"He was a child molester. He was a pedophile. And to be giving this much coverage to him day in and day out, what does it say about us as a country." Congressman Peter King.
I have always accepted the fact that there are millions of brain-dead people out there. Perhaps a majority of people are brain-dead. For the past week the television news shows have been showing the vast outpouring of grief over the death of Michael Jackson. Over a million people are scheduled to be at his memorial service in Los Angeles. This is disturbing and disgusting.
I do not mind that Michael Jackson was a freak who tried to look like a white woman. I recognize that he was a talented performer and that his music was enjoyed by people all over the world. I do not mind that he entered into fake marriages with women one of whom bore him children.
I do mind that he was a child molester. He paid one young boy over $20 million to drop a suit charging him with pedophilia, and was acquitted of another charge simply because of the rigor of proof required in a criminal case and the poor testimony of the complaining boy and his mother. If you are innocent of the charge of molesting a young boy you do not pay him over $20 million to settle the case. You pay him nothing. I was a practicing lawyer for 37 years and I know that you do not have to be a lawyer to understand that simple fact. By his own admission he shared his bed with young boys. There were witnesses who saw him molest one boy. The evidence is overwhelming. It is meaningless that he was acquitted of the crime. He did it. It is very frustrating to understand how many brain-dead people do not understand or do not want to understand the facts. Perhaps there are more child molesters out there than I had ever realized.Perhaps many of the people standing-up for this degenerate pervert are actually child-molester themselves.
I do not understand why more political leaders have not spoken-out as Congressman King did. Is there fear of a backlash from the millions of brain-dead people out there?
Michael Jackson was a repulsive, degenerate human being. I am not sorry he died. Good riddance to a rotten person.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Awash in Evil
In his farewell speech to the board of “Focus on the Family,” James Dobson, 72, said: "We tried to defend the unborn child, the dignity of the family, but it was a holding action. We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles, but God is in control and we are not going to give up now, right?”
In other words, the Democrats won the election. President Obama has already reversed the "Mexico City Policy" that prohibited the use of U.S. money to fund international family planning groups that promote abortion or provide information, counseling, or referrals about abortion services.
President Obama also ended the Bush restrictions on stem-cell research. These restrictions were imposed in the benighted belief that those tiny cells, which were destined for destruction in fertility clinics, were living human beings whose lives were being taken. If Bush actually believed this dubious myth, how could he allow research on some stem-cells but not others? Stem-cell research could lead to dramatic advances in the understanding and treatment of conditions like cancer, diabetes, spinal injuries, heart disease, and Alzheimer's.
Dobson and his group are, indeed, “awash in evil.” It is the evil of profound bigotry, self righteousness, and hypocrisy. His reference to the “dignity of the family” was nothing more than code words for the hatred of homosexuals. It is not simply that these religious right-wingers want to prevent same-sex marriage, they want to forbid all civil freedoms to gay people. They believe that gay people are evil, and they are willing to condemn, vilify, and anathematize this substantial section of the American populace. Anybody who has seen the movies “Milk” or “The Matthew Shepard Story” can understand where that kind of hate leads.
I also maintain that the fight for the “unborn” child is more than a concern for the lives of eggs, embryos, zygotes, and fetuses. It is part of the ongoing war against the personal freedoms of women. In Afghanistan, women are fighting a law that allows their husbands to beat and rape them. It is the same war that continues even here in our enlightened nation. It is led by ultra-conservatives like Dobson and members of Focus on the Family who oppose not only abortion, but also the Morning-After Pill, RU-486, and even ordinary contraception. There is more than Christian devotion in these positions. There is festering hatred and intolerance.
It is this hatred and intolerance that has led to a string of atrocities against abortion doctors and clinics, the most recent of which was the murder of Dr. George Tiller by the fanatic antiabortionist, Scott Roeder. These people who profess such tender solicitation for microscopic cells seem to have no concern about the slaughter of fully grown living human beings. They have winked at the assassinations of abortion providers by killers like Michael Griffin, Paul Hill, John Salvi, Eric Rudolph, Peter James Knight, and James Kopp. They have approved of the bombings, blockades, threats, anthrax mailings, invasions, and vandalizing of abortion clinics.
Dobson’s program for the health of the American family has long been one of ultraconservative backwardness. Dobson and his group oppose women working outside the home if their children are under 18 years of age They oppose sex education that is not abstinence-only. Dobson claimed that "tolerance and its first cousin, diversity, are almost always buzzwords for homosexual advocacy.” He opposed the Harry Potter books and movies and claimed that they promoted witchcraft.
Dobson and his group are awash all right; in ignorance, intolerance, superstition, and hate.
In other words, the Democrats won the election. President Obama has already reversed the "Mexico City Policy" that prohibited the use of U.S. money to fund international family planning groups that promote abortion or provide information, counseling, or referrals about abortion services.
President Obama also ended the Bush restrictions on stem-cell research. These restrictions were imposed in the benighted belief that those tiny cells, which were destined for destruction in fertility clinics, were living human beings whose lives were being taken. If Bush actually believed this dubious myth, how could he allow research on some stem-cells but not others? Stem-cell research could lead to dramatic advances in the understanding and treatment of conditions like cancer, diabetes, spinal injuries, heart disease, and Alzheimer's.
Dobson and his group are, indeed, “awash in evil.” It is the evil of profound bigotry, self righteousness, and hypocrisy. His reference to the “dignity of the family” was nothing more than code words for the hatred of homosexuals. It is not simply that these religious right-wingers want to prevent same-sex marriage, they want to forbid all civil freedoms to gay people. They believe that gay people are evil, and they are willing to condemn, vilify, and anathematize this substantial section of the American populace. Anybody who has seen the movies “Milk” or “The Matthew Shepard Story” can understand where that kind of hate leads.
I also maintain that the fight for the “unborn” child is more than a concern for the lives of eggs, embryos, zygotes, and fetuses. It is part of the ongoing war against the personal freedoms of women. In Afghanistan, women are fighting a law that allows their husbands to beat and rape them. It is the same war that continues even here in our enlightened nation. It is led by ultra-conservatives like Dobson and members of Focus on the Family who oppose not only abortion, but also the Morning-After Pill, RU-486, and even ordinary contraception. There is more than Christian devotion in these positions. There is festering hatred and intolerance.
It is this hatred and intolerance that has led to a string of atrocities against abortion doctors and clinics, the most recent of which was the murder of Dr. George Tiller by the fanatic antiabortionist, Scott Roeder. These people who profess such tender solicitation for microscopic cells seem to have no concern about the slaughter of fully grown living human beings. They have winked at the assassinations of abortion providers by killers like Michael Griffin, Paul Hill, John Salvi, Eric Rudolph, Peter James Knight, and James Kopp. They have approved of the bombings, blockades, threats, anthrax mailings, invasions, and vandalizing of abortion clinics.
Dobson’s program for the health of the American family has long been one of ultraconservative backwardness. Dobson and his group oppose women working outside the home if their children are under 18 years of age They oppose sex education that is not abstinence-only. Dobson claimed that "tolerance and its first cousin, diversity, are almost always buzzwords for homosexual advocacy.” He opposed the Harry Potter books and movies and claimed that they promoted witchcraft.
Dobson and his group are awash all right; in ignorance, intolerance, superstition, and hate.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Global Warming, Cap-and-Trade, and Morality
It became a moral issue for me when I saw a picture of what New York City could look like as early as 2015 as a result of the melting of the polar ice caps. The picture showed Manhattan, where I lived for 13 years and where my son practices law, completely underwater, with only the tall buildings sticking out. This could happen to cities all around the world.
It is a moral question because the Republicans in Congress are trying to prevent President Obama from doing anything about the problem. Despite the overwhelming weight of proof from the most distinguished climate scientists on earth, some Republicans still claim that global warming is not caused by human activity resulting in the emission of greenhouse gases. They do not make this claim because they are in possession of the best evidence. They make this claim because they are subordinate to the fossil-fuel industry which has produced phony scientific reports by paid scientific flunkies.
On February 15 of this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a U.N. sponsored group of leading international climate experts, warned that without decisive action global warming in the 21st century is likely to accelerate at a much faster pace and cause more environmental damage than predicted. In 2007, the IPCC and Al Gore were awarded the Nobel Prize.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), an organization founded by a Nobel Prize laureate and the faculty at MIT, says that “human activities are contributing to global warming by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere. Our fossil fuel use is the main source of these gases.” In 1997, the UCS circulated a petition entitled "A Call to Action." The petition called for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and was signed by 104 Nobel Prize-winning scientists.
The increased warming of our planet has, unfortunately, become a political issue because of the financial subjugation of the Republican Party to its corporate masters in the fossil fuel (oil, gas, and coal) industries. For the last eight years, while the Republicans were in power, nothing was done to fight global warming. It may now be too late to completely stop the onrush of this catastrophe. If we experience the kind of disaster being predicted by scientists, the American people should hold the Republicans responsible.
The bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions currently before the Congress is the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES), HR 2454. The purpose of ACES is to create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming, and effect a transition to a clean energy economy. It includes a “Cap-and-Trade” global warming reduction plan designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent by 2020. Other provisions include new renewable energy requirements for utilities, studies and incentives regarding new carbon capture and sequestration technologies, energy efficiency incentives for homes and buildings, and grants for green jobs.
The idea behind Cap-and-Trade is that various industries are given a cap on the amount of pollutants they are allowed to emit. The government will assess penalties for exceeding the cap. Companies are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of “credits” which represent the right to emit specific amounts of pollutants. Companies that need to increase their emission allowances must buy credits from those who pollute less. It balances out and keeps the nation below the overall cap. It might work.
Republicans are strongly opposed to Cap-and-Trade and are threatening to filibuster the legislation. They have not come up with anything better. It seems that Republicans, who howl about saddling future generations with the debt incurred in order to get us out of the recession, have no problem saddling those generations with apocalyptic environmental devastation.
It is a moral question because the Republicans in Congress are trying to prevent President Obama from doing anything about the problem. Despite the overwhelming weight of proof from the most distinguished climate scientists on earth, some Republicans still claim that global warming is not caused by human activity resulting in the emission of greenhouse gases. They do not make this claim because they are in possession of the best evidence. They make this claim because they are subordinate to the fossil-fuel industry which has produced phony scientific reports by paid scientific flunkies.
On February 15 of this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a U.N. sponsored group of leading international climate experts, warned that without decisive action global warming in the 21st century is likely to accelerate at a much faster pace and cause more environmental damage than predicted. In 2007, the IPCC and Al Gore were awarded the Nobel Prize.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), an organization founded by a Nobel Prize laureate and the faculty at MIT, says that “human activities are contributing to global warming by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere. Our fossil fuel use is the main source of these gases.” In 1997, the UCS circulated a petition entitled "A Call to Action." The petition called for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and was signed by 104 Nobel Prize-winning scientists.
The increased warming of our planet has, unfortunately, become a political issue because of the financial subjugation of the Republican Party to its corporate masters in the fossil fuel (oil, gas, and coal) industries. For the last eight years, while the Republicans were in power, nothing was done to fight global warming. It may now be too late to completely stop the onrush of this catastrophe. If we experience the kind of disaster being predicted by scientists, the American people should hold the Republicans responsible.
The bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions currently before the Congress is the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES), HR 2454. The purpose of ACES is to create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming, and effect a transition to a clean energy economy. It includes a “Cap-and-Trade” global warming reduction plan designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent by 2020. Other provisions include new renewable energy requirements for utilities, studies and incentives regarding new carbon capture and sequestration technologies, energy efficiency incentives for homes and buildings, and grants for green jobs.
The idea behind Cap-and-Trade is that various industries are given a cap on the amount of pollutants they are allowed to emit. The government will assess penalties for exceeding the cap. Companies are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of “credits” which represent the right to emit specific amounts of pollutants. Companies that need to increase their emission allowances must buy credits from those who pollute less. It balances out and keeps the nation below the overall cap. It might work.
Republicans are strongly opposed to Cap-and-Trade and are threatening to filibuster the legislation. They have not come up with anything better. It seems that Republicans, who howl about saddling future generations with the debt incurred in order to get us out of the recession, have no problem saddling those generations with apocalyptic environmental devastation.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Health Care in a Time of Desolation Part 2
Part 1 is below
The United States is the only industrialized country in the world where the economic catastrophe is also a health care catastrophe. All of the other industrialized countries that have economic woes also have single-payer health care systems that work well and provide excellent health care for all of their citizens.
It appears that President Obama and leaders in Congress are not seriously considering the enactment of a single-payer system. Max Baucus, powerful Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, appears to favor continuance of private insurance alongside a weak public option by which people can choose to buy health insurance from the government. Senators Kennedy and Brown are pushing for a strong public option much like our Medicare system.
Many of us, however, would prefer to have a single-payer system and to change the whole corrupt, greedy, wasteful system of private health insurance. Congress should enact the United States National Health Insurance Act (USNHI), H.R. 676, introduced by Representative John Conyers of Michigan and supported by over 90 congressmen. The bill would provide all individuals residing in the United States and in U.S. territories with all medically necessary services, including hearing, eye care, mental health, and dental care for free.
The bill is not modeled after the Canadian plan. Instead, it will be a kind of Medicare for all. It will not constitute socialized medicine. People will be free to choose their own doctors and hospitals.
According to Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), in its first year the single-payer program will save over $150 billion in administrative costs and $50 billion by using rational bulk purchasing of medications. These savings are more than enough to cover all of the uninsured people in America and to improve coverage for everyone else. For all of the people in the private health insurance industry who will be put out of work, the bill provides replacement of two years salary, up to $100 thousand.
Employers who currently provide coverage for their employees now pay an average of 8.5% of employees’ payroll towards health coverage. Many employers can’t afford to provide coverage at all. Private health insurance companies divert 30 cents of every healthcare dollar for CEO salaries, profits, and administration. Under this Act, employers will pay a modest 3.3% payroll tax per employee. The Act eliminates all other employer payments towards health insurance. The average yearly cost to an employer for an employee earning $35,000 per year is currently $2975. Under the new act it will be reduced to $1,155; less than $100 per month.
Your health insurance costs under USNHI will be dramatically lower than they are today. We all know that insurance companies put their bottom line ahead of our health. People are denied coverage because of age, prior condition, or current illness. The enactment of H.R. 676 will guarantee full health coverage to every American no matter the age, state of health, or prior condition. It will entirely eliminate any consideration of profit from medical health decisions.
If such a program is enacted, people who wait until the last minute to come into emergency rooms for treatment of dangerously advanced conditions, will now be able to go in for regular appointments. People who fail to have regular checkups for things like pap smears, mammograms, PSA tests, blood pressure, vaccines, cholesterol, and others, will now be able to afford preventive medicine. This will require additional health care reform to increase the number of doctors, clinics, and hospitals available to treat people.
President Obama should stop trying to mollify the health care industries and the Republicans in Congress. They want only to defeat his every effort at reform. Now is the time to do something really good and enact a single-payer health insurance program.
The United States is the only industrialized country in the world where the economic catastrophe is also a health care catastrophe. All of the other industrialized countries that have economic woes also have single-payer health care systems that work well and provide excellent health care for all of their citizens.
It appears that President Obama and leaders in Congress are not seriously considering the enactment of a single-payer system. Max Baucus, powerful Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, appears to favor continuance of private insurance alongside a weak public option by which people can choose to buy health insurance from the government. Senators Kennedy and Brown are pushing for a strong public option much like our Medicare system.
Many of us, however, would prefer to have a single-payer system and to change the whole corrupt, greedy, wasteful system of private health insurance. Congress should enact the United States National Health Insurance Act (USNHI), H.R. 676, introduced by Representative John Conyers of Michigan and supported by over 90 congressmen. The bill would provide all individuals residing in the United States and in U.S. territories with all medically necessary services, including hearing, eye care, mental health, and dental care for free.
The bill is not modeled after the Canadian plan. Instead, it will be a kind of Medicare for all. It will not constitute socialized medicine. People will be free to choose their own doctors and hospitals.
According to Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), in its first year the single-payer program will save over $150 billion in administrative costs and $50 billion by using rational bulk purchasing of medications. These savings are more than enough to cover all of the uninsured people in America and to improve coverage for everyone else. For all of the people in the private health insurance industry who will be put out of work, the bill provides replacement of two years salary, up to $100 thousand.
Employers who currently provide coverage for their employees now pay an average of 8.5% of employees’ payroll towards health coverage. Many employers can’t afford to provide coverage at all. Private health insurance companies divert 30 cents of every healthcare dollar for CEO salaries, profits, and administration. Under this Act, employers will pay a modest 3.3% payroll tax per employee. The Act eliminates all other employer payments towards health insurance. The average yearly cost to an employer for an employee earning $35,000 per year is currently $2975. Under the new act it will be reduced to $1,155; less than $100 per month.
Your health insurance costs under USNHI will be dramatically lower than they are today. We all know that insurance companies put their bottom line ahead of our health. People are denied coverage because of age, prior condition, or current illness. The enactment of H.R. 676 will guarantee full health coverage to every American no matter the age, state of health, or prior condition. It will entirely eliminate any consideration of profit from medical health decisions.
If such a program is enacted, people who wait until the last minute to come into emergency rooms for treatment of dangerously advanced conditions, will now be able to go in for regular appointments. People who fail to have regular checkups for things like pap smears, mammograms, PSA tests, blood pressure, vaccines, cholesterol, and others, will now be able to afford preventive medicine. This will require additional health care reform to increase the number of doctors, clinics, and hospitals available to treat people.
President Obama should stop trying to mollify the health care industries and the Republicans in Congress. They want only to defeat his every effort at reform. Now is the time to do something really good and enact a single-payer health insurance program.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Education, Intelligence, and Elitism
When I wrote a column discussing the lack of education found in conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, and compared it with the educational accomplishments of liberal news people, the letters poured in calling me an “elitist.” I also contrasted the low educational achievements of Bush Administration officials with the extraordinary accomplishments of President Obama and his team. This seemed to outrage the right-wing people who responded to my column by saying that we would be far better-off in Washington with less educated people.
It seems that there is a kind of class hatred by conservatives toward liberals and toward the generally higher level of liberals’ education. Conservatives feel that they are looked down upon by more intellectual liberals. It is not unlike the deep resentment felt by lower class people toward wealthy and sophisticated people. That kind of resentment has fueled violent revolutions.
I probably am an elitist. I believe that when it comes to news commentators, the truth is more likely to be heard from highly educated people than from uneducated people. I believe that the best people to run a government are the most highly educated and intelligent people. I simply cannot understand people’s claim that we need uneducated people running this country. When G. Harrold Carswell was nominated by President Nixon to the Supreme Court, Democrats charged that he was a mediocre judge. In defense, Senator Hruska of Nebraska said: "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance.” I don’t know if he was kidding or not.
The last thing you want on the Supreme Court is a mediocre judge. The most important attribute of any Supreme Court justice must be intelligence. If I am an elitist because I want my Supreme Court justices to be highly educated intellectuals, so be it. The same applies to the President and his Administration. I want the very brightest people running the country. If this is discrimination against not-so-bright people, so be it. I realize that highly educated people can make major mistakes. A good example would be the list of mistakes involving Viet Nam described in "The Best and The Brightest" by David Halberstam. I realize that all governments make mistakes, but I want those decisions being made by educated and intelligent people, not dunderheads.
I am firmly convinced that there is a wide gap in education and intelligence between liberals and conservatives. This is proven not only by the difference between liberal and conservative media commentators and the difference between liberal and conservative governmental officials, but also by the people one meets everyday. I realize that many poor minority people can be considered liberal, and that many of them do not have extensive education, but when I speak of liberals and conservatives, I am speaking of the middle and upper-class people of all races who do not suffer from the obstacles that confront the poor people.
My thesis is proven by the letters to the editor opposing my columns. It is surprising that people writing to the editor are willing to have such illiterate letters published for all the public to see. The letters are not only substantively stupid, but are filled with grammatical and spelling errors. In some cases it is almost as if the writer was a secret liberal trying to make conservative letter-writers look foolish.
One recent letter writer, who was incensed that I dared to criticize the far right-wing organizations like the Ku Klux Klan, started a sentence, “The vitrol language you have used…” The remainder of his letter is long, ungrammatical, and unintelligible. His other letters are equally dumb. Another letter-writer penned the following brilliant remark about me: “It’s not hard to see nor read he truly doesn’t know what he is talking about nor does he speak for Americans.” The same writer recently wrote, and repeated, that President Barack Obama is a “Muslin.” I suggested to the editor of the paper that perhaps we should call President Obama the “Commander in sheets.”
I also notice that even the letters that are not illiterate show a high degree of stupidity. It is as if such writers did not actually read my column and are responding to some other commentary. I wrote a column carefully examining why some female voters who had supported Hillary Clinton refused to vote for Barack Obama, and suggested that some, not all, might be doing so because of racism. One writer complained that I was painting all people who switched from Clinton to John McCain as racists. In my column I had gone out of my way to say the opposite. In another column I expressed concern that vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin had once called the head librarian in town to inquire about censoring some books. I was careful to note that no books were actually removed. Nevertheless, one writer complained that I had accused Palin of book-burning. This kind of thing has happened repeatedly.
I recently wrote a column describing the stupidity of ultra right-wing organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. I did so hoping to draw some Klan sympathizers out of the woodwork. One of my frequent critics took the bait and wrote a letter to the editor in which he accused me of “defiling” myself. I assume that, unless he is a secret liberal trying to make conservatives look like idiots, he is a Klan or militia sympathizer. He has now walked into my trap and exposed his true beliefs for everybody to see.
I have noticed that southwest Ohio is heavily populated by far right-wing types. I assume that somehow, large numbers of Southern rednecks came up from the South and settled in this area. These are the least educated Americans. They are the most conservative, and in many cases, their conservatism spills over into extremism. When I use the term “redneck,” they complain because they identify with that term. They are proud to be gun-toting, rebel-flag-waving, Klan sympathizing, bigoted, uneducated, ignorant, repulsive rednecks. They know that they can never be intellectuals, so they wallow in their own ignorance.
It seems that there is a kind of class hatred by conservatives toward liberals and toward the generally higher level of liberals’ education. Conservatives feel that they are looked down upon by more intellectual liberals. It is not unlike the deep resentment felt by lower class people toward wealthy and sophisticated people. That kind of resentment has fueled violent revolutions.
I probably am an elitist. I believe that when it comes to news commentators, the truth is more likely to be heard from highly educated people than from uneducated people. I believe that the best people to run a government are the most highly educated and intelligent people. I simply cannot understand people’s claim that we need uneducated people running this country. When G. Harrold Carswell was nominated by President Nixon to the Supreme Court, Democrats charged that he was a mediocre judge. In defense, Senator Hruska of Nebraska said: "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance.” I don’t know if he was kidding or not.
The last thing you want on the Supreme Court is a mediocre judge. The most important attribute of any Supreme Court justice must be intelligence. If I am an elitist because I want my Supreme Court justices to be highly educated intellectuals, so be it. The same applies to the President and his Administration. I want the very brightest people running the country. If this is discrimination against not-so-bright people, so be it. I realize that highly educated people can make major mistakes. A good example would be the list of mistakes involving Viet Nam described in "The Best and The Brightest" by David Halberstam. I realize that all governments make mistakes, but I want those decisions being made by educated and intelligent people, not dunderheads.
I am firmly convinced that there is a wide gap in education and intelligence between liberals and conservatives. This is proven not only by the difference between liberal and conservative media commentators and the difference between liberal and conservative governmental officials, but also by the people one meets everyday. I realize that many poor minority people can be considered liberal, and that many of them do not have extensive education, but when I speak of liberals and conservatives, I am speaking of the middle and upper-class people of all races who do not suffer from the obstacles that confront the poor people.
My thesis is proven by the letters to the editor opposing my columns. It is surprising that people writing to the editor are willing to have such illiterate letters published for all the public to see. The letters are not only substantively stupid, but are filled with grammatical and spelling errors. In some cases it is almost as if the writer was a secret liberal trying to make conservative letter-writers look foolish.
One recent letter writer, who was incensed that I dared to criticize the far right-wing organizations like the Ku Klux Klan, started a sentence, “The vitrol language you have used…” The remainder of his letter is long, ungrammatical, and unintelligible. His other letters are equally dumb. Another letter-writer penned the following brilliant remark about me: “It’s not hard to see nor read he truly doesn’t know what he is talking about nor does he speak for Americans.” The same writer recently wrote, and repeated, that President Barack Obama is a “Muslin.” I suggested to the editor of the paper that perhaps we should call President Obama the “Commander in sheets.”
I also notice that even the letters that are not illiterate show a high degree of stupidity. It is as if such writers did not actually read my column and are responding to some other commentary. I wrote a column carefully examining why some female voters who had supported Hillary Clinton refused to vote for Barack Obama, and suggested that some, not all, might be doing so because of racism. One writer complained that I was painting all people who switched from Clinton to John McCain as racists. In my column I had gone out of my way to say the opposite. In another column I expressed concern that vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin had once called the head librarian in town to inquire about censoring some books. I was careful to note that no books were actually removed. Nevertheless, one writer complained that I had accused Palin of book-burning. This kind of thing has happened repeatedly.
I recently wrote a column describing the stupidity of ultra right-wing organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. I did so hoping to draw some Klan sympathizers out of the woodwork. One of my frequent critics took the bait and wrote a letter to the editor in which he accused me of “defiling” myself. I assume that, unless he is a secret liberal trying to make conservatives look like idiots, he is a Klan or militia sympathizer. He has now walked into my trap and exposed his true beliefs for everybody to see.
I have noticed that southwest Ohio is heavily populated by far right-wing types. I assume that somehow, large numbers of Southern rednecks came up from the South and settled in this area. These are the least educated Americans. They are the most conservative, and in many cases, their conservatism spills over into extremism. When I use the term “redneck,” they complain because they identify with that term. They are proud to be gun-toting, rebel-flag-waving, Klan sympathizing, bigoted, uneducated, ignorant, repulsive rednecks. They know that they can never be intellectuals, so they wallow in their own ignorance.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The President's Cairo Speech
President Obama gave a speech in Cairo that transcended the usual bounds of international oratory and awoke my deepest hopes in the future of mankind. He was cheered by the Moslem audience for his bold call for rejection of terrorism and for peace. I was deeply moved by the speech, and when it was over I was still on an emotional high. Then I walked into the kitchen where Julie had Fox News on television. The speakers had seen the speech and were unmoved by the President’s eloquence. They offered scathing criticism of his efforts to call for respect, tolerance, and cooperation between America and the Moslem world. My already high emotions turned to genuine anger.
I realize that humans are complex creatures, and that the emotions of anger and hostility are more powerful than feelings of tolerance, love, kindness, decency, and peace. I assume that these negative emotions are part of man’s evolution, and are part of the instinct for survival. The deep hostility felt by American conservatives for Moslems is an automatic reaction to Moslem hostility toward America. Likewise, conservatives feel great hostility toward President Obama because he has defeated their leaders in democratic elections and has replaced their politics with a new view of the world.
Nevertheless, I was enraged by the petty and parochial remarks of the Fox News commentators. They do not want our president going over to Arabia and calling for mutual understanding. They want him to take a tough stand against terrorism and against Moslems in general. I believe that they are no better than the extremists of al Qaeda who sow hate in their every reference to America. The President was calling for a better world in which the hatred of Moslem terrorists and American conservatives would be overcome by the decency of thinking people.
I also realized that my anger was part of the problem. As much as I admired the call for peace by the President, I was seething with hate for my fellow Americans who do not agree with President Obama. I realized that the anger I felt was the same kind of anger as the anger that festers in the hearts of Moslem terrorists and American bigots. I could think and meditate all I wanted, but the rising anger was a gut reaction to the remarks of the conservatives on Fox.
I wonder if we will ever be able to get beyond these instinctive emotions. We denounce hate, bigotry, anger, terrorism, and war, but deep in our consciousness we feel a strong affinity with these emotions. I believe that we actually get pleasure out of these emotions. I know that when soldiers march off to war we feel a form of elation, not unlike a high generated by drugs. It is part of our chemical makeup. I remember my emotions when I was watching the air bombardment of Baghdad that began the first Gulf War. I was very excited and proud. I had the same feeling watching the “Shock and Awe” bombardment of Baghdad in the second Gulf War. The emotions we are most ashamed of are the same ones that somehow elevate our mood and propel us to action.
I have watched preachers like Jimmy Swaggert speak before large audiences. They will try every emotional trick in the book to arouse the followers, but the one that seems to work the best is the emotion of anger. After they have gone after the emotions of awe, sympathy, devotion, sorrow, and tears, they will sometimes go after anger against Hollywood movie-makers, people favoring pro choice on abortion, feminists, pornographers, homosexuals, liberals, and other sinners. Such appeals will usually bring the congregation to its feet with cheering and clapping.
I hope that the President’s speech will have an effect on the people who heard it throughout the Middle East as well as on listeners around the world. He understands that it will not solve all of our problems, but perhaps, because it was such a soaring, fine speech, it will touch the hearts of a few and help reduce the hate that permeates the relationship between Moslems and the West. I hope it can also reduce the anger in my heart.
I realize that humans are complex creatures, and that the emotions of anger and hostility are more powerful than feelings of tolerance, love, kindness, decency, and peace. I assume that these negative emotions are part of man’s evolution, and are part of the instinct for survival. The deep hostility felt by American conservatives for Moslems is an automatic reaction to Moslem hostility toward America. Likewise, conservatives feel great hostility toward President Obama because he has defeated their leaders in democratic elections and has replaced their politics with a new view of the world.
Nevertheless, I was enraged by the petty and parochial remarks of the Fox News commentators. They do not want our president going over to Arabia and calling for mutual understanding. They want him to take a tough stand against terrorism and against Moslems in general. I believe that they are no better than the extremists of al Qaeda who sow hate in their every reference to America. The President was calling for a better world in which the hatred of Moslem terrorists and American conservatives would be overcome by the decency of thinking people.
I also realized that my anger was part of the problem. As much as I admired the call for peace by the President, I was seething with hate for my fellow Americans who do not agree with President Obama. I realized that the anger I felt was the same kind of anger as the anger that festers in the hearts of Moslem terrorists and American bigots. I could think and meditate all I wanted, but the rising anger was a gut reaction to the remarks of the conservatives on Fox.
I wonder if we will ever be able to get beyond these instinctive emotions. We denounce hate, bigotry, anger, terrorism, and war, but deep in our consciousness we feel a strong affinity with these emotions. I believe that we actually get pleasure out of these emotions. I know that when soldiers march off to war we feel a form of elation, not unlike a high generated by drugs. It is part of our chemical makeup. I remember my emotions when I was watching the air bombardment of Baghdad that began the first Gulf War. I was very excited and proud. I had the same feeling watching the “Shock and Awe” bombardment of Baghdad in the second Gulf War. The emotions we are most ashamed of are the same ones that somehow elevate our mood and propel us to action.
I have watched preachers like Jimmy Swaggert speak before large audiences. They will try every emotional trick in the book to arouse the followers, but the one that seems to work the best is the emotion of anger. After they have gone after the emotions of awe, sympathy, devotion, sorrow, and tears, they will sometimes go after anger against Hollywood movie-makers, people favoring pro choice on abortion, feminists, pornographers, homosexuals, liberals, and other sinners. Such appeals will usually bring the congregation to its feet with cheering and clapping.
I hope that the President’s speech will have an effect on the people who heard it throughout the Middle East as well as on listeners around the world. He understands that it will not solve all of our problems, but perhaps, because it was such a soaring, fine speech, it will touch the hearts of a few and help reduce the hate that permeates the relationship between Moslems and the West. I hope it can also reduce the anger in my heart.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Health Care In a Time of Desolation, Part 1
The cost of health care in America has risen dramatically faster than the cost of living and far beyond the ability of most middle-class people to afford. The enormously profitable health insurance and health care industries in America are frantically trying to head-off the inevitable passage of universal health coverage. They have now stooped to disgraceful lying and deceit to achieve their goal.
On May 11, 2009, President Obama met with six major health care organizations which promised to cut health care costs. The President hailed their promise as historic: “These groups are voluntarily coming together to make an unprecedented commitment,” the President said. “Over the next 10 years, from 2010 to 2019, they are pledging to cut the rate of growth of national health care spending by 1.5 percentage points each year — an amount that’s equal to over $2 trillion.”
Shortly after the meeting, the health care lobby pulled a double-cross. Despite clear proof to the contrary from notes taken at the meeting, the hospital association insisted that it had not, in fact, promised what the President said it had promised. The association said that President Obama had substantially overstated their promise to reduce the growth of health spending. The head of the hospital lobby said: “The groups did not support reducing the rate of health spending by 1.5 percentage points annually.” The head of the insurance lobby said that the idea was merely to “ramp up” savings, whatever that means. They lied to the President and to the public.
President Obama desperately wants to achieve bipartisan health care reform with the cooperation of the existing health care and health insurance industries. Unfortunately, these industries, and their Republican allies in Congress, do not plan to play by the same rules. They are willing to slap the President in the face for his naïve belief in their cooperation.
Everyone knows that the crucial element of any healthcare reform will have to be a “public option,” that is, a plan offering Americans the right to buy health insurance directly from the government as well as from private insurance companies. Without it, any health care reform will be meaningless. Legislation for such a plan is being spearheaded by Senator Sherrod Brown.
In spite of their fraudulent assertions about reducing the cost of health care, the health insurance lobby is actually gearing-up to stick a knife into the back of the President’s efforts to bring about meaningful health care reform.
On May 18, 2009, the Washington Post reported that one week after the May 11 meeting, the health insurance industry completed an ad campaign aimed at killing the public option plank in the President’s platform. The ads are like the infamous Harry and Louise ads that helped kill health care reform in 1993. The Post reported that: “In three 30-second videos, the insurer paints a picture of a future system in which patients wait months for appointments and can't choose their own doctors.”
Such ads are dishonest and repugnant. A public option would not result in waits for appointments, denial of choice of doctors and hospitals, or any of the other problems threatened. There are already large programs providing governmental health insurance for tens of millions of people, including Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE for veterans, the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program, and numerous state health insurance programs such as Ohio’s OPERS. None of these programs have brought about the kind of horror stories being spread by the health care lobbyists.
The health care industries are driven by profits and greed. They have vast sums of money with which to fight healthcare reform, and you can be sure that they will use it. Be prepared to see frequent commercials denouncing government-provided health insurance. Do not be hoodwinked by their mendacity.
On May 11, 2009, President Obama met with six major health care organizations which promised to cut health care costs. The President hailed their promise as historic: “These groups are voluntarily coming together to make an unprecedented commitment,” the President said. “Over the next 10 years, from 2010 to 2019, they are pledging to cut the rate of growth of national health care spending by 1.5 percentage points each year — an amount that’s equal to over $2 trillion.”
Shortly after the meeting, the health care lobby pulled a double-cross. Despite clear proof to the contrary from notes taken at the meeting, the hospital association insisted that it had not, in fact, promised what the President said it had promised. The association said that President Obama had substantially overstated their promise to reduce the growth of health spending. The head of the hospital lobby said: “The groups did not support reducing the rate of health spending by 1.5 percentage points annually.” The head of the insurance lobby said that the idea was merely to “ramp up” savings, whatever that means. They lied to the President and to the public.
President Obama desperately wants to achieve bipartisan health care reform with the cooperation of the existing health care and health insurance industries. Unfortunately, these industries, and their Republican allies in Congress, do not plan to play by the same rules. They are willing to slap the President in the face for his naïve belief in their cooperation.
Everyone knows that the crucial element of any healthcare reform will have to be a “public option,” that is, a plan offering Americans the right to buy health insurance directly from the government as well as from private insurance companies. Without it, any health care reform will be meaningless. Legislation for such a plan is being spearheaded by Senator Sherrod Brown.
In spite of their fraudulent assertions about reducing the cost of health care, the health insurance lobby is actually gearing-up to stick a knife into the back of the President’s efforts to bring about meaningful health care reform.
On May 18, 2009, the Washington Post reported that one week after the May 11 meeting, the health insurance industry completed an ad campaign aimed at killing the public option plank in the President’s platform. The ads are like the infamous Harry and Louise ads that helped kill health care reform in 1993. The Post reported that: “In three 30-second videos, the insurer paints a picture of a future system in which patients wait months for appointments and can't choose their own doctors.”
Such ads are dishonest and repugnant. A public option would not result in waits for appointments, denial of choice of doctors and hospitals, or any of the other problems threatened. There are already large programs providing governmental health insurance for tens of millions of people, including Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE for veterans, the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program, and numerous state health insurance programs such as Ohio’s OPERS. None of these programs have brought about the kind of horror stories being spread by the health care lobbyists.
The health care industries are driven by profits and greed. They have vast sums of money with which to fight healthcare reform, and you can be sure that they will use it. Be prepared to see frequent commercials denouncing government-provided health insurance. Do not be hoodwinked by their mendacity.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Murder of an Abortion Doctor
What makes someone become so enraged that he is willing to risk his life, his freedom, and his future in order to murder an abortion doctor? On May 31, 2009, Scott Roeder apparently murdered abortion doctor George Tiller in the vestibule of Tiller’s church in Wichita Kansas. Roeder, an avid anti-abortion activist, was arrested shortly afterward while driving. His license plate and automobile were identified by witnesses, and there appears to be no doubt about his guilt. Police surmise that he acted alone.
The profile of Scott Roeder is not surprising. He has been active in far-right organizations including the group known as “Operation Rescue.” He has posted items on the Operation Rescue website urging people to go to Doctor Tiller’s church and confront him. He is known to have links with militia groups, including one called the “Montana Freeman” and another called the “Kansas Unorganized Citizens Militia.” Roeder is a “sovereign citizen” and tax protester. The sovereign citizen movement is a network of right-wing people who claim to be "sovereign citizens," that is, people who claim to have certain rights under English common law and to be unaccountable to the federal government.
In April, 1996, Roeder was arrested by Shawnee County sheriff’s deputies in Kansas for not having a proper license plate. In his car officers found ammunition, a blasting cap, a fuse cord, a one-pound can of gun powder, and two nine-volt batteries with one connected to a switch that could have been used to trigger a bomb. He was sentenced to 24 months of probation. He violated his parole by not filing tax returns or providing his social security number to his employer, and was subsequently sentenced to sixteen months in state prison for parole violation.
Roeder is the quintessential type of extremist who would be likely to carry-out the murder of an abortion doctor. He is obviously a loser who has failed in everything in life. He is probably uneducated, and may not even have graduated from high school. I would guess that he suffers from a serious inferiority complex. All of his life he has suffered from self-doubt, especially when confronted by wealthier, better educated, more successful people. Nothing has perturbed him and damaged his self-image more than seeing women who have successful careers, make more money, are better educated, and are more sophisticated than him. Such women would be certain to reject him as a possible suitor.
So what makes men like Roeder rise to a boil that carries them into murder? I don’t think it is concern for the unborn. While the thought of abortion of potential humans may upset people like Roeder, I do not think it is the primary motivating factor in their extreme pro-life behavior. People do not go into a rage simply because they see an injustice being done to others. People are most profoundly motivated by actions that attack their own sense of self-worth. I believe that what really set Roeder off was probably feelings of class hatred.
Down through history people have always been moved to hatred, revenge, and revolution against those who were richer, higher class, more educated, and more powerful than they. While we know about the big revolutions like the French and the Russian revolutions, there were many others that did not succeed and that were based on the same class antagonism; just to name a few, there was the peasants revolts in France in 1357, in England in 1381, and in Germany in 1524. I will bet that what the peasants hated the most was the way in which the nobles and royalty looked-down on the common people.
Today in America we do not have nobles or royalty, but there still exists powerful class antagonism by many people against wealthy, educated, or successful people. I believe that it is one of the prime motivating factors of the Right-to-Life movement. Both men and women of the right-wing see that the leaders of the Freedom-of-Choice movement are higher class, better educated, and often successful career women. They feel that these women look down on them. This outrages them far more than any feelings they may have about the actual act of abortion. They see that the women seeking abortion rights want those rights because they want to be able to go on with their careers and activities without being burdened by pregnancies and motherhood. Those women, by their success and education, shame the pro-lifers by pointing out the pro-lifers' career and educational deficiencies. It is a class thing.
If you look at the demographics of far-right extremist groups, you will note that they are made-up of the lowest levels of white society. Most members are uneducated, working at lowly jobs, and, frequently, out-of work or doing badly in their menial jobs. These people carry an enormous amount of class hatred, and while they may rail against minorities, their primary hatred is for educated liberals. Their antagonism against Blacks, Latinos, and other ethnic groups is a sop to enable them to feel superior to someone. When Barack Obama, a biracial American with extraordinary educational accomplishments, was elected President, it upset their theories and feelings of superiority. They simply hate him. He makes them realize that even a minority person can accomplish far more than they can. Seething with anger toward the power elite in America, these are the kind of people who would murder an abortion doctor.
The profile of Scott Roeder is not surprising. He has been active in far-right organizations including the group known as “Operation Rescue.” He has posted items on the Operation Rescue website urging people to go to Doctor Tiller’s church and confront him. He is known to have links with militia groups, including one called the “Montana Freeman” and another called the “Kansas Unorganized Citizens Militia.” Roeder is a “sovereign citizen” and tax protester. The sovereign citizen movement is a network of right-wing people who claim to be "sovereign citizens," that is, people who claim to have certain rights under English common law and to be unaccountable to the federal government.
In April, 1996, Roeder was arrested by Shawnee County sheriff’s deputies in Kansas for not having a proper license plate. In his car officers found ammunition, a blasting cap, a fuse cord, a one-pound can of gun powder, and two nine-volt batteries with one connected to a switch that could have been used to trigger a bomb. He was sentenced to 24 months of probation. He violated his parole by not filing tax returns or providing his social security number to his employer, and was subsequently sentenced to sixteen months in state prison for parole violation.
Roeder is the quintessential type of extremist who would be likely to carry-out the murder of an abortion doctor. He is obviously a loser who has failed in everything in life. He is probably uneducated, and may not even have graduated from high school. I would guess that he suffers from a serious inferiority complex. All of his life he has suffered from self-doubt, especially when confronted by wealthier, better educated, more successful people. Nothing has perturbed him and damaged his self-image more than seeing women who have successful careers, make more money, are better educated, and are more sophisticated than him. Such women would be certain to reject him as a possible suitor.
So what makes men like Roeder rise to a boil that carries them into murder? I don’t think it is concern for the unborn. While the thought of abortion of potential humans may upset people like Roeder, I do not think it is the primary motivating factor in their extreme pro-life behavior. People do not go into a rage simply because they see an injustice being done to others. People are most profoundly motivated by actions that attack their own sense of self-worth. I believe that what really set Roeder off was probably feelings of class hatred.
Down through history people have always been moved to hatred, revenge, and revolution against those who were richer, higher class, more educated, and more powerful than they. While we know about the big revolutions like the French and the Russian revolutions, there were many others that did not succeed and that were based on the same class antagonism; just to name a few, there was the peasants revolts in France in 1357, in England in 1381, and in Germany in 1524. I will bet that what the peasants hated the most was the way in which the nobles and royalty looked-down on the common people.
Today in America we do not have nobles or royalty, but there still exists powerful class antagonism by many people against wealthy, educated, or successful people. I believe that it is one of the prime motivating factors of the Right-to-Life movement. Both men and women of the right-wing see that the leaders of the Freedom-of-Choice movement are higher class, better educated, and often successful career women. They feel that these women look down on them. This outrages them far more than any feelings they may have about the actual act of abortion. They see that the women seeking abortion rights want those rights because they want to be able to go on with their careers and activities without being burdened by pregnancies and motherhood. Those women, by their success and education, shame the pro-lifers by pointing out the pro-lifers' career and educational deficiencies. It is a class thing.
If you look at the demographics of far-right extremist groups, you will note that they are made-up of the lowest levels of white society. Most members are uneducated, working at lowly jobs, and, frequently, out-of work or doing badly in their menial jobs. These people carry an enormous amount of class hatred, and while they may rail against minorities, their primary hatred is for educated liberals. Their antagonism against Blacks, Latinos, and other ethnic groups is a sop to enable them to feel superior to someone. When Barack Obama, a biracial American with extraordinary educational accomplishments, was elected President, it upset their theories and feelings of superiority. They simply hate him. He makes them realize that even a minority person can accomplish far more than they can. Seething with anger toward the power elite in America, these are the kind of people who would murder an abortion doctor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
