Barbara Streisand asks us all a question:
It’s not news… many people in our country are suffering. Uncertainty over our economy continues with high unemployment, which in turn has triggered many more home foreclosures. The lack of jobs has left a lot of people understandably angry, fearful and cynical about what they will face in the days ahead.
It’s natural to want to stop the pain, to find a fast solution or look for a quick fix to end the agony of the last twenty months. But it took many years (eight) to unravel the policies and regulations that both protected our economy and kept it strong, and it is going to take time to rebuild and restore it.
The patience of the American people has worn thin. However, as we head into a midterm election, we must not make decisions based on frustration or anger, and revert back to the party and the leaders that turned a $236 billion budget surplus left by President Clinton into a $1.2 trillion deficit left by President Bush. We cannot, out of fear, go back to the same party and policies that created this economic meltdown, abused the system, and did little to help those who were left victimized by the greed of Wall Street and the special interests from K Street.
Republicans spent eight years creating and supporting the destructive policies of the Bush Administration, which systematically debilitated the economy as well as weakened our regulatory system. They created the biggest disparity between the ultra rich and the poor, while working to relax and eliminate rules governing banks, corporations, and financial institutions. Now, as we near Election Day, they are again asking hardworking Americans to trust them with their vote. Why should we trust them? They spent twenty months stonewalling the President’s efforts to recharge our economy and put Americans back to work.
My question to the Republican Party is: What actions would you take that would differ from the actions that originally got us into this mess? Would you extend the Bush tax cuts that primarily benefit the top 1% of our country? Continue to block energy policies that will create millions of new green jobs? Keep policies in place that reward corporations that ship American jobs overseas? Oppose strong financial reform that insures that transactions, loans and credit cards are fair and transparent? Oppose a jobs bill that helps small businesses get the loans and the tax cuts that they need to prosper? Those are not the decisions that will lift America out of its difficulties and make our country stronger.
Week after week, on the 24 hour cable news cycle, Republican officials and prominent GOP leaders twist, distort and misrepresent the facts in order to place blame on others, while they continue to obstruct progress. It’s like the old saying that if you tell a lie big enough and you keep repeating it often enough, people will eventually come to believe that it is true. Whether they are discussing financial regulation, health care, jobs, the economy, energy policy…virtually every important issue our country is grappling with today, the Republican Party that once stood for something, now refuses to engage in constructive conversation about anything, all the while, offering virtually no new policy alternatives in return.
Since President Obama took office, the Republican narrative has been to serve their party over serving the people. They have been committed to blocking progress at all costs in order to insure the failure of this President. But now is the time to give President Obama a chance to fulfill his promise of reviving the spirit of hope and possibility that has always allowed our country to dream and to make the impossible possible. The only way he will be successful is if he has a Congress that dreams with him and an American electorate that gives him the chance!
I believe that Americans truly want a government that represents the middle class and working families of this nation, not the extremely rich, the bankers, and the CEOs. We have experienced a difficult recession, but due to the President’s policies, the country has avoided a total depression. What matters as we move forward is that consumers are protected, Wall Street is regulated, children have health care, and our representatives in Washington are committed to working for the people, not the private interests. I only hope that we can all take a deep breath and show the patience that is required to give our smart, committed and hopeful young leader the time he needs and the elected allies in Congress he requires to lift us all into a new time of innovation and prosperity.
For all the news about unemployment, there is far less news about jobs that exist. These jobs only exist because of government intervention. And whose fault is that? The conservatives, who say “no government!” and want teachers to somehow pay their own wages, who want firemen to fund their own equipment to put out fires, and construction workers who should acquire their own material to repair roads.
Go ahead, check out that site. Let the conservatives tell you that Federal funding, that money to states, is bad. Without that money, would you have a job?
Lynn Harsh (aptly named), Chief Executive Officer (of something), issued a press release regarding a lawsuit filed in Washington State, against governor Gregoire. Since Harsh didn’t use any legal arguments in her points, and didn’t cite any sources, I’m going to do the same. What you read, the, is a moral argument, based from the opposite side of the spectrum from that of Harsh. However, it may benefit you to read some of the original article to understand my points and contentions.
Executive orders have no holding in law; they are an order issued by an executive that have the full force of that governing executive’s ability to persuade others to follow the order (free the slaves!; intern the Japanese!; torture at Guantanamo!). Although executive orders have no legal holding, they are orders, and are generally followed. Gregoire didn’t circumvent the legal process by issuing an executive order; she did so after failed legislation and used her own executive powers as governor. She does have the right to issue an order; whether the order is right is the point, and I won’t resolve that.
An executive order has nothing to do with “no taxation without representation.” Gregoire is a governor, also known as an elected representative of the people. Moreover, the governor is charged with ensuring the health, welfare, and morals of a state. To do so, an executive order is sometimes necessary.
My apologies for my absence of a week, just when it looked like I would start writing blogs again. I left for a long weekend to visit my brother in New York City. That is a city that has it all. Transportation. Business. People. Art. Culture. More people. Parks. Education. And people everywhere you look.
In one of the busiest cities on Earth you are never alone, and always amidst strangers. If you see someone in New York City, and don’t know them, you’ll never see them again. They just vanish amidst the crowd, to be replaced by another interesting-looking stranger. In a strange sense, although you are never alone, you are always alone; just watching humanity pass you by, each person intent on their own task.
What did I see in the Big Apple? Well, I saw the Big Apple itself, CitiField (Taxpayer’s Stadium), at a distance (I was looking at it from Arthur Ashe Stadium, watching the opening day of the US Open. I saw some sights, including New Jersey, from the a harbor cruise tour. I saw the Guggenheim. I saw the United Nations – and let me comment briefly on how unknowledgeable most of the people, including those who choose to visit the UN, are about basic programs, like UNICEF, ECOSOC, how the Security Council works, the number of countries, or freerice.com. And I saw a good cross-section of New York City in all that I did.
So, welcome back, me.
There is some political news I should like to comment on, but now is not the time for that. Another post will come, with more discourse on my views of the way of man.
I was just repeatedly clicking through facebook’s social interview application, and I realized how frustrating facebook is. And no, this is not a revelation. Clearly I’m neither the first nor the last – nor is it the first time that I have noticed – to notice that facebook is frustrating. It brings me closer to my friends, because at a click everything about them is right there. But it takes me farther from my friends. It reminds me of every friend I do not keep up with. It reminds me of all the family I should visit more often. And then, because I do not contact that person whose name I see, it becomes more frustrating, and harder to contact them since I feel guilty about not contacting them before, and then repeat process.
So facebook, you are frustrating. But you are useful.
I made a political mistake. Never try to argue with a libertarian who doesn’t even stop to listen to other views. Not such a large mistake to try to engage others, who begin the conversation, in a political discussion; but it is a fruitless effort when only one side of the conversation has reason, has sense, and is willing to listen.
This particular guy, as far as I can gather, is against government to the point of advocating anarchy, but is in favor of the constitution — but is against the 14th Amendment (because Fox says so?). He is an advocate of non-discrimination (he likes racial and gender equality, etc.), but he doesn’t think the government should have a role in implementing non-discrimination. And, in so many words, it seemed that he liked slavery but was against it.
In essence, a political philosophy completely lacking in reason.
But here’s what really gets me…
He doesn’t understand why Americans who disagree with an American policy, foreign or domestic, would stay in America instead becoming an expat. Why would someone who wants a better healthcare system stay in America? Why would someone who disagrees with U.S. foreign policy stay in America? And here is the answer I gave him, and the incredibly frustrating part is that people like him don’t listen. We engage in politics for the same reason our opponent engages in politics; we believe that we can create a better world. Instead of running away from a problem, we say we want to fix it. We have optimism, and we believe problems can be solved. It is a collective ‘we’ that believes this; all of those of us who have not given up. Both sides of the political spectrum. But at least we believe it is worth sticking around to try to improve things.
You have probably been wondering where I have been and what I have been up to. That is certainly the idea I gather from your many questions on my facebook asking just that. I have been elusive in my answer, for many reasons, the best of which is that I myself did not know where I was (in a metaphysical sense) or what I had been up to. But now, I shall give you some answer.
You know, perhaps, that I finished college. Hooray! – for now I may attach letters (besides Jr.) to the end of my name. There’s a strange paradox to college; if you’ve been to college and done your studies you know that the act of going to college does not give really give you a great boost into the next step of existence (which some people jumped straight into, avoiding for a time, or for good, any further studies than that which is compulsory). Indeed, college doesn’t provide any great educational boost forward; education is a step-by-step process. That said, to my friends still working for a degree at college – stay there! It is for the experience of education, including all its facets of leadership, late-night study, and sometimes pointless classes that you are there.
So, I finished college, and when my temporary employer, the U.S. Census Bureau needed no further work from me, I moved to Washington (state). Some of you have asked me, how can “BDole” find a job for himself in his major, political science? I have picked on some of you, my friends, for studying in school, and upon completion of a commendable degree, to have no further inspiration than to continue to work as a checker at a market. Well, how can I find something permanent in politics? Politics, and political jobs, are temporary by nature, subject to election and/or funding. There can’t be a permanent “I have found my job in politics” answer.
Politics may be a temporary job by nature, but it is a permanent game, if game I can call it. Well! – I didn’t only wander off to Washington, leaving many of you behind, to golf. I came to see what I could see, and I found some answers – in politics. I am not, contrary to belief, running against Levi (Johnston) mayor; and although that was a joking guess, you who said that know me very well, for I dropped no hints. I am, in fact, campaigning for Kevin Van De Wege, incumbent state representative running for reelection. That means, therefore, that I am also campaigning for Steve Tharinger, a current county commissioner, who is candidate to replace the retiring majority leader in the state house of representatives.
Am I just puttering around doing odd jobs for the campaign? Well, yes. The primary just ended ended here, so work is just beginning to pick up. When I come back from my next mysterious vacation, 3,000 miles from Washington, I’ll go very happily into full-time mode, working as if politics is not a temporary job, but a job upon which our collective future depends.
I hope that answers some questions. What have I been doing? Now you know.
Blagojevich (the infamous Illinoisan “Blago”) not guilty of anything but lying to the Feds? And he could get 1-5 years? That’s fine. That’s all well and good. I don’t care much in any direction regarding Blago except this: Found guilty on one of twenty-four counts, and that one count being lying to the Federal government, under oath or not under oath, what about all those others who have lied, with ample public record to prove it? I don’t mean Clinton’s quip, to define what the meaning of is is, or other small misstatements. Take Alberto Gonzalez. Bush II. Former secratary Rice. Rumsfeld. When do they get 1-5 years for a little white lie, and charged on numerous other counts besides?
There are calls I can make; there are calls I cannot make. I can call and ask you to work, to volunteer, to put forth effort on behalf of a partisan candidate. I call and I remind you to vote. I encourage you to engage in civic duty. A hundred calls a day, sans effort.
And yet, you I cannot call. I cannot call thee, to say hello; how are you; my thoughts strayed in your direction; I wish I was there for another academic year; would you dance with me? None of this I can say. It is easy to call and ask you to vote, or volunteer, or ask where to acquire information or carry out an action. But you? No, you are not easy, and it is not your fault.
I wish I had called you those three hundred times and more. And not one of those calls to you. And my solution? Because I have not called you, it becomes ever harder to call. So I shall not call, but not for lack of [unintelligible], nor for lack of thought. It is, I fear, much harder than ’tis to call a person I shall never call again, and ask them to support an action I shall never know if they supported. It is, indeed, I fear, much harder.
This too,
There are some not-altogether-disjointed thoughts that I wish to comment on. Firstly, the title of this note is taken from a coworker of my mother’s, and is a quote by Voltaire. It does not have everything to do with what follows; I’m sure that, as a sound piece of advice, it has something to do with the proceeding thoughts…. These thoughts occurred to me as I sat listening to well-played music by my friend at a wine-cellar, and I am sure that my other friends will forgive me for clearly being so lost in thought that evening; that is what happens to me not infrequently when I go places where there is a crowd.
And so, a thought of mine is that humans are good. That’s it. That isn’t a revelation, and it has occurred to me and countless others before. I contend that humans do not wake up in the morning intending to do harm to other people (certainly not, in general). We mean well toward one another, I think.
I enjoy swing dancing, on occasion. I daresay I think too hard most of the time at swing dancing, both while dancing and not while dancing. Have you noticed the immunity with which the the guys dance with the guys, with which the girls dance with the girls? I do not complain, except for this, which is what crossed my mind as I listened to music that evening, and thought hard: Webb taught us to study relationships, but not to feel them. And so, you see, the complaint is not against other people, but against myself, for I did not – have not – learned to feel relationships, in the main. And that, of course, is foolish, because it is feelings, not thoughts, that create good dances and good physical connections – good relationships – with people.
We none of us understand one another, though we mean well. I can play causal game theory through a conversation (casual because I don’t really sit there and generate equations for each statement – although in some sense that’s exactly what we all do) rather well, and know some of the responses I might receive, or not receive, to any statement. But I can’t know, and no one can know, what’s on another person’s mind, or predict everything. We can’t really understand one another, certainly not completely. And yet, I contend that we mean well in our actions.
When we make decisions, are they independent decisions? What influences them? And, if they are influenced, are they independent decisions? Quite clearly, except for those of us who raised ourselves and learned to hunt and gather on our own, someone influenced our decisions growing up. They influenced our politics; they influenced our education; they influenced our decisions and our decisions were not completely independent. Does that mean we don’t have free will? No, it doesn’t. We can still have aspirations of our own, and act on them.
Do we have what it takes to act on our aspirations? Willpower. A girl asked me, sometime in my first or second year of college, how it was that I managed to not drink (alcohol). After all, there I was surrounded by an awful lot of people who drank, and when they finished drinking they would have another drink so they could forget that they were drinking. My answer was that it was easy, because it wasn’t what I wanted. When people were drinking, I had the willpower to say I’m not interested. It’s not hard, but it takes effort. Those statements aren’t contradictory; to put effort into something does not make it hard to do. Things require an input of something, of time, or energy, and it is not hard to have willpower. But it does take effort.
Why were all those people drinking their way through college? I don’t know. I do know that we don’t learn from generation to generation. That doesn’t mean we aren’t good, don’t mean well, or don’t have willpower; it doesn’t negate anything I have said thus far to say we don’t learn from generation to generation. We as a society don’t learn from generation to generation; that doesn’t mean there isn’t progress, like ending slavery or recognizing rights, but it means that we will try our same old methods to make the world function – the same energy supplies, the same economic system – because we don’t learn. And we don’t learn on an individual level either; obviously it’s harder to learn from generation to generation on an individual level because our life ends at some point, however, sitting there observing people drink wine in a wine cellar, listening to music, I could look across the generations and see those same people in a saloon in the the Wild West, or 1800’s France, or any number of places, or see them in the future. And the perception of these people, good people though they are, did not change much. There’s not much generational difference.
The Dole Blog 