Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Hypocrisy part 2
One of the things the federal census tracks is the balance of payments to the states. In general, the states that tend to vote democratic also tend to be net payers into federal coffers, while states that tend to vote republican tend to be net beneficiaries of federal payments. Ironic, no? Money being transferred from the states that most support federal programs to the states that advocate for small government? According to the most recent census figures, Alaska ranks seventh in the country in terms of how much money they receive from the federal government vs. how much they pay. (Virginia and Maryland are the top two because of the large numbers of federal employees, and federal paychecks, in those states.) So my question is, how can a state whose populace seems to pride itself on its independence and favors small government be so dependent on federal largess?
Monday, September 1, 2008
Buried Lede
From Peter Baker's New York Times Magazine feature article "The Final Days", on the last act of the Bush presidency, from page 4:
"'They’re friendly,' said Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican and McCain ally who has watched the two men up close. 'They don’t hang out together. I don’t think John’s ever been to Camp David. I think it’s respectful. President Bush respects Senator McCain, and I think Senator McCain respects the office of the presidency.'"
"'They’re friendly,' said Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican and McCain ally who has watched the two men up close. 'They don’t hang out together. I don’t think John’s ever been to Camp David. I think it’s respectful. President Bush respects Senator McCain, and I think Senator McCain respects the office of the presidency.'"
Hypocrisy
How come no one has pointed out that, of all the recent political sex scandals, the Democratic ones have involved consenting, heterosexual adults (Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer) while the Republican ones have involved homosexuality (Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Jeff Gannon, Mark Foley...), soliciting minors (Mark Foley again), and teen pregnancy? How come no one has pointed out that families and areas with strong "family values" (read sexually repressive) have higher rates of teen pregnancy? Why isn't anyone drawing contrasts between Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton, on one hand, and the Bush twins and Sarah Palin's seventeen year old daughter on the other? And why isn't anyone on the right questioning whether their focus on abstinence, faith, and marriage might be having exactly the opposite effect than the one they intend?
Supporters will say that Governor Palin's family should be off limits from the spotlight of politics. That would be fine, except that social conservatives are the ones who put the family in that spotlight in the first place. If they didn't want to impose their family-related values on the rest of us, I'd agree that private matters should be off limits. But they put that particular ball in play by supporting a sexually repressive social agenda, and they should be held responsible for the results when their own families fail to meet their own tests.
Supporters will say that Governor Palin's family should be off limits from the spotlight of politics. That would be fine, except that social conservatives are the ones who put the family in that spotlight in the first place. If they didn't want to impose their family-related values on the rest of us, I'd agree that private matters should be off limits. But they put that particular ball in play by supporting a sexually repressive social agenda, and they should be held responsible for the results when their own families fail to meet their own tests.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
The Right Wing Lifestyle
Right wingers have frequently been vilified for their illogical views and hypocritical behavior. I must admit that I’ve been among those who have condemned such people, because I assumed that their views, and their unceasing attempts to impose those views on others, were a matter of choice and free will. However, I have become increasingly convinced that being right wing is not a choice, but instead is a natural, intrinsic product of who these people are. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if, someday, scientists demonstrate that the brains of right wing people are significantly different from those of you and me.
What brought me to this conclusion was the realization that no rational person would ever deliberately choose the right wing lifestyle and all the problems that come with it. Who, for example, would ever deliberately choose to believe that lowering taxes would increase federal revenues, or that you could reduce the murder rate by having more guns around? Who would deliberately overlook the fundamental inconsistency of advocating for religious freedom while simultaneously trying to deny gay people the right to marry? Who would deliberately believe that Creationism is a science while evolution is “just a theory”? Who would plausibly believe that teenagers can be abstinent? Who would deliberately believe that the sick and the poor should be denied health care? And who would deliberately believe that global climate change is purely a natural phenomenon despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
It’s hard to reconcile the obvious logical flaws of right wing thinking with the notion that anyone would choose to engage in it. Yet almost a third of Americans apparently do. And what a struggle they face in the pursuit of their lifestyle: trying in vain to defend the policies of the current administration, actually believing what they see on Fox News…. Even the Bible is against them, warning against the perils of right wing tendencies. Don’t believe me? Look it up – it’s near the section that condemns abortion and supports the right to bear arms.
If being right wing is a product of nature rather than nurture or choice, then we can no longer condemn the right wing lifestyle in good conscience. After all, we know better than to condemn people for things they have no control over. Here, again, is a difference, as right wing people do exactly this when they engage in racism, condemn gay people, or fixate on Barack Obama’s middle name. Forgive them – they can’t control their racist, homophobic, anti-Islamic tendencies. Instead, the next time a friend makes a snarky comment about a right winger, just smile to yourself, secure in the knowledge that they aren’t that way by choice. They just turned out that way.
What brought me to this conclusion was the realization that no rational person would ever deliberately choose the right wing lifestyle and all the problems that come with it. Who, for example, would ever deliberately choose to believe that lowering taxes would increase federal revenues, or that you could reduce the murder rate by having more guns around? Who would deliberately overlook the fundamental inconsistency of advocating for religious freedom while simultaneously trying to deny gay people the right to marry? Who would deliberately believe that Creationism is a science while evolution is “just a theory”? Who would plausibly believe that teenagers can be abstinent? Who would deliberately believe that the sick and the poor should be denied health care? And who would deliberately believe that global climate change is purely a natural phenomenon despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
It’s hard to reconcile the obvious logical flaws of right wing thinking with the notion that anyone would choose to engage in it. Yet almost a third of Americans apparently do. And what a struggle they face in the pursuit of their lifestyle: trying in vain to defend the policies of the current administration, actually believing what they see on Fox News…. Even the Bible is against them, warning against the perils of right wing tendencies. Don’t believe me? Look it up – it’s near the section that condemns abortion and supports the right to bear arms.
If being right wing is a product of nature rather than nurture or choice, then we can no longer condemn the right wing lifestyle in good conscience. After all, we know better than to condemn people for things they have no control over. Here, again, is a difference, as right wing people do exactly this when they engage in racism, condemn gay people, or fixate on Barack Obama’s middle name. Forgive them – they can’t control their racist, homophobic, anti-Islamic tendencies. Instead, the next time a friend makes a snarky comment about a right winger, just smile to yourself, secure in the knowledge that they aren’t that way by choice. They just turned out that way.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Oil Men
With oil approaching $150 a barrel, gas in the US around $4.50 a gallon, and oil companies reporting the largest profits in corporate history, I wonder if this is our reward for having a pair of oil men appointed to the White House. And why does no one remember Dick Cheney's energy task force, whose members he has never divulged to the public? I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but I have to wonder if this was planned all along.... Nah, forget that. Given this administration's inability to plan and execute effectively, they couldn't possibly have pulled off something like this....
The "Us" Generation
Remember the "me" generation? The self-indulgent tail of the Baby Boom generation? Then came "generation x", then "generation y" (for lack of a more imaginative label)....
Much has been made of the social nature of today's young generation. With younger kids on MySpace, older ones on Facebook, constant sharing of pictures, text messaging, videos, and so forth, this generation is assembling a shared experience like no other before it. This has its downsides, of course; parents and business-minded adults fret that the "kids today" are leaving a trail of cyberdroppings that will follow them into job interviews, lead to stalking and identity theft, and compromise their privacy in ways they can't imagine or appreciate until they're older.
I wonder if this is necessarily a bad thing. Today's adults, like all the ones who have come before, hide their shortcomings and hope that their friends, neighbors, and associates will believe them to be stronger, more principled, and more sensible than they probably really are. The line between public information and private places personal habits and preferences that may be controversial or unsavory well behind the privacy line.
Today's generation may not have the luxury, or perhaps the burden, of keeping all that personal stuff off limits, when so much of it is on YouTube, Juicy Campus, and their own social network profiles. Rather than leading to embarrassment, though, I wonder if this might instead promote a wider understanding of what it means to be human, with all its flaws and frailties. Perhaps the "us" generation will, in the end, be more tolerant of personal differences and less burdened by conformity.
And, what happens when the "us" generation meets "Big Brother"? What happens when the continuing proliferation of data mining, background checks, surveillance, and other tactics of a generation that hordes its own privacy yet seeks compromising information about others meets the openness of a new, more social generation? Perhaps the personal information that Big Brother covets like gold will be recognized by a new generation as nothing but fools gold.
Much has been made of the social nature of today's young generation. With younger kids on MySpace, older ones on Facebook, constant sharing of pictures, text messaging, videos, and so forth, this generation is assembling a shared experience like no other before it. This has its downsides, of course; parents and business-minded adults fret that the "kids today" are leaving a trail of cyberdroppings that will follow them into job interviews, lead to stalking and identity theft, and compromise their privacy in ways they can't imagine or appreciate until they're older.
I wonder if this is necessarily a bad thing. Today's adults, like all the ones who have come before, hide their shortcomings and hope that their friends, neighbors, and associates will believe them to be stronger, more principled, and more sensible than they probably really are. The line between public information and private places personal habits and preferences that may be controversial or unsavory well behind the privacy line.
Today's generation may not have the luxury, or perhaps the burden, of keeping all that personal stuff off limits, when so much of it is on YouTube, Juicy Campus, and their own social network profiles. Rather than leading to embarrassment, though, I wonder if this might instead promote a wider understanding of what it means to be human, with all its flaws and frailties. Perhaps the "us" generation will, in the end, be more tolerant of personal differences and less burdened by conformity.
And, what happens when the "us" generation meets "Big Brother"? What happens when the continuing proliferation of data mining, background checks, surveillance, and other tactics of a generation that hordes its own privacy yet seeks compromising information about others meets the openness of a new, more social generation? Perhaps the personal information that Big Brother covets like gold will be recognized by a new generation as nothing but fools gold.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
