Tea party antics like a game of rock—paper—scissors

I have a very simple formula for you as to how the Tea Party functions.  It’s like a game of rock—paper—scissors.

It works like this:

1. Some politicians and citizens use logic to debate our policies and government.  Logic = the rock.
2. The Tea Party, knowing that it cannot provide logic behind its arguments, uses emotional manipulation, primarily fear.  They compare Obama to Hitler, a false logic, which triggers emotional fear among people who cannot think for themselves.  Fear = paper.
3. Then the Tea Party finds its solution to fear.  They call Obama anti-Christian or Muslim.  They cry that the White House needs a “true Christian.”  To overcome the fear they introduce, the Tea Party falls back on their so called “faith.”  Faith = scissors.

There are of course huge problems with this Tea Party method of thinking.  They have removed reasonable debate from our country’s platform of politics.  Although I am a progressive thinker, I will admit that there are strong arguments available behind both liberal and conservative ideologies.  The problem is that those of us who allow the Tea Party to enter mainstream politics lose all credibility in logical arguments.  It is of course mostly hurting the conservatives, as more conservatives have embraced the Tea Party’s method of thinking.

A liberal or conservative may introduce a logical argument as a solution to a problem (the economy, health care, war on terror, etc).  The Tea Party, instead of adding to the argument with logic, chooses to respond with emotion and fear.  When accused as racist by the NAACP, did the Tea Party provide an effective counter-argument?  Or did they simply mock the NAACP?  When they disagreed with health care reform, did they provide effective counter-arguments?  Or did they simply call Obama Hitler, a monkey, and/or a socialist?

After pumping fear into credulous citizens, they then speak of their so-called “faith.”  Of course, a true Christian would never commit the actions of Tea Party members such as lying, being so blatantly disrespectful, and often using language loaded with racism and bigotry.  But they do claim to be Christian nonetheless.  They resort on tactics such as “We need a true Christian in the White House.”  They call Obama the “anti-Christ.”  They simply hope gullible American Christians who value their faith will be manipulated by Tea Party antics.

Rock-paper-scissors is a circular game.  We can combat the antics of the Tea Party’s fear and “faith” with logic.  The more logic we introduce, the more fear and faith they introduce.  It’s a catch-22 situation.

The only reasonable solution is to reject the Tea Party.  If a group cannot participate in civil discourse emphasizing logic over fear and logic over “faith,” that group does not have the credibility to participate in American government. 

Liberals of course should understand and agree, as the Tea Party’s fear-mongering is the epitome of what liberals fight against.  But I further make a plea to my conservative friends: If you wish to maintain credibility and face in debate and politics, you must also reject the antics of the Tea Party.   The Tea Party is essentially destroying the Republican Party by dividing the party.  A Republican has two choices: he or she enters the debate with logic, evidence, and respect and faces ridicule from the Tea Party or a Republican joins the Tea Party’s manipulations of fear and faith and rejects logic and respect.  Currently, it’s a no-win situation for Republicans.  The Tea Party is strong enough to hurt the Republicans in Congress who do debate with logic and respect.  But the Republicans who join the Tea Party polarize their base and scare away independent voters.

If you’ve read my blog for a long time, you may wonder why I even care about all of this.  After all, if I want to promote liberal and progressive ideas, then the Tea Party’s polarization and destruction of the Republican Party seems to be in my best interest.  The truth though is this: I want reasonable, logic debate from a variety of perspectives.  Only through logic and respect will we grow.   And unfortunately, the Tea Party antics seem to foreshadow a future without civil discourse.  The future is one simply of emotional manipulation, false logic, and false appeals to faith.  That’s not a future I want.  I do want Democrats and Republicans to come together to discuss and solve America’s problems.  We need both sides, folks, if we are going to maintain progress.  Even when I disagree with my opponents, I want their opposing viewpoints, given that those viewpoints are centered on logic, not fear or false faith.

 Please subscribe to this blog by entering your e-mail in the “sign me up” box!

How the martial arts can help us understand politics and religion: an examination of attitudes based on superiority, location and convenience, and the challenge of rebuilding our foundation

I’ve been training in the martial arts for nearly 20 years, and I have run my own school for nearly 9 years (a very successful school at that, as we have won two national awards, including best school for children in the entire United States in 2008 by Black Belt Magazine).  And of course, I’ve had political and religious opinions since I was able to talk.  The martial arts can provide us with insights to understanding political and religious attitudes, and if you give me a chance, even if you know nothing about the martial arts, I just may be able to create a good metaphor to enhance our understanding of political and religious attitudes. 

First, there are a variety of martial arts styles. Even the biggies that non-martial arts folk would recognize like karate, tae kwon do, kung fu, judo, and more all have several different styles (There are hundreds of styles of karate, for example).  Each style builds a specific foundation of combat principles.  Additionally, the students of each style often view their style of martial arts as superior to the any other style.  (Sound familiar, yet?)

Second, one who is interested in the martial arts often picks a school based on location and convenience.  Many small towns, for example, may only have one martial arts studio, so interested students must learn the specific style of that school.  Additionally, few people actually research the different styles of martial arts before picking one.  Students are consumers, and consumers are manipulated through marketing techniques and claims of superiority.  If a martial arts school is to be successful, its marketing will claim to offer the best self-defense and physical fitness available. 

Third, when someone has been training in one particular martial art for a long time, it is incredibly hard to switch styles.  Why?  Because one style builds a foundation of techniques and principles, and to switch styles often means starting completely over and rebuilding an entire foundation, which of course is tremendously difficult.

In reflecting on my martial arts training and teaching, I’ve come to a few insights about the political and religious worlds.  Like martial arts, there are a variety of political viewpoints and religious belief systems.  Like martial arts, each political viewpoint and religion often sees itself as superior to others.  Like martial arts, people adopt political and religious viewpoints based on what is available to them at home and in their community.  Politics and religion are no doubt adopted out of convenience—it’s what has been taught to us.

Even as we are further educated, it is incredibly difficult to change our attitudes.  Our politics and religion have created a foundation of thought, and to change religious viewpoints or political philosophy, one must destroy and rebuild his or her entire foundation.

As a martial arts teacher, I emphasize to my students that there is no superior style.  Sure, there are better teachers and better martial artists, but there is no one superior style.  I further encourage my students to keep an open-mind to other martial arts styles and feel free to explore what else is out there.  In my own training, although I primarily focus on one specific form of karate, I have trained in dozens of other styles—some for a few months, some for a few years.  I feel that if I only focus on one martial arts style that my combat skills will be limited.  I must develop an understanding of several styles to develop a balanced, well-rounded approach to combat.

It’s that kind of open-mindedness and education that is missing from politics and especially from religion.  Most political fans do not spend enough time trying to learn the ideology and logic behind the other political group’s camp.  Few if any religions will spend any time respectfully teaching the beliefs of another system.  Instead, our politics becomes more divided because we do not listen with an open-mind to our opponents.  The religions of the world claim moral superiority over all others, and the religiously devoted rarely consider the possibility that they could be wrong.

I’m a very politically opinionated guy, and I waste no time criticizing what I see as bad ideas, bad people, and bad programs.  But unlike many of my opponents, I admit that I could be wrong.  Yep, it’s possible.  How many of you can honestly say that?

It’s the possibility of being wrong that led to the creation of this blog.  I want to hear different attitudes.  But I also want those who oppose me to truly try to understand the logic and the empathy behind my attitudes.  In politics, I optimistically believe we can all be on the same page.  We can all care about people and transfer our care into sound logic and reasoning as to what will be the best way to help our people.

In religion, I’m not as sure.  The best bet for the religious is to keep it private.  Once one’s religion is public, then the religion dominates public policy and opinion, and no religion should have that power because no one religion is superior to any other.  In order for religion to survive in a world of logic, one must be able to detach from his or her religion to view the world from a more appropriate benchmark (in other words, a benchmark in which no one religion is superior to others). If individuals cannot detach from religion to view the world through sound logic and reasoning, then that individual’s reasoning for politics and social policy will be severely misguided.  It could lead to discrimination of gender, sexual orientation, race, and much more (and clearly, all of the major world religions have embraced discrimination in one form or another based on superstitious ideas that cannot be proven). 

So what’s the metaphor here and what can we learn from the metaphor?  First, like martial arts styles, individuals view their politics and religion as superior to others.  Second, like martial arts styles, religious and political viewpoints are taught to us based on location and convenience.  We learn our politics and religion from our home environment, local churches, and local culture.  Third, just like martial arts training, the longer I have “trained” or been taught from specific political and religious ideologies, the harder it is to change.  We become more focused in one style or one way of thought, and over time, other styles and methods of thinking are simply incompatible with the foundation of attitudes we have developed. 

So now what?  If you accept the above ideas as true (and I cannot understand how any logical person could see otherwise), then we must challenge ourselves by examining the ideas and evidence of our opponents.  Although I emphasize open-mindedness, self-analysis, and education, there is by nature an inherent problem with conservative thinking.  The problem is this: conservatives by nature hold on to traditional beliefs and develop an “absolute” form of thinking.  For a conservative, progressive ideas are harmful because the ideas disrupt their foundation.  For many conservatives, there is no reason to consider opposite viewpoints because conservatives possess an “absolute” way of thinking where they are already convinced they are right and everyone else is wrong.

This dogmatic absolutism is incredibly dangerous.  It results in criticizing change, even when change is beneficial to them.  It results in discrimination in two areas: 1) Their sense of superiority to other political viewpoints and religion creates an atmosphere of negative discourse and emotional manipulations such as fear instead of an examination of logic and evidence and 2) Their absolutism has been the source of discrimination against women (equal pay act), minorities (Arizona’s immigration law, Tea Party behavior in general, civil rights), and homosexuals (denying rights to gay couples).    The sense of absolutism and tradition does not allow room for most conservatives to grow. 

On the other hand, a progressive point of view is able to consider and examine conservative and religious ideas from an unbiased perspective.  However, the examination does require evidence, logic, and reasoning, and if conservative ideas and religious viewpoints cannot provide evidence, logic, and reasoning, then those ideas must be abandoned.

Some conservatives do have the sense of open-mindedness I emphasize, but unfortunately, simply by definition, many cannot move beyond the traditions and superstitions they see as true.  Our politics and religion today should be able to move beyond labels to a point where we can embrace truth, logic, open-mindedness, and respect.

Here’s what such a philosophy must include:

1. A civil discourse that allows for an exchange of ideas based on logic and evidence.
2. An attitude that there is no absolute right or wrong ideology, with the exception that an ideology unable to provide factual evidence, observable data, and sound logic cannot be included in discussions of public policy.
3. Learning the principles and facts of different perspectives from unbiased sources.  For example, the religious should seek an academic background from unbiased universities.  Any person who considers themselves religious but has never moved beyond the church and religious texts is really not a religious authority.  Such a person needs to explore the academics of religion based on empirical evidence and scientific reasoning as best provided by academic institutions whose purpose is to provide truth and knowledge, not biased, one-sided information.

In  the end, if we can simply come to the conclusion that no one style or ideology is superior, that we must deeply explore other styles and ideologies from unbiased sources, that we believe what we believe based upon geography and convenience, and that we must challenge ourselves, we could live in a much stronger world.  A world based on logic, not superstition.  A world that wants to grow, not hold on to tradition just because of “that’s the way it has always been”.  A world that views all people as equal and treats all people as such. 

Can you picture such a world?  I can.  It’s why I am a teacher.  It’s why I am a lifelong student.  It’s why I write this blog.  Can we grow and learn from each other?  Can we replace bias, illogic, and superstition with fact, logic, and evidence?  Yes, we can, but it is going to be one long journey.

The Republican Party’s biggest donors, and what their donations mean for you

As the GOP prepares for midterm elections this November, it has an impressive list of significant donations.  But from whom?  I wanted to know who is donating money to this party and what those groups represent.

Here are some of the biggest groups donating to the Republican Party and a quick look as to what that means:

1. FreedomWorks.  FreedomWorks is a grassroots movement that fights for “less government and less taxes” and has been credited with initializing the Tea Party Movement.  A majority of the funding for FreedomWorks comes from Phillip Morris—the tobacco conglomerate.  It’s no wonder that FreedomWorks also criticizes taxation of tobacco products.  (See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=FreedomWorks)

 But the worst part of FreedomWorks is their relentless defense of BP in the oil spill.  In a blog from the FreedomWorks site, they criticize Obama’s “boot on the neck” of BP (see http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/rossputin/bp-bp-bp-boot-on-neck-of-bp). Instead of blaming BP, they try to blame it all on Obama.  Now, they claim not to defend BP, but guess what?  BP claims to receive their support and FreedomWorks joined efforts with BP to campaign for offshore drilling! (See http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/07/bp-freedomworks-chamber-of-commerce-grassroots-more-drilling-astroturf/)

 In short, the Republicans are getting their fundraising dollars from an organization that supports and defends BP, offshore drilling, and tobacco.  Sounds real honorable, doesn’t it?  But of course, it’s the dishonorable organizations that often have the most money, and of course those dishonorable organizations support the Republican Party.

2.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce tops the list of GOP funds with a plan to donate over $75 million dollars to the Republican Party.  The problem with the lobbyist groups from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: It is dominated by the oil companies, pharmaceutical giants, automakers, and other polluting giants.  (See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._Chamber_of_Commerce)

The Chamber lobbies against climate change regulation (we need to save the planet, fools!), lobbies against the Employee Free Choice Act (which makes it easier for employees to join a union for protection), and wants to privatize social security, among other issues.

It should just be common sense that our environment needs protection, that employees should be represented and protected by unions, and that private business is out to make a profit, not make anything (like social security) better.

It’s a shame that the Republican Party supports such concepts, but at least we the people know where their money is coming from.  And regardless of one’s political viewpoints, it should appear clearly unethical and misguided if the money one receives primarily comes from corporations whose business hurts the country: oil giants, pharmaceutical giants, and others.  When will people realize that such industry is looking out for itself, not for the American people?  Clearly then, the Republican Party is looking out for its biggest donors, not the average American. 

Other groups are fighting for the Republican Party also, such as the American Crossroads, a Karl-Rove (ugh) backed group that plans to donate over $50 million dollars.

So where is the Democratic Party’s money coming from?  UNIONS.  Yep, unions, not the oil industries, the tobacco companies, the pharmaceutical giants.  Unions. (See http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/09/dems-sound-the-alarm-on-gop-spending/?fbid=AvEm5V49XoI)

According to the Economic Policy Institute, unions help increase wages for workers (Oh yeah, I forgot that some Republicans like Michelle Bachman even want to abolish minimum wage), increase wage equality among genders and ethnicities, increase safety standards, and improve benefits such as health insurance, vacation time, pension plans, and MUCH MUCH MORE (See http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingpapers_bp143/)

Ok, based upon the above evidence, what party fights more for the American worker, the average American?  The evidence speaks for itself. 

Fans of FreedomWorks and the Republican Party are being manipulated by corporate giants out for a profit.  The cost of the profit is the livelihood of the American person and the well-being of our planet.  If you have a good heart and a good mind, how can you honestly support such a party?  Although I do and always have argued that there are good Republicans and conservatives whom I respect, the party as a whole is severely misguided and manipulated.  Democrats have their share of corruption and bad people too (need I say Rod Blagojevich?), but the fact is that the Democratic Party as a whole is much more on track for the average American than the Republican Party.  Since money motivates a party to vote or not vote on specific legislation, we need to know who is donating the money to each party. 

Do you really think the oil companies, the pharmaceutical giants, and the tobacco industry are looking out for your best interests?  Absolutely not.  Neither is the Republican Party. 

Please subscribe to this blog by entering your e-mail in the “Sign me up” tab in the upper left of this page.

Is Palin preparing to run for President?

I saw this video today.  Looks like Sarah is gearing up to run for president based on the message:

So I had to relive my favorite Palin moments, and remind people why she is completely ignorant and unfit for such a job.

Watch, enjoy, and laugh over Sarah’s “greatest hits.”

Glenn Beck’s lies and why we should worry about his “university”

The problem with Glenn Beck is that his opinions cannot be backed up by evidence.  He has developed some strange, sick following and unfortunately that following largely believes Beck’s words are gospel.  Recently, as you probably know, he launched his own online university where individuals can take classes on history, economy, and religion.  Yikes.  Learning history and economics from Glenn Beck would be like trying to learn respect and humility from Kanye West. 

Here are some of Glenn Beck’s claims, all proven completely false by Pulitzer Prize winning site politifact.com:

1.  Labor union president Andy Stern is “most frequent visitor” at the White House.
2. Less than 10% of Obama’s Cabinet appointees “have any experience in the private sector.”
3. “Mitt Romney … gave you government health care that is now bankrupting the state” of Massachusetts.
4. Forty-five percent of doctors “say they’ll quit” if health care reform passes.
5. “Why do we have automatic citizenship upon birth? We’re the only country in the world that has it.”
6. “In the health care bill, we’re now offering insurance for dogs.”
7. John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, “has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.”
8. Franklin Roosevelt never allocated more than 12 percent of GDP to federal spending, while the percentage for Barack Obama is not projected to drop below 22.8 percent.
9. Chile ranks third internationally in economic freedom, while the U.S. ranks 17th.
10. “You don’t know if this (the H1N1 vaccine) is gonna cause neurological damage like it did in the 1970s.”

There are hundreds more of course, but the main point of concern is this: What happens to education when it is based upon opinions without evidence?  What happens to education when poor opinions are disguised as fact? 

Previously, I used to simply think that lunatics like Beck and Limbaugh were simply “entertainers.”  I falsely hoped that their audience understood that they were crazy and delusional, and that they made such ridiculous statements only to grow their audience.  I assumed it was all about money: I’ll say the dumbest things I can so people keep returning to hear what dumb thing I’ll say next.  But now Beck has his own university? 

You realize of course that some percentage of Fox viewers will enroll in Beck’s university and consider themselves to be educated in history, economics, and religion, right?  You realize how scary that is, right?  Of course, Beck’s university is in no way accredited and whatever “degree” you earn from it won’t mean anything at all.  Glnen Beck does not even have a graduate level degree.  How can he pretend to create a university?

As a cheerleader for education, I’m offended by his use of the word “university.”  A university-level education requires qualified instructors with graduate degrees from accredited institutions. 

Here’s what the problem comes down to when we debate politics from different ideological viewpoints, be it liberal or conservative: We must be able to exchange ideas based upon a factual understanding of history and economics.  Although I generally disagree with most conservative ideas, there are actually some conservative ideas that have merit and are worthy of discussion.  But when people listen or “learn” from Beck, then those individuals will not even be able to participate in meaningful debate.  And that’s the problem with Beck’s fans and Beck’s university: he is creating a large group of people unable to think critically and view history and economics from objective perspectives.  Conservatives should be able to debate, but the conservative agenda has taken such an extreme reaction to progressive and liberal ideas that they have projected themselves to some alternate reality.  And when you live in a false or alternate reality, you really don’t live in reality at all, and there is no way you can contribute to debate or society in any meaningful way.  Beck insults Obama with statements such as, “Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people. I’m saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist.”  How does that contribute to debate?  We have to discuss the policies and ideas of our leaders with actual evidence and alternatives, not with false insults.

Unless you only listen to Beck’s ideas to show the world his ridiculous flaws and lack of logic, stop watching the show.  I would like to say to everyone to stop watching Glenn Beck, but if those of us who are strong critical thinkers simply ignore Beck, we’ll see his population of brainwashed idiots grow and grow.  Watch to critique and watch to inform others, and if you have a better idea, please let me know.  In the end, I hope people do stop watching his show and buying his books.  He’s a total nut and a fraud, but he has some kind of sick power to create thousands of more nuts. 

So what do we do to stop the influence of Beck?  How do we get back to meaningful debate? 

Please subscribe to this blog in the “sign me up” box in the upper left.

Glenn Beck’s announcement of the university: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/42502/

For a good source that analyzes political statements: www.politifact.com

On the “truths” that liberals hate

I read a brief article titled “The five truths that liberals hate” on americanvision.org. I made what I considered to be a logical counter to the five truths, but after several days, I have been disappointed that my counter was not approved for the comments section. Perhaps the author only wants comments that support his opinion or only approves counter-arguments that are not all that intelligently composed, which of course only makes the counter-argument seem worse.

Anyhow, I’ve decided to reiterate my counter arguments, and share with you the five truths that liberals supposedly hate.
According to Gary Demar, Americanvision.org writer whose claim to fame is a degree in religious studies, the five truths that liberals hate are as follows:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.
5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

Simple-minded conservatives will jump for joy at the hasty generalizations as they try to show that liberal-minded folk are the downfall to our economy. But anyone with even a trace of logic can surely see through these “truths.” I prefer to refer to Gary’s post as FILTH (the best pun I could make out of the title: “Five Truths Liberals Hate”). The filth that Gary writes is perhaps not so surprising considering his degree, although it is very ironic. Once again, those who focus on dogmatic religious beliefs are unable to see the true inner-workings of an efficient, empathetic government. But ironically, one would think someone devoted to religion would have compassion to help others as opposed to taking help away. Why did all 40 Republicans vote no to extending unemployment? Because they have no compassion, no empathy, no heart. Moreover, they have no logic either—because of the lack of unemployment, we will see less spending in an already troubled economy and a potential increase in crime. But logic and compassion seem to be missing from most of the conservatives I know.

But back to Gary’s filth. Let’s take a look at each one of these “truths.”

1. “You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.”
I would change this filth to “You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by giving the wealthy all of the breaks.” It is amazing to me that conservatives do not think people should have to pay a fair share. The only reason the wealthy receive a bigger tax is because they have more money. Conservatives would rather see the lower and middle class suffer with more taxes then take any of the so-called “hard-earned” money of the wealthy. Interestingly, Gary’s filth generalization simply adds to the generalization that conservatives are all for the rich. Liberals do not want excessive taxes; they want fair taxes. And fair tax should be based on what someone makes. If you make more money, you pay more taxes. It’s that simple. And by the way— conservatives are certainly not all rich, but voting conservative when you are a member of the middle class is simply against your self-interest. Wake up.

2. “What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.”
It would be nice to have some examples to support Gary’s filth, but we just get generalizations. I would revise this statement to say the following: What one person receives without working for, another person is fortunate to not need to receive it. I’m not sure I’m a fan of that either because I do not like the word “working” in this context. Gary is trying to say that people get handouts without working, a typical ethnocentric, superior “I am better than thou” conservative viewpoint. The fact is that people do work, and then people get laid off or the economy suffers. Then those people receive things like unemployment. Those of us with jobs are fortunate to not have to receive unemployment. Those of us with good health care are fortunate to not have to try to get Medicaid. Programs like unemployment and Medicaid exist to help people who are in a significantly worse situation that the average worker. But Gary and many conservatives do not see it this way. They see these programs as a hand-out, a reward for not working. And that’s why the Republicans voted to take away unemployment. They cannot see themselves in the other person’s shoes—in the shoes of the person who lost a job and lost health care. I just hope the voters see how uncompassionate so many conservatives are.

3. “The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.”
And exactly what has been taken from you, Gary? A few extra bucks on your tanning membership? An increase in the money you spend on soda, alcohol, and cigarettes? People act like we are being taxed like crazy, but what extra taxes have you actually noticed in your day to day life? In fact, if you are like me and make less than $100,000 a year, you’ve actually seen a decrease in your taxes. Thank you, Obama. But let me try to understand this better. Ok, so a person is laid off and needs a job. Do we take someone’s job and give it to them? No. Ok, so a person has no medical insurance and needs health care. Do we take someone’s health care and give it away? No. We’re building a stronger economy and a stronger civilization with such programs, but conservatives are often too selfish to care.

4. “When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.”
Really?!? I’m one of the most ambitious workers you’ll meet. And I know several conservatives who work very hard, and I don’t think any of us ever want to stop working because we have to take care of the other “half.” Ok, that may not be fair as I’m sure some conservatives may think this way. Is that why Sarah Palin quit her job?
First of all, to claim that “half” of the people get the idea they don’t have to work is ridiculous. Although unemployment is very high, it is absolutely nowhere near half. As with most generalizations, there is always some truth to the matter. Sure, there are a few deadbeats who will take unemployment as long as they can. Is it fair though to hurt the thousands of others who genuinely want to work because of a few deadbeats? No. This statement, Gary, is so far off the wall. It’s no wonder your website wouldn’t accept my comment, and it’s no wonder why you have a following of other conservatives brainwashed by Fox News who are as heartless as Voldemort.

5. “You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
How about—“You cannot multiply wealth by doing nothing.” And nothing is the key principle of conservatives. No taxes, no programs, no help. The party of NO! You are on your own. It’s heartless, it’s brutal, and it’s real. Logically of course, no one is dividing the wealth and taking prosperity away from the wealthy. I hear Bill Gates is doing just fine. Taxes are added fairly based upon income, and if you do not have the income to support a few extra taxes, you are not taxed. Geez, doesn’t it seem that if we generalized conservative truths, we would find that we would have no law enforcement, no fire department, no roads and highways, no teachers, and no public schools? Conservatives like to make government out as the evil big brother, when in fact government only becomes “evil” (in terms of taking away rights, policies, and programs to help people) when conservatives take over.

To be fair, AmericanVision did post five truths conservatives hate. It’s interesting to me that instead of one lined generalizations for the filth Gary writes, the five truths Republicans hate each get a paragraph. I’ll post them below.

1. Most Republicans are as socialist as the Left. While not as socially liberal as the left—not advocating equality, gay rights, feminism, etc., etc.—Republicans have proven every bit as fiscally liberal with the exception of the last year or so when political convenience has changed their rhetoric. But try to get one to admit that social security and medicare are socialist programs along the lines of Obamacare, and they’ll dance and dodge all day! It was Bush II who created medicare prescription drug coverage at the cost of $550 billion, and only nine Senate republicans opposed.
2. Public schooling is a socialist institution, paid for like a social welfare scheme, where socialist teachers teach socialism to conservatives’ kids. It was designed as an anti-conservative institution and operates openly as an anti-conservative institution. Yet most conservative parents still mock homeschooling and refuse to put their kids in even a private school. Some Christians argue they’re salt and light—”we just need prayer back in schools!” The only prayer any kid should be praying in school is “Mom! Dad! Please! Get me out!”
3. There is no such thing as private property as long as property taxes and the threat of liens exist. Bad-mouthing Obama’s socialism rings hollow until you pressure your state, county, and municipal officials to abolish property taxes. Of course, you’d also have to argue against public schooling as well, for about 75% of property taxes go to pay for public schools.
4. There is nothing inherently or historically conservative about our national standing military. It was a Republican-led effort that ignored everything the American founders wrote about the dangers of standing armies and centralized the state militias into a national army, the outlawed state militias. Shortly after the Militia Act of 1903, in one ten year span before WWI, the military budget rose from $2 million to $53 million—a 2,650% budget increase. The whole program was carried out by Progressives which at that time dominated the Republican Party. These were men whom Republicans generally revere as well, Republicans: William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Elihu Root. Historically, big war has been carried out under progressive Democrats: Wilson got us into WW1, FDR WWII, Truman Korea, and Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam. Progressives love war inherently: it was one aspect that grew directly out of social Darwinism. Conservatives fight when necessary to protect their own land and freedom, except against property taxes, apparently.
5. Republicans were the original spend-and-tax, big-government Progressives, and remain so today. The same Republican men who nationalized the military, in order to fund their progressive ideals, created, promoted, and signed into law the Sixteenth amendment (national income tax) which had the side-effect of rendering the IRS a permanent institution. Taft got the act through Congress in 1909, the last state ratified it in 1913. The intervening presidential election was a contest of three men with the same ideals—Wilson, T. Roosevelt, and Taft—all of whom supported the national income tax. The same Republicans instituted the National Monetary Commission which developed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which Wilson also signed into law. In modern times, were it not for Obama, Bush II would reign as the spending and deficit king by quite a margin. The biggest spenders in recent decades were all the Republican presidents, including Reagan. Only Clinton in his first term rivaled them before Obama.

Please subscribe to this blog by entering your e-mail in the box in the upper left corner of this page.

var a2a_config = a2a_config || {};
a2a_config.linkurl = “https://alittlemoreconversationplease.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/on-the-truths-that-liberals-hate/”;

Progressive vs. Conservative or Innovator vs. Laggard: A Different Perspective

If we take a simple look at those who work for change and those who resist change, we find some very important characteristics of progressives and conservatives that may help illuminate the political divide in America. When I refer to change, I’m referring to an innovation—a social policy, an idea, a law—that is new to society. Whenever something new is introduced, we have people who are eager to support it, people who are eager to oppose it, and everyone else somewhere in the middle. As a generalization, progressives, liberals, and Democrats are more likely to accept change and conservatives and Republicans are more likely to resist change. I want to understand the reasons why some people embrace change and some people resist change, even if the benefits of the change outweigh the cost.

First of all, I don’t like the left-right scale in politics, but I will use it for the sake of illustration. But instead of making the scale specifically liberal to conservative, I’m changing the terms to represent those who adopt change and those who reject change.

The scale is as follows (left to right): Innovators—Early Adopters—Early Majority—Late Adopters – Laggards.

On the far left (of this scale and politics), we have the innovators of society. Innovators are venturesome, obsessed with new ideas and change and tend to be daring and risky. Early adopters are the cosmopolites—the folks who are willing to try the new ideas and have the most exposure to new ideas. These two groups tend to represent the liberal and progressive political viewpoints. In the middle, we have the early majority. The early majority is characterized by those who deliberate for a greater amount of time before adopting a new idea. The early majority is composed rather equally of members of all political parties, known as the “moderate” in our society. The late majority are those who are skeptical of new ideas. They do not embrace change and will not do so unless nearly everyone else in the social system has done so. The last group is the laggards. The laggards are completely traditional, the last to adopt any change, and they tend to be isolated socially and greatly suspicious of any change. These last two groups represent conservative politics.

When we look at politics from this angle of change, we can see some pros and cons from both parties. On one hand, some change is very good and should be adopted immediately, but the conservatives in Congress will be the last to vote for any change. On the other hand, some ideas are risky and may need more careful deliberation. Politically though, I cannot understand the laggards. I respect the late majority but relate much more to the early majority and the early adopters of change. Here’s one example why:

If we examine the date when hate crime laws were passed for each individual state, we can see a pattern that reflects the above terms and characteristics. Hate crime laws were passed first by California in 1972; the last state to pass hate crime laws was Mississippi in 1994 (and several states still have not passed hate crime laws!). The hate crime laws are still currently amended in many states to include issues such as sexual orientation and specific punishment of laws. But here’s a quick preview of a few states that have passed hate crime laws and the percentage of people in that state who voted for McCain in 2008. The connections should be obvious.

State 1: The innovator—California. Only 37% voted for McCain. Passed hate crime laws in 1972.
State 2: The early adopter—Washington. 40% voted for McCain. HC laws passed in 1981.
State 3: The early adopter—Oregon. 40% voted for McCain. HC laws passed in 1981.
State 4: The early majority—Ohio, 47% McCain. HC laws 1986.
State 5: The late majority—Texas, 56% McCain. HC laws 1993.
State 6: The late majority—Mississippi, 56% McCain. HC laws 1994.
State 7: The laggard—Arkansas, 59% McCain. No HC laws.
State 8: The laggard—Wyoming, 65% McCain. No HC laws.

I only used a few states to make my point, but obviously, the states that are innovators and early adopters accept change more easily and tend to be progressive and liberal. Early majority states tend to be more moderate—can go either way Democrat or Republican. The late majority and the laggards—conservative all the way. (And FYI: can you believe some states still do not have hate crime protection? In 2010!)

Additionally, there are other important characteristics within these categories. Here are some generalizations about early adopters with brief commentary:

1. Early adopters have more years of formal education. Those who are most educated tend to accept change more easily. Is it any wonder why liberals are labeled as “elite”? Is it any wonder that conservatives criticize colleges, universities, and educators as too liberal?
2. Early adopters have greater empathy than later adopters. Empathy is the ability to feel as another feels. Is it any wonder that progressives fight for health care reform and other policies to help those who need it while conservatives resist any change? If you cannot empathize, you will resist change.
3. Early adopters are less dogmatic than late adopters. Dogmatism is the degree to which an individual has a narrow-minded belief system and is unwilling to negotiate and open his or her mind to new ideas. Is it any wonder why the extreme religions and fundamentalists tend to be conservatives? They are perfect examples of laggards who want no part of change.
4. Early adopters have a more favorable attitude toward science than late adopters. Is it any wonder that progressives and liberals tend to follow scientific evidence while many laggards and conservatives will reject science if it is incompatible with their belief system?
5. Early adopters are less fatalistic than late adopters. Fatalism is the degree to which an individual thinks he or she can or cannot control the future. Is it any wonder that progressives think we can fight for the environment while conservative laggards think the future is determined by fate?

There are about 20 more generalizations I could include. In the end, sometimes we need to take a look at politics from a different perspective. It’s not all about liberal vs. conservative. The labels can be misleading. However, the politics of today presents a remarkable era for change. We can fight for change in the financial industry, health care industry, hate crime protection, education, diplomacy, equal rights, energy, the environment, the oil industry and on and on.

Simply, I ask you: do you really want to be part of a group (be it laggard or late majority) that is resistant to change, dogmatic in principle, skeptical of science, lacking empathy for those who need help, and do not believe you have control over your own future? Label me what you want, but I am a fighter for change, progressive in innovation yet moderate in deliberation. Empathy, scientific evidence, open-mindedness, and education are my guiding principles, and if you accept that you too are empathetic, open to science, open to diverse cultural ideas including religious viewpoints, and value the strength of education, then you too are progressive in thinking.

Do not let your vote be wasted on the laggards in our society. Vote for the innovators of change, for they have the greater potential to make the most positive contributions to our world.

Primary source: Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “sign me up” button on the upper left.

var a2a_config = a2a_config || {};
a2a_config.linkurl = “https://alittlemoreconversationplease.wordpress.com/”;

Who doesn’t love a crazy political ad?

Just for fun—a few political ads worth watching. Check them out and post your favorites in the comment section.

I really thought the above ad was a spoof. Nope. Why does shooting a gun make one eligible for Congress?

In previous blogs, I’m emphasized how the GOP prefers to manipulate voters with fear, not logic. The above ad, which is completely ridiculous, is a perfect example of the fear the GOP hopes to pump into American voters.

I love this one. Someone who argued for evolution? Oh no! Someone who said that every part of the Bible may not be true? Oh, the anti-Christ!

This one has been out for awhile, but I had to include it. It’s a satire about what it means to vote Republican, full of hyperbole, but at it has some truth at its core, for sure.

So what are your favorite political ads? I’d be interested in seeing more.

Please subscribe to this blog by clicking “sign me up” on the upper left corner of the page.

Would you increase the retirement age to fund war?

I read an interview today with the Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner. The interview was titled, “Obama Good for GOP” and in the article, Boehner reveals some very interesting thoughts from the Grand Old Party.

Most shocking to me is the idea to increase the American retirement age to 70. Currently, you can receive 70% of social security benefits at age 62, 87% of benefits at age 65, and full benefits at age 67 (if you were born after 1960; there are better benefits for those born before 1960).

So now, the Republicans want you to work even longer. Yes, I know we are in a deficit and we need to find ways to save money. It seems to me the GOP wants to take away everything that helps people—Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment, etc. Plus, we’re dealing with huge budget cuts in education as well as many other public programs. Now, the GOP wants you to work until you’re 70.

Some people may not have a problem working until 70, but by the time I reach that age, I wonder how many more times the GOP will want to raise the social security age. I feel like I could be working until I’m dead before they’d want to give me any help.

Oh, and guess of course what the savings in money from extending social security retirement benefits will go to, if Boehner and the GOP have their way? WAR. That’s right. You work longer so the U.S. has more money for war. Here’s a crazy idea: how about we fix our education system, health care, social security and every other problem in the U.S. by fighting less war?

Boehner also said, “Obama overreacted to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.” Really? Because I’ve heard people also argue Obama didn’t do enough. Of course, the President will always be blamed for a national crisis—that’s part of being a leader. It looks like the GOP is more with Joe Barton’s BP apology than I originally thought. I cannot believe anyone would say—in the heart of a national disaster that is DESTROYING families, businesses, animals, and our environment—that Obama is overreacting.

Primarily, Boehner claimed that Obama is good for the GOP. Boehner claims the controversy over health care and other government programs will help the GOP takeover Congress. He has also promised to do everything possible to repeal health care reform. Well, he may be right that the Republicans will gain seats in Congress. Traditionally, the political party out of power gains seats during midterm elections of a new president.

But c’mon people! Increase the retirement age? To fund war? Obama over-reacted on the BP oil spill? The GOP as it is today is not a party that any reasonable person should want in control. I know so many people are afraid of change and worry about the kind of change for which Obama is fighting. But President Obama is fighting for progressive change, change to help the people who need help. Boehner and the rest of the GOP it seems would rather just fund war and leave the American people in the dirt.

To the GOP and to Boehner: No thanks.

Read the interview here: http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_688102.html
See your current social security retirement age here: http://ssa.gov/pubs/ageincrease.htm

Please subscribe to this blog by clicking “sign me up” on the upper left corner of the page.

Self-centered or other-centered?

Today, all 40 senate Republicans voted no to extend unemployment benefits.[1]  Every single one.  In a time of economic recession and high unemployment rates, every single Republican voted no to give the unemployed any more help.

55 out of 56 Democrats all voted yes to extending unemployment.

What does this tell you?

I try to understand the philosophy behind multiple political points of view while developing my own personal philosophy.  I see myself as a progressive, no doubt about it.  A progressive is someone who possesses empathy (not just an ability to feel sorry for others but to truly feel what others feel) and a strong sense of responsibility (not just for self, but for others too).  The opposite of progressive is conservative.  By this definition, conservatives lack empathy for those who are struggling in life and only accept responsibility for themselves, certainly not for others.  Some Republicans—get this—have even called the unemployed “hobos” and “bums.”[2]

The majority of Republicans lack empathy and any real sense of responsibility for others.  This way of thinking is what is so wrong with the conservative base, and why it is so important to spread stories such as this one—where every single Republican voted no to extending unemployment.  Midterm elections are coming in November, and historically the party in power under a new president always loses seats and power shifts.  To potential voters out there: Do you really want to vote in a party that does not empathize with its own people? 

Obama’s Recovery Act is working.  Look at unemployment rates; I’m sure you have all seen this graphic.  Look at the jobs lost during Bush’s last term, then look at how the job loss rate gradually lessened during Obama’s first two years, and finally job growth started happening.  It’s working.  Period.  I further ask: do you really want to vote in politicians who could reverse the job growth that Obama and the Democratic congress have worked so hard to gain?

On one basic level, political issues come down to one idea: self-interest vs. other-interest.  Republicans showed today in Congress that they are clearly interested in self not others.  Hopefully, the conservatives out there who are on unemployment (I know some personally) will see how voting Republican hurts their own lifestyle.

The economy is stimulated when people have money to spend.  When the unemployed do not have any money, the economy will suffer even more.  Some Republicans have argued that people on unemployment are not motivated to look for a job, and so we must cut the program.  Democrats argue that the unemployment money has helped the economy.  And the latter is true—we see it today, wherever you go, that the economy is bouncing back.  There are more jobs, there is more spending, and things are getting better.  But now, thanks to the Republicans, nearly one million Americans will lose benefits immediately.[3]  Now, one million people will continue struggling for jobs (although there is job growth, certainly jobs aren’t growing on trees).  Common sense indicates that now one million people will not be putting money into the economy, and millions more are potentially at risk for higher crime rates.

Are you interested in a political ideology that is other-centered as opposed to self-centered?  Then I urge you to act progressively and vote progressively.  Here are some examples, some of which for sure you have seen in previous blogs, of the contrast between self-centered and other-centered.

Other-centered: Progressive, liberal, Democrat  vs. Self-centered: Conservative, Republican, Tea Party

Fight to help the unemployed; extend benefits vs. Want to end unemployment; no help

Want to make BP pay vs. Apologize to BP, government cannot intervene with private business

Fight to give health insurance to all vs. sorry sick child/old person/whoever, you’re on your own

Fight for equality for all, period. vs. That may depend on gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc

Fight to save the environment vs. Let nature take care of itself

Feel free to add your own to list.  As usual, I could on and on.  But you get the point.

As a quick side note, I want to address my conservative friends.  I’ve written this before but I’ll write it again: many of you in your hearts are good people.  I know good conservatives who are loving fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, etc.  But I challenge you here: are you voting in ignorance?  Or are you simply blind to reason and logic? I know it is hard to admit that you are wrong, that you have been voting for people who may actually hurt you and the ones you love.  But I urge you to reconsider, to open your mind, and open your heart—to everyone.

 

---

[1] http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-us-senate-rollcall-spending,0,7853114.story

[2] http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/66720

[3] http://www.fightbacknews.org/2010/6/21/almost-million-lose-benefits-while-layoffs-continue-and-businesses-refuse-hire-unemployed

Please subscribe to this blog by clicking “sign me up” on the upper left corner of the page.

var a2a_config = a2a_config || {};
a2a_config.linkurl = “https://alittlemoreconversationplease.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/self-centered-or-other-centered/”;