commentopia

 

 

APRIL 26, 2010 -- MAY 2, 2010

THE BIG UNEASY: FOUR OF FIVE AMERICANS DON'T TRUST GOVERNMENT

 

 

Americans have realized since the 1700s that rich politicians in the capital/palace have their own rich interest in mind.

No politician (republican/ democrat/  liberal/ conservative /progressive) in Washington DC has ever made a mere $40,000 a year and can not relate to the people. Rich politicians represent rich corporations and other rich rich people.

Yes, I am cynical about politicians ... and preachers.

Read the article THE ATLANTIC/80 per cent of Americans don't trust the government -- here's why

PEW SURVEY REPORT

The drop in trust follows the growth of government, at all levels - fed, state, local. The level of state and local growth is dependent on locale, while the fed growth is pervasive. The chart directly shows that level of trust starts its precipitous fall with the actions Johnson, who's "great society" acts truly started the huge growth of domestic programs.

That growth is just not financial, but also intrusive. As government passes more and more laws and regulations, they intrude further into the lives of the citizens. Further, many of the laws and regulations, allow the government to pick "winners" and "losers". I use quotes because the definition of "winner" or "loser" is in the eye of the beholder.

Over that time there has also been an explosion in the number of government employees,again at all levels. This has created what many view as a "government class", a group of people who's actions directly impact the lives of average citizens, but feel none of the negative impact. An example would be the "environmental" bureaucrats, at all levels, who tie up the construction of a factory for years as various "environmental impact statements" are hammered out. Eventually the factory does no open and production is shifted to Mexico or China. People who would have benefited from employment at the factory lose, but the bureaucrats suffer nothing.

There is a reason that the word "bureaucrat" is considered derisive. There is a reason that the term "career politician" is also viewed as derisive by many. The bureaucrats are viewed as autocratic bumblers while the career politicians are viewed as panderers to whomever will give them support for their next election.

Read the article THE ATLANTIC/80 per cent of Americans don't trust the government -- here's why

<>

Unfortunately most Americans know less than half about how their government works or the details of legislation and current events. With junk food news like CNN and Fox News, you have one part of the electorate under-educated on policy details and another part parroting right wing talking points. You repeat a lie long enough and people believe it (Hitler's propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels was right). In this case it is the right wing continuing to sow distrust and outright hostility towards our own public institutions. Do they need reform? Yes. Has the size of government increased this year. Yes - because of our social safety net and the economic crisis caused by George Bush.

It's not surprising people have a paradoxical view of government. They want more wall street regulation, but less government. They want reliable health insurance, but smaller government. You can't have your cake and eat it too. As long as this economic crisis continues and the federal government does not pony up the dollars needed to really jump start the economy, we'll continue wallowing in a jobless recovery.

Our country should be moving more to the left not further to the right.

Read the article NPR/Pew Poll: trust in Government hits near-historic low

<>

Funny how this article focuses mainly on the government. The Pew Poll clearly shows distrust across institutions (22% distrust banks, 25% distrust corporations and 31% distrust the media) while 45% actually have a positive view of the Obama administration. Regardless of one's political leanings, I think there is a sense that the Powers That Be are not accountable to We The People. People are right to be skeptical of Congress, The Media, and Corporations -- they are all complicit.

Read the article NPR/Pew Poll: trust in Government hits near-historic low

<>

What is being seen in America is not as much a Republican vs. Democrat issue but an issue of Govt. needs to change across the board. Now granted there is a lot of hatred about Bush and a lot of hatred about Obama which is helping to fuel the debate... but this has been a long time coming and America is starting to wake up.

Deficit spending is out of control, entitlements are out of control and we ( as Americans ) elected Obama.. not me personally but a majority of Americans.... to provide the change this country needs.

What people have seen is just more of the same and nothing has really changed. It is still business as usual and Americans are trying to tell our representatives either you change NOW or we will find someone who will change the way Govt does business.

These people need to learn to do more with less... the way any business operates or any individual on a budget. No longer can Govt just increase spending every year and continue to grow at the rate it has been. It is not sustainable.

I am a member of the GOP and pretty conservative. I am not a tea-party member or a nut case listening to talk show hosts all day. I just think that Govt needs to be responsible and find a way to live within it's means just like we all do. I don't think that is too much to ask for.

Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Why people dislike government (and why it matters for 2010

<>

What's not to like?

The government grows like a weed, doesn't solve any problems, never eliminates any poorly performing programs, and pays its people far above what the average private sector employee earns.

The politicians take money from lobbyists, but somehow it isn't graft or bribery. They gerrymander their districts to favor incumbents, but somehow that isn't crooked.

Wonder what all the fuss is about?

Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Why people dislike government (and why it matters for 2010

 

APRIL 19, 2010 -- APRIL 25, 2010

PRESIDENTIAL MEMO TO HOSPITALS: VISITATION RIGHTS FOR GAY COUPLES

 

 

This is a no brainer. It was pretty disgusting that before this, a gay person couldn't get in to see a partner he or she'd loved and been with for the past 40 years, but a straight person could see a spouse they'd been married to for 40 minutes.

And how could someone object to this? I mean, I know homophobia runs deep, but what do straight people care if a gay guy is lying in a hospital bed and his partner makes decisions for him? Where's the skin off their back?

Live and let live I say. Personally, I don't see why people shouldn't just get to pick who they want to have visitation rights. I mean, say you're a lonely old guy whose parents are dead and who never got married, but you do have a best friend you've known for 30 years. Why couldn't you just stipulate in your medical information that, "if anything happens to me, I want that person in the room"?

As far as freedom is concerned, this really is a no-brainer. Go America.

Read the article DAILY BEAST/Hospital visitation rights for gays?

<>

This mandate (it is not a bill, or a law) will help everyone. I had a friend whose husband had made out a living will that ordered that the plug be pulled if he went into a coma.

The staff at the hospital refused to honor his legally prepared directives, using the excuse that he was in an El Paso, TX hospital and the directives were drawn up in New Mexico.

My disraught friend had to practically get a court order, which took several days, to get them to let go of their lucrative dying patient. And of course the hospital and doctors charged for those extra days, they sucked another $20,000 or so out of the dying man. His wife was too emotionally battered after this devastating experience to sue them, which is something they count on.

You just have no idea how the health industry will take advantage of you, whether you are married, unmarried, gay or straight. They will also try to make you feel guilty for not "doing everything posslble" to prolong the dying, and of course the expense, which puts more money in THEIR pockets.

Read the article WASHINGTON POST /Obama extends hospital visitation rights to same-sex partners of gays

<>

I am a physician and my partner of ten years is an attorney. We have the documents of which Mr. Duffy speaks. It costs thousands of dollars every couple of years to make sure they are updated so a court challenge by someone would be less likely to be successful. Still, the number of rights afforded us by those pieces of paper pale in comparison to those of marriage. Why should we have to live like this? It isn't fair, it isn't healthy, and it just doesn't make sense when there is a more direct, easier option to secure rights. I'm off to work now to save lives, over 90% of those people being heterosexual, many of them with questionable morals, with no judgement or drama from me.

Read the article NPR/Obama: Hospitals must grant same-sex visitations

<>

To all those who question the "radical" action by the President and denigrate this effort at extending fundamental rights to those legally barred from attaining them elsewhere, they should look at the legal history of this country.

When President Johnson signed the original Medicare act into law, segregated hospitals were required to provide fully integrated services IF THEY WANTED TO RECEIVE MEDICARE FUNDS. At that time, Governor Wallace, rallying to the "State's Rights" cause, urged the hospitals to reject federal funds in order to avoid integration.

President Obama's action appears to be entirely legal and consistent with precedent. After 45 years, how "radical" can this really be?

What a pity that all of the "legal" and "constitutional" scholars posting online, are so poorly educated on the ACTUAL HISTORY of this country. Their ignorance is a testimony to a poor educational system. Fortunately ignorance can be remedied, but stupid goes straight to the bone.

Read the article WASHINGTON POST /Obama extends hospital visitation rights to same-sex partners of gays

<>

Hospital visitation policies vary widely according to states and even the hospital itself. Apparently the case that inspired this shows that even if you have legal documens showing you want someone to make decisions for you, they can still bar that person if they aren’t a relative.

As a medical social worker for over 20 years, I can say that its important for everyone to fill out a Power of Attorney for Healthcare. The Living Will can be almost useless due to the usual line saying “if in my doctor’s opinion” since a doctor can have any opinion that they want (and most people are too shy to fire one doctor and hire another to get their loved one off machines).

I’m glad this step for visitation is being made, it will help a lot of people.

Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/ Obama says hospitals must allow visitation rights

 

APRIL 12, 2010 -- APRIL 18, 2010

WILL U.S.- RUSSIA NUCLEAR PACT MAKE THE WORLD SAFER?

The only case in which a nuclear weapon might be used is by an unaccountable faceless criminal or terrorist or by someone of a pathologically deranged nature in charge of rogue state.

The former is why cooperation amongst states is key in the future so this agreement is a good marker of progress in this direction. The latter is an extremely unlikely, and to assume that just because Kim Jon Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for example may be disagreeable characters they are not insane (in fact acutely intelligent) and certainly know that they have everything to lose out of the use of nuclear weapons and nothing to gain.

Read the article BBC NEWS/Will U.S -Russia nuclear treaty make the world safer?

<>

The Republican senators, and all Americans, should approve of this treaty. To quote a former President: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of this Earth.”

Not Carter, not Clinton, not Bush I or II. It was Ronald Reagan. And, at least on this one, he was absolutely right.

Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Russia and U.S. sign nuclear arms reduction pact

In 1986, after receiving a terminal diagnosis of brain cancer, I made a wish to travel to the Soviet Union to make an appeal for an end to nuclear weapons and the Cold War. My wish was fulfilled two years later when, after completing chemotherapy, I was flown out to Moscow and later Leningrad to meet with politicians and participate in an American-Soviet youth conference on world peace.

While the political scene changed radically in the years following my visit (which, mind you, I do not attribute to myself!), neither the Soviet/Russian nuclear policy, nor ours, went through any significant transformation -- either then or in the two decades that followed. But today we are witnessing a fundamental shift in the posture of our countries toward one another, brought forth through bold leadership and perhaps a leap of faith.

While new nuclear risks have emerged, there is at last the prospect of the beginning of the end -- not to humanity this time, but to the policies and postures that have threatened our existence. I'm glad to have survived to see this new day.

Read the article BBC NEWS/Will U.S -Russia nuclear treaty make the world safer?

 

RETHINKING AMERICA'S NUCLEAR STRATEGY

 

To all the angry commenters to this article: The Soviet Union dissolved 19 years ago!

What "enemies" are you particularly concerned about? Stateless terrorists against whom nuclear weapons are useless? Or do you seriously believe there is any current threat to American soil from any independent state? Besides Iran and North Korea, who are exempt from the policy?

Granted, nuclear weapons are very useful in that they completely avoid wars between nuclear states. Nuclear weapons could very well take credit for avoiding World War III between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Instead, we got a bunch of proxy wars in poor countries that can't afford any nuclear weapons (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan in the 80s, etc.)

But using nuclear weapons against states that don't possess them? Not such a good idea. In fact, that's a war crime and an act of terror. I understand "terrorism" to mean the killing of civilians to frighten and intimidate a population into surrendering to one's political goals. Yep, that includes the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

In any event, deciding not to use nuclear weapons does not "weaken" the United States. We have many times more conventional weapons at our disposal than any other country in the world. When we use enough of them, our firebombs can make just as much damage as, if not more than, a nuclear bomb (see the obliteration of Dresden in World War II).

Any enemies of the U.S. who are out there do not believe the president anyway. Enemies do not believe our government. The premise of anti-Americanism is that the U.S. government cannot be trusted. The president's announcement is not directed at them.

Instead, the president's announcement is intended to raise the bar among nuclear states, to set the moral standard a little bit higher than it's been. If we want the rest of the world to continue to look up to us, we need to take the lead in encouraging peace and respect for humanity. That may seem hypocritical as we remained mired in two wars for oil. But it is not something to pounce on as "weak" or "naive."

Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Obama limits when U.S. would use nuclear arms

<>

The President may be guided by altruistic principles, but we unfortunately do not live in an altruistic world. Our country does not have the troops or the financial resources anymore to invade and topple a country which might choose to attack us with non nuclear WMD, and as Afghanistan and Iraq have shown, we are not very good at reforming countries that we invade either.

Removing a nuclear response option from the table therefore may only serve to embolden a nut case like Ahmadinejad or Chavez to strike the US with a low cost and potentially exceedingly lethal biological or chemical attack, especially before a new president who isn't so naive takes office in the next term or two. This "walk softly and carry a smaller stick" policy is a bad idea. Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Obama limits when U.S. would use nuclear arms

<>

I know that many of you think he's being..."pragmatic" and that he's bringing some thought to it. He's operating from a foolish and stupid paradigm. If he thinks that an announcement that we will limit nuke use to only being attacked by nuclear weapons, he misses the point of the existence of those weapons.

Nuclear weapons are the trump card and the differing delivery mechanisms are what provides the deterrence, not the things themselves. Israel has nuclear weapons, but they lack the sophisticated delivery systems for them, so does India and Pakistan. But having the threat of use in case of a horrific attack either by conventional or chemical/biological makes sense. In a fight, you should NEVER be proportional.

You don't tell your opponent or enemy what you are NOT going to do. That's like being in the Super Bowl and you have a high powered offense that can score at will with a fast athletic receivers and you tell your opponent, that you are only going to run the ball. They'll put 8 in the box and beat up on your wide outs.

You never tell anyone what you won't do when you are the big dog, because if that happens, someone is going to test you. If you won't use nuclear weapons, what else can I make you scared of using? Maybe cruise missiles? Possibly the MOAB?

Read the article DAILY BEAST/Obama curbs rules for nuke use.

 

APRIL 5, 2010 -- APRIL 11, 2010

ON THE TRAGEDY AT UPPER BIG BRANCH MINE

 

All I can say is please don't put down coal mining. Coal mining is our way of life here in West Virginia. For many years this is the industry that people have been raised up knowing. There are many dangers in the field of coal mining, and there are many dangers in other fields as well. Please take that into consideration when you flip on that light switch to check on your kids or flip on that light switch to see if there is a prowler around your home.

This very light that comes on to give you comfort is powered by coal, mined by WV, PA, Ky, etc coal miners, which many men have risked their lives daily for you to have. Number one give thanks to God. Number two give thanks to a WV, PA, KY, etc.. coal miner. These are brave, nobel, and honorable men. These men are worthy of honor just as much as veterans.

Read the article CNN NEWS/Search for miners after deadly blast could take days

<>

I'm a Pettry from that area. My mom's daddy was killed in Dorothy mine 'bout 70 years ago from a slate fall. Deep mining absolutely sucks. But it's what miners do. My great grandpa and his brother were doctors up Clear Fork. They saw and treated miners and their families.

We know how hard life is in that area. We hope and offer prayer for the families of Mont Coal. We are truly very , very sorry for the loss and also hope and pray that the mine owners carry this loss harder than anyone. For it's the push, push, push of cheap production which will cause a death in the mine. To Blankenship...shame on you. Shame on you for being so callous and cold to the families that have built your business stronger.

My sister and I are removed many states away from WV. But our hearts still beat with pride in having West Virginian blood. To that, we'll be sending Colcord Presbyterian $1,000 to help buy food for the families that have lost their Daddies. God bless the miner.

Read the article CHARLESTON GAZETTE/Twenty-five miners dead in raleigh County blast

WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT KIDS WHO TERRORIZE KIDS?

UNDERSTANDING BULLYING

I was bullied as a child. It was horrible. Horrible. So much so that I was home schooled my junior year and emancipated myself my senior year so I could switch schools. The teachers knew what was going on. So did the administrators. But no one seemed to care.

I can only imagine how terrible it would have been if more people had computers back then. (I had Prodigy, but no one was wise to using online to terrorize me.) I feel for that child -- yes, she was a child -- and her family. As for the tormentors: it's learned behavior. I see it at Gymboree. I see it in the playground. I've seen three-year-olds who are little bullies-in-training. The parents knew. Absolutely.

Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/The Parents of the Bully

<>

The really hard part for administrators and parents (as well I presume of bullies themselves) is determining how far is too far. Certainly in this case, it seems like the bullies they pushed a fragile girl beyond any semblance of reasonableness. But I absolutely understand the dilemma that the parents and officials faced.

How do you determine what level is normal teenage interaction and what level requires action? Not only is it exceedingly hard to assess what actual behavior is taking place (children, especially teenagers, often do not report bullying), but even when the facts are present, how does one assess how traumatic the impact is on the affected student. As we all know, a lot of behavior which traumatizes one student may roll off the back of others.

My sense is that administrators do what they can on a case-by-case basis, but that it would be impossible to implement global rules which would rationally address the problem. Zero tolerance certainly does not seem to be a reasonable approach.

Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/The Parents of the Bully

<>

I'm 17 and went through the absolute worst bullying, just as this girl did. Homework torn up, shoved into lockers, called horrendous names, had rumors spread, had mean text messages sent to me (and my space, and facebook).

My grades suffered, my self-esteem suffered. The relationship with my family and everyone around me suffered. Going to my teachers, my principal...in the end, nothing was accomplished. It truly wasn't.

I eventually took my 2.7GPA and went to a no-bullying tolerance college prep school (artcollegeprep.org). The place honestly saved my life. My GPA skyrocketed - I've been a 4.0 student for two and a half years now. By getting out of that toxic school, I was able to start a new life for myself.

I truly wish from the bottom of my heart that this girl had the same chance that I did. These teens that were charged, trust me - they knew exactly what they were doing, and they didn't care how mean it got. I also have to disagree with the statement that this goes 'far beyond' the 'normal' relationships/words exchanged between teens. I have seen and heard far worse with my own eyes and ears. This happens in towns and cities everywhere. Rest in Peace Phoebe.

Read the article SLATE/Suicide in South Hadley

<>

I don't believe a child, under any circumstances, should be bullied into suicide. But as a teenager, our brains aren't fully developed. Do you really think we give a damn? I know if I'm determined to do something, well I'm sure as hell going to do it. I'm just saying let's be a little more realistic. You can't just blame children, adults, and the school systems and expect the problem of bullying to be solved.

I see people getting bullied, I get bullied, and sometimes I'm the one bullying others. But we're children. You can't just tell us that's it bad. Most kids don't care, as long as they survive high school. Especially girls, we walk all over people to get what we want. Bullying among girls is really just sick. You don't even know the half of it.

I'm not saying adults opinions and actions are worthless. I'm just saying that all the comments from adults are too radical. This is why you adults go about things like this the wrong way. Ask any teenager and they'll tell you the same thing. You can't put a lid on harassment. At least not completely.

Read the article SLATE/Suicide in South Hadley

<>

I'm reading a lot about how the teachers should have done something. Ever been in a high school classroom with 30+ kids and just you as the adult? This is not the 50s where kids sit quite and attentive. It's a daily battle to keep kids from texting, sleeping, passing notes, etc. An aggressive act can occur as a kid is walking to the trash can or pencil sharpener.

You cannot watch all the kids all the time. Doubt this? Substitute for a day and see how well you catch all the mischief going on. What makes a difference is being the teacher that students know they can talk to. This is where the bullying comes to light. A kid has to let you know.

In one month, I have turned two kids in for separate bullying events (one girl, one guy). I also called the parents, something that can get you in trouble with administration in a heartbeat. But there are undoubtedly many other kids not coming forward.

So, parents, you've got to talk to your kids about bullying. Use this story as a springboard. You also need to set the example of tolerance; avoid the backstabbing, trash-talking, snipey attitude when talking about another adult. Students.. find that adult that gets pissed when you talk about bullying, and that will do something. High school is not real life, but it can be the death of you.

Read the article SLATE/Suicide in South Hadley

I am a teacher, a dad with four teenaged kids and older, and a former victim of adolescent bullying. It is never easy talking about bullying becase, for the most part, there are as many reasons tht bullying takes place as there are bully's.

As much as possible, however, I try to get my kids, and my students, to try to understand why the bullying is taking place and then try not to put yourself in the way of it. Bully's typically require two things. Support, and a trigger. In my classroom we talk about the negative repercussions of supporting the bullies.

With my kids I talk about recognizing the triggers. It can be tough to hold your tongue (that was my problem as a teen) but it is typically the best response to taunting. Obviously there should also be a zero tolerance for bullying in schools, and that is not always the case.

My oldest son was hit in the eye in 8th grade by a pencil thrown by a bully. Five surgeries, and six figures in medical care later he is still legally blind in his left eye.

Bullying struck our lives for several years after that incident and is an important topic in our family. Eliminating it is not likely, but even the incident with my son could have been prevented with more monitoring of students and moree education on the causes and effects.

Read the article CNN/What do you say to your kids about bulllying?

<>

My son tried to commit suicide because of bullying (verbal and physical for years) despite many meetings with teachers and administration over our concerns.

He has mild autism which makes him "different." When he would try to protect himself (something as simple as trying to push them off of him), he would serve school suspensions right along with the perpretators due to black and white rules.

My son is not a violent person and was not considered a behavioral problem. Yet he somehow "paid" for being a victim everytime.

Some teachers knew bullying was happening.

Of course it was denied and efforts from the district to cover themselves even resulted in a reference in my son's school file as "he imagined the bullying." At our request (and from his doctor) the district is now paying for my son to attend another school.

Read the article CNN/What do you say to your kids about bulllying?

 

MARCH 29, 2010  --  APRIL 4, 2010

FROM SEA TO SEA, EXPANDED OFF-SHORE DRILLING PLAN MAKES WAVES

 

Just because an area is offered for leasing, that does not mean that the leases will be sold, and that does not further mean that drilling will be done.

It's actually very typical that companies will buy leases in hopes of making a discovery, or buy leases to prevent the competition from drilling in those same spots.

I realize that there has been a drilling moratorium offshore of California for many years. With that, there are only 27 rigs now in operation in California waters.

Cook Inlet has the most offshore oil rigs in Alaska, with 16 rigs in operation.

The point being: I would not expect any great amount of drilling to come out of the president's proposals.

With that said, however, one rig blowout is one too many. And any offshore exploration and drilling will, eventually, lead to spills.

Read the article DAILY KOS/Here we go again

<>

This will hardly make a difference regarding our foreign dependence of oil(we still import approx 66%). When is a leader going to address the root issue? When are we going to have a serious debate about reducing our energy consumption?

Off shore drill only illustrates how we are running out of options...where do we go next?

This shouldn't be a liberal/conservative/environmental debate, it should be a debate over the future economy and social stability.

Our way of live, our oil based economy, has serious flaws...when are we going to address that?

Read the article NPR/Obama ends ban on east Coast offshore drilling

Hopefully this will focus our attention on our lack of energy policy and force realization that our current policy is loaded on the backs of the men and women on our military. When it is finally evident to most of us that we cannot possibly produce enough oil domestically to meet our current consumption perhaps we will look to realistic measures to reduce that demand. I will gladly pay higher fuel taxes in order to reduce our imports. An energy policy grounded in reality is four decades past due.

Read the article NPR/Obama ends ban on east Coast offshore drilling

<>

I am an environmentalist and Obama supporter and this news initially shocked me, but on closer consideration, I think it's a wise idea due to the careful way it's to be implemented. Something that a different president would not choose to do.

Why do so many commentors take this as fully abandoning alternative energy sources or environmental concerns? It isn't an "all oil" or "all alternative energy" decision. It's a "more of both kinds of energy produced by us" decision. The article states that this is being set up to benefit alternative energy initIatives.

Also, weaning ourselves off of foreign oil is so very highly to our advantage. The president will never please extremists on either end, but if the policy is as well planned as described in the article, then it will benefit us without degrading the environment, and that is a result the majority of Americans can be pleased with.

Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Obama's oil drilling plan draws critics from both sides

<>

I knew even as I voted for him that I would disagree with President Obama on some issues. So far, it's been mostly his continuation of Bush policies on secrecy and terrorism issues. Now this announcement about drilling for oil on the East Coast. Is whatever amount of oil is found be worth the cost in loss of fishing catches or loss of biological diversity or the loss in revenue if a tourist spot is destroyed by a major oil spill? Prince William Sound has not yet recovered from its oil spill over 20 years ago.

The only way to force this nation to adopt conservation and alternative fuel sources is to make fossil fuels painfully expensive in the short term. I still support a price floor under gasoline to make it $4.00 a gallon, at least. This is the price at which people seemed to change their behavior.

Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Drill, but not everywhere

 

STRIDENT SPRING -- GAUGING A STORMY POLITICAL SEASON

 

 

I think it is time for both parties to start acting like adults and stop with the threatening language and angry rhetoric. This serves no practical purpose in good government. Stop embracing extremists on both ends of the political spectrum, stop viewing your job as getting elected again. Stop yelling out inflammatory statements that get the nuts and haters an excuse to take violent action.

Those who utter these words of hate whether, Democrat or Republican, Liberal, Conservative or Liberatian are just as responsible as those who shoot out windows, vandalize offices and utter threats. Start talking, start compromising and working to the best interests of all Americans. Stop listening to Talk Radio and Talking heads on TV, corporations and lobbyists. Think about what is best for all, not your narrow band of followers.

We are supposed to be an example of good government, not mob rule. Those who urge followers to put someone in their crosshairs, are no better than the thugs and criminals they inspire, and they deserve to be charged with inciting riots, vandalism or worse. Words are a weapon, and you are just as guilty as those who have fired bullets, thrown stones and utter threats. Shut up and legislate for the good of all! Read the article NPR/A turning point for tea party

<>

I think that most of you miss the point.  There is no reason to cry about these threats and actions.  There will always be crazies on both sides although the preponderance of them right now seem to be siding with the Republican cause.  I am a conservative and frankly embarrassed but, it is not like the left wing hasn't done similar things

But, what gets me, I think is that these actions by the wingnuts and the elected officials of my party seem intent on destroying the credibility of our government.  I am not a fan of big government but there is a need for a government in this complex society of ours.

Conservatives will inherit this government and my fear is that as we continue to destroy the faith that we have in it, we will delegitimize not only the Democrats but the Republicans.  Perhaps we should sometimes remember that Dem or Gop, black or white, northern or southern, we face some common enemies who delight in seeing us tear each other apart.

Enough is enough, says this conservative.

Read the article POLITICO/Tea Partiers condemn harassment.

<>

A year ago I would have said people were furious and getting madder because they saw inevitable higher taxation but also no end to the spending and ever expanding government that was causing the higher future tax anticipation.

Now, people are furious and getting madder because not only has a huge and never-ending entitlement just been passed in ObamaCare (and no sensible person really believes this is affordable and will actually reduce budget deficits - are we that stupid?), but to add insult to injury...ObamaCare was passed in a method many of us feel violated normal procedure. The back-room dealings, closed-door sessions, lack of bipartisan support...all while we were promised by Obama he was running to change these things.

As a final push over the cliff, the fact that this House and Senate could pass what they did only with bribes, kickbacks, empty promises and "executive orders", and then finally...to use budget "Reconciliation" to avoid filibuster with a mere 50 votes when the Dems knew they could never get 61 and pass this properly (especially after they lost their filibuster-proof senate when Massachusetts, a Blue state, sent a clear message in January that ObamaCare needed to die).

You wonder why something bad might happen - these reasons, among others, are a good start. Colonial Americans revolted against Britain because the King refused his "Assent to Laws"... one might make a case that we've been similarly shortchanged since Obama took office. Suggest re-reading the Declaration of Independence and you'll see ominous parallels.

Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Peggy Noonan: The Heat is On. We may Get Burned

<>

Practically from the moment Obama arrived in DC, the angry right has been protesting. That's their right. But most of them have never been part of protest before, and somehow they have infused their anti-government rhetoric with a lot of threats of violence against others. This record of violence goes back several decades, to the point when the anti-abortionists started justifying the taking of a doctor's life as the saving of other 'innocent' life. The clinic bombers have gone out of their way to hurt people and intimidate others (another form of violence).

People SHOULD feel disenfranchised--the politics of this country are awful, and probably the only agreement between the Tea Party folks and the activists is the creeping hand of corporate control. But that doesn't justify striking out against others in a way to harm people.

Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Mark Potok: Calling all thugs: The end of civil discourse

 

I'm a huge supporter of all of our first amendment right to free speech, and peaceable assembly. All good. But what I find somewhat laughable is the Tea-Partiers' adoption of the yellow "Don't Tread on Me" flag.

Historically speaking, that flag first appeared around 1775, and was actually a marine flagship symbol. And by the way, the issue at that time was centered around "taxation without representation." And the lack of representation in general. Whether you agree with it or not, we are FULLY represented in the house, the senate, and the executive branch by free election. All you got is our grapes.

Today's game is different. Hopefully, everyone in this country can agree that it's their right and duty to vote. And if your candidate didn't win, the price of democracy invokes a civic obligation to recognize the victor and his/her status as the appointed one in their role.

That being said, I resent the Tea Partiers' implication that somehow they are under some sort of tyranny. Grow up. And while you're at your righteous game, how about helping INFORM the dialog, instead of creating a bully pulpit that seemingly makes you feel special because you somehow hold the key to the mysteries of modern life in America.

Hey, we can agree to disagree. Just get your historical context straight. And try re-focusing your negative energy into some volunteer work. It would matter a whole lot more.

Read the article USA TODAY/Tea partiers will make 44 stops on tour

 

back to home page

read more comments from THE INDEX

© 2009-2010 Commentopia