Once upon a time, the Republican Party was something I could and did vote for. It stood for a set of principles that made sense from a particular, kind of old frontier point of view. There was a rallying call for independence, self-reliance, and a thoughtful Buckleyesque take on politics. William Buckley was persuasive, honorable, arrogant (of course) but above all rational. The man thought. While I didn't agree with him on all things, I felt I could go to him for intelligent engagement with the issues. I felt I had a choice between Democrat and Republican on the basis of two sincere but different approaches to the common goal of building and sustaining the US.
My god--what a difference fifty years makes.
What does the Republican party stand for now? Is Donald Trump the best they can do? What happened to intellect? What even has happened to seeking the good of the country? We elected a Republican government and they proceeded to pillage the country and enrich themselves. John Boehner now says they are willing to let the US default They throw around threats like they know what they're doing.
Let the US default? Here we go: over time, our money tanks, food heads for the stratosphere because we import so much of it. Oil? with our valueless money, consider how much welfare BP and the others will extend us. Plan to stay wherever the oil crisis finds you. Our houses become worthless because no one can afford one. Imports will zoom in cost, hence causing massive layoffs among industries relying on them. Our businesses and corporations will immediately leave the country as the money flows into more stable currencies--hence more unemployment. Inflation will run rampant as people fight over what little food and supplies there are left. If you think the US has a problem with gangs, wait until there's no food. So, my Canadian friends, if this happens, I'd advise you to get your money out while you can.
In other words, the anarchists will have won. And if the Republicans wanted to destroy governmemnt, they've done it and taken us along with them. But why doesn't that surprise me? They've been planning for this: busy feathering their own nests to protect themselves--it's the poor and the minorites and the elderly--the drains on the economy in their eyes, who will bear it. The very people they've fulminated against from pulpits and stumps. I guess these new republicans really do believe in the rapture and that starving half the country to death is just part of the prophecy.
And now Obama has released his birth certificate. Too bad for the birthers. Obama WAS born in Hawaii--just as I for one said--and at Kapiolani Hospital--just as I said--I SAW his mother, for god's sake. But now birthing has gone--the harassment won't stop. It never does with bullies--and that's what the Republicans have become. Trump is implying that Obama got into Harvard (thereby denying some white good old boy --like Bush I suppose) because he was an undeserving minority. Obama came from the most prestigious, expensive, and storied private school in the State of Hawaii, Punahou School. Punahou graudates GO to Harvard. It's expected. The fact that Obama graduated from Harvard with highest honors doesn't count. Trump himself went to business school at the University of Pennsylvania--was he denied a place at Harvard by some undeserving minority? He'll demand Obama's school records so he can play admissions officer. Come on, you idiot. Let's have something useful rather than the rallying of the National Enquirer-addled.
And if you are going down that silly path--and it looks like you are--then as someone who WAS involved with universities and their admissions policies, let me tell you that applicants with high scores are turned down everyday in favor of others who show the potential to grow. If high scores were all that was asked for, Cal-Berkeley would be 100% Asian. Plus many students have a rotten first year in university (if the university is any good). Things haven't settled down for them yet. The transition hasn't been made from high school to college. I earned less than a 2.0 (C) for my first semester average. Next semester I earned a 3.5 (B plus) then some semesters earned straight As after that. I graduated with honors but did not make Phi Beta Kappa because of that first semester. I earned a 3.8 for my Master's work and straight As on my Ph.D. coursework. It's called giving people a chance and it's supposed to be an American virtue.
I can keep on shouting these things till the cows come home, but I have little chance of persuading anyone any more than my one voice could on the birth certificate. I want these clowns in D.C. to get off this posturing, understand that Tea Party yelling is only one political force among many others, and take a long look at who has bought Congress. But no--it won't happen. These people want to fritter their time believing the worst necause they just don't like Obama. In fact, let's be honest, they just don't like us.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
The Budget According to Faith
If ever we needed proof of the political power of money, we have only to look at the latest craziness in Washington D.C. From watching the posturing and the namecalling, one can easily see it's not about the budget--it never was--it's about cramming social and economic philosophy down the gullets of everyone else. It's budget by a series of faiths and beliefs offered without a shred of evidence beyond mere enthusiam. You can't debate this nonsense rationally because people are entrenched in what they think they "know" about economics--without ever having studied it--and about human behavior--without ever having examined their own.
Does this sound like religion anyone? I think so. We now have budget built by enthusiasm and faith.
On the one hand, we have those with "faith" in the free enterprise system. They don't know much about it really except that they think they'll get jobs from it and it fits in with their illusions about what it means to be the type of personality they think they approve of (while not living up to the standards they want to impose on others). Notice--most of these types are over 55 and they aren't calling for changes for that age demographic. Who do they think they are: Congress? These folk are paid for by corporate leaders (notice who's funding the Tea Party), a fact they ignore because they are too busy trying to legislate punishment for people who a) don't have much money--how dare they exist? b) women who want to control reproduction--they should be practicing abstinence, and c) anyone who wants an education--if their parents couldn't afford to send them to decent schools they shouldn't have had them.
Primitive, Old Testament stuff--but how satisfying to the rich who can feel morally superior.
On the other hand, we have those with "faith" in the economic theory of spending ourselves rich. If we have to thank Reagan for the trickle down theory which turned out to have dams, we can thank Keynesian economics for the idea of government manipulation in the economy.
Now, I have NO problem with government presence in the economy and financial markets because the equation is simple--down goes policy up goes greed. Think back to Enron. The California legislator who pushed for deregulation of the California power grid didn't even bother to run again as his promises of benefit sank amidst the rolling black-outs. There are things the government should control in the public interest.
But, government is hampered by too many competing interests. Every one of the regulations put on industry and investment is there because someone gamed the system. If nobody cheated, we wouldn't need regulations. However, believing that we can anticipate every single way that people can cheat one another or screw the system just leads to a mares nest of regulations that ultimately protect no one. And it's not just business who cheats--there are plenty of the unrich who are gaming the entitlement programs too. We live in a climate of cheating--but that's something we need to address rather than just pointing fingers at the other side while ignoring our own responsibility.
We need common sense--not slogans, not winks, not private conflicts of interest, not legislators whose only purpose is reelection and lining up a cushy job later. We need rational heads and a national debate over where in the heck we are headed as a country. I really wish our current administration would cease trying to moderate and conciliate amidst this very ugly climate; let's cease the name-calling and have that unpleasant conversation in which everyone (including the rich) are both part of the problem and part of the solution.
In the meantime, save me from the enthusiastic--please.
Does this sound like religion anyone? I think so. We now have budget built by enthusiasm and faith.
On the one hand, we have those with "faith" in the free enterprise system. They don't know much about it really except that they think they'll get jobs from it and it fits in with their illusions about what it means to be the type of personality they think they approve of (while not living up to the standards they want to impose on others). Notice--most of these types are over 55 and they aren't calling for changes for that age demographic. Who do they think they are: Congress? These folk are paid for by corporate leaders (notice who's funding the Tea Party), a fact they ignore because they are too busy trying to legislate punishment for people who a) don't have much money--how dare they exist? b) women who want to control reproduction--they should be practicing abstinence, and c) anyone who wants an education--if their parents couldn't afford to send them to decent schools they shouldn't have had them.
Primitive, Old Testament stuff--but how satisfying to the rich who can feel morally superior.
On the other hand, we have those with "faith" in the economic theory of spending ourselves rich. If we have to thank Reagan for the trickle down theory which turned out to have dams, we can thank Keynesian economics for the idea of government manipulation in the economy.
Now, I have NO problem with government presence in the economy and financial markets because the equation is simple--down goes policy up goes greed. Think back to Enron. The California legislator who pushed for deregulation of the California power grid didn't even bother to run again as his promises of benefit sank amidst the rolling black-outs. There are things the government should control in the public interest.
But, government is hampered by too many competing interests. Every one of the regulations put on industry and investment is there because someone gamed the system. If nobody cheated, we wouldn't need regulations. However, believing that we can anticipate every single way that people can cheat one another or screw the system just leads to a mares nest of regulations that ultimately protect no one. And it's not just business who cheats--there are plenty of the unrich who are gaming the entitlement programs too. We live in a climate of cheating--but that's something we need to address rather than just pointing fingers at the other side while ignoring our own responsibility.
We need common sense--not slogans, not winks, not private conflicts of interest, not legislators whose only purpose is reelection and lining up a cushy job later. We need rational heads and a national debate over where in the heck we are headed as a country. I really wish our current administration would cease trying to moderate and conciliate amidst this very ugly climate; let's cease the name-calling and have that unpleasant conversation in which everyone (including the rich) are both part of the problem and part of the solution.
In the meantime, save me from the enthusiastic--please.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Speaking of Clowns
I was wondering who was going to jump out as another clown from Commedia dell'Arte (sorry, I misspelled it last blog--it's been some time since I was in graduate school studying the Italian theatre) when abricadabra, there he was.
He of the "You're fired" fame. Donald Trump. All of a sudden he's raising the birther theories again but this time also accusing Obama of plagiarism. The first charge has been disputed by the State of Hawaii so many times that the courts have ruled law suits over the matter frivolous and refused to hear them. Tiresome.
Re the second charge: No one has ever come forward to claim any authorship of Obama's work, and even with confidentiality clauses (trust me, I'm a writer) little words slip out here and there that lay hints. I've never heard a thing about Obama's work. Until I see proof rather than speculation, I'm not going to fall for this one.
What I can't figure out is why Trump and why now?
Since I love conspiracy theories--almost as good as millennium theories about the end of the world--let me try second guessing possible reasons. My first thought was that by taking the Tea Party rhetoric to its ultimate extreme, he was setting himself up to divert attention from Ms. Palin. Here would be someone unhinged enough to make her look reasonable. I have noticed lately that she's been keeping a low profile, even going over to Israel and trying to look informed. Could he be trying to help her? After all, she said recently that Obama's birth should be off the political table. That won't go down well with the radical fringe, but might sell a bit better to the more moderate (and much larger) block of voters.
But then I wondered if that was too obvious. What if there is something more devious? What if he was really wanting to run for president? What if his sudden attack on Obama is also an attack on Ms. Palin? Does he think she's gone soft? Does he think he can pick up her fringe and parlay his business background and his television exposure into a legitimate run? But then, why has he joined Fox when there are campaign laws against media exposure that gives unfair advantage?
I wish I could see some sort of strategy that might make me respect him. I weep for some intelligence rather than namecalling and lies among our political leaders, but I suppose that's asking too much is this world of dumbed down. We have no public intellectuals anymore--no William Buckleys for example--who can make sense of the political quagmire this country wallows in. We have only media "personalities", many of whom make their living by outdoing one another in attacking and yelling.
But then--on the other hand, maybe I'm overthinking this. Maybe Trump has joined Fox because that's where he belongs. If that's the case, Mr. Trump has done one honest thing.
In the words of Stephen Sondheim, "So send in the clowns/ there have to be clowns/ don't worry they're here."
He of the "You're fired" fame. Donald Trump. All of a sudden he's raising the birther theories again but this time also accusing Obama of plagiarism. The first charge has been disputed by the State of Hawaii so many times that the courts have ruled law suits over the matter frivolous and refused to hear them. Tiresome.
Re the second charge: No one has ever come forward to claim any authorship of Obama's work, and even with confidentiality clauses (trust me, I'm a writer) little words slip out here and there that lay hints. I've never heard a thing about Obama's work. Until I see proof rather than speculation, I'm not going to fall for this one.
What I can't figure out is why Trump and why now?
Since I love conspiracy theories--almost as good as millennium theories about the end of the world--let me try second guessing possible reasons. My first thought was that by taking the Tea Party rhetoric to its ultimate extreme, he was setting himself up to divert attention from Ms. Palin. Here would be someone unhinged enough to make her look reasonable. I have noticed lately that she's been keeping a low profile, even going over to Israel and trying to look informed. Could he be trying to help her? After all, she said recently that Obama's birth should be off the political table. That won't go down well with the radical fringe, but might sell a bit better to the more moderate (and much larger) block of voters.
But then I wondered if that was too obvious. What if there is something more devious? What if he was really wanting to run for president? What if his sudden attack on Obama is also an attack on Ms. Palin? Does he think she's gone soft? Does he think he can pick up her fringe and parlay his business background and his television exposure into a legitimate run? But then, why has he joined Fox when there are campaign laws against media exposure that gives unfair advantage?
I wish I could see some sort of strategy that might make me respect him. I weep for some intelligence rather than namecalling and lies among our political leaders, but I suppose that's asking too much is this world of dumbed down. We have no public intellectuals anymore--no William Buckleys for example--who can make sense of the political quagmire this country wallows in. We have only media "personalities", many of whom make their living by outdoing one another in attacking and yelling.
But then--on the other hand, maybe I'm overthinking this. Maybe Trump has joined Fox because that's where he belongs. If that's the case, Mr. Trump has done one honest thing.
In the words of Stephen Sondheim, "So send in the clowns/ there have to be clowns/ don't worry they're here."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)