47% of the country will not, under any circumstances vote for Mitt Romney. I am part of that 47%. I wouldn't shake the man's hand if it met him. I wouldn't vote for him if he was running against this guy. Previously I only thought Mitt Romney was spineless. Now I know he is soulless as well. His callous disregard for nearly half the country puts him at odds with everything it means to be American. In fact, I'm ready to pass harsher judgement. Mitt Romney is decidedly un-American.
Just as importantly, he is a liar and a hypocrite. I will start by referring to a great article in the Economist that exposes Republican hypocrisy on the issue of taxes. At the article details, Republicans are largely responsible for the fact that many working Americans don't pay federal income tax. They have lowered tax rates so many times, that lower income people have fallen off the scale entirely. So although 28% of the country (not the 47% referenced by Romney, a number that includes retirees and extremely impoverished people), work they do not pay federal income tax but they do pay payroll taxes. So the "problem" if you consider it that, is one for which Republicans are largely responsible. But this leads us to the great deception, the idea that income tax and tax are synonymous.
This is obvious of course, but Republicans throw the word tax around with such regularity that it is easy to forget that there are many different kind of taxes, and while 47% of Americans pay no federal income tax, the aforementioned 28% do pay payroll taxes, and nearly everyone who purchases good pays sales tax. So when Republicans talk about 47% of the country being freeloaders, they are telling a lie about an issue they are largely responsible for creating. It is the height of deception and hypocrisy. The great irony here is that while these people preach class warfare anytime someone accurately points out that the huge and growing disparity in wealth between the rich and poor is a moral injustice and an economic problem, they are more than willing to stand in front of a group of millionaires and talk about how lazy half the country is.
And that brings me to my second point which will come in the form of a personal anecdote. I work for a network of schools, and I recruit employees - primarily teachers - for our network. I am 26 and pay all my taxes, but this story isn't about me. It is about the hundreds of faceless names that I see on resumes every day. Mitt Romney would have you believe that half the country doesn't want to work, but I am here to tell you otherwise. I see the resumes, and many of them are not pretty. They aren't funny, they are sad. It is easy to tell when people lack the education or the skill necessary to be competitive, but that isn't stopping them from trying. People want to work. People want to make something of themselves. The people Mitt Romney thinks he is speaking of are looking for jobs. They are applying not once, not twice, but three or four times even if they have been turned down in the past. I often see resumes that I don't even consider because I know we would never hire that person, but it kills me each time that happens because I imagine that many of those people are unemployed and doing everything in their power to provide for themselves and their families. Those people and all of us deserve more than what Mitt Romney is selling. Despite the odds beings stacked against them they are trying, and they deserve someone who will empower them further, not callously dismiss their efforts.
Mitt Romney and Republicans think that what America great is an idea. That is wrong. What makes America great is the people who make that idea a reality. What makes America great is Americans. What America needs is a president who believes in Americans, not Mitt Romney.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Monday, September 17, 2012
'Rithmetic
Bill Clinton said it best, but he's not the first one to say it, and it is worth repeating, Mitt Romney's tax plan simply does not add up. Of course, Romney has already made it clear that his campaign will not be dictated by fact checkers, presumably because that would derail the whole presidential bid given the Republican party's severe allergy to facts and data. Put simply Romney's plan is arithmetically impossible. No surprise there.
Perhaps this is the case because Republicans still adhere stringently to the gospel of trickle down even though this plan - while it sounds good in theory - has failed in practice. No matter what Republicans preach, tax cuts and economic growth are not synonymous. In fact it is very possible that any growth prospects from tax cuts would be more than off set by the damage of some of the spending cuts Ryan and Romney propose. Of course that is merely conjecture since - despite Ryan's claims not to "duck tough issues" - the campaign hasn't offered any real ideas and is now reevaluating it's position a month and a half before the election because it has been "short on specifics." Maybe Romney and Ryan are short on specifics because they know their plan isn't credible.
Here is the real issue though. Supply-sided economics does not work. It looks good on paper, but in practice it fails. As I have pointed out before, the failure of far left economic policies - centrally planned economies for example - does not mean that far right economic planning is the solution to our economic woes. Supply-sided economics is a failure as well. There is no evidence to show that lower taxes leads to economic growth. In fact in the past three decades, economic growth has come despite taxes. Romney and Ryan's plans to cut taxes is just that, a plan to cut taxes. It is not a plan to reduce the deficit. That has already been proven mathematically impossible, and it is surely not a plan to spur economic growth given that A) it isn't even possible to implement, and B) even if it were, it has been tried and proven ineffective.
Romney and Ryan have no economic plan, and worse, no credibility. Their plan does not reduce the deficit, it adds to the deficit by giving the super rich money they don't need. Their plan doesn't spur economic growth, it gives the super rich money they don't need. Oh, and they spend a lot more on defense, because nothing is cooler than having enough nukes to end life as we know it ten times over. The Romney/Ryan vision of America is a millionaire's sandbox with a military.
So if you are willing to buy into economic fantasy that is presented as purposefully vague in order to mask it's glaring deficiencies, then Romney and Ryan are your men. If you are willing to accept that mathematics, like global warming and evolution, is pure fiction then vote for Romney and Ryan. If you want more of what led to our current crisis and less of what will fix it, then vote Romney/Ryan in November.
If however, you think 'rithmetic is important, you have faith in data and science, and you want a prosperous America for everyone, I'd consider that Obama guy.
Perhaps this is the case because Republicans still adhere stringently to the gospel of trickle down even though this plan - while it sounds good in theory - has failed in practice. No matter what Republicans preach, tax cuts and economic growth are not synonymous. In fact it is very possible that any growth prospects from tax cuts would be more than off set by the damage of some of the spending cuts Ryan and Romney propose. Of course that is merely conjecture since - despite Ryan's claims not to "duck tough issues" - the campaign hasn't offered any real ideas and is now reevaluating it's position a month and a half before the election because it has been "short on specifics." Maybe Romney and Ryan are short on specifics because they know their plan isn't credible.
Here is the real issue though. Supply-sided economics does not work. It looks good on paper, but in practice it fails. As I have pointed out before, the failure of far left economic policies - centrally planned economies for example - does not mean that far right economic planning is the solution to our economic woes. Supply-sided economics is a failure as well. There is no evidence to show that lower taxes leads to economic growth. In fact in the past three decades, economic growth has come despite taxes. Romney and Ryan's plans to cut taxes is just that, a plan to cut taxes. It is not a plan to reduce the deficit. That has already been proven mathematically impossible, and it is surely not a plan to spur economic growth given that A) it isn't even possible to implement, and B) even if it were, it has been tried and proven ineffective.
Romney and Ryan have no economic plan, and worse, no credibility. Their plan does not reduce the deficit, it adds to the deficit by giving the super rich money they don't need. Their plan doesn't spur economic growth, it gives the super rich money they don't need. Oh, and they spend a lot more on defense, because nothing is cooler than having enough nukes to end life as we know it ten times over. The Romney/Ryan vision of America is a millionaire's sandbox with a military.
So if you are willing to buy into economic fantasy that is presented as purposefully vague in order to mask it's glaring deficiencies, then Romney and Ryan are your men. If you are willing to accept that mathematics, like global warming and evolution, is pure fiction then vote for Romney and Ryan. If you want more of what led to our current crisis and less of what will fix it, then vote Romney/Ryan in November.
If however, you think 'rithmetic is important, you have faith in data and science, and you want a prosperous America for everyone, I'd consider that Obama guy.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
This is Not Acceptable
Last night's attacks on American personnel in Egypt and Libya are entirely unacceptable and a complete travesty. While I have nothing but contempt and disgust for those who knowingly incite violence with unnecessary and inflammatory commentary, I have even more contempt and disgust for those who lash out with violence when ridiculed or insulted.
The loss of four members of the American diplomatic corps who had committed themselves to establishing democracy in Libya is an appalling and unforgivable atrocity. The world would be a better place without the likes of Terry Jones (whose name has been mentioned in connection with the video that sparked the attacks, but who is a good example of a bigot even if he is innocent here) whose hateful words are deliberately designed to provoke these responses, but Terry Jones and his ilk have every right to be ignorant bigots. No one has any reason to take innocent lives because they are offended. No one. Not now, not ever.
Muslims around the world may be very offended by depictions of Muhammad. They may be upset that others belittle their beliefs. That's all well and good. I'm offended and upset by much of the venom and lies spewed by the Republican party, but violence is not the answer. People have a right to their opinions and beliefs regardless of whether those opinions are enlightened or bigoted. They have a right to say that they think Islam is a violent and nutty religion, and as long as even a small fraction of Muslims react to those comments with violence then the assaults will keep coming.
There is nothing to say about last night's attacks except that they are not acceptable. Any world view that espouses violence when threatened has no place in the world we should be striving to create. America can and should to continue to promote values of tolerance at home and abroad, but that obviously that includes a respect for human life above all else.
Just as my thoughts and prayers were with the families and victims of the 9/11 attacks yesterday, so today are they with the families and victims of the senseless attacks in Libya. We should salute the brave Americans who paid the ultimate sacrifice to help make the world a better place.
The loss of four members of the American diplomatic corps who had committed themselves to establishing democracy in Libya is an appalling and unforgivable atrocity. The world would be a better place without the likes of Terry Jones (whose name has been mentioned in connection with the video that sparked the attacks, but who is a good example of a bigot even if he is innocent here) whose hateful words are deliberately designed to provoke these responses, but Terry Jones and his ilk have every right to be ignorant bigots. No one has any reason to take innocent lives because they are offended. No one. Not now, not ever.
Muslims around the world may be very offended by depictions of Muhammad. They may be upset that others belittle their beliefs. That's all well and good. I'm offended and upset by much of the venom and lies spewed by the Republican party, but violence is not the answer. People have a right to their opinions and beliefs regardless of whether those opinions are enlightened or bigoted. They have a right to say that they think Islam is a violent and nutty religion, and as long as even a small fraction of Muslims react to those comments with violence then the assaults will keep coming.
There is nothing to say about last night's attacks except that they are not acceptable. Any world view that espouses violence when threatened has no place in the world we should be striving to create. America can and should to continue to promote values of tolerance at home and abroad, but that obviously that includes a respect for human life above all else.
Just as my thoughts and prayers were with the families and victims of the 9/11 attacks yesterday, so today are they with the families and victims of the senseless attacks in Libya. We should salute the brave Americans who paid the ultimate sacrifice to help make the world a better place.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
11 Years Later
It has been 11 years and the memory has not faded. A day that will live in infamy. A day which we will never forget. A day that our brave men and women in uniform work every day to prevent from happening again.
We should honor the dead everyday, but we do so especially today. Our hearts and prayers are with those innocent victims and their families.
September 11, 2001 was a horrible day, but the American spirit is stronger than any tower of steel. I am proud of my country, I am proud to be an American, and I am grateful for those who endeavor to keep us safe just as I mourn those whose lives were senselessly taken.
We should honor the dead everyday, but we do so especially today. Our hearts and prayers are with those innocent victims and their families.
September 11, 2001 was a horrible day, but the American spirit is stronger than any tower of steel. I am proud of my country, I am proud to be an American, and I am grateful for those who endeavor to keep us safe just as I mourn those whose lives were senselessly taken.
Monday, September 10, 2012
As Conservative as the Constitution
Mitt Romney appeared on Meet the Press yesterday, and in typical Mitt Romney fashion, twisted himself into knots trying to explain the inexplicable - his ever changing, ever evolving, never set-in-stone views on everything. As I've said before, Mitt Romney has never met a position his audience didn't like. Right now that means Etch-a-Sketching his way back towards the center for the general election, but let us not forget that very recently, Mitt was a "severe" conservative.
I find the term amusing, but also strikingly accurate. When I hear the word severe I often think of an illness. A severe cold for example. There is a negative connotation. To me, Romney painted an accurate picture of the far right with the term. The ideas espoused by many of these people are awful. Their social views are abhorrent, and their economic policies are misguided and have been tried and found wanting. If there still existed such a thing as a moderate Republican, a right-of-center pragmatist just as the President is a left-of-center pragmatist, then Republicans could contribute to the national debate. Alas, Mitt Romney is the closest thing to a right-of-center pragmatist, but since he has the spine of an eel, I don't trust anything he says. Severe conservatism is an epidemic that has taken over most of the Republican party to the detriment of the country.
But Romney pivoted to the center on Sunday, and instead of a severe conservative he is now only "as conservative as the Constitution." This sounds less extreme, and it probably is, but it is still deeply misguided and represents a severe step backwards for America.
For starters, the Constitution is hardly a conservative document. Though far from perfect, it was, at the time it was penned, well ahead of its time. A first-of-its-kind document, the Constitution represented something that had never really been tried before. It established a new form of government and provided people essential and basic protection under the law. It is only conservative from the perspective of someone living in the 21st century. At the time it was written, it was perhaps the most progressive document on the planet.
But today, it is most certainly a conservative document, and that is part of the problem. Why on Earth are some people committed to running a 21st century society based on laws established in the late 18th century? It's worth mentioning that the all-knowing founding fathers were wise enough to establish a mechanism to amend the Constitution and then to immediately amend it themselves, giving us the Bill of Rights. It's worth mentioning that even though the original document was forward-thinking, it had to be amended multiple times to eliminate grave injustices such as the acceptance of slavery and the denial of women's suffrage. As society moves forward and new challenges arise, we should have a means of addressing them.
The point of a Constitution in my view is two-fold; it must establish stability so that people have confidence that they are acting within the law thus establishing a solid foundation for society, but it must also allow for the flexibility of a rapidly changing world so that we are not left behind. The United States Constitution is stability heavy, with almost no room for flexibility. It is rigid in an age in which we need to be more nimble.
This is best illustrated by an oft-mentioned (at least by me) episode from a few years ago in which the rights of people on the terrorist-suspect list were being debated. Republican Senator Lindsay Graham defended his position that terrorist suspects could be barred from airplanes, but not prevented from buying a gun by pointing out that airplanes weren't mentioned in the Constitution!
Senator Graham is right. Airplanes are not mentioned in the Constitution. Apparently, the foresight of the founders extended only so far. Wise though they were, there was not a Nostradamus among them, and therefore they were unable to fully anticipate how complex a place the world would become. Despite some of these glaring, but understandable, omissions, there are still those in this country who would have us be governed by the Constitution as it was originally written, line for line, word for word, letter for letter. This is, quite frankly, asinine.
So when Mitt Romney says he is as Conservative as the Constitution, we should be afraid. Such a statement reflects his profound misunderstanding of what the Constitution meant at the time it was written, and also shackles us to a a worldview in which the yeoman farmer will explore and tame the vast wilderness of the American frontier.
The Constitution is rightfully the foundation for our society. It reflects the values on which our country was founded, and provides us with a sense of what it means to be American, and a stable set of laws on which to govern our society. However the Constitution does not and cannot answer all the questions posed by a complicated 21st century world. Healthcare reform and airplanes were not on the minds of the founding fathers, and if we continue to think we can determine the path forward based on a rigid interpretation of an 18th century document, then we are sure to find ourselves looking up at the societies who have found a way to create both stability and flexibility.
I find the term amusing, but also strikingly accurate. When I hear the word severe I often think of an illness. A severe cold for example. There is a negative connotation. To me, Romney painted an accurate picture of the far right with the term. The ideas espoused by many of these people are awful. Their social views are abhorrent, and their economic policies are misguided and have been tried and found wanting. If there still existed such a thing as a moderate Republican, a right-of-center pragmatist just as the President is a left-of-center pragmatist, then Republicans could contribute to the national debate. Alas, Mitt Romney is the closest thing to a right-of-center pragmatist, but since he has the spine of an eel, I don't trust anything he says. Severe conservatism is an epidemic that has taken over most of the Republican party to the detriment of the country.
But Romney pivoted to the center on Sunday, and instead of a severe conservative he is now only "as conservative as the Constitution." This sounds less extreme, and it probably is, but it is still deeply misguided and represents a severe step backwards for America.
For starters, the Constitution is hardly a conservative document. Though far from perfect, it was, at the time it was penned, well ahead of its time. A first-of-its-kind document, the Constitution represented something that had never really been tried before. It established a new form of government and provided people essential and basic protection under the law. It is only conservative from the perspective of someone living in the 21st century. At the time it was written, it was perhaps the most progressive document on the planet.
But today, it is most certainly a conservative document, and that is part of the problem. Why on Earth are some people committed to running a 21st century society based on laws established in the late 18th century? It's worth mentioning that the all-knowing founding fathers were wise enough to establish a mechanism to amend the Constitution and then to immediately amend it themselves, giving us the Bill of Rights. It's worth mentioning that even though the original document was forward-thinking, it had to be amended multiple times to eliminate grave injustices such as the acceptance of slavery and the denial of women's suffrage. As society moves forward and new challenges arise, we should have a means of addressing them.
The point of a Constitution in my view is two-fold; it must establish stability so that people have confidence that they are acting within the law thus establishing a solid foundation for society, but it must also allow for the flexibility of a rapidly changing world so that we are not left behind. The United States Constitution is stability heavy, with almost no room for flexibility. It is rigid in an age in which we need to be more nimble.
This is best illustrated by an oft-mentioned (at least by me) episode from a few years ago in which the rights of people on the terrorist-suspect list were being debated. Republican Senator Lindsay Graham defended his position that terrorist suspects could be barred from airplanes, but not prevented from buying a gun by pointing out that airplanes weren't mentioned in the Constitution!
Senator Graham is right. Airplanes are not mentioned in the Constitution. Apparently, the foresight of the founders extended only so far. Wise though they were, there was not a Nostradamus among them, and therefore they were unable to fully anticipate how complex a place the world would become. Despite some of these glaring, but understandable, omissions, there are still those in this country who would have us be governed by the Constitution as it was originally written, line for line, word for word, letter for letter. This is, quite frankly, asinine.
So when Mitt Romney says he is as Conservative as the Constitution, we should be afraid. Such a statement reflects his profound misunderstanding of what the Constitution meant at the time it was written, and also shackles us to a a worldview in which the yeoman farmer will explore and tame the vast wilderness of the American frontier.
The Constitution is rightfully the foundation for our society. It reflects the values on which our country was founded, and provides us with a sense of what it means to be American, and a stable set of laws on which to govern our society. However the Constitution does not and cannot answer all the questions posed by a complicated 21st century world. Healthcare reform and airplanes were not on the minds of the founding fathers, and if we continue to think we can determine the path forward based on a rigid interpretation of an 18th century document, then we are sure to find ourselves looking up at the societies who have found a way to create both stability and flexibility.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Fired Up but Not Inspired
Two conventions later I'm left feeling fired up but not inspired.
I'm fired up because Republicans reminded me how important it is to reelect President Obama. Their vision of the future is inconsistent with American values, and is built on fiction and fantasy. I'm also fired up because I heard quite a few rousing speeches from the Democrats. From the first lady to the Arkansan I wish we could bring back for a third term to John Kerry's charismatic twin to the President himself, Democrats were rousing. Republicans tend to be incredibly old and boring, Democrats a bit less so.
A lot is at stake in November, and I'm fired up about making sure the President gets reelected. There are multiple paths forward for our country, but only one political party has chosen to move us in that direction.
But that brings me to the disappointment I'm feeling. While I recognize the dangerous path that the Republican party would lead us down, I'm uninspired by the lack of bold leadership from Democrats.
Perhaps they took the easy route. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are easy punching bags after all. Maybe polling data show that Democrats will do better by highlighting how bad Republicans are, but smart people already know that the current Republican platform is dogmatic and silly to the extreme. What people want is a vision from Democrats, and I did not get one.
Sure Obama talked about some policy ideas, and he had some good ones, but they were small time. Reform the tax code? Sounds great, Republicans are saying it too, which loopholes would you close, etc, etc, etc. Nothing substantive there. Recruit more math and science teachers? Sounds awesome, let's do it. Help more people get to community college so they can learn skills? Sure, that will help too.
But none of these things are visionary, they're micro fixes for macro problems. None of them will address any of America's true, long-terms needs. Am I really supposed to believe that America's long-term prosperity hinges on community colleges? I wanted something bigger and better for the Democrats and I didn't get it. I wanted the President to be brave, but instead he was safe. I wanted him to tell me how he was going to transition us to clean energy, or reform immigration policy, or fix the deficit. I wanted in 2012 what healthcare reform was in 2010. I am left wanting.
I'm fired up because Republicans reminded me how important it is to reelect President Obama. Their vision of the future is inconsistent with American values, and is built on fiction and fantasy. I'm also fired up because I heard quite a few rousing speeches from the Democrats. From the first lady to the Arkansan I wish we could bring back for a third term to John Kerry's charismatic twin to the President himself, Democrats were rousing. Republicans tend to be incredibly old and boring, Democrats a bit less so.
A lot is at stake in November, and I'm fired up about making sure the President gets reelected. There are multiple paths forward for our country, but only one political party has chosen to move us in that direction.
But that brings me to the disappointment I'm feeling. While I recognize the dangerous path that the Republican party would lead us down, I'm uninspired by the lack of bold leadership from Democrats.
Perhaps they took the easy route. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are easy punching bags after all. Maybe polling data show that Democrats will do better by highlighting how bad Republicans are, but smart people already know that the current Republican platform is dogmatic and silly to the extreme. What people want is a vision from Democrats, and I did not get one.
Sure Obama talked about some policy ideas, and he had some good ones, but they were small time. Reform the tax code? Sounds great, Republicans are saying it too, which loopholes would you close, etc, etc, etc. Nothing substantive there. Recruit more math and science teachers? Sounds awesome, let's do it. Help more people get to community college so they can learn skills? Sure, that will help too.
But none of these things are visionary, they're micro fixes for macro problems. None of them will address any of America's true, long-terms needs. Am I really supposed to believe that America's long-term prosperity hinges on community colleges? I wanted something bigger and better for the Democrats and I didn't get it. I wanted the President to be brave, but instead he was safe. I wanted him to tell me how he was going to transition us to clean energy, or reform immigration policy, or fix the deficit. I wanted in 2012 what healthcare reform was in 2010. I am left wanting.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
The Demographics of Progress
Countries, because of the people who populate them, get older and younger in an ebb and flow of generational demographics. Right now, America has an aging population, but that will not be so in a few decades. In fact in a few decades, America will have a much younger population. This natural cycle is true for all countries, but it underscores important and encouraging trends for our future.
The inspiration for this post came from a piece I read in the Economist yesterday dissecting Michelle Obama's speech at the DNC. I was drawn particularly to the following line:
"There was almost a sense of poker at work. In Tampa, Republicans talked a lot about their parents, the second world war and the "greatest generation", and the founding fathers. On the first night in Charlotte, speaker after speaker spoke about their grandparents (ie, I’ll see your mother, and raise you my granny)."
What I found most interesting about this was the alignment between parents and grandparents. I know there is no direct demographic evidence of this, but I find it telling that when talking about the "greatest generation," Republicans are talking about their parents and Democrats about their grandparents. This is equal parts amusing and encouraging.
It's no secret that each successive generation tends to be more liberal than the generation before it, and that, put simply, is the demographics of progress. Much of what we debate in the present has already been determined in the future, but we are fighting the fights now as some cling to the last vestiges of the traditions - real or imagined - of preceding generations, and as none of us yet know what the fights of the future will look like.
This is true for both economic and social issues, but more so for social ones. Can you imagine how some people 50 years ago would have reacted if they had been told that America would elect a black president? How do you think the generation born in 2050 will react to knowing that in 2012 a basic right like marriage was denied to gay people simply because of their sexuality? It will be an even more laughable travesty then than it is now.
Progress is slow but inevitable. The world is moving in the right direction, and the demographics of progress are like unstoppable waves pushing us forward. Today's fights have already been won tomorrow if that convoluted timeline makes any sense. It is important not to let that knowledge make us complacent. We must continue to strive for equality and prosperity, but it is all encouraging to know that we are fighting a winning battle.
The inspiration for this post came from a piece I read in the Economist yesterday dissecting Michelle Obama's speech at the DNC. I was drawn particularly to the following line:
"There was almost a sense of poker at work. In Tampa, Republicans talked a lot about their parents, the second world war and the "greatest generation", and the founding fathers. On the first night in Charlotte, speaker after speaker spoke about their grandparents (ie, I’ll see your mother, and raise you my granny)."
What I found most interesting about this was the alignment between parents and grandparents. I know there is no direct demographic evidence of this, but I find it telling that when talking about the "greatest generation," Republicans are talking about their parents and Democrats about their grandparents. This is equal parts amusing and encouraging.
It's no secret that each successive generation tends to be more liberal than the generation before it, and that, put simply, is the demographics of progress. Much of what we debate in the present has already been determined in the future, but we are fighting the fights now as some cling to the last vestiges of the traditions - real or imagined - of preceding generations, and as none of us yet know what the fights of the future will look like.
This is true for both economic and social issues, but more so for social ones. Can you imagine how some people 50 years ago would have reacted if they had been told that America would elect a black president? How do you think the generation born in 2050 will react to knowing that in 2012 a basic right like marriage was denied to gay people simply because of their sexuality? It will be an even more laughable travesty then than it is now.
Progress is slow but inevitable. The world is moving in the right direction, and the demographics of progress are like unstoppable waves pushing us forward. Today's fights have already been won tomorrow if that convoluted timeline makes any sense. It is important not to let that knowledge make us complacent. We must continue to strive for equality and prosperity, but it is all encouraging to know that we are fighting a winning battle.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
The Future is Now
I'm taking a break from talking about campaign politics but I will say quickly that Michelle Obama is to Ann Romney as the undefeated 1972 Dolphins are to the Little Giants.
Now that I've gotten that out of the way, let's talk about one of my favorite topics, clean and alternative energy: the ever elusive, but immensely important source of future economic growth and national security.
I have made numerous pitches for green energy in the past. I've cited the Pickens plan, mentioned the multitude of wind turbines I saw in France, and been awed by Iceland's ability to sustain itself on geothermal heat. I have lobbied for segue projects such as the Keystone Pipeline to help us bridge the gap between the old and dirty and the new and clean, and I have come out in favor of fracking because clean(er) American energy is still superior to dirty(er) foreign imports.
So I was elated to see a report about Oregon's attempt to harness waves to create enough power for 1,000 homes. That's a modest number, but it's a huge start. This is the kind of project that America needs to secure our energy and national security future, not to mention to wean us off of fossil fuels that will ultimately lead to catastrophic climate change.
Generating electricity for 1,000 homes doesn't sound like much because it isn't. Not in a country of 300 million people let alone a world of 7 billion human inhabitants. But if successful, this and other projects will show that we can and should be harnessing the natural energy of the Earth to supply us with power. The technology is still a work in progress, but the growing demand for energy coupled with the environmental cost of dirty and outdated power sources shows that the future is now.
I will end by contradicting my first paragraph and throwing electoral politics back into the mix; if the future is now, the party is the Democrats whose platform states that: "We know that global climate change is one of the biggest threats of this generation — an economic, environmental and national security catastrophe in the making."
Contrast that to the Republicans who dropped addressing climate change from their platform though it was included in 2008.
The future is now, and only one party is trying to get us there.
Now that I've gotten that out of the way, let's talk about one of my favorite topics, clean and alternative energy: the ever elusive, but immensely important source of future economic growth and national security.
I have made numerous pitches for green energy in the past. I've cited the Pickens plan, mentioned the multitude of wind turbines I saw in France, and been awed by Iceland's ability to sustain itself on geothermal heat. I have lobbied for segue projects such as the Keystone Pipeline to help us bridge the gap between the old and dirty and the new and clean, and I have come out in favor of fracking because clean(er) American energy is still superior to dirty(er) foreign imports.
So I was elated to see a report about Oregon's attempt to harness waves to create enough power for 1,000 homes. That's a modest number, but it's a huge start. This is the kind of project that America needs to secure our energy and national security future, not to mention to wean us off of fossil fuels that will ultimately lead to catastrophic climate change.
Generating electricity for 1,000 homes doesn't sound like much because it isn't. Not in a country of 300 million people let alone a world of 7 billion human inhabitants. But if successful, this and other projects will show that we can and should be harnessing the natural energy of the Earth to supply us with power. The technology is still a work in progress, but the growing demand for energy coupled with the environmental cost of dirty and outdated power sources shows that the future is now.
I will end by contradicting my first paragraph and throwing electoral politics back into the mix; if the future is now, the party is the Democrats whose platform states that: "We know that global climate change is one of the biggest threats of this generation — an economic, environmental and national security catastrophe in the making."
Contrast that to the Republicans who dropped addressing climate change from their platform though it was included in 2008.
The future is now, and only one party is trying to get us there.
Monday, September 3, 2012
A Bad Sign
I suppose that depends on one's point of view. I actually think it's a good sign, but perhaps I should clarify. It is a bad sign, when Fox News calls you out for being full of it. At least when you are a Republican. Many Republicans would call it par for the course when the New York Times does the same thing, although who are we kidding, the Times has real journalistic standards, and Fox News is, well Fox News. Enough said.
More importantly than who did the calling out it the issue at hand. I know I'm almost a week late on this, but Paul Ryan's speech at the Republican National Convention last week was deceiving in the extreme. In fact it was full of lies. Paul Ryan, a man who I have described as one of the more palatable Republicans, stood on stage and lied to the American people again and again and again. And again.
I could start listing all the times Ryan lied. I could point out each inaccuracy - a generous term - I could reflect for the umpteenth time on how Republicans are the party of hypocrisy, of ignorance, of utter foolishness. Or I could just ask the simple question, really?
Mitt Romney's campaign has already stated publicly that it will not be defined by fact checkers. That's good for the campaign because fact checkers have already rendered most of what it is peddling as filth. When the NYTimes editorial writers slam a Republican perhaps some people can write it off, but when Fox News and the Washington Post level the same criticism, it carries more weight. Republican dogma, flawed though it is, is still dogma which some people will buy into no matter how silly it seems.
Lies, on the other hand, are lies. Plain and simple. Republicans tell us that tax breaks for the wealthy are the way to grow the economy. It takes a lot of faith to believe that since there is no data to back it up, but it isn't a lie. In fact, it's not even a horrible idea (taken outside the context of their other much worse ideas). But when Paul Ryan says that Obama is responsible for America's credit downgrade, that is a lie. At least according to S&P who downgraded our rating. According to S&P:
"Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade."
The issue here isn't what Ryan said so much as that he had the audacity to say it. America didn't become great by ignoring truth, eschewing reality, and poisoning the electorate with ideas that are bad and words that are false. Ideas can and should compete in our nation. That is how we improve. Lies are lies are lies. And when the Republican party thinks it can tell blatant lies to the American people to promote a flawed ideology, the bad ideas become secondary to the willful propagation of the myths on which they are based. Paul Ryan sold us an alternate reality, and he did so willingly. America deserves better, and I hope we remember that in November.
More importantly than who did the calling out it the issue at hand. I know I'm almost a week late on this, but Paul Ryan's speech at the Republican National Convention last week was deceiving in the extreme. In fact it was full of lies. Paul Ryan, a man who I have described as one of the more palatable Republicans, stood on stage and lied to the American people again and again and again. And again.
I could start listing all the times Ryan lied. I could point out each inaccuracy - a generous term - I could reflect for the umpteenth time on how Republicans are the party of hypocrisy, of ignorance, of utter foolishness. Or I could just ask the simple question, really?
Mitt Romney's campaign has already stated publicly that it will not be defined by fact checkers. That's good for the campaign because fact checkers have already rendered most of what it is peddling as filth. When the NYTimes editorial writers slam a Republican perhaps some people can write it off, but when Fox News and the Washington Post level the same criticism, it carries more weight. Republican dogma, flawed though it is, is still dogma which some people will buy into no matter how silly it seems.
Lies, on the other hand, are lies. Plain and simple. Republicans tell us that tax breaks for the wealthy are the way to grow the economy. It takes a lot of faith to believe that since there is no data to back it up, but it isn't a lie. In fact, it's not even a horrible idea (taken outside the context of their other much worse ideas). But when Paul Ryan says that Obama is responsible for America's credit downgrade, that is a lie. At least according to S&P who downgraded our rating. According to S&P:
"Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade."
The issue here isn't what Ryan said so much as that he had the audacity to say it. America didn't become great by ignoring truth, eschewing reality, and poisoning the electorate with ideas that are bad and words that are false. Ideas can and should compete in our nation. That is how we improve. Lies are lies are lies. And when the Republican party thinks it can tell blatant lies to the American people to promote a flawed ideology, the bad ideas become secondary to the willful propagation of the myths on which they are based. Paul Ryan sold us an alternate reality, and he did so willingly. America deserves better, and I hope we remember that in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)