The GOP wants to extend tax breaks for the richest 2% of America, and Sarah Palin still needs to use her palm for notes

                I’m trying to understand the “logic” behind the Republicans wanting to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.  If anyone can help provide some meaningful ideas on this subject, I would be grateful.

                For those who do not know, George Bush passed tax cuts in 2001.  The tax cuts primarily benefited people earning over $250,000 dollars a year with an expiration date in ten years (this only affects the top 2% of America).  In other words, the wealthiest people in America received a tax break under Bush for ten years.  Is it just me, or does anyone remember when our economy entered a recession?  Has anyone heard that we have an enormous national debt?  Maybe I live in Clueless, IL but it seems to me the logical thing to do is to end the tax cuts and use that money to alleviate our national debt and directly stimulate the economy.

                Republicans argue that Democrats want to increase taxes.  Nope.  Democrats simply want to restore the tax to the rate during Bill Clinton’s administration.  So let me try to remember our economy during the Clinton years: Oh yeah, it was good.  So good that Bush and the Congress in 2001 were able to give ten years of tax cuts to people making loads of money. 

                Our economy is not as strong now as it was during the Clinton era.  President Obama has promised to not eliminate any tax cuts for those who earn less than $250,000 a year.  However, his administration and the Democratic majority in Congress think it wise to stop giving tax breaks to the wealthy.  This issue is particularly important as midterm elections approach.  If the Republicans take over Congress, they will fight to extend the tax cuts to the wealthy.  If Democrats remain in power, they will eliminate the tax breaks for the wealthy. 

                Between these two options, which makes the most sense?  I suppose if you make more than $250,000, it makes sense for you to want to vote Republican.  However, if like the majority of people in this country you make less than $250,000 a year, don’t you want a Congress that keeps taxation fair: if you have more, you pay more; if you have less, you pay less.  SIMPLE!  Also, when you hear arguments that the Democrats want to raise taxes, it is simply not true.  Ending a ten year tax break for the top 2% of America is not actually raising taxes; rather, it is simply ending the “break.”  It’s like this: if you go to the store and your favorite item is discounted, you get excited.  You recognize it as a sale, and you take advantage of it if you so desire.  However, when the sale price returns to the normal retail price, you don’t cry that prices have increased.  You simply recognize that the sale is over.  The same logic applies to the tax cuts for the rich: their “sale” is over and it’s time they pay their fair share too. 

                Republicans claim that the tax cuts to the wealthy allow the wealthy to reinvest in the economy and thus create more jobs.  Well, that’s a quite a leap of faith.  It’s a leap of faith over a bridge of troubled economic waters.  The GOP hopes the wealthy would reinvest in the economy and create jobs, but there is absolutely no guarantee.  To the contrary, evidence suggests that the tax cuts went into savings or to pay off debt, not to invest in job growth.  The immediate effect in eliminating the tax cuts is saving $678 billion with a savings of $3.8 trillion over ten years.  That’s a lot of money to save, pay off the deficit, and invest in our economy, our environment, our education, and our people. 

                I also wonder if there could be a balance here.  If creating jobs is the key, then why not eliminate the tax cuts and instead use (at least a portion of) the money in grants of sorts for small businesses who want to expand their workforce?  That would be the logical thing to do.  It’s just too bad our politics today is lacking such logic.

                In the end, I hope you realize the “logic” of our current Republican leaders: give the wealthy tax cuts and then maybe the rich will offer more jobs and higher pay to us lowly people.  The tax breaks for the richest 2% of Americans must be ended, and the saved money must be directly invested in our economy and our people.  That’s the only way to guarantee the money will benefit America and not just rich America.  Furthermore, if what the GOP argues is true—that the tax breaks for the rich would stimulate the economy—then why in the heck are we in a recession when these tax breaks started in 2001?!?! 

                For some additional fun, you can watch Sarah Palin discuss this subject on Fox News.  The best part is that she once again needs to use her hand for notes.  She claims it is “idiotic” to raise taxes.  Well, Sarah, the idiot in this debate is the one who can’t remember the facts about taxation and needs to write them on her hand.  (And remember folks, her saying that we’re “raising” taxes is incredibly misguided and fallacious; we’re simply ending the “sale” and the tax breaks for the wealthy.)

A review of President Obama on “The View”

                For one of the first times in my life, I watched the View to see the interview with President Obama.  I immediately thought that Obama critics will find a way to ridicule his appearance on a daytime TV talk show.  The right wing that criticizes Obama for virtually anything is certainly going to criticize him for being on the View if for no other reason than they have nothing better to do.  Negativity is always better than positivity, at least in terms of insults and ratings (right, Fox News?).  So, how did Obama do on the View?

                First and most importantly, he was not negative.  When asked for his response to the right wing that criticizes and criticizes even when Obama has had so much political victory, he was nice.   I will admit that at first I wanted him to fight back.  I wanted him to say all the things we citizens can say—that the members of the right wing have been ridiculous, disrespectful, hateful, insulting, negative, fear-manipulating, logic-rejecting, dogmatic jerks (to put it nicely). 

                I was in awe when Joy Behar from the View asked him why he doesn’t fight back, and Obama just said to her, “That’s your job.”  I was impressed with his humility when he said, “I make mistakes.”  I felt uplifted when Barbara Walters asked him how he handles the critics and the “thorns” and Obama replied, “I don’t worry about me.  I worry about them.”  The “them” of course refers to the American people, our citizens who don’t have a job, don’t have health care, don’t have protection from big banks, don’t have confidence in the economy, and so on.  And you know what?  When he said it, I believed him.  I believe he worries more for the American people because of the laws he has signed.  It shows that he cares about the unemployed when he pushed for an extension of unemployment benefits.  It shows that he cares about the uninsured when fought for health care reform. 

                It’s always bewildered me how insulting people can be.  If you disagree with someone’s politics, you explain why.  You learn to respect the other person if they have put sincere effort into helping other people.  There is no doubt whatsoever that Obama has put in significant effort to govern the country and actually cares about those he governs.  Anyone who cannot see is simply too blinded by politics.

                I was even more impressed when Obama was addressing the questions as to why he doesn’t fight back more often at the right wing critics when he said, “There’s a time to campaign and there’s a time to govern.”  Sure, a brief interview on the View or a speech at a political fundraiser is campaigning, but if you look back at the last year and a half, Obama has spent the vast majority of his time getting things done.  He’s signed over 200 laws and is making history with financial reform, health care reform, economic stimulus, and more.  While the right wing is attacking him, Obama is doing his job.

                Moreover, Obama shed some insight on why there is so much criticism and so much negativity.  He said, “The media culture loves conflict.”  The media doesn’t report when Republicans and Democrats are getting along.  The media reports the crazy statements of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.  Crazy gets you ratings.  Unfortunately though, the average viewer only knows the crazy. 

                Throughout the interview, whether he was addressing the critics on the right or issues of racism, Obama emphasized treating each other with respect and moving beyond labels.  It was so nice to hear.  Can you picture George Bush or Sarah Palin being just as respectful and knowledgeable during such an interview?  Not a chance. 

                Perhaps my negativity at the right wing is hypocritical.  After all, I admire above all the respect, integrity, and knowledge of President Obama.  However, when the criticism is justified and supported by evidence, the criticism needs to be heard.  I’m glad Obama is beyond it, and that he leaves that form of criticism for the media (and for us bloggers too).

                All in all, it’s worth taking some time even if you just watch a few minutes of the interview.  Obama is poised, humorous, thoughtful, and, well, presidential.  As a young adult (I still consider the 30’s to be young, thank you), I have had little experience seeing an American president acting presidentially.  Of course, there are other clips that make it worthwhile if you’re also a pop culture nut like me, particularly when Obama doesn’t know who Snookie (from Jersey Shore) is or when he states that he does not have any Justin Beiber on his iPod.  Funny stuff.

For the first clip of the interview, watch it on Hulu here:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/167452/the-view-president-obamas-summer-highs-and-lows

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!

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/”;

Sarah Palin’s Tweets: Ignorance in less than 140 characters

The ignorance of Sarah Palin has both frustrated and amused me in the past.  I admit that I enjoy watching her speak because her ignorance provides great standup comedy.  So I wondered, how foolish could she appear in less than 140 characters?  Off to Twitter I went to view the official Sarah Palin Twitter account.[1]  Thank you, Sarah.  I was not surprised to find lots of ignorance even when limited to 140 characters.

So for those of you interested, here are some of my favorite Sarah Palin tweets.  Enjoy!

June 20, 2010: “RahmEmanuel= as shallow/narrowminded/political/irresponsible as they come,to falsely claim Barton’s BP comment is “GOP philosophy”Rahm,u lie”

Barton’s comment does not represent GOP philosophy?  Does anyone want to tell me that conservatives do in fact want government involvement with private business?  This is what is so scary about so many conservatives.  Although the degree of intensity varies, conservatives want “small” government and think the government should stay out of the way of business.  Hence, Barton’s comment.  Hence, Rand Paul’s thinking that government cannot force businesses to serve African-Americans.  Sarah, if you want to know what narrow-minded and irresponsible truly mean, look in the mirror.

June 20th, 2010: “Gulf disaster needs divine intervention as man’s efforts have been futile. Gulf lawmakers designate today Day of Prayer for solution/miracle”

I won’t knock prayer, but I do want to point out something important, something that represents Palin and much of her conservative base.  Man does not have the power to save the world.  Be it the oil spill or climate change, Palin would prefer to leave crisis for God and simply wish the best.  I’d rather have people who pray and who have faith in mankind (and thus themselves). 

June 17, 2010: “Schizophrenic Agenda:just last wk DC claims top priority=JOBS;then=REDUCE DEBT;now=CAP&TAX(exploit tragedy 2 kill jobs/raise taxes)Pls,FOCUS”

Um, what?  Exploit tragedy to raise taxes?  I hope people see the connection between the above tweets and conservative policy.  The government wants to tax businesses that produce carbon to reduce carbon.  Conservatives (like the BP oil spill!!!) do not think government should get involved.  If we do not stop carbon, we will not have to worry about jobs because we will not have a planet.  But rather than doing anything about it, Palin would rather just pray and hope it works out.

June 14, 2010: “DCs new $50BILLION local govt bailout? The “spending freeze,pay-as-u-go,fiscal restraint” pledge was as believable as O’s a#*-kickin’outrage”

So Sarah is just using insults instead of reason?  Even though Bush took a lot of heat (rightfully so) for Katrina, I would never have said that he didn’t care about it.  Calling Obama’s outrage not believable is pretty low, even for Sarah.

June 13, 2010: “Fuel America with Terrorist-Tarred Oil Instead of Drilling Our Own, Baby?”

Clearly Americans want to support terrorists (please note sarcasm).  And making a pun with drill, baby, drill after the oil spill is just wrong.  So ignorant!

June 1, 2010: “Extreme Greenies:see now why we push”drill,baby,drill”of known reserves&promising finds in safe onshore places like ANWR? Now do you get it?”

It’s typical of conservatives to mock those who care about the environment.  But it’s ridiculous that Palin is urging for oil drilling.  Even if it is not off shore, drilling is always a risk.  When will we finally move away from oil?

May 23, 2010:  “Mr. Gibbs, Obama is the top recipient of BP PAC & individual money over the past 20 years. http://u.nu/5vpia Dispute these facts.”

Palin either lies or doesn’t know what she’s talking about.  Oil companies throw a lot of money around, and guess who received the most from all the oil companies in the last election?  McCain/Palin.[2]

Mar 31, 2010: “Drill, baby, drill.”

Her classic tagline, more ironic than ever, just a month before the oil spill.

Feb 10, 2010: “Happy B’day Glenn Beck! Ah, the wisdom of our elders…”

Is she really calling Glenn Beck wise?  And an elder?!?

Jan 30, 2010: “President confirms Obamacare bills filled w/ no good ‘stray dogs & cats’”

Obama confirms this?  What?  C’mon Sarah, you can at least try to make sense.  You have time to type and think about these tweets, unlike live interviews, which we know she refuses to do.

Jan 11, 2010: “What would America do w/out Fox News?I’m so thankful for the opportunity to work w/team committed to fair&balanced reporting.Please join us!”

What would we do without Fox news?  We’d have news. 

---

[1] http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA

[2] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/may/24/bp-liked-obama-oil-stained-sarah-palins-hands-too/

What books shape your view of the world?

As an English teacher and student of life, I have a great love of literature.  I love not just reading great works but also passing along great works of literature to my students, works that challenge my world views and works that support my world views.  For the sake of a political/religious blog, I wanted to highlight a few important texts like-minded individuals and those seeking challenge should explore.  In a heated political climate and in a world of people boasting religious superiority, sometimes we need art to move us forward.  Certainly, art, music, film, and more have helped shape my world views, but for today, here are a few book recommendations that anyone interested in people (be it from a political, religious or simply sociological or psychological point of view) should read.

Life of Pi by Yann Martel

Imagine a boy so interested in religion that he studies Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism all at once.  Then imagine that boy trapped on a lifeboat after a shipwreck with a tiger, hyena, and an orangutan.  The elements of religious convergence and conflicts are explored metaphorically through the boy’s struggle to survive, but in the end (and I won’t give away the story): all of the religions are just stories.  Strength and faith come from oneself, not from a specific religion.  Anyone interested in spirituality must read this book.

Tuesdays with Morrie by Mitch Albom

I also could have included Albom’s other books such as the Five People You Meet in Heaven and For One More Day but it is Morrie that influenced me the most.  In short, Mitch’s old teacher Morrie provides guidance for the meaning of life and the secret to happiness.  One of the strongest lessons: Don’t just take responsibility for yourself.  Take responsibility for all people.  If we cared as much about our neighbor as we do about ourselves, the world would be a better place.  Clearly, this perspective is why I generally support social policies that strive to help people—social security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, universal health care, etc.  It’s no surprise that Mitch Albom—who I had the honor of picking up at the airport one day to spend an afternoon with my English classes several years back—is on the left side of politics and generally supports liberal perspectives in his journalism.  But many of his books are faith based and have a strong conservative audience.  It’s too bad the faithful, conservative fan base of Mitch Albom do not see the lessons he really tries to teach—HELP EVERYBODY.  Not just yourself.

Fahrenheit 451 and Dandelion Wine by Ray Bradbury

Most people have heard about Fahrenheit 451, a book that expresses the dangers of censorship.  I ask myself from a political viewpoint, who encourages freedom of speech?  Who wants to repress certain video games, music lyrics, and even Harry Potter?  While it’s not the entire conservative base, those who threaten censorship primarily are conservatives.  Censorship threatens critical thinking.  If we are not allowed to hear or see certain aspects of society, not only are our freedoms threatened but also our ability to think is threatened. 

I also incorporated Dandelion Wine, one of my favorite reads.  The reason the book appears in this list is because of the predictions Bradbury makes about the dangers of the automobile (or in this book, “The Green Machine”).  Way ahead of his time, Bradbury used science-fiction to portray a world that would be threatened by the rise of the automobile.  In recent interviews, Bradbury pushes for green and alternate transportation and virtually the elimination of all vehicles to save our planet.[1]  I certainly can’t see the Tea Party on board with that kind of progressive thinking!

And two specific political books:

The Assault on Reason by Al Gore

Gore takes a lot of criticism from conservatives, but the man can write and think incredibly well.  Any serious conservative should consider Gore’s arguments.  One main problem with politics, particularly from the right side, is that political arguments are structured using fear and not logic.  Centered on the Iraq War, Gore reveals the lack of reason and public discourse that essentially created a misguided war.  Sure, he also talks about the environment and criticizes Bush, but ultimately the book reveals what’s wrong with American politics today.  It’s thoughtful and insightful, and you will wonder how the heck someone of Bush’s intelligence made it to the Presidency after reading the ideas of an actual intelligent politician.

The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama

I feel lucky because I picked up this book back when Obama was unheard of throughout the nation.  There’s a great scene when he describes the first time he met then President Bush, and Bush’s advice was to keep hand sanitizer ready at all times (you shake a lot of hands as a politician, especially as the President).  Most importantly, years before running for President, the book reveals the intelligence and insight of the then senator from Illinois.  (I’d like to see G.W. write a book like this!)  He also discusses thoughts on education, abortion, science, renewable energy, health care reform, and other issues.  It’s even more interesting to see how these ideas have shaped the current work in his administration, and he’s not far off at all from the original ideas he proposed years before running.  In hindsight, I appreciate the honesty: people who read the book and knew Obama then understand he’s full of honesty and integrity.  Like him or not, he does what he says he is going to do (or at least makes the best effort possible).  Plus, he made his ideas transparent for all to see and critique—long before he even ran for President.  When I finished this book years ago, the first thing I said to my friends was, “You have to read this book.  This man will be President someday.”  Oh, and it puts anything Sarah Palin can write to shame!  🙂

So for the sake of “a little more conversation,” please suggest your favorite books—fiction, non-fiction, political, whatever—that help shape your worldview.  And feel free to comment on mine (I have a library full of others, dozens more deserving mention here, but since I’m already over 1000 words, I figured the above would be enough for now). 

---

[1] http://www.greencar.com/articles/ray-bradbury-speaks-out.php

Don’t ask; don’t tell: How about- Don’t discriminate.

                Whenever the GOP loses its control on social discrimination, the far-right thinkers resort to the most extreme, ridiculously intolerant statements to try and scare the moderates.  This week—as soon as tonight or tomorrow—the U.S. Congress will vote on repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for gays in the military.  Now that it looks more certain than ever that this discriminatory law will finally be repealed, the right is showing its true colors, and the colors certainly aren’t a rainbow.

                Top social conservative Bryan Fischer—who by the way is scheduled to speak with Mike Huckabee, Michelle Bachman, and others at a “Values Voter” summit—said the following on a recent radio broadcast: “So Hitler himself was an active homosexual. And some people wonder, didn’t the Germans, didn’t the Nazis, persecute homosexuals? And it is true they did; they persecuted effeminate homosexuals. But Hitler recruited around him homosexuals to make up his Stormtroopers, they were his enforcers, they were his thugs. And Hitler discovered that he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough to carry out his orders, but that homosexual solders basically had no limits and the savagery and brutality they were willing to inflict on whomever Hitler sent them after. So he surrounded himself, virtually all of the Stormtroopers, the Brownshirts, were male homosexuals.”[1]

                My brain just hemorrhaged a little.  I had to look up Fischer, convinced that he must be a member of the Texas School Board of Education.  But he’s not.  He’s the head of a Christian conservative group the American Family Association.  Fischer isn’t the only nut that’s speaking out now that Congress is voting to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  Cliff Kinkaid of American’s Survival, Inc produced a ten minute video claiming that “Disease tainted gay blood harms our troops.”[2]  His recent column is entitled “Save Our Soldiers from Gay Death.”

                The two above examples are certainly extreme.  Although they are not names the general public may be familiar with, they are certainly representative of the extremist right wing thinking of conservatives that is an absolute danger to freedom and democracy.  As Congress votes on this bill, I feel like I am in a time machine—back to a time when Congress mandated that all races must be served at restaurants.  But if you think it’s just a couple of extreme nuts speaking against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” it’s not.

                What’s our old buddy John McCain got to say?  In 2006, the Maverick said, “And I understand the opposition to it, and I‘ve had these debates and discussions, but the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.”[3]  Military leaders have supported the removal of DADT.  But this week, McCain has said he would support a filibuster to prevent voting on the issue.  He further said, ‘I’m going to do everything I can to support the men and women of the military and to fight what is clearly a political agenda. ”[4]  Why would McCain do this?  Well, he’s losing a battle in his home state to a Tea Party candidate who has accused him of being a conservative actor who only pretends to support conservative issues.  When the crazies shout their intolerance, the people who represent them must change their position to be more closely aligned with those who can re-elect them.  In other words, since the extreme right of Republicans are comparing the DADT policy to Hitler’s army and claiming that our military will die of “gay diseases” if DADT is repealed, McCain can no longer show common sense and vote against discrimination.  If he does, he will not be re-elected in Arizona.

                What does it all mean?  As a generalization, the GOP clearly includes a variety of intolerant, discriminatory individuals who would love nothing more than to promote policies that take away human rights.  Liberals are not perfect, but at least liberals push forth human rights.  How many times have we seen even in the last few weeks times when the GOP makes ignorant statements regarding human rights and pushes forth a biased, right-wing Christian fundamentalist agenda??  Rand Paul, the Texas School Board of Education, Republican criticism against Elena Kagan—just to name a few. 

                Here’s what needs to happen with “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell.”  First, a little history may be important.  It was Bill Clinton’s administration, a Democrat, who passed DADT.  Although Clinton wanted legislation that would eliminate the issue of gays in the military all together, he had to fight a Republican Congress, and he could not get such legislation passed.  Clinton even calls DADT a failure and says we need more, but at the time of its passing, it was the best our Congress could do to protect human freedoms.[5]

                When it comes down to it, very little will change with the removal of DADT.  I’m not here to argue why gays should be allowed in the military; it’s just common sense that one’s race, gender, or sexual orientation do not affect their ability to serve their country.  Sure, some homophobes argue they can’t work with a gay soldier.  Well, maybe I can’t work with someone who prefers Coke over Pepsi.  Get over yourself.  Learn to bridge your differences by the fact that both of you—regardless of sexual orientation—care about serving our country and protecting our freedoms.  How ironic that gay soldiers fight for freedom when they are not free.  DADT is a matter of principle and those who oppose the removal of DADT reveal their ignorance and intolerance.  This country should be about freedom for all.  We’ve been talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a lot recently after ignorant remarks from Tea Party candidates, but let’s check the calendar.  It’s 2010.  Protecting gay rights should be a part of Civil Rights!  The same types of people who protested Civil Rights (in the 60’s and today) are the same types of people protesting gay rights and the repeal of DADT.  Doesn’t that teach us anything????  We have a large group in America who is intolerant, bigoted, and discriminatory, and that group is the right-wing sector of the GOP.  Every now and then the Republicans may offer conservative politicians that are not attached to discrimination.  I used to think McCain was such an example.  However, it is clear when it comes time for re-election, even the least intolerant conservatives will play to the angry base of their party that shouts intolerance. 

                As I’m watching the news, awaiting the results of the vote that will repeal DADT, news commentators are saying things such as, “The Democrats hope/need to get some Republican support, and Democrats are confident a few Republicans will vote with them to end DADT.”  I sigh deeply when I hear this, wondering why the GOP cares so much about keeping outdated discriminatory laws.  I wonder when we will move beyond intolerance.  I hope our government shows me more of that message of hope and change tonight or tomorrow with the removal of DADT.  And I hope those that oppose such legislation hold a mirror up to their faces to see what intolerance looks like in 2010.

---

[1] http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/top_social_conservative.php

[2] http://www.earnedmedia.org/amsrv0526.htm

[3] http://gay.americablog.com/2010/05/type-what-you-want-on-home-page-here.html

[4] http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/05/27/john-mccain-filibuster-to-stop-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-repeal-.html

[5] http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/military_history.html

Finding middle ground (perhaps): Abortion

                                                                                                     

When thinking about controversial issues, we are divided politically often by core values.  Abortion, for example, is steeply divided, but each side of the debate does support a human value worth respecting. Pro-choice individuals promote women’s rights and pro-life individuals promote the rights of the unborn.  It will be impossible to ever come to a consensus on abortion and several other controversial issues, and so I argue that we must find a new debate and find a way to come together.

            In future posts, I’d like to tackle a few controversial issues, briefly review the polar opposites, and propose common ground.  Let’s start with abortion.

            With abortion, for example, we can all agree that we need to do more to prevent unwanted pregnancies.  Unfortunately, a discussion of unwanted pregnancies brings up the debate of abstinence versus sex education.  As a schoolteacher, I fully support sex ed in public schools.  Abstinence is a moral virtue that should be taught by parents, but parents who reject safe sex education enter dangerous ground.  You may remember Palin’s “abstinence only” approach to unwanted pregnancies during the 2008 election.  Palin’s reasoning represented the epitome of irony, as her own daughter became pregnant.  If a potential future candidate for president cannot teach abstinence to her daughter, we cannot expect “abstinence only” programs to be enough in public schools.  Instead, we leave the teaching of values and morals for the parents, and we make sure our children are educated about safe sex and have access to protection. 

            Another way to look at unwanted pregnancies that may help: if a teen gets pregnant (and we know there are higher pregnancy rates in inner-city schools), then the traditional republican/pro-life person will not want to make abortion an option.  So that teen has the child, most likely does not choose to give the baby up for adoption, and then what happens?  Oh yeah, the taxpayers get to feed the baby.  Just another mouth to feed with our tax dollars.  So if you are on the conservative side, you better jump on board with sex ed.  It will help prevent abortion and ultimately save tax dollars.  We need to recognize pro-life vs. pro-choice arguments simply are not sufficient and will not resolve the core problems.  Rather, we must work together to stop unwanted pregnancies. 

            Even when trying to detach from pro-choice vs. pro-life, we find ourselves in a debate about preventing teen pregnancy.  There is one element of irony and hypocrisy we must move beyond: Pro-life supporters cannot reject safe-sex education.  It is absolutely detrimental to a pro-life cause to reject the teaching of safe-sex practices.  Pro-choice supporters certainly are not encouraging unwanted pregnancies.  If the two sides of the debate actually want to tackle the issue, they must coalesce on a campaign that promotes sexual education.

            One other point of note that concerns me in politics: it makes no sense to me for someone to support or reject a presidential candidate based solely on his or her stance on abortion.  I’ve encountered several individuals who have said, for example, “No matter what—I just can’t vote for a president who is not pro-____.”  In all honestly, one person—even the president—is not going to overturn abortion laws.  He or she may try, but it will depend on a majority ruling from the Supreme Court (and yes, I understand the president elects Supreme Court judges).  Still, there are so many other issues that a play an important role in our lives, and when voting for a candidate, we cannot rely completely on one issue.  I wonder how many educated individuals would have voted for Gore or Kerry over Bush if it weren’t for the abortion issue.  Probably enough to make a difference in the outcome of the election!  And when we look back at the differences Bush made (did he make the U.S. a pro life country?—no), we should understand that clearly there are several other important issues to consider.  Abortion and several other polarized, controversial issues cannot be the only reason to support a candidate. 

            Politics is a funny—but interesting—field.  In a polarized society, I argue that it’s definitely time to recognize the pro-live vs. pro-choice arguments will never end, and one side will never concede to the other.  I’m not advocating that people give up on their passions, but I am advocating trying to find common ground—such as promoting better, more comprehensive sex ed programs.  It would be nice to see pro-life and pro-choice people come together to work for the common good.

            Additionally, let’s “not put all our eggs in one basket.”  It’s absolutely ridiculous to support or reject a candidate based primarily on one principle, especially a principle that quite frankly isn’t changing.  If you primarily supported Bush because he was pro-life, I hope you recognize that 1) nothing changed in terms of abortion and 2) more harm than good happened to our economy and society under Bush.  I hope pro-life individuals can remember the eight years of George W. Bush when it comes time to vote in 2012 and not support someone simply because he or she is pro-life. 

           

Are people being nice?

When a kindergartner asks the President if people “are being nice,” then we the people need to take a step back from our political aggressiveness and reflect on how to improve the country, not make it worse.

Obama provided the commencement address at the University of Michigan on May 1, and the first part of the speech that really caught my attention was when Obama referred to a student question he received in a kindergarten classroom: “Are people being nice?”  It’s such a great question and shows the innocence of youth and the corruption of so many adults.  I’d ask the same question to those replying to this blog, to the media, to the politicians on both sides, and yes, I’d ask myself the question too.  The fact is that we are not often nice when it comes to the opposition.  But then we must ask, “How do we be nice?”  Considering all of the lies and the manipulations the media and politicians use, it’s darn hard to be nice.

Obama continues to speak about government, particularly those supposedly opposed to government, and he says, “But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad. One of my favorite signs from the health care debate was one that read ‘Keep Government Out Of My Medicare,’ which is essentially like saying ‘Keep Government Out Of My Government-Run Health Care.’ For when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it conveniently ignores the fact in our democracy, government is us. We, the people, hold in our hands the power to choose our leaders, change our laws, and shape our own destiny.”

In earlier blogs, I’ve mentioned that I am an optimistic person and that I think people can be inherently good.  I like Obama’s statements about government in this speech.  People hate government and have such a negative view of it, but the irony is—we are the government.  He goes on to say that government is why we have police officers and public universities and highways and a military.  Government is not all bad.  What irritates me is that the people on the right are most vocal and shout that government is bad pretty much only when the left is in control.  If the right is control, government is not bad.  Government is the reason we are safe from terrorists and are promoting democracy and freedom throughout the world.  Oh, wait: there’s a democrat in the house? Strike that.  Government is bad and our freedom is threatened.  Oh, the hypocrisy of right wing politics!

Shoot.  Now I’m not being nice.  I’ll try to do better. 

Obama also said in this speech, “We cannot expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down. You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question someone’s views and their judgment without questioning their motives or their patriotism. Throwing around phrases like ‘socialist’ and ‘Soviet-style takeover;’ ‘fascist’ and ‘right-wing nut’ may grab headlines, but it also has the effect of comparing our government, or our political opponents, to authoritarian, and even murderous regimes.”

Are the extremists listening?  Are those of you who say you promote logic and reason listening? We cannot solve problems through fear and insult, yet how often is our political debate nothing more than fear-mongering and name-calling?

Later, Obama said, “Still, if you’re someone who only reads the editorial page of The New York Times, try glancing at the page of The Wall Street Journal once in awhile. If you’re a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on the Huffington Post website. It may make your blood boil; your mind may not often be changed. But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship.”

Wow.  I wonder if the Bush administration would have ever encouraged people to actively pursue opposing viewpoints.  I wonder if Limbaugh or Beck have ever encouraged such a radical idea.  What I like about the people who have commented on this blog and clearly disagree with me is that you are at least exposing yourself to opposing viewpoints.  I applaud you.  But how many members of our political parties (both sides) are really trying to understand the opposite point of view?  I applaud our President for encouraging the graduates of the University of Michigan to do just that.  Maybe there is hope that our future generations will not be as polarized as we are currently.

Obama defends government, and while he may be too idealistic for most people today, I appreciate his partisan compliments to republican predecessors: “This notion hasn’t always been partisan. It was the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, who said that the role of government is to do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves. He would go on to begin that first intercontinental railroad and set up the first land-grant colleges. It was another Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who said that ‘the object of government is the welfare of the people.’ He is remembered for using the power of government to break up monopolies, and establishing our National Park system. Democrat Lyndon Johnson announced the Great Society during a commencement here at Michigan, but it was the Republican president before him, Dwight Eisenhower, who launched the massive government undertaking known as the Interstate Highway System.”

There is so much hate directed at Obama, and certainly every president before him had lots of criticism too.  I know many will say he’s just full of rhetoric, and the real extreme haters will make signs that say, “Hitler was good at giving speeches too.” But I wonder if Hitler ever asked people to consider opposing viewpoints. 

I don’t have the answers.  I just have some observations.  The kindergartner who asks if people are being nice should be a constant reminder as to how we need to grow in politics.  We need to end the insults, the death threats, the immature and ignorant sign making, and get back to reasonable debate.  I like a president who recognizes the need for debate and opposing viewpoints.  He also said, “The second way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate. These arguments we’re having over government and health care and war and taxes are serious arguments. They should arouse people’s passions, and it’s important for everyone to join in the debate, with all the rigor that a free people require.”

 I wonder if Bush ever said something like that to the American people about Iraq or the Patriot Act.  I wonder if in the upcoming elections someone like Sarah Palin would promote the same level of civility.

We have a President who pushes forth his ideas with passion and yet recognizes the need for civil date and opposing viewpoints.  And that is definitely one reason to be proud of Obama. 

Watch the full speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcNXFz_QCVU