A friend commented on my recent post about the recently-passed California Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage, which I opposed, asking what I thought about the relationship between gay marriage and the nuclear family being the basic structure of human society. I guess, in response, one might ask other questions about the basic structure of human society.
We tend to think of the society we know now as being what the world was always like. That, however is far from the truth. Humans are essentially tribal in nature, and while children spring from families, family structure and the defined role of adults in the family structure has been fluid throughout human history.
Cave men and women lived in caverns or trees or settlements in large groups, sleeping in giant human crowds and raising children was a community affair. Some tribes who live far from or technological, developed societies continue to do similar things today. As Hillary said, it takes a village. Ancient families, such as those in biblical times often included marriages with multiple wives, and sexual liaisons with servants or slaves. In the absence of modern birth control methods, those extra-marital activities often produced children. What was the family structure like then?
Further, looking back just a century or two, people just didn't live as long as they do in America today. People died of infection and illness at startling rates, so families couldn't be enduring because members passed away. Women died in childbirth or from related complications. Men were injured in their roles as farmers or hunter-gatherers and little could be done medically to save the seriously injured (by today's standards).
So perhaps in the 20th century we created and/or promoted the myth of the ideal 1950's family. Dad went to work in his Ford or Chevy, Mom stayed home, baked cookies, cleaned the house with Spic and Span, and everyone was happy. The reality was and is far from that. Families struggled, men died in wars, women had to go out to work or decided that careers were more fulfilling than full-time home-making and family-raising. I wonder if, other than perhaps on TV, this ideal American family with it's supposed wonderful health and structure ever really existed. Among my friends, as I grew up in the 1950's and 60's there were divorces, career debacles, illness, accidental death, alcoholism, wife battering, sexual abuse, etc. This was in a middle class suburb, that, superficially, looked like Ozzie and Harriet might have lived there. But behind the closed doors there was a good deal of misery.
And what about today--the 21st Century? There are a greater percentage of working parents than previously seen; a larger proportion of families are in single parent, mostly female-led households. What affect does the family structure in those families have on children? What about poverty, or adult drug use, unemployment, etc.? I don't see the society rushing in to pass laws against any of these problems, or fixing them, out of concern about the affect they might have on family structure or the children who live in those families.
So that gets us back to Proposition 8 and the ban on gay marriage. I can think of many permutations of families that lack males, or lack females, but those missing members don't make those families fundamentally pathological. If Dad dies in Iraq and children are raised by Mom and Grandmother because Dad is gone does that mean the lives of the children will be ruined? Or that the structure of the society will unravel? Millions of Americans were raised in such family situations and are doing just fine. And many others, raised in two-parent families are in prison, or in a thousand other ways are doing very poorly by most measures.
So the notion that children raised in families by two men, or two women are going to be damaged, or that the society will suffer some universal harm is ridiculous on the face of it. And what is it those against gay marriage would have us believe? If two competent, loving women have children, raise them with love, support, concern, encouragement and care, that even so, the children will be somehow ruined by their imaginings about what goes on behind the bedroom door on some nights? Or because they see the two women hugging or kissing each other? Now that certainly would lead to the instantaneous and total dissolution of the world as we know it, wouldn't it? I mean, if two women actually kissed each other. Shocking! Wait, I'll have to tell my wife never to kiss my adult daughter ever again. I mean, if a child saw that, they might be ruined for life by the very sight of it!
Whatever those who favor a ban on gay marriage say, their opposition to it is simple bigotry. Girls are supposed to like boys, and if your constitution doesn't fit that model then you don't deserve basic human rights. So what if your lifetime partner is hospitalized and you can't see them. Who cares if you bought a house together and now that your partner is dead his family who despised him, rejected him and disapproved of his lifestyle is grabbing legal control of all of his property? I suppose the supporters of the ban on gay marriage would say, "You're gay, you don't deserve anything. You're an abomination."
Well, the Good Book says many things that we should do, but we no longer do. We don't have any altars where we slaughter animals and roast them as burnt offerings. We don't immediately kill children who curse their parents, either. There are a thousand things that the early Judaic writings forbid or say should result in severe punishments that are commonly done today. Religious groups pick and choose at will. So pointing to where it says you shouldn't do this or that doesn't impress me, and is in it's very nature disingenuous. You can't say everyone must follow chapter 43 verse 7 to the letter, and then decide that we really don't have to pay attention to verse 8 because nobody likes it. I'm sorry my fundamentalist friends, but that is simple hypocrisy.
So, in the end, the family structure argument is an empty one. Whether or not children will turn out to be healthy, happy people, and honest, productive citizens is controlled by many variables. The most important involve the love and skill that those in parenting roles can bring to the task of raising children. The sexual orientation of the parents, well, like their hair color, or skin color, or for that matter their affection for baseball, these have very little to do with whether they are good parents. Good parents not only come in all shapes, sizes and colors, they come with varying sexual orientations, and in all kinds of family structures and configurations. Having a home with a mother and a father, and even going to church (synagogue, temple, mosque, sweat lodge, or drum circle), are no guarantee of a positive outcome for a child, a family or a society.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
LET ME KNOW IF YOU'D LIKE TO BE REMOVED
I have started a blog. I am new to all of this blogging stuff and still have much to learn about exactly how it works. So, I am seeking your help.
After writing several posts (each entry is called a "post") and noting that no one read them, I realized I needed to do something different. I mean, it was clear that no one knew about the blog, so why or how would they read it? So this presented a dilemma for me. At first I didn't want to be presumptuous and sign people up for my blog. But in talking with my twenty-something daughter I realized that informing others about your blog, and when you have written a new post is just part of it. So, I if you are reading this, I have taken the liberty of adding your email address to the list of names of people who are informed each time I write a new post. I hope that's okay.
If you enjoy reading the blog, and I hope you do, then you can do me a favor. Sign up to "follow" the blog. That's basically a way of subscribing, a proactive step that puts you on the list of people who will be informed when a I write a new post. If you sign up to "follow" my blog that helps me, because the number of people I can put on the list to inform of new posts is limited. If you are following, then I can add other friends to the list of people who are informed about my blog, expanding the circle.
One more thing. If you don't want to read the blog, or if I am clogging your mailbox with political ranting you disagree with, or would prefer not to receive or be notified of, that's fine. Just let me know and I will be happy to remove you from the list of people who are informed of new posts.
My most recent political post, written last night, is about California Proposition 8, the ban on gay marriage, which narrowly passed. Take a look at what I have to say, and I encourage you to comment in response to the post.
Wherever you fall on the political spectrum, we have witnessed an historic event in the election of an African American to the presidency. The country is going through a very troubled time, and I hope you share the optimism I feel that with new leadership the country can get on a better path. A path that will allow the restoration of middle class wealth, our international stature, the basic constitutional rights of people and last but not least, peace.
After writing several posts (each entry is called a "post") and noting that no one read them, I realized I needed to do something different. I mean, it was clear that no one knew about the blog, so why or how would they read it? So this presented a dilemma for me. At first I didn't want to be presumptuous and sign people up for my blog. But in talking with my twenty-something daughter I realized that informing others about your blog, and when you have written a new post is just part of it. So, I if you are reading this, I have taken the liberty of adding your email address to the list of names of people who are informed each time I write a new post. I hope that's okay.
If you enjoy reading the blog, and I hope you do, then you can do me a favor. Sign up to "follow" the blog. That's basically a way of subscribing, a proactive step that puts you on the list of people who will be informed when a I write a new post. If you sign up to "follow" my blog that helps me, because the number of people I can put on the list to inform of new posts is limited. If you are following, then I can add other friends to the list of people who are informed about my blog, expanding the circle.
One more thing. If you don't want to read the blog, or if I am clogging your mailbox with political ranting you disagree with, or would prefer not to receive or be notified of, that's fine. Just let me know and I will be happy to remove you from the list of people who are informed of new posts.
My most recent political post, written last night, is about California Proposition 8, the ban on gay marriage, which narrowly passed. Take a look at what I have to say, and I encourage you to comment in response to the post.
Wherever you fall on the political spectrum, we have witnessed an historic event in the election of an African American to the presidency. The country is going through a very troubled time, and I hope you share the optimism I feel that with new leadership the country can get on a better path. A path that will allow the restoration of middle class wealth, our international stature, the basic constitutional rights of people and last but not least, peace.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
DO YOU HATE GAY PEOPLE?
Election Night 2008 (11/4/08) About 7:30 pm
Hopeful, but the outcome still seems uncertain.
Rancho Peñasquitos, a typical suburban bedroom community about 20 miles north of downtown San Diego, became a battleground last night in the desperate fight in California for the rights of two human beings who are in love, and committed to their relationship, to marry one another . Supporters of California Proposition 8 which would ban gay marriage were gathered on some street corners, and opponents of Prop. 8 were gathered on others. There was even some intermixing, but you can be relieved because no real violence broke out, and no gay people were converted into heterosexuals, nor vice versa. It was noisy and police were called. They came, but just watched. Eventually. the rush-hour parade of traffic waned, people got tired, hoarse and cold, and went home.
Proposition 8 has attracted tens of millions of dollars from all over the country. Gay people want the right to marry or have their marriages be sustained legally, and religious groups want to stop gay people from getting married. I must say, it's troubling that the Catholic Church and the Church of LDS (Mormons) are so strongly in favor of a constitutional amendment to deny people their basic rights.
The history of the role of churches in political life in America is a least disturbing. When early pioneers fell in love with American Indian women and took them as wives, churches condemned the unions as godless, as abominations. When, a little further on in American history, African Americans and people from the Caribbean started to get together with White folks, churches again defended the dominant paradigm of racism and bigotry, declaring that marriage was impossible, illegal, violated religious codes, and could not be tolerated. Even well into the 20th century racism was preached from the pulpit, integration was declared a plot of the Devil, and the power and prerogatives of the White power structure were defended, supported and blessed. As a society, as a culture, as human beings we have largely grown past all of this ridiculous racist hatred. There are a few on the fringe who cling to the old paradigm, holding Hitler as their hero, or declaring that the only solution is to distrust those of a different color and separate the races, etc. The evolution of our society has already proven that untrue, but some are not convinced.
One thing that is convincing, is while people may use membership in a church as a definition of whether or not a person is a good and decent person, a citizen worthy to hold office and lead, some churches themselves have fared poorly in being our guide to a just, equal and morally admirable society. Human nature being what it is, churches have been turned into instruments of a political machine, unable to guide or lead our society and instead being proponents of hate, discrimination, inequality and the domination of one group of people by others. I am not talking about medieval times here—don’t support the church’s position on abortion? Well you can’t take communion. Happen to be gay and born into a Mormon family? Sorry, there simply is no place for you within our LDS church or community. Is this the love and acceptance their putative role model would have wanted?
That Elizabeth Dole thought she could win an election for the U.S. Senate by accusing her opponent, Kay Hagen, of associating with “godless Americans” or of being godless herself is even more troubling. (Thankfully, she turned out to be wrong.) Being religious is not a sine qua non of being a good, decent, upstanding person. It can be part of that, but 16% of Americans consider themselves atheists, and I’ve known a few. To suggest that someone who isn’t religious is a bad person, or that lacking a specific religion or set of religious practices and memberships means a person lacks a moral compass is worse than wrong, it is simple bigotry.
Mindless hatred, or worse is a basic human ability—you are not like me so you must be evil. Sounds pretty primitive, no? Something someone in an isolated jungle tribe might believe, “Oh there are some White people. They are not like us; we must kill them, or at least make them slaves or prisoners. Certainly they must never marry anyone of our kind!” Yes, or the people next door who regularly attend a church, synagogue, temple or mosque, and of course your local terrorist ala Tim McVeigh, or the one who is building is bomb right now in some distant corner of the world. All, my friends, believing they are truly doing the work of their god or gods. Religion is not universally, or unilaterally good, or at least it isn’t always pressed into good purposes.
What really gets me though is the notion that strong heterosexual families are somehow harmed by gay folks getting married. Simply put, they aren’t. I’m a heterosexual guy who has been married to a wonderful woman for 35 years. Do I care if the gay couple across town or across the street ties the knot? Is my marriage threatened? Of course, No. I have two daughters, both involved with boyfriends now. But if one of them woke up some morning in the future and decided she was done with men and really wanted to be with a woman, would that crush me. No. The Higher Power, whatever it may be, made all of us, all colors, so many faiths, and yes, even different sexual orientations. Get used to it. Churches tried to kill homosexuality for millennia and never succeeded. None will succeed now, only make lives more difficult, and in a few cases, ruin them and separate people from families who otherwise might have loved and accepted them.
Several years ago, while working as a psychotherapist, I led a group of men who were gay. Once we had gotten to know each other quite well I asked them when each of them knew he was homosexual. Every single one of those men felt their earliest, pre-adolescent sexual stirrings in relation to other males. Crushes on teachers were same sex, embarrassing arousal in school classrooms, in response to other boys. These guys didn’t choose homosexuality; it chose them. (A growing body of research literature supports this.) They still had the choice to fake a heterosexual lifestyle (some had tried that), to live without physical intimacy, (some had tried that), and all ultimately came to feel that they were and should rightfully acknowledge they there were homosexual. Many actively pursued that lifestyle, some promiscuously, some seeking and finding long-term commitment. Does that make them bad people? I hardly see how. Does their sexual orientation mean they should be denied the right to marry? Good Heavens, NO! Again, because heterosexuality is the dominant paradigm, does that mean we should condemn, enslave, harass, imprison, cast out or deny basic human rights to those who aren’t like us?
In the end we have to ask, What are we? Are we containers of hate and exclusion? Do we exclude the man or woman who loves another man or woman the way we would exclude the murderer, the child molester, the rapist, the miscreant, the thief? All of these can still marry, even from behind bars. We deny the right to marry to no other group of people. And in the end to deny gay men and lesbian women the right to marry is to deny their very humanity. Oh, yes, and our own.
Hopeful, but the outcome still seems uncertain.
Rancho Peñasquitos, a typical suburban bedroom community about 20 miles north of downtown San Diego, became a battleground last night in the desperate fight in California for the rights of two human beings who are in love, and committed to their relationship, to marry one another . Supporters of California Proposition 8 which would ban gay marriage were gathered on some street corners, and opponents of Prop. 8 were gathered on others. There was even some intermixing, but you can be relieved because no real violence broke out, and no gay people were converted into heterosexuals, nor vice versa. It was noisy and police were called. They came, but just watched. Eventually. the rush-hour parade of traffic waned, people got tired, hoarse and cold, and went home.
Proposition 8 has attracted tens of millions of dollars from all over the country. Gay people want the right to marry or have their marriages be sustained legally, and religious groups want to stop gay people from getting married. I must say, it's troubling that the Catholic Church and the Church of LDS (Mormons) are so strongly in favor of a constitutional amendment to deny people their basic rights.
The history of the role of churches in political life in America is a least disturbing. When early pioneers fell in love with American Indian women and took them as wives, churches condemned the unions as godless, as abominations. When, a little further on in American history, African Americans and people from the Caribbean started to get together with White folks, churches again defended the dominant paradigm of racism and bigotry, declaring that marriage was impossible, illegal, violated religious codes, and could not be tolerated. Even well into the 20th century racism was preached from the pulpit, integration was declared a plot of the Devil, and the power and prerogatives of the White power structure were defended, supported and blessed. As a society, as a culture, as human beings we have largely grown past all of this ridiculous racist hatred. There are a few on the fringe who cling to the old paradigm, holding Hitler as their hero, or declaring that the only solution is to distrust those of a different color and separate the races, etc. The evolution of our society has already proven that untrue, but some are not convinced.
One thing that is convincing, is while people may use membership in a church as a definition of whether or not a person is a good and decent person, a citizen worthy to hold office and lead, some churches themselves have fared poorly in being our guide to a just, equal and morally admirable society. Human nature being what it is, churches have been turned into instruments of a political machine, unable to guide or lead our society and instead being proponents of hate, discrimination, inequality and the domination of one group of people by others. I am not talking about medieval times here—don’t support the church’s position on abortion? Well you can’t take communion. Happen to be gay and born into a Mormon family? Sorry, there simply is no place for you within our LDS church or community. Is this the love and acceptance their putative role model would have wanted?
That Elizabeth Dole thought she could win an election for the U.S. Senate by accusing her opponent, Kay Hagen, of associating with “godless Americans” or of being godless herself is even more troubling. (Thankfully, she turned out to be wrong.) Being religious is not a sine qua non of being a good, decent, upstanding person. It can be part of that, but 16% of Americans consider themselves atheists, and I’ve known a few. To suggest that someone who isn’t religious is a bad person, or that lacking a specific religion or set of religious practices and memberships means a person lacks a moral compass is worse than wrong, it is simple bigotry.
Mindless hatred, or worse is a basic human ability—you are not like me so you must be evil. Sounds pretty primitive, no? Something someone in an isolated jungle tribe might believe, “Oh there are some White people. They are not like us; we must kill them, or at least make them slaves or prisoners. Certainly they must never marry anyone of our kind!” Yes, or the people next door who regularly attend a church, synagogue, temple or mosque, and of course your local terrorist ala Tim McVeigh, or the one who is building is bomb right now in some distant corner of the world. All, my friends, believing they are truly doing the work of their god or gods. Religion is not universally, or unilaterally good, or at least it isn’t always pressed into good purposes.
What really gets me though is the notion that strong heterosexual families are somehow harmed by gay folks getting married. Simply put, they aren’t. I’m a heterosexual guy who has been married to a wonderful woman for 35 years. Do I care if the gay couple across town or across the street ties the knot? Is my marriage threatened? Of course, No. I have two daughters, both involved with boyfriends now. But if one of them woke up some morning in the future and decided she was done with men and really wanted to be with a woman, would that crush me. No. The Higher Power, whatever it may be, made all of us, all colors, so many faiths, and yes, even different sexual orientations. Get used to it. Churches tried to kill homosexuality for millennia and never succeeded. None will succeed now, only make lives more difficult, and in a few cases, ruin them and separate people from families who otherwise might have loved and accepted them.
Several years ago, while working as a psychotherapist, I led a group of men who were gay. Once we had gotten to know each other quite well I asked them when each of them knew he was homosexual. Every single one of those men felt their earliest, pre-adolescent sexual stirrings in relation to other males. Crushes on teachers were same sex, embarrassing arousal in school classrooms, in response to other boys. These guys didn’t choose homosexuality; it chose them. (A growing body of research literature supports this.) They still had the choice to fake a heterosexual lifestyle (some had tried that), to live without physical intimacy, (some had tried that), and all ultimately came to feel that they were and should rightfully acknowledge they there were homosexual. Many actively pursued that lifestyle, some promiscuously, some seeking and finding long-term commitment. Does that make them bad people? I hardly see how. Does their sexual orientation mean they should be denied the right to marry? Good Heavens, NO! Again, because heterosexuality is the dominant paradigm, does that mean we should condemn, enslave, harass, imprison, cast out or deny basic human rights to those who aren’t like us?
In the end we have to ask, What are we? Are we containers of hate and exclusion? Do we exclude the man or woman who loves another man or woman the way we would exclude the murderer, the child molester, the rapist, the miscreant, the thief? All of these can still marry, even from behind bars. We deny the right to marry to no other group of people. And in the end to deny gay men and lesbian women the right to marry is to deny their very humanity. Oh, yes, and our own.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS ELECTION
Here are my recommendations about how to vote in the election:
President/Vice Pres
Barack Obama
Joe Biden
California State Propositions
1A Yes
2 Yes
3 Yes
4 No
5 Yes
6 No
7 No
8 No
9 No
10 No
11 No
12 Yes
City of San Diego Propositions
A Yes
B No
C No
D Yes
Feel free to post a comment if you want more info about how any of these decisions were reached.
President/Vice Pres
Barack Obama
Joe Biden
California State Propositions
1A Yes
2 Yes
3 Yes
4 No
5 Yes
6 No
7 No
8 No
9 No
10 No
11 No
12 Yes
City of San Diego Propositions
A Yes
B No
C No
D Yes
Feel free to post a comment if you want more info about how any of these decisions were reached.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
DO SOMETHING! REGISTER AND VOTE
Hi Folks,
As you may know the upcoming presidential election is now about only 20 daysaway. In order to be able to vote in the election one must register in California no later than October 20, 2008, so time is running out. I urge you to register now and vote in the November 4th election. You may go to the website of the San Diego Registrar of Voters for information on the various ways of registering. Their main office is at the intersection of Ruffin Rd. and Clairemont Mesa Blvd. in the Clairemont Mesa section of San Diego. Here is the link to go to their website:http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/voters/Eng/Ereg.shtml
This is a very important presidential election, and some pundits have said it may be the most significant election of our lifetimes. The country is facing serious economic problems, we are at war in two nations, energy prices go between too expensive and unbelievably high, and many working folks like us are facing hard times related to mortgage loans, and wages that don't go up fast enough to keep up with rising costs. Health care and health insurance are out of reach for many, and there are several other pressing problems that must be addressed in the next few years--the environment and the need for alternative energy sources, poverty, schools, mass transit and crumbling infrastructure, and of course, protecting retirement income for working Americans. Your vote is one of the most powerful tools you have to make your voice heard in the running of our country. Whether Candidate A or Candidate Bgets elected president has a profound affect on the direction of our country, how it is seen in the world, whether or not we will go to war, who gets appointed to the Supreme Court, and a thousand other things. The most important thing is to make your voice heard by casting the ballot. Also, there are several key propositions on the ballot (in California) for this election that have to do with civil rights, mass transit, abortion, and other issues. People get emotional about these issues, and I understand why. The decisions made by the voters about these laws may very well have an affect on your friends, family, coworkers, or people in your social circle. Make your voice heard on these issues by registering now and voting in the election.Finally, people are running for state offices such as seats in the State Assembly and State Senate. These are the people who decide on the state¹sbudget, and who make the decisions about how much funding various services will get. They actually make decisions that influence whether or not you will be able to continue in your job. Don't you want to cast a vote to decide who will be your state senator or assembly member? Don't you want to pick the person who will represent your interests, your priorities, and the positions on issues that are important to you? Again, I'm not telling you to vote for this candidate or that one. I'm just trying to persuade you to register and vote.
This election is your chance to do something reallyimportant, really significant, really meaningful. Do it. Register andvote.
As you may know the upcoming presidential election is now about only 20 daysaway. In order to be able to vote in the election one must register in California no later than October 20, 2008, so time is running out. I urge you to register now and vote in the November 4th election. You may go to the website of the San Diego Registrar of Voters for information on the various ways of registering. Their main office is at the intersection of Ruffin Rd. and Clairemont Mesa Blvd. in the Clairemont Mesa section of San Diego. Here is the link to go to their website:http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/voters/Eng/Ereg.shtml
This is a very important presidential election, and some pundits have said it may be the most significant election of our lifetimes. The country is facing serious economic problems, we are at war in two nations, energy prices go between too expensive and unbelievably high, and many working folks like us are facing hard times related to mortgage loans, and wages that don't go up fast enough to keep up with rising costs. Health care and health insurance are out of reach for many, and there are several other pressing problems that must be addressed in the next few years--the environment and the need for alternative energy sources, poverty, schools, mass transit and crumbling infrastructure, and of course, protecting retirement income for working Americans. Your vote is one of the most powerful tools you have to make your voice heard in the running of our country. Whether Candidate A or Candidate Bgets elected president has a profound affect on the direction of our country, how it is seen in the world, whether or not we will go to war, who gets appointed to the Supreme Court, and a thousand other things. The most important thing is to make your voice heard by casting the ballot. Also, there are several key propositions on the ballot (in California) for this election that have to do with civil rights, mass transit, abortion, and other issues. People get emotional about these issues, and I understand why. The decisions made by the voters about these laws may very well have an affect on your friends, family, coworkers, or people in your social circle. Make your voice heard on these issues by registering now and voting in the election.Finally, people are running for state offices such as seats in the State Assembly and State Senate. These are the people who decide on the state¹sbudget, and who make the decisions about how much funding various services will get. They actually make decisions that influence whether or not you will be able to continue in your job. Don't you want to cast a vote to decide who will be your state senator or assembly member? Don't you want to pick the person who will represent your interests, your priorities, and the positions on issues that are important to you? Again, I'm not telling you to vote for this candidate or that one. I'm just trying to persuade you to register and vote.
This election is your chance to do something reallyimportant, really significant, really meaningful. Do it. Register andvote.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
The Problem With the Right's "Small Government" Myth
For many years now the Republican machine, including those in power, and the army of right wing radio hosts, TV verbal assassins (i.e. O'Reilly and his ilk), and Fox News have been spouting the call for smaller government. They have also been trying to tie together the notion that government intervention and "big government" are the same, and that together they mean higher taxes for everyday people.
Well, folks, one doesn't have to look very far to see today's example of such Republicans with campaign bullhorns shouting the same old story. Just listen to any current McCain or Palin stump speech. We're the mavericks, and we're going to put an end to big government, they say. Setting the maverick issue aside here for a moment, let's look at where all of this talk about smaller government has led us.
I am in my 50's and so remember the America of the past. That American country, one of Democratic and Republican presidents and periods of movement to the right and the left was a nation to be cherished. We had our problems, and I could name many, but our food supply was safe, our banking and economic system were solid and an example for the entire world, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) tried to get dangerous products off the market, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) used real science to guide its decisions. That America is gone, Scarlet, "gone with the wind", and the wind was the call for "smaller government".
The magic word I am about to use is that right wing boogeyman: REGULATION. Let me tell you something, if regulation will keep our food safe, keep our economic and banking system dependable and reliable, and result in good drugs that work being on the market, then I am all for it. We don't need melamine in our pet food or baby formula, we don't need meat with unkillable mad cow prions in it, we don't need chicken with salmonella, and we don't need an economic system based on the bundling of bad-risk loans into A-rated securities that turn out to be worth little more than the paper they are printed on. There is a single, proven solution to these types of problems, and that is regulation, government regulation.
We don't need smaller government. Just listen to the news or read the paper and you can see that our country is rife with problems caused by the absence of government regulation. We need wiser government. Government has a job, and when it fails to do its job, the result is a more dangerous society for all of us.
Well, folks, one doesn't have to look very far to see today's example of such Republicans with campaign bullhorns shouting the same old story. Just listen to any current McCain or Palin stump speech. We're the mavericks, and we're going to put an end to big government, they say. Setting the maverick issue aside here for a moment, let's look at where all of this talk about smaller government has led us.
I am in my 50's and so remember the America of the past. That American country, one of Democratic and Republican presidents and periods of movement to the right and the left was a nation to be cherished. We had our problems, and I could name many, but our food supply was safe, our banking and economic system were solid and an example for the entire world, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) tried to get dangerous products off the market, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) used real science to guide its decisions. That America is gone, Scarlet, "gone with the wind", and the wind was the call for "smaller government".
The magic word I am about to use is that right wing boogeyman: REGULATION. Let me tell you something, if regulation will keep our food safe, keep our economic and banking system dependable and reliable, and result in good drugs that work being on the market, then I am all for it. We don't need melamine in our pet food or baby formula, we don't need meat with unkillable mad cow prions in it, we don't need chicken with salmonella, and we don't need an economic system based on the bundling of bad-risk loans into A-rated securities that turn out to be worth little more than the paper they are printed on. There is a single, proven solution to these types of problems, and that is regulation, government regulation.
We don't need smaller government. Just listen to the news or read the paper and you can see that our country is rife with problems caused by the absence of government regulation. We need wiser government. Government has a job, and when it fails to do its job, the result is a more dangerous society for all of us.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
MOOSE DRESSER MIRES HERSELF IN THE MUD
The latest salvo from the McCain-Palin camp just demonstrates how desperate they are. Palin accuses Barack Obama of palling around with terrorists. Can the political scene in America get any more absurd? Obama responds that he was 8-years old when the fellow he served on a board with (as an adult) was a radical Weatherman. I'm sure the Dems, as clever as they are, won't be looking into what dirty deeds Sarah Palin or John McCain were into when they were 8.
I am almost embarrassed to say today that there was a time when I actually had some respect for John McCain. Whatever once existed is now gone forever. There are many, many women involved in politics for whom I have great respect, but the selection of Sarah Palin was ill-conceived political theater. I am not the least bit surprised that it is now backfiring on them. As the pundits have said, expectations were so LOW for her in the debate that if she didn't crumble into giggles and tears it would have been judged a "success". But she just kept repeating sections of her stump speech, and as one Republican said, answering the questions she asked herself.
But McCain-Palin has an essential problem. They keep acting like they have something to say, but in fact all they are doing is PRETENDING they do. They promise change, but their platform is more of the same. They claim to be mavericks, while reciting the same of Republican saws against regulation and big government that have been used to persuade the voting public in the past that Republicans have something to offer them.
In fact, Republicans, for many years now, have only had the interests of their super-rich donors and mega-corporations in their sites, and the rest of us could have stagnating income, high taxes, and environmental degradation and as part of the leftovers of what they were doing. Not to mention a ridiculous and immensely expensive war against a country that never threatened us, had no WMD's, and was NOT a supporter of Al Queda. Oh yes, and the current economic crisis that was completely the result of an ABSENCE of regulation.
It's high time that we had a Democratic president get in there and start to clean up this mess. And the more Democrats we send to Congress to support him the better.
I am almost embarrassed to say today that there was a time when I actually had some respect for John McCain. Whatever once existed is now gone forever. There are many, many women involved in politics for whom I have great respect, but the selection of Sarah Palin was ill-conceived political theater. I am not the least bit surprised that it is now backfiring on them. As the pundits have said, expectations were so LOW for her in the debate that if she didn't crumble into giggles and tears it would have been judged a "success". But she just kept repeating sections of her stump speech, and as one Republican said, answering the questions she asked herself.
But McCain-Palin has an essential problem. They keep acting like they have something to say, but in fact all they are doing is PRETENDING they do. They promise change, but their platform is more of the same. They claim to be mavericks, while reciting the same of Republican saws against regulation and big government that have been used to persuade the voting public in the past that Republicans have something to offer them.
In fact, Republicans, for many years now, have only had the interests of their super-rich donors and mega-corporations in their sites, and the rest of us could have stagnating income, high taxes, and environmental degradation and as part of the leftovers of what they were doing. Not to mention a ridiculous and immensely expensive war against a country that never threatened us, had no WMD's, and was NOT a supporter of Al Queda. Oh yes, and the current economic crisis that was completely the result of an ABSENCE of regulation.
It's high time that we had a Democratic president get in there and start to clean up this mess. And the more Democrats we send to Congress to support him the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
