care. I know that if my premium would go way up if I didn't get my check-ups or screenings, I would start seeing a doctor regularly. Another problem is that people just might not get insurance even if they can afford it, which is why mandating healthcare is important. I understand the concern with "forcing" people to get healthcare, but realistically, everyone participating in this is important not only for the health of individuals, but for the economic well-being of the country.
But even with univeral coverage and prevention, there is still remains a missing component. Other countries aren't healthier than us because they have universal healthcare. They are healthier because they eat and live differently.
The cost-reducing issue in the healthcare debate that no one is talking about is the atrocious American diet. To deal with this, I would argue that taxes should be raised on junk food and foods that contribute to poor health, and we should stop subsidizing corn and soy beans and begin subsidizing crops that promote healthy diets. Part of the reason people are obese is because unhealthy food is cheap and healthy food is more expensive. Most fast food items, for example, are made from corn or soy products so they are cheap. And high-fructose corn syrup, a contributor to obesity, is in everything because corn is cheaper than sugar or natural sweeteners. Reducing subsidies on these crops and increasing subsidies on crops that promote a healthy diet; taxing unhealthy food; and educating the public more on a healthy diet might, by hitting Americans in their pocketbook, cause people to eat better and live healthier.
To cope with the large swath of our population getting older, we all need to live healthier lives. Eating healthier and preventative care will drive down costs making universal coverage affordable. If we tax junk food, that would generate additional revenue for the purpose of healthcare as well. The bottom line is whether it's the insurance companies or the masses, everyone needs to change their ways, but unfortunately I don't see much coming out of Washington on getting Americans to put down their Big Mac and pick up some veggies and whole grains.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Obama. Abortion. Reduction?
It looks as if Obama is making good on one of his campaign promises-- to find common ground in the abortion debate and work to reduce abortions in a number of ways. This, I believe, is the only real solution to the problem, at least in this period of American history. Abortion is going to be legal and people are going to have sex, thus we need policies that will reduce abortions and make an abortion-free country seem possible.
Obama said recently: "I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion or at least considering getting an abortion." The Administration has brought together pro and anti abortion advocates to discuss ideas and goals in reducing the number of abortions and to get people talking rather than arguing. The White House will then consider ideas and recommendations that come from these talks. Ideas that are being discussed are: "improving education about use of contraception; better access to emergency contraception (which can be used after sex); improving education about sex, relationships and the "sacredness of sex"; stamping out employment discrimination against pregnant women; improving family-leave policies; and encouraging adoption." The Administration is especially interested in: "sex education; responsible use of contraception; maternal and child health; pregnancy discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere; and adoption."
This is encouraging for me and others who voted for Obama despite the protests of friends and family that Obama was a hard-core pro-abortion guy not really concerned about reducing abortions. Most frustrating for me is to read about pro-life people poo-pooing contraception. A global study of abortion conducted by the WHO found the lowest rates were in Western Europe due to its widespread availability of contraception. Fewer unwanted pregnancies means fewer abortions-- go figure!
I'm hopeful that this effort will produce some creative policy that the majority of pro-life and pro-choice people can get behind, and that the militants on both sides will continue to decrease.
Source
Obama said recently: "I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion or at least considering getting an abortion." The Administration has brought together pro and anti abortion advocates to discuss ideas and goals in reducing the number of abortions and to get people talking rather than arguing. The White House will then consider ideas and recommendations that come from these talks. Ideas that are being discussed are: "improving education about use of contraception; better access to emergency contraception (which can be used after sex); improving education about sex, relationships and the "sacredness of sex"; stamping out employment discrimination against pregnant women; improving family-leave policies; and encouraging adoption." The Administration is especially interested in: "sex education; responsible use of contraception; maternal and child health; pregnancy discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere; and adoption."
This is encouraging for me and others who voted for Obama despite the protests of friends and family that Obama was a hard-core pro-abortion guy not really concerned about reducing abortions. Most frustrating for me is to read about pro-life people poo-pooing contraception. A global study of abortion conducted by the WHO found the lowest rates were in Western Europe due to its widespread availability of contraception. Fewer unwanted pregnancies means fewer abortions-- go figure!
I'm hopeful that this effort will produce some creative policy that the majority of pro-life and pro-choice people can get behind, and that the militants on both sides will continue to decrease.
Source
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Making Lemonade: A Return to Responsibility?
I understand that there are people really suffering as a result of the recession, and I realize that I am fortunate. Even in the most economically depressed state in the union, I am one of those blessed to be prospering in this economy without a worry in the world about Anne or I losing our jobs. So I am aware how insensitive it may sound for me to say that I think this recession could turn out to be something positive. In fact, I'm not the only one who believes this, and I probably wouldn't be writing this if TIME hadn't validated my feelings. They have recently published a couple of issues highlighting some good things that are coming from this recession. In the April 6th edition, their cover reads: "The End of Excess: Why this crisis is good for America," and in the latest issue they have a story about the growing frugality in American consumers. In short, this crisis is good because it is forcing Americans to do things like become closer to friends and family, and is providing a good ass-kicking to our excessively consumeristic ways. It is exposing the danger of piling on debt and being financially irresponsible; and it comes at a time when we are becoming increasingly aware the need for sustainable forms of energy which has the potential of creating a stable new driver of our economy.
Along with highlighting the need for personal responsibility, this crisis may hopefully drive home the need for responsibility in the banking and financial sectors. Paul Krugman has a great piece entitled "Make Banking Boring" where he describes how banking and finance has gone through periods of excitement and boredom. Between WWI and 1929 the banking and finance sectors were "exciting," with those in the finance sector becoming fabulously wealthy, but with soaring debt. After the depression, regulation became tight, debt went down and banking became "boring." Yet this boring period yielded a time of great economic progress for the majority of Americans. However, in the 80's, regulation was lifted and banking became exciting again as those in the finance sector, once again, became fabulously wealthy and debt blew up. Ever since, the 80's extended into the 90's, and throughout the Bush years, as Americans piled on the debt and have lived excessively wealthy, consumeristic lives. Krugman argues that we must return to a tightly regulated system and restore responsibility. I agree, and my hope is that it will not only be the system that becomes more responsible and less excessive, but individuals as well.
But there are problems, and I think David Brooks has some valid points. In his column, "Big Spending Conservative," Brooks discusses how Obama has picked up on the responsibility theme as well. This should be good news that the president is driving home the message of responsibility and less excess, but Brooks points out his hypocrisy. Brooks writes:
"Moreover, for an administration that puts responsibility at the center, it is not itself very responsible. Federal spending is the leverage the administration uses to gain control over sector after sector, and yet this money is all borrowed.
Obama imposes hard choices on others, but has postponed his own. He presented an agenda that bleeds red ink a trillion dollars at a time. Now he seems passive as Congress kills his few revenue ideas (cap and trade) and spending cuts (agricultural subsidies). Huge fiscal gaps are opening this decade that can’t be closed by distant entitlement reform. They can’t be closed by cynical Potemkin cuts, a few million at a time"
I am all for government intervention and regulation. I am all for health care reform. I am all for "green jobs." I am all for good, effective social programs. But I am also all for fiscal discipline, and that is one thing I do not see coming from the administration or congress. Now, yes, the tax cuts will expire, and I think that is a good thing, but there needs to be some spending cuts as well, and more than a piddly 100 million dollars.
Along with highlighting the need for personal responsibility, this crisis may hopefully drive home the need for responsibility in the banking and financial sectors. Paul Krugman has a great piece entitled "Make Banking Boring" where he describes how banking and finance has gone through periods of excitement and boredom. Between WWI and 1929 the banking and finance sectors were "exciting," with those in the finance sector becoming fabulously wealthy, but with soaring debt. After the depression, regulation became tight, debt went down and banking became "boring." Yet this boring period yielded a time of great economic progress for the majority of Americans. However, in the 80's, regulation was lifted and banking became exciting again as those in the finance sector, once again, became fabulously wealthy and debt blew up. Ever since, the 80's extended into the 90's, and throughout the Bush years, as Americans piled on the debt and have lived excessively wealthy, consumeristic lives. Krugman argues that we must return to a tightly regulated system and restore responsibility. I agree, and my hope is that it will not only be the system that becomes more responsible and less excessive, but individuals as well.
But there are problems, and I think David Brooks has some valid points. In his column, "Big Spending Conservative," Brooks discusses how Obama has picked up on the responsibility theme as well. This should be good news that the president is driving home the message of responsibility and less excess, but Brooks points out his hypocrisy. Brooks writes:
"Moreover, for an administration that puts responsibility at the center, it is not itself very responsible. Federal spending is the leverage the administration uses to gain control over sector after sector, and yet this money is all borrowed.
Obama imposes hard choices on others, but has postponed his own. He presented an agenda that bleeds red ink a trillion dollars at a time. Now he seems passive as Congress kills his few revenue ideas (cap and trade) and spending cuts (agricultural subsidies). Huge fiscal gaps are opening this decade that can’t be closed by distant entitlement reform. They can’t be closed by cynical Potemkin cuts, a few million at a time"
I am all for government intervention and regulation. I am all for health care reform. I am all for "green jobs." I am all for good, effective social programs. But I am also all for fiscal discipline, and that is one thing I do not see coming from the administration or congress. Now, yes, the tax cuts will expire, and I think that is a good thing, but there needs to be some spending cuts as well, and more than a piddly 100 million dollars.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Technical Difficulties and the G-20
I haven't quit blogging here, my mind just hasn't been focused on politics and what's going on in the world lately. Also, my mouse on my laptop is dead and my other computer is incredibly slow, so that has made using a computer incredibly undesirable, as using my laptop consists of me hitting tab a million times trying to land on the item I want to click on.
But anyways... In politics and current events, I think the president is doing a decent job. It was refreshing to see him at the G-20 and know that the other leaders there were listening to us again and cared what we had to say. It was relieving to hear him say he was there to listen and not lecture, but also acknowledging that anti-Americanism in Europe had often gotten out of hand and that America has done a great deal of good in the world. I know we didn't get everything we wanted there, but hopefully restoring and building relationships will go a long way in getting things we want down the road.
But anyways... In politics and current events, I think the president is doing a decent job. It was refreshing to see him at the G-20 and know that the other leaders there were listening to us again and cared what we had to say. It was relieving to hear him say he was there to listen and not lecture, but also acknowledging that anti-Americanism in Europe had often gotten out of hand and that America has done a great deal of good in the world. I know we didn't get everything we wanted there, but hopefully restoring and building relationships will go a long way in getting things we want down the road.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Partisanship Fails Again
I've been trying to digest this whole stimulus mess. I've gone back and forth sometimes believing that the Republicans need to keep the spending on pet Democratic programs in check, and sometimes believing that the Dems just need to go all out, and do their thing. I've been disappointed that Obama has seemed to give up on bi-partisanship, and been annoyed at the fact that the Republicans don't give a crap about bi-partisanship. But as the Senate comes to a deal on this, and as I gorge myself on opinion and analysis on this issue, my thoughts are this: Partisanship fails again.
As usual, Robert Samuelson lays it all out:
"Unfortunately, investing in tomorrow won't automatically stimulate the economy today. The $819 billion program passed by the House will only slowly provide stimulus. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in fiscal 2009 (through this September) about 21 percent of the new spending and tax cuts will flow to the economy. For 2010, the estimate is another 44 percent. The total of 65 percent means that, by CBO's estimate, about a third of the $819 billion package would be spent after fiscal 2010."
''Or take the $39 billion in the House bill for added highway and transit construction. That's nearly double existing funding levels. When queried, state officials worried about how fast they could "adjust their contracting procedures" for such a big increase, reports CBO. As stimulus, the better course would simply be to give more money to states and localities -- and order them to spend it. Most would plug deficits, avoiding program cuts and layoffs."
"What's also sacrificed are measures that, though lacking in long-term benefits, might help the economy now. A $7,500 tax credit for any homebuyer in the next year (and not just first-time buyers, as is now in the bill) might reduce bloated housing inventories. Similarly, a temporary $1,500 credit for car or truck purchases might revive sales, which are down a third from 2007 levels. Normally, these targeted incentives would be unjustified; today, they may be necessary expedients."
"The decision by Obama and Democratic congressional leaders to load the stimulus with so many partisan projects is politically shrewd and economically suspect."
Don't get me wrong, I think some long term projects should be included, but I also think the bill is loaded with too many "partisan projects." But is Obama to blame? I would agree with Pat Buchannan who, on the Mclaughlin Group, said that Obama isn't to blame; Pelosi is. Pat also added that he believes Obama is really unhappy with the bill, but is pushing it to please his party. And while I think that some of the Republican criticisms are probably valid, all I seen from them is ideology and their same ol' solution of cutting taxes for people who aren't going to spend it. What we needed was a stimulus package that was mainly immediate stimulus. What we got is a Democratic project loaded package that did nothing but create partisan bickering. Which isn't to say that I don't believe in what much of the Dem's want to do, I do, but this wasn't the right time. I know they think it was, but their reasons for thinking that wasn't the change I, nor most Americans, voted for.
As usual, Robert Samuelson lays it all out:
"Unfortunately, investing in tomorrow won't automatically stimulate the economy today. The $819 billion program passed by the House will only slowly provide stimulus. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in fiscal 2009 (through this September) about 21 percent of the new spending and tax cuts will flow to the economy. For 2010, the estimate is another 44 percent. The total of 65 percent means that, by CBO's estimate, about a third of the $819 billion package would be spent after fiscal 2010."
''Or take the $39 billion in the House bill for added highway and transit construction. That's nearly double existing funding levels. When queried, state officials worried about how fast they could "adjust their contracting procedures" for such a big increase, reports CBO. As stimulus, the better course would simply be to give more money to states and localities -- and order them to spend it. Most would plug deficits, avoiding program cuts and layoffs."
"What's also sacrificed are measures that, though lacking in long-term benefits, might help the economy now. A $7,500 tax credit for any homebuyer in the next year (and not just first-time buyers, as is now in the bill) might reduce bloated housing inventories. Similarly, a temporary $1,500 credit for car or truck purchases might revive sales, which are down a third from 2007 levels. Normally, these targeted incentives would be unjustified; today, they may be necessary expedients."
"The decision by Obama and Democratic congressional leaders to load the stimulus with so many partisan projects is politically shrewd and economically suspect."
Don't get me wrong, I think some long term projects should be included, but I also think the bill is loaded with too many "partisan projects." But is Obama to blame? I would agree with Pat Buchannan who, on the Mclaughlin Group, said that Obama isn't to blame; Pelosi is. Pat also added that he believes Obama is really unhappy with the bill, but is pushing it to please his party. And while I think that some of the Republican criticisms are probably valid, all I seen from them is ideology and their same ol' solution of cutting taxes for people who aren't going to spend it. What we needed was a stimulus package that was mainly immediate stimulus. What we got is a Democratic project loaded package that did nothing but create partisan bickering. Which isn't to say that I don't believe in what much of the Dem's want to do, I do, but this wasn't the right time. I know they think it was, but their reasons for thinking that wasn't the change I, nor most Americans, voted for.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
And So Begins the Extreme Left-Wing, Socialist Take Over
I know it's been a while, and I have a substantive post I'm half done with, but I just couldn't resist commenting on some of the less than news-worthy news concerning Obama's budding presidency.
I love the fact that he has chosen Rick Warren to speak at the inauguration. I believe this is a strong signal that Obama wants to truly bridge the divide and be a president for everyone. It pisses me off that gay rights groups are crying about this, but it doesn't surprise me, even though these groups probably trashed President Bush for being polarizing and gave lip service to Obama uniting the country. I guess if you're going to reach out to everyone, then you're always going to push some away.
But what really made my eyes bug out of my head were Pat Robertson's recent comments about Obama. For all the crap I had to endure concerning Obama turning the country into some sort of socialist dictatorship, I was floored when good ol' Pat said this:
"I am remarkably pleased with Obama. I had grave misgivings about him. But so help me, he's come in forcefully, intelligently. He's picked a middle of the road cabinet. And so far, if he continues down this course, he has the makings of a great president." (emphasis mine Source)
Now I'm sure he had glowing things to say about President Bush at the beginning of his presidency, so I really couldn't care less about his judgement when it comes to how good a Pres Barry will be, but sometimes it's just fun to say "I told ya so."
I love the fact that he has chosen Rick Warren to speak at the inauguration. I believe this is a strong signal that Obama wants to truly bridge the divide and be a president for everyone. It pisses me off that gay rights groups are crying about this, but it doesn't surprise me, even though these groups probably trashed President Bush for being polarizing and gave lip service to Obama uniting the country. I guess if you're going to reach out to everyone, then you're always going to push some away.
But what really made my eyes bug out of my head were Pat Robertson's recent comments about Obama. For all the crap I had to endure concerning Obama turning the country into some sort of socialist dictatorship, I was floored when good ol' Pat said this:
"I am remarkably pleased with Obama. I had grave misgivings about him. But so help me, he's come in forcefully, intelligently. He's picked a middle of the road cabinet. And so far, if he continues down this course, he has the makings of a great president." (emphasis mine Source)
Now I'm sure he had glowing things to say about President Bush at the beginning of his presidency, so I really couldn't care less about his judgement when it comes to how good a Pres Barry will be, but sometimes it's just fun to say "I told ya so."
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Mike Huckabee vs Jon Stewart
The Daily Show has become the place for thoughtful debate about political and social issues (who'da thunk it?). This episode features Mike Huckabee for a discussion on the role of government and gay marriage. Two full segments are devoted to it. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on this as they thoroughly cover both issues. It's really worth watching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)