Democrats & Liberals Archives

False Leadership

According to George Lakoff, in his book “Whose Freedom?” both conservatives and progressives use the nation-as-family metaphor, but they differ in the models they use. Conservatives believe in the strict-father model, or frame, while progressives follow the nurturant-parent frame. On the surface, these frames seem to explain why Republicans slavishly follow our dear leader whereas Democrats do not. However, Republicans should not be so gung ho for Bush either because he exercises false leadership.

Liberals and Democrats, who think of the nation as a family led by nurturant parents, are against Bush and his Republican cronies because they believe all Americans are part of one big community. As a community, we are against preemptive war. Yes, we must defend ourselves, but we should not seek wars of choice. Instead of tax cuts and other goodies for the rich, we should concentrate on helping all our citizens with a minimum wage people could live on, a healthcare system to keep all of us in good shape and a Social Security system to keep us above water in old age. We should not be required to give up our civil liberties. We definitely oppose secrecy, torture and spying without a warrant.

Conservatives and Republicans, who think of the nation as a family led by a strict father, believe that each individual must learn to fend for himself. They like Bush's militaristic approach to our enemies, his eagerness for tax cuts for the rich, his subsidies to Big Business, his try to gut Social Security so that each worker would be "free" to accept risk, even the torture and warrantless spying that would (they think) keep them safer.

I say that even if you believe in the strict-father frame, Bush and the current Republican leadership don't meet the test of leadership.

Wrong-Way Corrigan

Back in 1938, Douglas Corrigan became famous when he misread his compass and flew from New York to Ireland - when he was supposed to be flying from New York to California. They called him "Wrong Way Corrigan." Bush is another "Wrong Way Corrigan."

Bush likes to repeat that we should "stay the course." He says this over and over, ad nauseum. Yet, he is the one that has changed course. We were on the right course when we attacked the Taliban after 9/11. Then, suddenly Bush changed course by pulling the troops out of Afghanistan where we were fighting the "war on terror" and sending them to Iraq, which was not related to the "war on terror" in any way. What sort of leader (strict or otherwise) is it who does not know where he is going?

Power by Division

Bush likes to claim he is a "war president." It seems to me that one of the most important things for a commander-in-chief or other leader to do in time of war is to unify the country. This is what FDR did during World War II. This is what Churchill did during that awful war.

What did Bush do? He labeled all those who disagree with what he says as disloyal. Some of his henchmen called them traitors. Five years later, this is still going on. Bush and the Republicans have managed to divide the public so well that now 60% disagree with them - they say that the Iraq war was a mistake. Bush and the Republicans are doing this in order to gain power. Not power to win the war, but power to win elections. Would any true leader seek power by division in this way?

Neglect of Threats

While keeping our armed forces tied down in Iraq, threats have been multiplying. North Korea had a missile test and our response was nothing. Pakistan tested a nuclear bomb - the so-called Islamic bomb - and we embraced them as friends. Kahn, the Pakistani guy who ran the nuclear weapons program, and who supplies both Iran and North Korea with WMD, is free to spread weapons while we do nothing. Pakistan as well as Saudi Arabia run madrasas where they instill students with hate for America and train violent jihadists, and we welcome them as allies.

Bush has completely neglected the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the horrible results we just witnessed. Some leader.

Neglect of Protection

Republican idea of protection: Throw away your toothpase, your makeup and your laptop before getting on an airplane. Now, don't you feel safer? If we knew about these dangerous liquid explosives before - and we did - why was nothing done before? Why don't we pay more attention to cargo? Why aren't our train systems and our busses protected? Why is nothing done to safeguard our ports?


What is our strict father doing? He is leading us to catastrophe. Instead of fighting terrorists, "Wrong Way Corrigan" has thrust us into the middle of a civil war in Iraq and iredeemably divided our country, while neglecting to protect the homeland against real threats. This is false leadership. Even those who believe in a strict-father frame should not put up with it.

Vote for new leadership this fall.

Posted by Paul Siegel at August 14, 2006 5:58 PM
Comments
Comment #175492

There will always be a war as long as the republicians are in power because they are making money off the war. Just take a look at what companys are making and selling the bombs they are using all over the middle east. Who the people are that are the CEO’s of those companys

Posted by: carl at August 14, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #175491

There will always be a war as long as the republicians are in power because they are making money off the war. Just take a look at what companys are making and selling the bombs they are using all over the middle east. Who the people are that are the CEO’s of those companys

Posted by: carl at August 14, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #175493

Well said, and I whole-heartedly agree, the problem that I see though, is that a logical well thought discussion of the facts can not be had with GWB or his supporters. As soon as you disagree with the Bushies they begin with the name calling i.e. traitor, coward, cut and runner, or other such drivel. As a former member of the 101st. I feel that I have as much right as anyone else in this country to speak my mind, but, have learned that a rational discussion can not be had with the Bush supporters that I have met, so I try and keep my mouth shut in public, I finally fully understand what the term small minded means and the irrational anger and hatred I get when trying for a rational discourse seems to be exactly the effect GWB and his cronies want. My only hope is that enough people will wake up and vote for a change in the coming elections, and would also like to say that we need to keep a good eye on the vote tallying, as I don’t think the people currently in power can be trusted to admit honest defeat.

Posted by: jim wise at August 14, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #175495

What a crock.

Conservatives do not look to the government as parents. Maybe a distant Uncle.

Conservatives do not look to the government to take care of all of their problems.

Conservatives want as little contact with their government as possible.

Conservatives do not look to the government to take care of them from cradle to grave.

Posted by: Keith at August 14, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #175498

Jim Wise,

First let me say thank you gor the sacrafice you made for the rest of us. AIRBORNE!!! I was in the 173rd many years ago.

I see many bloggers in here on the consertive side who don’t resort to name calling and will carry on an honest conversation with you, such as Jack, Dr. Politico, Me (if I may be so humble)
And I also see several on the left who will debate in an equally civilized manner.

You have every right to speak your mind and it doesn’t matter that you served. You and I both served to guarantee those rights to everyone. You don’t have the right to be heard. Everyone who wants to be listened to must make their presentation worth listening to.

You say ” As soon as you disagree with the Bushies they begin with the name calling i.e. traitor, coward, cut and runner, or other such drivel.” Then in the same post you call conservitives “small minded”…” I finally fully understand what the term small minded means and the irrational anger and hatred I get when trying for a rational discourse seems to be exactly the effect GWB and his cronies want.” and then call them dishonest…”and would also like to say that we need to keep a good eye on the vote tallying, as I don’t think the people currently in power can be trusted to admit honest defeat.”


Posted by: tomd at August 14, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #175499

Thats a good thing kieth because the goverment can’t take care of anything but the ritch and corperations. What have they done in the last five years? Are we a better country now than when the republicans took over? I don’t see it. Your uncle isn’t invited over for christmas because he is a asshole.

Posted by: chris at August 14, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #175501

Good one Keith: Seigel and his ilk are spouting their drivel continuely. One must point out to them their Lack of a strict father figure when they were growing up.This unfortunate circumstance doomed the liberal to run from fights that could physically harm them. Instead the hang out on the blog pages calling real men warmongers, where the most danger they are in is the feeling of terror when they are confronted by the truth.

Posted by: JC at August 14, 2006 8:22 PM
Comment #175503

Keith:

“Conservatives do not look to the government to take care of all of their problems. “

And neither do the American people. They want just some of the bigger problems addressed. Sorry, it is the nature of running a government—people look to government to solve problems. It’s called G-O-V-E-R-N-I-N-G. Unfortunately, the cons take a dim view of this. (See below)

“Conservatives want as little contact with their government as possible.”

Actually, this is starting to dawn on the American people—that cons don’t want to govern, they just want to campaign, and verbally bash people. Governance (see above) actually requires a game plan, a belief that government is a tool that, when applied judiciously and run efficiently, can actually improve people’s lives. As you say, the cons don’t agree with this, and the American people are at a loss to see why they are esconced in government, seeing that they think so little of it. Imagine the American people’s surprise when they (supposedly) elected some people to run the government—AND NOBODY SHOWED UP!

“Conservatives do not look to the government to take care of them from cradle to grave.”

For the vast majority of Americans, this is absolutely true. As for the top 5% of taxpayers, the corporations, the military industrial complex, the wealthy donors and investors, the esconced, the comfortable, the power brokers, the Wall Street gamblers, the gun runners and weapons manufacturers, they expect top-flight care. After all, they paid for it. And with the Evangelicals on their side, they’ve cornered the market on after death care as well. Where Jesus, Buddha et.al. fit in to their philosophy is anybody’s guess.

Posted by: Tim Crow at August 14, 2006 8:30 PM
Comment #175504

While I disagree with Paul’s other characterizations as well, I respond only to his First Section:

Parents should sometimes be nurturing and should sometimes be strict. And, to continue Paul’s metaphor, so should a government.

Conservatives nearly always believe in nurturing/compassion/handouts for at least a brief period of time that another does not perform (bad things happen to us all). However, Conservatives nearly always believe that at some point the nurturing should stop and the individual/company should ‘make it’ on one’s own (or perform to one’s abilities if physical/mental handicaps preclude self-sufficiency).

Please correct me if I am materially wrong here, but by legislative actions, Liberals seem to ~never advocate being responsible for one’s own Life or one’s own Actions. Liberals never seem ready to expect one to fend for him/herself, and often/always seem to think that those who do (who are the only source of revenue to feed the gov’t), should be distrusted in their interactions with those who don’t want to fend for themselves.


YES Conservatives have a problem with beatnik kids who refuse to grow up, become responsible or work hard, and then expect to glam on to one’s parents forever for free handouts for housing/food/healthcare/spending-money because they would prefer another to work hard(er) so they do not have to. Ditto wrt gov’t.

Conservatives have a problem with parents who want to stick their noses into all their kids business in ways that don’t affect them and in ways that their noses are not welcome … all well after they are moved out and are independent of the parents. Ditto wrt gov’t.

Yes, there are special interests within the Republican Party, but I would argue there are few within Conservative ideology (I don’t think Conservative ideology supports those who take from Society more than they give).

Please correct me if I misconstrue others whom I don’t fully understand, but can/should Liberals choice of government be described as INVASIVE AS POSSIBLE to those who do take care of themselves (those who work hard / make money, and to corporations who are not benefiting from gov’t handouts/kickbacks — though I/most conservatives agree laws should reduce/eliminate negative externalities (e.g., pollution)).

Liberals choice of government seems to be as HANDS OFF AS POSSIBLE to those who benefit/take at the expense (and where the one who ‘gives’ does not do so freely) of others:
* Require work from welfare recipients – Never!
* Require criminals to pay their debt to society (not only prison time, but to repay the wronged for all damage, to repay the legal/incarceration, a % of their K-12 education, etc.) — Never!
* Require jail time for all those who rape / molest children (or harsh sentences for all white & blue collar crime) – Not in all the Democratic Anti-Jessica’s Law states
* Allow random sobriety checks, drug testing, wire-tapping, etc. to catch those being Bad Children / Abusing Society – Never!
* Stop getting free food/medicine/education/housing/legal-help/etc. and return to your country if you are here illegally – Never!
* Allow the gov’t to know what you are doing on a gov’t computer (e.g. in a library — good parents monitor internet, TV, etc. to children in their home, yes?) – Never!
* Allow meritocracy in schools or universities, as opposed to allowing tired old people to ruin our children’s lives via tenure and raises based on how long they have been there (not how good they are) – Never!
* Allow private schools to compete with public schools for taxpayer $$, to see who can educate children better – Never!
* Allow EVEN OTHER PUBLIC SCHOOLS to compete, to allow parents/children a say where they attend (even within a school district) instead of tired old education bureaucrats – Never!
* Require Unions to stop colluding against companies/Society, in a way that no other provider of Goods or Services legally may (e.g. OPEC) … and how Liberals generally *scream* if/when US business are caught doing so – Never!

While there are always exceptions to any rule and while I apologize mischaracterizing reality in any way, this prev list seems pretty much the Liberal Line to me.

Posted by: Brian at August 14, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #175505

Chris

Yes

Posted by: Keith at August 14, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #175506

False Leadership
Look at Keith’s answer he is right on that. Neocons might think of government as parents but not conservatives.

Wrong-Way Corrigan
Sorry. I guess I’m wrong way too. I still think we should have gone into Iraq.

Power by Division
This funny! I could come up with a zillion quotes from Howard Dean. BUT you are a traitor when you are rooting for the enemy. Just spend a little time on Watchblog and you can see which side the left is on….

Neglect of Threats
It take real guts to bring up North Korea. What happened with all that carrot and stick under Clinton? Oh yea, they went nuclear. All carrot no stick and then blame repubs for the reason the hate us. It’s the dem way. Appease…appease…appease…
I know what we need to do. Let’s send Dr. Phil over to Iran. Maybe he can figure out why they hate us so much. Oh wait. I know. It is because of Bush….


We are in a real global war kids. You better pick the good guys.

Neglect of Protection
Three words….New York Times….

Posted by: JimmyRay at August 14, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #175507

Carl

Check your wars years and compare them to the party in power. A good investigation starts with chronology. An accurate chronology will give you a better idea of what you are talking about.

Paul

Maybe liberals are like a family of spoiled children with parents that are too busy indulging their own hedonistic impulses to pay attention to the direction of the family.

BTW - I assume you are talking about liberals when you say progressives. You don’t mean . That is who I think of when I hear the name progressive, him and that insurance company that claims to give you cheaper rates than Geico.

Are liberals now ashamed of that name liberal?

BTW2 - the family is a bad metaphor for a free society. A family has adults who make the decisions and dependent children who cannot take care of themselves. That may be how liberal see society with adults (government) and dependent childern (us) but I don’t.

BTW 3 - As a Republican, I feel like calling someone a derogatory name (since that is what you say we do) but I really cannot think of anything worse than “liberal”. I guess progressives agree with me.

Posted by: Jack at August 14, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #175509

Tim Crow

“Actually, this is starting to dawn on the American people—that cons don’t want to govern, they just want to campaign, and verbally bash people.”

This is usually where the goo lib goes with their talking points. Only the only bashing I hear is coming from Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton(she), Durban, Kerry, Carter, Clinton(he) et al.

Posted by: Keith at August 14, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #175511

Sorry _ when talking about progessives, I meant to write “Fighting Bob” La Follette. SO it should be - “I assume you are talking about liberals when you say progressives. You don’t mean “Fighting Bob” LaFollette. That is who I think of when I hear the name progressive, him and that insurance company that claims to give you cheaper rates than Geico”

Posted by: Jack at August 14, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #175513

Jack can you explain,why GWBs daughters are a bunch of alcoholic fuckups.

Posted by: thelibertine at August 14, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #175521

Jack

Can you explain why you cannot think of anything more derogatory than liberal(LIBERAL:Characterized by generosity or abundancy in giving; inclining toward opionions or policies that favor progress or reform,such as religion or politics.-Webster)

Posted by: mark at August 14, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #175522

Paul

According to Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker magazine our “strict father” GWB also helped lead Israel into the current war in Lebanon. They were waiting for an excuse to invade Lebanon so that they could take on Hezbollah. It looks like our “father figure” has expanded his family, so that he can make inroads to attacking Iran.

Posted by: mark at August 14, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #175531

Paul and Keith,

I see each of your points, you are both right (in some ways) but you are both dead wrong.

Liberals, conservatives, and Neo-cons see the world in different ways, but as Keith points out not as a family. If we were a family, we would in fact be a dysfunctional redneck family with a Bubba ( or Dub Ya) father, or uncle- father if you will. Our father would be that special uncle no one talks about in front of the children. No the family is not the correct analogy.

Think Boat - As in we are all in the same boat. That is more like our nation, and as Paul says our captain is a “Wrong Way Corrigan.”

You see, as we Liberals looks around our boat, we try to fiqure out how to make it a better boat for everyone on board. Rich or poor we are all on the same boat so lets work togather. Liberals see the ride as all for one.

An old school Conservative doesn’t mind all of us on one boat, as long as he gets the best seats. He doesn’t care who is below deck as long as the view is nice. He judges the boat on how the crew treats him, a very “me first” view.

The Neo-con sees the boat different still, more of a “ME ONLY” view. “Those below deck should be thrown off the boat altogather, how dare they be on my boat.” Unless of course they are useful in some way, as a scapegoat perhaps, in case our incompetent captain runs us aground (think Joe Lieberman).

And Keith please

“Conservatives want as little contact with their government as possible.”

You know that is not true for a Neo-con. Think Terry Schivo, Gay Marrage, Religion, Abortion, Stem cell. No a Neo-con wants contact in every aspect of life, as long as it is the way you see fit. Otherwise - “Get off MY BOAT.”

PS- humorus note - I ran a yahoo search of “incompetent” to check spelling, and

www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html

was my first link. No joke, W’s bio - try it.

Posted by: grattan at August 14, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #175534

Grattan, my first link on a Google search was The President as Incompetent Liar. I’m not joking, either.

Posted by: Trent at August 14, 2006 11:46 PM
Comment #175535

Opps, got Watchblog’s URL mixed in — here it is.

Posted by: Trent at August 14, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #175538

Jack, you need to work on those insult a bit, try neocon that is an insult.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 15, 2006 12:15 AM
Comment #175551
You see, as we Liberals looks around our boat, we try to fiqure out how to make it a better boat for everyone on board. Rich or poor we are all on the same boat so lets work togather. Liberals see the ride as all for one.

C’mon, I consider Dems/Liberals generally promoting internal division and class/race/gender warfare. I think most others do, and this seems to be espoused by Dem leaders and followed by the rank & file Dems/Libs.

Is there anything conservatives say as often, or which is divisive as Liberals’ “TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!” mantra?

I recall Al Gore in two election speeches (DNC and Bush debate?) state (exactly or words to the effect of):

“I want to help Blacks in this country fight against non-Blacks. I want to help Asians fight against non-Asians, I want to help the elderly fight against those who are not, and to help the young fight against those who are not. I want to be on the side of women fighting against men, and, …(I think he mentioned Latinos fighting against non-Latinos, and another group or two).”

These were obviously all fully vetted as being Dem/Lib themes, and he obviously received solid Dem/Lib support at the polls.

I don’t think a message even a few percent as separationist or divisive would come from the heart or mouth of so major a GOP candidate.

Posted by: Brian at August 15, 2006 1:26 AM
Comment #175554

Brian, ever consider why? If I proposed tax cuts that heavily favored the rich or policies that increased the gap between the rich and poor I wouldn’t talk about class war either. Shhhhhhh.

Posted by: Trent at August 15, 2006 1:45 AM
Comment #175561

Trent, I believe Bush cut taxes more for the poor than the rich wrt % tax rates, and % of the taxes they are paying. He cut the rich’s taxes ‘only’ wrt total $$, correct?

While total $$ is admittedly important, since the ‘rich’ (depending how defined) pay the majority of tax, giving a tax cut to everyone is REALLY hard without those who pay more tax (and a much higher % of tax and a much higher % of their income as tax) getting more $$ back.

Regardless, re grattan’s statement, I don’t think anyone should be talking about class war, gender battles, race war, … so much.

Dems/Libs seem to like not only class divisions, but racial, gender, etc. Can we decrease this??

There are Set-Asides or Preferences in virtually every educational and governmental program (federal, state, and many local) to advantage certain Races, Ethnicities, Genders, or…

Why should Bill Cosby’s kids have large advantages(*) over poor white kids?

Why should those born in Central/South America have an advantage over those born here? If you want to do this just to hurt whites, understand that many Hispanics abroad are whiter than the average American … but again, why not look at the hearts, minds, or pocketbooks/resources when growing — instead of race, Race, RACE!!!

Or gender. I heard an educator today say that females are now 58% of college students. Why are Dems so focused on giving legal advantages to certain groups when under-represented, but never disadvantage them when over-represented? Is this all about fairness, or is this the politics of Division and Separation?

…and did you know gays/lesbians are advantaged in housing and in healthcare in some jurisdictions over those who are straight? Really.

And now, I hear, that we are supposedly getting close to 50% of registered US voters not paying any taxes. Liberals, you may be in luck! Once you get 50.1% of voters not paying taxes, you can elevate the timeless mantra of Leftist/Communist/Socialist/Liberal/Progressive cry ‘Let’s Take More from Them, for Us!’ … and, if successful, that will quickly lead from the beginning-of-the-end to the end-of-the-end.

Is this why you want poor, uneducated illegal aliens to become Americans, rather than attracting the brightest, hardest working achievers (who doubtfully would be Dems) who want to come to our shores??

Maybe that is where we are now. Promise more to those who pay ~no tax (get them to the polls!), plus adopt a Racial group or two, plus Special Interests with special financial and/or legal handouts … and try to parlay that to Nov victories.

Yes, it is ‘Legal’, but it isn’t what MLK said, and I don’t think it is Right, and I don’t think it is best for our country.

(*) college acceptance, Financial Aid!, summer jobs, full time jobs, promotions, Small Business Administration programs, gov’t contracts, …

For those who want Affirmative Action, can get we focus on the person more than his/her Race?? E.g., might not colleges’ Financial Aid Form be a better proxy of socio-economic problems the person was raised under than Race?

Posted by: Brian at August 15, 2006 2:53 AM
Comment #175567

Dems (and others who like a joke), I found this funny … and following the original posting’s theme of bashing Bush’s Leadership:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/51140

Posted by: Brian at August 15, 2006 4:07 AM
Comment #175568

Excellent post, as usual.

Posted by: Cole at August 15, 2006 4:12 AM
Comment #175570

theLibertine—

-“Jack can you explain,why GWBs daughters are a bunch of alcoholic fuckups.”

1st) Talk about name calling!!

2nd) What does this have to do with anything?

DaveR

Posted by: DaveR at August 15, 2006 4:36 AM
Comment #175571

mark—

-“Can you explain why you cannot think of anything more derogatory than liberal(LIBERAL:Characterized by generosity or abundancy in giving; inclining toward opionions or policies that favor progress or reform,such as religion or politics.-Webster)”

This might be the dictionary definition of the WORD “liberal”, but it is hardly the true definition of politically liberal persons.

I submit that being liberal politically does not automativally equate to being progressive. Nor does it imply that all “reforms” are good or worthwhile. Many liberal “reforms” have turned out to be societal and economic disasters or have been so corrupted by scams and cheating they are practically useless (welfare, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, disability, the elimination of corporal punishment in schools…
the list is virtually endless.

Furthermore, forcing “reforms” upon a population which neither desires them nor supports them is hardly what one would call good policy (acceptance of the gay lifestyle, “political correctness”, the supposed “constitutional seperation of church and state”, universal health care paid for by the government ie. our taxes)…these are just a few examples of so called reforms which the left has been or is pursuing in spite of not having the full support or desire of the populace.

You cannot, and more importantly SHOULD NOT, force changes on people when they don’t want or accept them, even if you think it is for their own good. You don’t have the right to make that decision.


DaveR

Posted by: DaveR at August 15, 2006 4:51 AM
Comment #175577

The world is far too dangerous for this country to be led by the “Mommy” party.

Posted by: nikkolai at August 15, 2006 6:25 AM
Comment #175584

DaveR

You have got to kidding me. Social Security not supported or desired by the public? Even GWB has to admit that is not true. Useless? Come on, get real, man. The same can be said for medicare and medicaid. I agree that disabilty benefits are abused but I would hate to live in a country that doesn’t take care of the unfortunate. Remember the words of Jesus Christ, the greatest Liberal of all, “What you do for the least of these, you do to me”.

Posted by: mark at August 15, 2006 7:14 AM
Comment #175596

DaveR,
The seperation of Church and State is not a “reform” as you so misguigedly put it, it is a First Amendment right. Its been aroung for 230 years. Just because the Theocrats sy different does make it true.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 15, 2006 8:41 AM
Comment #175621

Brian,

Here are two analyses of the rich/poor gap in the United States, both from conservative sources.

The Wall Street Journal

The Economist

The following quote is from the Economist article linked above:

Thanks to a jump in productivity growth after 1995, America’s economy has outpaced other rich countries’ for a decade. Its workers now produce over 30% more each hour they work than ten years ago. In the late 1990s everybody shared in this boom. Though incomes were rising fastest at the top, all workers’ wages far outpaced inflation.

But after 2000 something changed. The pace of productivity growth has been rising again, but now it seems to be lifting fewer boats. After you adjust for inflation, the wages of the typical American worker—the one at the very middle of the income distribution—have risen less than 1% since 2000. In the previous five years, they rose over 6%. If you take into account the value of employee benefits, such as health care, the contrast is a little less stark. But, whatever the measure, it seems clear that only the most skilled workers have seen their pay packets swell much in the current economic expansion. The fruits of productivity gains have been skewed towards the highest earners, and towards companies, whose profits have reached record levels as a share of GDP.

Even in a country that tolerates inequality, political consequences follow when the rising tide raises too few boats. The impact of stagnant wages has been dulled by rising house prices, but still most Americans are unhappy about the economy. According to the latest Gallup survey, fewer than four out of ten think it is in “excellent” or “good” shape, compared with almost seven out of ten when George Bush took office.

The White House professes to be untroubled. Average after-tax income per person, Mr Bush often points out, has risen by more than 8% on his watch, once inflation is taken into account. He is right, but his claim is misleading, since the median worker—the one in the middle of the income range—has done less well than the average, whose gains are pulled up by the big increases of those at the top.

Privately, some policymakers admit that the recent trends have them worried, and not just because of the congressional elections in November. The statistics suggest that the economic boom may fade. Americans still head to the shops with gusto, but it is falling savings rates and rising debts (made possible by high house prices), not real income growth, that keep their wallets open. A bust of some kind could lead to widespread political disaffection. Eventually, the country’s social fabric could stretch. “If things carry on like this for long enough,” muses one insider, “we are going to end up like Brazil”—a country notorious for the concentration of its income and wealth.

Posted by: Trent at August 15, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #175643

This constant banter between the semantics of the right and left create no ground for the middle way or any way in which we might affectively change or improve upon our national thinking processes regarding our “cultural war”which are nothing more than a sorry social and religious war and which has become limited and limiting and provides no way out of this “V-For Vendetta” moment in human history.

Most of us are wearing masks - in fact, many layers of them and most are not smiling. We humans have created so much suffering that we are inploding and in need of a new course offering in our non existent education for the raising of maternal instincts and to cooperate with and guide our paternal instincts towards real unity of mind and purpose. One without the other - negates the child and sets children on holy non - evolutionary prilgrimages to kill other children in our own nation and in far away nations.

Actually I do believe that this is the exact moment for a ” MOMMY PARTY ” - a Spiritual Revolt Party - which signifies to me a movement of the human heart + mind from within - this could be a new “party” - meaning/ a revolution towards
a total focus on the nuturing, loving, caring, sensitive, OTHER RATHER THAN SELF - compassionate, empathetic, life centering forces in our present world with a check mark alongside emotional and psychological ” education”.

We need a broader meaning for mothering which is the Mother in us All - regardless of our sexual orientations - we need to “mother” our earth and nation and political parties back to some kind of new and healthy humanism which imparts and provides to each human being the realisation of their own unique gift of creativity and intelligence to the world and their absolute freedom to choose a life worth living over self /cultural death. We need to quit killing mostly mothers and children in our Babel-like discussions and tyrannical wars. Personally - Dr. Compassion thinks that we have lost beauty on our so called way to create justice and goodness in the world. The world is devoid of beauty - it is so ugly we recoil from any meaning or course of beneficial action provided out of this mess of our own becoming and making. Right now I truly believe the entire world has come to its own historical end - not the apocalyptic end of the neo -con - men - but an old world view of politics as usual which has changed nothing and is only contributing to more mayhem.

It is certain that ” We shall never have freedom from war until we have a peace that is worth living”. How, I ask the Democrats and Liberals and whomever - can you restore in the minds and hearts of our world’s children - some kind of peace worth living? - rather than this atrocious culture of death and denial.

I don’t think that we shall ever have compassion until it is demonstrated in our actions and words no matter what our political label. Every human being is a work in process. Labels are for end times, not for re-inventing one’s self or nation. We shall never have war until there is this final/ end of the earth/ leap into Mother’s arms/ and and until a true human spiritual revolution begins in our own hearts for change.

Gentlemen:

My belief is that beyond politics the polis is in need of poetry, emotion, art, music, empathy,
and action which clearly identifies itself with the good of the world and all and everything which lives. Surely we can agree that having our children on milk containers is a sign of what is really wrong with the world. So today, I am calling for a new party in our nation - THE MOMMY PARTY. Thanks for the suggestion.

Dr. Compassion
Ozlander

Posted by: Dr. Compassion at August 15, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #175654

The difference between the Executive Branch of the US Government and the Boy Scouts? The Boy Scouts have adult leaders.

Yes it seems no matter what side of the issue you are on, someone ends up calling your a necon or leftist or rightist or whatever. There are some good banter between individuals without the name calling. When you start calling others names your creditability goes to ZERO.

Posted by: KT at August 15, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #175657

Dr. Compassion:

“[No peace]…until a true human spiritual revolution begins in our own hearts for change.”

Keep watching, I believe the spiritual revolution is beginning.:-)

Posted by: Tim Crow at August 15, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #175673

Trent,

You are right that the rich/poor polls are widening under Bush’s 5+ yrs and, all things equal, I agree I prefer less economic polarization.

But simply Blaming-Bush seems wrong / not-honest re “But after 2000 something changed.”:
- remember 9/11 and what happened to our economy?
- remember the Corp Acct Scandal (not Bush’s fault, correct?)?
- remember the .Com bust (also not his fault, right?)
- the Legal and Illegal immigrant populations are swelling (your link says US does not need so much unskilled labor, correct?)

The last point IS Bush’s fault, but the Dem/Libs are even WORSE wanting even more illegal, uneducated, high-crime immigration. Re the last point, here is today’s news Immigrant population rises to 35 million

Would the most accurate characterization be that Libs/Dems don’t want Tax Cuts for anyone, but can tolerate them for the Poor and Middle Class so long as the Rich receive ~nothing (or continue to be soaked)?

As your link/quote points out, after inflation income has risen 8% on Average under Bush (good!), but the Median has not. This difference is due to the rich being richer and/or the poor being poorer, correct?

1.) ANYONE being richer is a good thing for America, correct?

2.) In addition to the 3 economic factors not Bush’s fault (and his Tax Cuts that are his) which (along with technology/progress in general) the poor are poorer mainly because they are largely new, illegal, uneducated, unskilled, and often incarcerated. YES, BUSH’S FAULT … but again, the Libs/Dems are worse re this, correct?

Posted by: Brian at August 15, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #175674

I love it
Let’s see, when everyone thought the “Economy was Booming!! going great guns!! “Your blind not to see it” etc etc etc
It was all because of Daddy-dearest’s TAX CUTS
But when there might be a whiff of something foul involved ‘
Nope — Ya can’t give credit (blame) to good ol’ Dad.

I love how y’all want it both ways
Cake and eat it too

Regarding just a few of the points that were made concerning why the economy is not all that it is cracked up to be
AS usual a few “inconvenient” items are left out
RECORD DEFICITS (Deficeits??? )
UNNECESSARY WAR (if Churchill can call WWII “The Unnecessary War” then this one doesn’t even come close!!!!) — and it’s contribution to the deficit as well as ruining many independent businesses (it is tough keeping your small-business going when you are doing 3 tours of duty in IRAQ as a National Guard member)
CHINA OWNING OUR DEBT
Unrest in the World — caused by??? see the Unnecessary WAR comment

9/11 only goes so far, but leave it to the Bush supporters to pull that one out of the hat (again)
EXCEPT
DO IT, I DARE YOU, DO IT — BRING UP 9/11 —
WHY AFTER 5 YEARS ARE WE NO SAFER
WHY AFTER 5 YEARS OF “HOMELAND SECURITY” WE DO NOT HAVE SAFE PORTS, SAFE POWERGRIDS, SAFE WATER SUPPLIES, SAFE BUSSES AND TRAINS?????
AT LEAST NO SAFER THAN 5 YEARS AGO — WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR???
I AM BEGINNING TO THINK THE BRITS SCREWED UP YOUR PLANS BY INTERFERENING WITH THE RECENT PLOT!!!!
IT IS GETTING CLOSE TO MID-TERM ELECTIONS, NOTHING LIKE A GOOD TERRORIST SCARE TO REINFORCE THE FEAR THAT KEEPS YOU IN OFFICE!!!!!
THE TRUE TRAITORS ARE CURRENTLY RESIDING IN THE OVAL OFFICE AND THE CABINET
THEY ARE SELLING OFF OUR COUNTRY, OUR RIGHTS, OUR FREEDOMS AND ALL YOU CAN DO IS BEND OVER AND ASK FOR MORE!!!!!
WHAT A JOKE!

Posted by: Russ at August 15, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #175678

Brian you should stop all the name calling.Where do you get your facts from Faux News.Go back to what you do best,drinking Coors and slaping your wife around.

Posted by: thelibertine at August 15, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #175684

thelibertine: My you are a gentleman, and can definitely throw stones, as you are sooo polite.

Brian you should stop all the name calling.Where do you get your facts from Faux News.Go back to what you do best,drinking Coors and slaping your wife around.

1.) “All the Name Calling: Are you confusing me with someone else? In which of my posts did I call ANYone ANY name?

2.) From where do I get my facts: The above link is from Reuters, which quotes today’s U.S. Census Bureau announcement. I copied its first sentence below, so you don’t have to click it yourself before launching an ad hominem attack over it.

The link I had further above is from The Onion and makes fun of Bush:

Dems (and others who like a joke), I found this funny … and following the original posting’s theme of bashing Bush’s Leadership: ”>http://www.theonion.com/content/node/51140

Maybe someone is taking himself / his side too seriously … or else, just needs a nap

(yes, this is kinda name-calling, but I would say clearly de-escallating your calling me unprovoked a “Beer Drinking Wife Beater”, yes?)

————————————————————
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of immigrants living in the United States has risen to more than 35 million, or 12.4 percent of the population from 11.1 percent five years ago, according to figures released by the U.S. Census Bureau on Tuesday.

Posted by: Brian at August 15, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #175686

Brian,

You did not consider the effects of Bush’s tax cuts on the poor/rich gap. Here is a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities that summarizes studies, including a CBO one. No one seriously disputes that the Bush tax cuts exacerberated the gap between the rich and poor; do you?

However, the effects of Bush’s tax cuts go beyond merely widening the gap between the rich and poor. Here is a passage from the report:

“Recent data from the Administration itself indicate, however, that there has been a real budgetary cost to the tax cuts. When the Administration took office in 2001, the United States was enjoying large surpluses, and the surpluses were projected to continue through the remainder of the decade. Since then, there has been a fiscal sea change. In its first budget, the Administration projected surpluses of $1.3 trillion over the 2001-2004 period, assuming no new policies were enacted. In July 2004, however, the Administration estimated that there would be a cumulative deficit of $850 billion over this period. The fiscal deterioration for these four years thus amounts to $2.1 trillion.

In Table 7 of its new Mid-Session Budget Review, the Administration shows that the tax cuts contributed substantially to the fiscal deterioration. According to the figures in this table:

The tax cuts have cost about $620 billion over the last four years, including the cost of additional interest payments on the national debt.

The cost of the tax cuts has ramped up substantially over time. In 2004 alone, the tax cuts add $290 billion to the deficit, constituting a substantial majority of the projected deficit of $445 billion.
Among the budgetary factors over which policymakers have control (i.e., legislation that policymakers enact into law, as contrasted with changes in the economy), the tax cuts constitute the single largest cause of the shift from surpluses to deficits. The tax cuts are more expensive than all spending increases combined — including new spending for homeland security, the war in Iraq, operations in Afghanistan, expanded anti-terrorism efforts, and all domestic spending increases. The Administration’s own data show that tax cuts account for 57 percent of the budget deterioration over the 2001–2004 period that was caused by the enactment of legislation.”

Posted by: Trent at August 15, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #175689

DaveR:

“You cannot, and more importantly SHOULD NOT, force changes on people when they don’t want or accept them, even if you think it is for their own good. You don’t have the right to make that decision.”

Then what is the United States doing in Iraq?

And the Phillipines, and Honduras, and Haiti, and Kuwait, and Costa Rica, and Nicaragua, and Saudi Arabia, Venuzuela, Mexico? What was Vietnam, and Grenada and Panama and Iran and Lebanon and Indonesia and Columbia about?

You, I assume, are a conservative. How does American foreign policy since WWII jibe with what you’ve said?

Posted by: Tim Crow at August 15, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #175705

Trent, I agree that the tax cuts did/do exacerbate the rich/poor difference. Didn’t mean to imply that I did not think this is a cause. Sorry for any miscommunication.

I just wanted to state that:
- This is clearly not the only cause
- I suspect this is one of the smaller causes (*guessing* the tax savings is 5-10% of the increased wealth gap, if you want me to take a total SWAG)
- If the poor are/were not getting poorer, I feel the rich getting richer would be a net gain/positive for America (despite the 2nd order negative effect of a larger wealth gap).

Posted by: Brian at August 15, 2006 6:15 PM
Comment #175707

Oh, and I do agree that:
- the Budget Deficit
- the Trade Deficit
- the Personal Savings/Borrowing Deficit
are **HUGE** problems for our nation.

I would argue a financially healthy individual or company brings in MUCH MORE MONEY than it lets go. Same for the Gov’t.

For a new thread sometime: How can/will we make all three of these metrics highly positive in the future?

If anyone thinks the answer is to only elect more of their party, I suspect I will disagree with you…

Posted by: Brian at August 15, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #175787

Ever consider the rich get richer because they keep doing things and making choices that make them more money….And the poor keep doing things and making choices that make keep them poor?

Posted by: tomd at August 16, 2006 3:33 AM
Comment #175788

j2t2—

-“The seperation of Church and State is not a “reform” as you so misguigedly put it, it is a First Amendment right. Its been aroung for 230 years. Just because the Theocrats sy different does make it true.”

The “seperation of church and state” is NOT a First Amendment “RIGHT”!! Nowhere in the First Amendment will you find the words “seperation of church and state”. That phrase comes from a personal letter, not from any of the founding documents of our country, and has been
“confiscated” and incorporated into our lingo in an attempt to force-feed this concept down everyone’s throat. Just because [YOU] liberal atheists and agnostics and Christian haters say different doesn’t make it true!!

Try reading your First Amendment…tell me where you see those words.

Any fairly intelligent and rational person, possessing a clear understanding of history and the context under which the Constitution was written, can only come to the conclusion, after carefully reading it, that the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment was meant to:

1) Prevent the government from advocating a state sponsored or state sanctified religion above all others, as was the case in England before the colonists left.

2) Prevent the government from keeping people from worshipping freely as they desire…in ALL circumstances, including the members of the government themselves!!!

The First Amendment DOES NOT say that members of the government have to give up their religion when they get elected…nor that they cannot openly support their own religion while serving in office…nor does it say that they can’t pray.

It is only through an extreme stretch that anyone (except liberal anti-everythings) could possibly see praying before a meeting of Congress as “sponsoring” a particular religion. (If there were a Muslim or Buddhist Congress-person, would you stop them from saying a prayer, or does it only apply to Christians)?

It is only through an extreme stretch that anyone (except liberal anti-everythings) could see a student saying a prayer before graduation or the big game as the school being in support of a particular religion. (If the student wanted to perform a Wiccan ceremony or a black mass, would you say that they couldn’t, or does it only apply to Christianity)?

The irony, which you liberals either fail to see or choose to ignore, is that by “forcing” your twisted view of seperation of church and state on everyone else, you are in fact violating other people’s rights to free speech, another First Amendment right!! You are using the power of the government to tell people what they can and cannot do with regards to religion…the very thing that the First Amendment was clearly meant to avoid!!! All because you just can’t simply be quiet for 30 seconds while someone says a freakin’ prayer, which you are not being forced to participate in or even believe in, without being “offended”!!!

The fact of the matter is, that you liberals are so afraid of Christianity and Christians that you will do everything and anything to prevent them from exercising their rights, even using the power of the government to usurp their Constitutional rights when it suits your needs.

You violate other’s rights whenever you want and then give it some fancy name, like “seperation of church and state” or “political correctness”, and then accuse us of bigotry and homophobia and theocracy when we dare to object to the violation of our rights. You claim to be the party who SUPPORTS the Constituttion, but only when it suits you and when you deem it worthy of your support. Any other time, violating OUR Constitutional rights is fair game, if it furthers your agenda!!

DaveR

Posted by: DaveR at August 16, 2006 3:39 AM
Comment #175791

Mark—

_”You have got to kidding me. Social Security not supported or desired by the public? Even GWB has to admit that is not true. Useless? Come on, get real, man. The same can be said for medicare and medicaid. I agree that disabilty benefits are abused but I would hate to live in a country that doesn’t take care of the unfortunate. Remember the words of Jesus Christ, the greatest Liberal of all, “What you do for the least of these, you do to me”.”

The problem is, however well meaning your efforts were, you liberals have created an entitlement society. This isn’t news…
conservatives have been saying this for decades. No one takes responsibility for themselves anymore. Everyone expects the government to do everything for them.

I am not totally convinced that this isn’t exactly what you all wanted in the first place…to make everyone dependent on your good graces for their livelihood.

The liberal mentality is that the government should take care of all your needs, because the individual is incapable of doing it for themselves.

You guys have become BIG BROTHER, the very thing you supposedly fear, yet you refuse to see it.

The conservative way is to help someone get back to their feet, then show them how to stay there.

The liberal way is to help someone get back to their feet, then explain to them that they can’t stay there on their own and need the government’s help to stay standing, without which they will fall again and again.

I am not saying thst there aren’t people who honestly need help…of course there are. But you have to be able to tell which ones really need help, and which ones don’t. Even more importantly you have to able and willing to be tough on those that don’t and tell them to go out and do it for themselves, and then boot them out the door when they refuse to go on their own. That’s all I am saying.

DaveR

Posted by: DaveR at August 16, 2006 4:25 AM
Comment #175792

“WHY AFTER 5 YEARS ARE WE NO SAFER WHY AFTER 5 YEARS OF “HOMELAND SECURITY” WE DO NOT HAVE SAFE PORTS, SAFE POWERGRIDS, SAFE WATER SUPPLIES, SAFE BUSSES AND TRAINS?????”

Ummm…because you and your cronies are so ridiculously afraid of NSA wiretaps, and so unwilling to stand in line at the airport for a few hours, and so pissed at having to give up your bottle of Evian water to board a plane that you compromise every security measure that has been suggested or tried?

“I AM BEGINNING TO THINK THE BRITS SCREWED UP YOUR PLANS BY INTERFERENING WITH THE RECENT PLOT!!!! IT IS GETTING CLOSE TO MID-TERM ELECTIONS, NOTHING LIKE A GOOD TERRORIST SCARE TO REINFORCE THE FEAR THAT KEEPS YOU IN OFFICE!!!!! THE TRUE TRAITORS ARE CURRENTLY RESIDING IN THE OVAL OFFICE AND THE CABINET
THEY ARE SELLING OFF OUR COUNTRY, OUR RIGHTS, OUR FREEDOMS AND ALL YOU CAN DO IS BEND OVER AND ASK FOR MORE!!!!!WHAT A JOKE!”

Ummm…Bush can’t hold office again, so how would a “good terrorist scare” benefit him? And you seem a little hypocritical when you lament the lack of safety above, then come down and cry about losing your “rights” and “freedoms” right below. You can’t have it both way. More safety automatically means less freedom…that’s pretty much a given. Which do you want?

Or do you really just want to whine and find fault, no matter what Bush does? I am betting that is really the case.

DaveR

Posted by: DaveR at August 16, 2006 4:38 AM
Comment #175793

tomd—

-“Ever consider the rich get richer because they keep doing things and making choices that make them more money….And the poor keep doing things and making choices that make keep them poor?”

You don’t seriously think for one minute that the libs are going to buy this one do you? The liberal view on the world is that there is only so much money, and so much riches, and so much resources, and if the rich have more then everyone else naturally has less.

That’s why they are so quick to support the idea of redistribution of wealth, because they think there is only so much to go around and it is only fair if EVERYONE has a little (I wonder if Teddy Kennedy supports this idea)?

Nice try though. But liberals never let reality ruin a good conspiracy.

DaveR

Posted by: DaveR at August 16, 2006 4:45 AM
Comment #175833

Paul,
Another well thought out and written article. A pleasure and eye opening piece. Keep it up.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at August 16, 2006 10:53 AM
Comment #175970

Dave R
Oh boy, the religious fundamentalist, poster boys for theocracy. Im sure thats what the founding fathers wanted Dave a theocracy . I think they were just a little sick of it by 1776. Just as religion should be free from the yoke of government so to should government be free from the yoke of religion my friend.

Did you know that the first treaty signed by the first president stated that the United States of America was a secular nation?


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now I realize that it doesnt say “seperation of church and state” but it seems the intent is perfectly clear. No state sponsored religion. Worship as you wish but no government religion.I dont see any twisting of fact, especially when you take into consideration other documents and opinions of the time. Most of our founding fathers were religious and or spiritual, yet they understood how important it is to keep the power of the government out of the hands of the preacher, and to keep the power of the pulpit out of the hands of the government.

Dave there is a time and place for everything perhaps if you respected others rights you could pray in silence. Would you appreciate a Wicacan prayer while you stood listening. You do have freedom of speech but then so does everyone else. To say a prayer is perfectly acceptable to me and at anytime, however to try to convert me to your religion and then claim you were praying is not acceptable to me. The real issue is not prayer that’s just the fundamentalist excuse used to grab the power of the government.What you want to do is convert young kids at the publis schools to your particular religion. I find that very offensive.
And yes I am very afraid of the religious fundamentalist and theocracy, you should be to. Think Iran, Think Taliban. Those that beleive their beliefs are superior to any others to me are missing the point, I prefer the Jefferson bible myself. I dont feel the need to flaunt it however.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 16, 2006 9:36 PM
Comment #175982

j2t2—

—OH YEAH…that’s just what we are doing…
converting kids to “our” religion!!

Is that the same converting as the libs do when they try to teach that homosexuality is just an alternative lifestyle choice, despite the beliefs of the parents? Or is that the same kind of converting that teaches kids to use condoms instead of refraining from having sex at all??

What kind of wacky accusations are you making…since when do we teach and/or advocate any one religion in the public schools? We don’t even allow the teaching of religion in public schools, so how are we “converting” anyone? What bizarre fantasy world do you live in where we teach religion in the public school system? How does anyone simply saying a prayer at a football game or graduation somehow equate to trying to “convert” you? You sound a little paranoid and maybe (probably) you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Oh and by the way, way to plagiarize my words and repeat what I had just gotten done saying. Couldn’t you come up with any original thoughts of your own?

I wouldn’t care if someone said a Wiccan prayer, or a Buddhist prayer, or a Muslim prayer, or a Christian prayer, as long as I am not being forced to pray along. I can’t think of any example in my lifetime, and I doubt you can either, of where or when in the public school system, or the government, that this has ever happened. You seem to be making up scenarios to support your position which are based on your irrational fears and not on facts or actual events.

Even if someone said a prayer for a god or a religion I didn’t believe in, I still respect that person’s right to pray in the religion of their choice, and because I have what is obviously a much higher level of respect for people’s rights than you, and because I am not so ridiculously offended by someone daring to pray in my presence, I would bow my head while they pray, regardless of whether I myself subscribed to their religion or not.

DaveR

Posted by: DaveR at August 16, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #176002

DaveR,
Wow such much anger DaveR. It seems we’ve gotten off the subject and into attack the messenger tripe.
Pray tell what did I “plagerize” ? Both your rants are plagerized talking points with out any original thought so its sorta like the pot calling the kettle black.
OK lets see if I can sort out what your trying to convey.
1. Wacky accusations, bizarre fantasies and paranoia.. No I think that if you actually read my post you will find I did not say we are teaching religion in public schools. I live in the very same world you do DaveR, In fact I also did not say that praying at a football game is trying to convert us. Let me elaborate just a bit on whay my point was. The far right religious fundamentalist have earned a reputation IMO for wanting to, amongst other thing, change the public school system by demanding that organized prayer be instituted in the schools,and that intelligent design be taught as science in public school. Why because , again IMO, that would allow them to gain inroads into the hearts and minds of the children. Because I find the far right religious fundamentalist to be rude and arrogent in their several approaches they have made to try to get me to see things their way, I dont want my grandchildren to have to suffer the fools. I find their beliefs to be misguided and dangerous. It seems the new testament type Christians dont feel the need to attack the public schools and I dont mean to include them in with the FRRF’s.
2, making up scenarios,irrational fears..(Let see Homosexuals, condoms) Boy DaveR I gotta give you that one, cause I dont know of a time when I stood by whilst listening to a wiccan, christian, muslim, new ager,jew, american indian, hindu, buddist, or scientologist pray in a public school. I would like to keep it that way. If they would choose to say a prayer while at school, and without it being electrically amplified to the entire audience I would support them.
3.DaveR’s self proclaimed higher level of respect,j2t2 ridiculously offended..DaveR I think we agree on this one except well one persons higher level of respect is another persons pompous ass.. as far as preying oops I mean praying I to would at least give them my silence while they were engaged in a moment of prayer unless they saw fit to do it in a public school while supposedly given a speech, while and I felt I was a captive audience. However if they chose to say the same prayer while standing around waiting for the game to start I would again give them a moment of silence or perhaps join in.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 17, 2006 12:45 AM
Comment #176003

j2t2—

-“…do it in a public school while supposedly given a speech, while and I felt I was a captive audience.”

Oh now you are a “captive”…because you certainly couldn’t choose to walk outside or leave the building, or not attend at all. You were forced to be there. How silly of me…I get it now. Armed soldiers came to your door and took you at gunpoint to a speech/graduation ceremony/football game where you were rudely subjected to random public prayer against your will!!! It must be another of those pesky Republican conspiracies!!

As I have said many other times in this forum, I do not require the use of “talking points” to make MY point. I am perfectly capable of free thought and free expression, and just because that happens to coincide with what my peers are saying does not make me incapable of “original thought”. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, whenever you libs say something that sounds like what every other lib is saying, it is because you are all so educated and well informed that you all agree; but when a conservative says anything that sounds like what other conservatives are saying, it is because we are echoing “talking points”.

You just think whatever you want…you are going to anyway, regardless of what I say. You just cannot accept that I or any conservative could possibly be able to think for ourselves, UNLESS we think what YOU think. Of course then we wouldn’t be conservative then would we…instead, we would have become “educated” and “informed” liberals.

DaveR

Posted by: DaveR at August 17, 2006 1:06 AM
Comment #176005

DaveR,
DaveR,
So I should walk out do without seeing who ever I was there to see do whatever they were there to do, Whilst the FRRF prostylized. Or perhaps we could just keep religion in the church and school in the school and the government in the government.
DaveR I dont think you have heard me talking trash about either conservatives or liberals and their intelligence. I dont doubt your intelligence and abilities for a second.
Anyway have a good night.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 17, 2006 1:28 AM
Comment #176007

j2t2—

No but you doubt my ability to have an “original thought” and not echo “talking points”…your words, not mine! How is that not like saying I am not intelligent [enough so as to exercise free thought]?

The implication is there even if the words are not.

Maybe you should just admit that, like most of your non-religious liberal brethren, you are [for some strange reason] afraid of religion. Personally I happen to believe that I know why that is the case, but I am sure you would deny it.

In any case, IMO that is what this whole issue of “seperation of church and state” really boils down to. You are afraid of religion and the implication that there really is such a thing as right and wrong.

You are afraid someone might step on your perceived rights to be homosexual, or a child molester, or a rapist, or a murderer, or any number of other immoral things which any decent and civilized group of people would consider unacceptable and worthy of some level of “control”.

In short, you are afraid some one might tell you that you “can’t do that”.

Ironic considering that some of the most controlling, intrusive laws on the books regarding the behavior of people in our society result from the efforts of liberals to “control” other people’s behavior which they find “offensive”, or for which they feel they have to intrude in order to “protect” people from themselves (Political Correctness, helmet laws, seatbelt laws, no smoking laws for private businesses…these are but a few which immediately come to mind).

You liberals are the very thing which you have always claimed to fear…you are the Thought Police…you have become BIG BROTHER!!

DaveR

Posted by: DaveR at August 17, 2006 1:47 AM
Comment #176056

DaveR, DaveR, DaveR,
So much anger, so many accusations,where to begin
1. original thoughts.. DaveR most of what you have said are indeed repub talking points, what’s a body to think?
2.Afraid of religion.. It’s not religion that bothers me DaveR, its religious extremist that I am more concerned about and rightfully so IMO. I think I made that point earlier, if not then let me better explain The FRRF would like to control political power with their religion. I find that goes against a healthy and prosperous democracy. I also disagree with their religious precepts. Now that doesnt mean Im afraid of relgion, just the misapplication of it by the FRRF.I agree they have the right to beleive as they wish and that I have the same right to publicly disagree.
3. attack on j2t2’s closely held religious beliefs.. Seperation of church and state IMO has little to do with religous beliefs and much more to do with power and control. FRRF’s have gathered once again to convince us we are not a secular nation, they wish to control all others with their brand of religion. I find that offensive due to the fact that Theocracy just doesnt work, its been tried time and again and founf to be lacking. Now that doesnt mean you are not free to continue with your religious beliefs it means that you cant control me with them. The reason DaveR is that my beleifs are different than that. Its not that I dont beleive there is a right and wrong its just my belief of right and wrong differs from yours. And I dont feel the need to insist through force of law to impose my beliefs on you. I am not the least bit afraid of religion, but of religious types who wish to impose their beliefs on me and mine through force of law.
4.accusation that j2t2 in particular and liberals in general are homosexuals, child molesters, or rapist or murders or otherwise immoral.. and you are insulted over the talking point issue! DaveR do you really beleive that tripe? speaking for myself I’m well f none of the above. If you are asking me to defend any of the groups you have mentioned then pick just one for now please. I do think its a little low of you to put homosexuals in the same company as child molesters , murders etc. what are you afraid of Mr. DaveR?
5. Liberals as big brother..Either extreme, right or left is not my cup of tea, DaveR, I would agree with you on some of the points you bring up. Although IMO W and his administration are more big brotherish with their approach to governing than the libs demanding seat belt laws, in fact I smile at the comparsion of seatbelt restrictions vs. the power grabbing executive branch.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 17, 2006 9:23 AM
Comment #176258

j2t2—

-“So much anger…”
Where do you see that? Don’t be so dramatic.

“…original thoughts.. DaveR most of what you have said are indeed repub talking points, what’s a body to think?”

Yada Yada Yada…republican talking points…blah blah blah

How about…think that I am able to explain myself, my beliefs, and my thoughts entirely on my own and free from outside influence, and debate me on my words and my thoughts, and not on your “perception” of what I am thinking.

I could just as easily make the case that most of what YOU have said are LIBERAL DEMOCRAT talking points…does that make you incapable of thinking for yourself?

Does talking about the same thing and agreeing with the same ideas as your Democratic liberal brethren mean that you are a puppet who cannot make his own decisions? That is exactly what you are implying by accusing me of using “talking points”, which is doubtless what you meant to do. Makes it easier to dismiss my thoughts and my ideas if you can marginalize them first.

I am so tired of hearing this term anyway…
whenever someone (usually a conservative) makes a point, or expounds on an issue, or shares their views on a subject, someone else (such as yourself) accuses them of spouting Republican
“talking points”.

Doesn’t it make sense that when a person (you or me or whomever) who thinks the same as others of his or her political ilk talks about an issue, the chances are good that what they say will sound similar to what others of their particular group would say about that same issue?

In other words…I sound like a conservative because…I am. I sound like I am using talking points because…I think the same way about the same issues as my political peers do.

But so do you. It doesn’t mean that neither of us can think for ourselves just because we happen to agree with our fellows.

SO how about drop the use of this term talking points OK? Can you just accept that we are both capable of the free exercise of thought and will seperate from our peers, while still agreeing with them, and stop implying that I am a brainwashed puppet? Or can’t you do that?

-“…accusation that j2t2 in particular and liberals in general are homosexuals, child molesters, or rapist or murders or otherwise immoral…”

I did not accuse you of being any of the above…I SAID that you were afraid of someone stepping on your PERCEIVED RIGHT to be one, as well as your perceived right to take any number of other immoral actions. Don’t read into my words.

-“FRRF’s have gathered once again to convince us we are not a secular nation, they wish to control all others with their brand of religion.”

Where? Where exactly have they “gathered” to brandish this control over others? I don’t see that happening. Who is trying to control us, and with what religion? I haven’t seen this supposed gathering of religious control freaks.

Proposing morally based laws which serve to aid in the smooth functioning of society does NOT equate to trying to make the country a
“theocacry”. Murder is illegal (under secular law)…thou shalt not kill is also a commandment. Does that mean that having laws against commiting murder are leading us into a theocracy?

Thou shalt not steal is a commandment…it is also illegal (under secular law) to steal. So are we headed down the road to theocracy because we put people in jail for burglary and theft?

When you refer to how you feel that the FRRF’s (whatever that is…I used it b/c you did, so it obviously means something to you) are imposing their religion on you, are you referring to the usual favorite liberal topic…abortion (the supposed women’s right to choose)? Do we even want to go there?

Once, many moons ago, in another thread, I presented what I considered a brilliant and well thought out essay supporting the pro-life anti-abortion position based COMPLETELY on scientific, non-religious grounds. Your (supposedly open minded) liberal brethren ripped me a new a—hole, and no one would take the time to give consideration or have a reasonable discussion on my presentation. Instead they resorted to name calling and character assination and refused to consider or debate my position, They refused to believe that I could reach this position on non-religious grounds, even though I clearly explained how it was possible to be pro-life without resorting to a religious basis for my arguement.

Your supposedly open minded liberal buddies were anything but open minded about that issue.

Can’t you see how ridiculous your conspiratorical rantings about theocracy are? You sound like a paranoid lunatic.

DaveR

Posted by: DaveR at August 18, 2006 2:04 AM
Comment #193258

Being a Corrigan myself, I like your analogy of Wrong-Way Corrigan as a metaphor for Bush’s decision to invade Iraq as a response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

I wrote about this briefly, too, here:

http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/dawn_corrigan/2006/11/index.html

Thanks for this post.

Posted by: Dawn C. at November 4, 2006 4:43 AM
Post a comment