Hey, did you hear? Republicans want to cut spending! Am I the only one experiencing deja vu? It seems I have seen this show before. Republicans have promised to cut spending since the beginning of time and amazingly they always fail to do so.
Well, that is not completely fair. They don't always fail to make cuts. They continue to try to cut vital programs that help the poor, minorities, unions, public workers like teachers and garbage men, science, and education, health care, and Social Security.
The problem is that cutting those things don't make up for the large tax spending the Republicans enjoy. They spend billions of dollars making the rich, richer. Want to burn fossil fuels and refine oil? Republicans will help. Government welfare will be there for you. Do you need $1,000 per month to eat? Sorry, the government is out of money.
Let's get down to the reasons that the government is poor. First, the primary contributing factor to our debt is the Bush tax cuts. It isn't entitlement programs, and it isn't even military spending. Completely repealing the Bush tax cuts would pay for everything. How do I know? Because, we had budget surplus in the 1990's when people paid just a little more.
Republicans love to attack entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, but take a look at what they want to do. They want to privatize Social Security which would allow another banking crisis to bankrupt the entire elderly population, and they want to repeal the President's health care law. The President's health care law extended Medicare benefits for another thirteen years. Social Security will pay benefits at a 100% level for the next twenty-nine years. After that it will pay 70% of benefits.
If the Republicans wanted to shore up Medicare for the next one hundred years, they would allow every American to participate. It would cut our health care spending in half, and eliminate the need for Medicaid. You would have a whole group of healthy individuals paying into the system. That would more than cover the elderly and unhealthy that currently receives benefits.
Republicans decrease spending for those who need it most and increase spending for those who need it least. That is a politics of disaster.
They continue to bash President Obama for the 2009 budget that cost us so much money, but they fail to mention that the 2009 budget was passed by President Bush. They also fail to mention that much of the increased spending was because the Obama Administration added the war spending since 2001 onto the 2009 budget. President Obama has continued to pass deficit-neutral laws while the Republicans have forced his hand on keeping tax cuts for the super-rich.
Yesterday a shot was fired in Wisconsin for liberalism. Public employees stood up and finally demanded that politicians stop demonizing them. Democratic State Senators are doing everything in their power to stop the Republicans from "union busting." Unfortunately, liberals are to blame for this influx of nut-bag right wingers in our state governments.
Liberals abandoned the Democratic Party in the last election. They abandoned the Democratic Party because the party has been pulled to the center, and liberals keep saying that is the equivalent of being Republican. Well ask the Democratic Senators in Wisconsin who are "hiding" in Illinois right now. They seem to have severe differences with Republicans. Ask the President of the United States, a man that liberals like to punish for his centrist policies, who is helping to fight these bastards in the Republican Party that want to punish the working class. Some liberals are so left wing that they actually benefit the Republican Party. Stay home in the next election, or waste your vote on a third party candidate and see what happens. If you want change, that will accomplish your goal. It just won't be the change you had in mind. It is perfectly ok to call the President out, but abandoning the party only makes the party more centrist. Your third party candidate will never win a Presidential election, and even if he or she did, what makes you think anyone in Congress would work with that President? The special interests would crush that President's agenda and then have them assassinated. Stop it! Come back to the Democratic Party and make it the party that we want.
What incentive do Republicans give a young person to become a teacher, fire fighter, or police officer? Put your life on the line to help the greater community, but don't ask for proper compensation because we have to make sure that Wall Street bankers get their bonus this year. Why do we continue to demonize public servants? These include people with college degrees and trade skills that have earned every damn dime they have received. We are in a budget crisis and it is not a Democratic and Republican budget crisis. It is just a Republican budget crisis. They put us here, and now they are mad at Democrats for not giving up on America.
Their budget will cut the deficit at the exact same rate that the President's budget will. But, the President's budget allows the poorest among us to keep vital benefits that will keep them from dying. The Republican's budget will keep funding Pentagon projects that the Pentagon doesn't want or need. If you want to keep those Pentagon projects in place because they "create jobs" (which they don't really don't because we don't make the parts in the United States anymore), then raise taxes. Your tax spending is killing the economy. The President is extending an olive branch at his own peril. Shut up and take it, or admit that you aren't going to really cut spending; you are just going to cut the spending that benefits Democratic voters.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Analysis of Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry into the Value of Work
As promised, I am releasing my critique of Shop Class as Soulcraft. I wrote this essay in my College Writing class this past fall.
“The disappearance of tools from our common education is the first step toward a wider ignorance of the world of artifacts we inhabit” (Crawford 1). This statement by Matthew Crawford sums up his arguments in his book, Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry into the Value of Work. Crawford believes that skilled labor is disappearing from the United States, because of the advent of "American futurism" and the postindustrial era (3).
The purpose I would like to convey in my essay is that while I agree with Crawford’s identification of the problems and issues facing skilled labor and white-collar labor, I disagree with some of his political reasoning. I am also going to discuss briefly how Crawford has inspired me to learn a trade, and I will refer to a review of the book by Steve Weinberg of The Dallas Morning News.
I am going to concentrate more on Crawford's assessment of the problems facing blue-collar and white-collar labor in this country, rather than concentrating on the details of his life experiences, although I would like to point out that Crawford is highly qualified to speak from a political, philosophical, and technical point of view. Crawford has vast knowledge of and experience in work requiring skilled labor like motorcycle repair, and he has a Ph.D. in the
Johnson 2
history of political thought from the University of Chicago (104). I am truly in awe of his life story, and I definitely consider him a positive role model.
That being said, I both agree and disagree with Crawford’s arguments in his book. For instance, Crawford and I see eye to eye when it comes to corporate America's role in the degradation of work in the United States, but we disagree somewhat about some of the culprits and solutions to this problem.
First, let me say that I agree with Crawford's main argument, which is that many Americans have stopped building and maintaining things, and many of us have lost "agency," which is a type of control of our own lives, to a profit-driven economy (7). For example, Crawford says, "What ordinary people once made, they buy; and what they once fixed for themselves, they replace entirely or hire an expert to repair, whose expert fix often involves replacing an entire system because some minute component has failed" (2).
The aforementioned quote by Crawford has relevance to my life and the generations that lived before me. For instance, my grandfather had no problem fixing his automobile and growing his own fruit and vegetables, but I do not do either of these things. I have basically become a slave of a profit-driven economy. I buy new things instead of fixing the old things.
Secondly, I also agree with Crawford's argument that there has been a degradation of blue-collar and white-collar work in the United States, and that this degradation of work lies mostly in removing the cognitive part of the job. For instance, Crawford says,
Johnson 3
The dichotomy of mental versus manual didn't arise spontaneously. Rather, the twentieth century saw concerted efforts to separate thinking from doing. Those efforts achieved a good deal of success in ordering our economic life, and it is this success that perhaps explains the plausibility the distinction now enjoys. Yet to call this "success" is deeply perverse, for wherever the separation of thinking from doing has been achieved, it has been responsible for the degradation of work. (37)
The efforts of twentieth century corporations replaced skilled workers with assembly lines and white-collar workers with computers. The assembly line allowed Henry Ford to mass produce automobiles, which effectively eliminated most of his competition in the industry. But, in doing so, he also removed the mental aspect of the work, because it required skilled labor to build an automobile before; now it is mindless assembly (Crawford 31). Just like the assembly line, white-collar work has gone through the same transformation with computers (Crawford 44). Computers are removing the cognitive elements from the tasks that they are created to accomplish.
Thirdly, I agree with Crawford's stance that the degradation of work begins in school. Crawford claims that school officials must try to send one hundred percent of their students to college or face a backlash from the parents of those students if they fail to do so. Crawford goes on further to point out how stereotypes are attributed to the manual trades by stating,
The preferred role model is the management consultant, who swoops in and out and whose very pride lies in his lack of particular expertise. Like the ideal consumer, the management consultant presents an image of soaring freedom, in light of which the
Johnson 4
manual trades appear cramped and paltry: the plumber with his butt crack, peering under the sink. (20)
Crawford very accurately points out that, in spite of these views or stereotypes, the plumber may be making more money than the management consultant, and the plumber may have to have more technical knowledge in order to do his or her job than the management consultant must have of his or her job.
To support Crawford’s arguments, I am going to take a look at a review of Crawford’s book. Steve Weinberg, a special contributor to The Dallas Morning News, says about Crawford’s book,
His [Crawford’s] reportage at the beginning of the book certainly surprised me. While my attention had lagged, school districts across the nation eliminated shop classes to save money. Crawford gathered statistics and anecdotes to demonstrate the effect of the decline. Anybody who seeks gifted repair persons can easily grasp the downsides of reduced training of teens eager to work with their hands in conjunction with their brains. (1)
I was not quite as blind-sided as Weinberg when reading Crawford’s assessment of shop classes. I have seen that children in general are under inordinate amounts of pressure to go to college and “succeed” (again, going to college does not guarantee success, because learning a craft or trade may make you more successful in the long run). Learning a craft or a trade is reserved for the “less intelligent,” but as Crawford clearly points out, learning a craft or a trade takes greater cognitive skills, so you actually have to have more brain power to become a tradesman.
Johnson 5
Crawford proves that it takes deep intellectual thought to be a master tradesman by pointing out that the carpenter,
Through pragmatic engagement,...learns the different species of wood, their fitness for such needs as load bearing and water holding, their dimensional stability with changes in the weather, and their varying resistance to rot and insects. The carpenter also gains a knowledge of universals, such as the right angle, the plumb, and the level, which are indispensable for sound construction. It is in the crafts that nature first becomes a thematic object of study, and that study is grounded by a regard for human utility. (22)
It is obvious, based on Crawford's comments, that the stereotypes many people hold about manual labor are simply untrue. Again, the “plumber with his butt crack showing” may not have a college degree, but his or her job is certainly not routine, and the problems he or she faces may take a great deal of intellect to solve.
Lastly, while I agree with Crawford’s assessment that a profit-driven economy has helped cause the degradation of white-collar work as well as blue-collar work, I believe that Crawford is mistaken when he also blames our liberal politics for this cause. Crawford says,
It is not always the imperatives of profit that drive the alienation of judgment from professionals; sometimes it is a matter of public policy. Standardized tests remove a teacher’s discretion in the curriculum; strict sentencing guidelines prevent a judge from judging. It seems to be our liberal political instincts that push us in this direction of centralizing authority; we distrust authority in the hands of individuals. With its reverence for neutral process, liberalism is, by design, a politics of irresponsibility. (45)
Johnson 6
It is not clear, from reading the book, what political side Crawford falls on, but his attack on liberal politics in this case seems somewhat unwarranted. It is the job of the federal government to make sure that people’s rights are protected, so liberalism by design is actually a politics of responsibility. By treating people equally regardless of their race, religion, or sex, they have the opportunity to exhibit individual behavior. This includes the liberal policies that freed the slaves in the mid-nineteenth century, gave women and minorities the right to vote, and brought forth landmark civil rights legislation in the sixties. Liberalism gave us Social Security, Medicare, and banking regulations. Liberal legislation and politics may have prevented a Marxist revolution in this country in the early twentieth century. For example, unions were formed to give workers (skilled and non-skilled) the right to stand up to their corporate masters; unionization is a liberal political idea. To sum up my point, without liberal politics the majority would control the minority and take away their individualism. Crawford criticizes the liberal policies that centralize authority and take away power from individuals, but without centralizing at least some authority it becomes impossible to protect the rights of minorities. This is what the founders of our country realized when they created the Constitution. To be fair, I am going much deeper into liberal policies than Crawford is. Crawford seems to be referring to a certain one-size fits all approach to professions like teaching and judging, but I feel that Crawford should make a greater effort to point out that some centralization of authority is necessary to protect people's rights.
Conservative policies, on the other hand, have led to the downfall of the skilled worker by removing the same regulations that liberal politicians put in place. Reducing the tax rate on the very rich (certainly a conservative idea) has enabled multi-national corporations to offer similar products and services that the skilled worker offers, for half the cost. I believe that there
Johnson 7
has been a conscious effort by the conservative movement in America to redistribute wealth from the middle class to the rich. Liberal writer Thom Hartmann says in his book, Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class, "Making government smaller is a nice sounding phrase in this post-Reagan world, but those who promote it are really pulling what Senator Bernie Sanders calls a [reverse Robin Hood]. It's a cover for a system that takes from the poor and gives to the rich" (34). I am not alone in my belief that conservatives actively pursue policies that hurt the working and middle classes.
It is hard for me to understand Crawford’s logic, especially since he worked for a conservative Washington “think-tank” and hated it. He hated it so much that he left and opened a motorcycle shop and earned far less money. The reason that he hated it is because he had to kowtow to a big oil company and basically lie about the effects of fossil fuels on global warming. His arguments against liberalism do not reflect his own experiences in Washington politics. In reality, conservative and corporatist thinking should be the focus of Crawford’s ire (which they are, to a point), rather than the liberal policies that have saved the plumbers, craftsmen, and auto mechanics that Crawford champions. Basically, I believe that Crawford should come down much harder on conservative thinking than liberal thinking, instead of placing the two on equal footing.
To be fair, Crawford does present a strong argument against conservative-corporatism in his final chapter by stating,
Too often, the defenders of free markets forget that what we really want is free men. Having a few around requires an economy in which the virtue of independence is
Johnson 8
cultivated, and a diversity of human types can find work to which they are suited. It is time to dispel the long-standing confusion of private property with corporate property. Conservatives are right to extol the former as a pillar of liberty, but when they put such arguments in the service of the latter, they become apologists for the ever-greater concentration of capital. The result is that opportunities for self-employment and self- reliance are preempted by distant forces. (209)
Crawford also alludes to the age-old adage that what brings us together as Americans is greater than what separates us. For instance, Crawford says, "I would like to recommend a progressive-republican approach to the problem, which would be at once prickly and aspiring" (209). Crawford should realize that the "progressive-republican" approach is not a real world solution to the problem because the "corporate pigs" that infest our country have hijacked the Republican Party, effectively eliminating the possibility of a "progressive-republican" movement. The capitalists and corporatists are driven by greed, and they are not about to let Crawford's sensible moderate thinking get in the way of their profit margin. Basically, we need to go to the far left in this country just to get us back on track. We can accomplish this by giving the workers in America power against their corporate masters.
For example, in the 1930s Franklin Delano Roosevelt created a liberal political system in the United States that eventually lead to fifty years of economic growth and prosperity. In the early eighties, Ronald Reagan effectively ended this growth and prosperity by redistributing wealth from the middle class to the rich through unwarranted tax-cuts. This hurt the country because the rich were supposed to pay the American middle class to work with the extra money,
Johnson 9
but the rich kept the money instead of using it to grow the American middle class. George Walker Bush decided to further the damage that Reagan began by cutting taxes on the rich even more. Now, every single Republican in the United States Congress is fighting to extend the same tax cuts that have severely damaged our economy.
You may ask, what would possess them to support a tax policy so detrimental to this country? Well, in order to understand their logic you must understand that these members of Congress are in the deep pockets of corporate America. The Supreme Court recently ruled that corporations had the same rights as people to spend unlimited amounts of money on political ads, and that is exactly what happened in the most recent election.
The sad part of this is, the Democrats are almost as deep in the pockets of corporate America as the Republicans, so the two major political parties in this country are being pulled further and further to the right (or at least to the right by today’s standards). I have a different name for “progressive-republican.” I simply call them Democrats, because I believe that a Democrat today is what a Republican was fifty years ago. Fifty to sixty years ago the tax rate for the richest Americans was ninety-one percent, and that rate was under a Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower. President Eisenhower understood that keeping corporations from becoming too wealthy would help, not hinder the economy. The current class of Republicans however, has moved to the far right.
For instance, Crawford is correct when he says that conservatives have become corporate apologists, but he believes that it is their minds that need to be changed. I believe that it is their masters that need to be changed. Politicians should have to answer to the people, and not to
Johnson 10
corporate conglomerates. Again, to be fair, I am going into the political arguments a little deeper than Crawford, and I do not want to misinterpret his position because his politics are a little vague. Crawford may have the same opinions about political money being funneled through Congress.
I will concede Crawford’s point that liberal politics do create some bureaucratic problems. For instance, affirmative action has protected African Americans and other minorities from discrimination, but by the same token, some white men get passed up for jobs because their employers must have a certain amount of minorities employed. Also, there are bureaucratic problems with Medicare, Social Security, and public schooling. While there are negative bureaucratic problems to liberal politics, I believe that the rewards of liberal politics are worth the problems that these programs cause. For example, if we didn't have Medicare we wouldn't have the bureaucratic problems associated with it, but many elderly people couldn't afford quality health care. Consequently, they would get sick and die.
I also agree that teachers need to be allowed to teach, judges should be allowed to judge, and a “one size fits all” approach is counterproductive to the learning process, and Crawford does concede that liberalism has good intentions. I think that Crawford and I could probably find some common ground on these issues, even though I am probably just as politically stubborn as he is.
I will say that most people who disagree with liberalism are not racists, homophobes, xenophobes, and anti-Semitic, and I will go even further to say that I believe that those labels do not apply to Crawford either (even though I don’t really have crystal clear evidence based on
Johnson 11
Crawford’s arguments, to support my opinion). Liberals like to throw around these labels to describe anyone who disagrees with their positions (they’re not always wrong).
Finally, I would like to elaborate a bit more about the degradation of white-collar work in the United States. I agree with Crawford’s assessment of the degradation white-collar work, and I am going to use my personal experience to support Crawford’s conclusion that
White-collar professions, too, are subject to routinization and degradation, proceeding by the same logic that hit manual fabrication a hundred years ago: the cognitive elements of the job are appropriated from professionals, instantiated in a system or process, and then handed back to a new class of workers--clerks—who replace the professionals. (44)
I work for an insurance agent, and my job requires me to think all of the time. Based on my experience, I must be able to help my clients make difficult financial decisions. I am not a “clerk” as Crawford explains, but I am nonetheless subject to needless routinization by my superiors. I sell insurance for the largest insurance company in North America, but I am not employed by the insurance company. I actually work for an independent, highly successful insurance agency, with well over three thousand policy holders, but the corporate field agents from the insurance company continually try to mold us into one cohesive unit. They keep telling my fellow employees and I that we must do the same things, the same way, and the company has set up computerized systems to help us. Now, since I don’t actually work for the company, and my boss is happy as long as we are making money, I have basically ignored the field agent’s directives. I have continued to do the things that make me successful; therefore, on one hand my
Johnson 12
job is routine, but on the other hand it is not, because I continue to adapt and change my techniques to suit the needs of my clients.
Even though I ignore some of the directives of the field agents, I realize that having a cohesive unit is probably the best way, overall, to maximize profits because everyone is working towards the same goals. Many of the routinization techniques actually help us work more efficiently. Like Crawford, I have a problem with a few of the systems we have in place, but things would take much more time without our computer systems, so the degradation of my job is not completely negative.
However, I am a slave to technology at my job, which I am rather upset about after reading Crawford’s book. I cannot perform my job functions without computers and phones, but when they don’t function properly, I don’t know how to fix them myself. I am completely reliant on the company’s internal support center. Crawford has inspired me to be a little more inquisitive about the inner workings of the technology in front of me. He has also inspired me to learn a trade as well. I am not sure exactly what trade I would like to learn, but I think I would like to know how to fix and repair things around my house. I could certainly save myself some money! I believe his assessment about the future of white-collar labor is correct, because the “clerks” could very well replace me down the road. I am not quite sure what trade I want to learn, but I remember attending shop class in high school, and it was satisfying to make my own things.
In conclusion, I would like to summarize my essay by saying that Crawford is an amazing intellectual with excellent points about the future direction of labor in the United States.
Johnson 13
Despite my disagreements with some of Crawford’s political analysis, I can still agree with most of his arguments (even politically), and say with confidence that I would recommend the book to anyone who wants to take control (or gain “agency” as Crawford puts it) over their life (7).
Works Cited
Crawford, Matthew. Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry into the value of work. New York: Penguin Press, 2009. Print.
Hartmann, Thom. Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc., 2006. Print
Weinberg, Steve. Book review: Shop Class as Soulcraft. By Matthew T. Crawford. The Dallas Morning News. n.p. Web. 7 Jun. 2009
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Dangers of Religion
And now for your reading pleasure, here he is....Mr. Know-It-All.
Thank you, Rocky. Hello knowledge seekers! (The kids won't get this reference.)
I would like to start out with a quick update on my life for my family and friends. I recently renamed my excrement, "Breitbart." I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to my shit. I have much more respect for what comes out of my ass than Andrew Breitbart. I don't mind Bill Maher having conservatives on his show because I think it makes the show more interesting. But, this slime ball should not be invited to any televised show other than his public execution. So to recap, the evolution chart looks like this....Andrew Breitbart, Dick Cheney, Wall Street Bankers, Oil Company execs, Dick Armey, then my crap. What do these things have in common.....All should be promptly flushed down the toilet and handled with care by a waste management professional.
If I sound a little harsh, I don't really care. I don't have a "god" to answer to. I answer only to myself and what I deem to be decent and good. People that believe in god or gods have to subscribe to a human translation of a higher power. Anyone that does things to appease a god obtained their methods by listening to man. To be fair, what I deem to be good comes from other men and women too. The difference is that the men and women I follow don't get me to follow by instilling fear in me. I follow them because of their actions and a desire to.
My manager Gary said that I am much more of a "Christian" than many of the people who attend church every Sunday. What he means is the way I treat others Monday through Saturday reflects the teachings of Jesus Christ. I certainly try to follow Jesus' teachings without believing that he was an immortal god. I don't follow them because I will go to "hell." I follow those teachings because they make sense. "Treat others as you want to be treated."
I am very critical of religious people, and I believe that it is necessary to be overly critical. Religious people purport to be better than non-religious people, which means that I can hold them to that higher standard. How many times do we hear the words, "Well, he attends church every week." The implication is that a person who attends church must be "good." It is amazing to me that the same people who seem to agree with Jesus Christ that the "poor will inherit the earth," and "turn the other cheek," and "those without sin, cast the first stone," are the same people that are overly Republican and conservative. Half of the people in this country who are white and Christian are also Republican. Only twenty percent of those people are Democratic. I can guarantee that the Republican ideologues certainly do not agree with "bleeding-heart liberals." They overwhelmingly support war against Islam, and under no circumstances do they want the government to provide for the welfare and well-being of the citizens. They don't want to help the poor; rather, they want the poor to "pull themselves up by their boot-straps." I don't remember that tag line in the New Testament.
I am always asked, "'Shawn, why attack people who believe in religion?' 'They aren't hurting anyone.'" Really, they aren't hurting anyone? What about when the President of the United States uses his religion to justify killing or displacing two million Iraqis? What about when people use their religion to justify murdering an abortion doctor? What about when Osama Bin Laden uses his religion to justify flying planes into the World Trade Center? I have always asserted that people who believe in religion are no better than people who do not. I think I am going to have to change that sentiment and say that people who believe in religion are much more dangerous than people who do not.
Outlawing gay marriage is a clear violation of the civil rights amendment. The Mormon Church spent eighty million dollars in California supporting Prop 8 which outlawed gay marriage. No document or organization in this country should be above the Constitution, but we make exceptions for religion all the time. We actually have cities in this country that refuse to prosecute Catholic priests who molest children. We have an organization called the Ku Klux Klan whose member majority is also Southern Baptist. The Ku Klux Klan has made it their mission to eradicate African Americans and Jews from the United States. This country fought a war in 1941 and watched our sons and daughters die and sacrifice to help stop Nazism. To watch Nazism exist in the United States of America cloaked by religion is so egregious and hypocritical that I cannot stomach it.
When did Jesus ask us to create an Aryan nation? When did Jesus ask us to turn our backs on the poor and disenfranchised? When did Jesus ask us to exploit immigrants for their labor and then demonize their contribution to our country? When did Jesus ask us to hate homosexuals? When did Jesus ask us to support tax cuts for the super-rich?
As an atheist I want to know, of all of the many teachings of Jesus Christ, which ones do Christians follow? I used to think Christians were just selective about the teachings they followed. As I grow older I now think that they simply don't follow any of the teachings of Jesus. Breaking a fucking cracker and drinking wine on Sunday should not be all one needs to do to call themselves a "Christian."
Do you think it is unfair that I point out that the KKK is full of "Christians?" I think that it is no more unfair than those that protest the building of a Mosque near Ground Zero. I would love to judge Christians by the twenty percent that are members of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party's ideals are much closer to what Jesus would want. The Republican Party's ideals are much closer to what white landowners would want. Republican ideals equal lower taxes, corporate control of government, and capitalism. I have no problem with Republican ideals but I do have a problem with the same idealists calling themselves Christian. Jesus Christ healed the sick. Republicans repeal health care. Jesus Christ said, "Turn the other cheek." Republicans buy a gun. Jesus Christ said, "Love thy Neighbor." Republicans show up at a Tea Party rally and scream racial slurs at African American Congressmen.
The left wing in this country is incensed that stupid right wingers think the President is a Muslim. I am incensed that stupid right wingers believe that Christianity is better than Islam. If the President was a Muslim instead of a Christian, I would still think that he is equally as crazy for subscribing to one or the other. Christians hear about Scientology and deem that it is insane. They are right, but they don't realize that believing that a virgin gave birth is equally as insane.
Subscribing to magic and wizardry and then putting down others belief in magic and wizardry is at the very least ironic. Glen Beck is running a Christian rally in the middle of Washington D.C. one minute, and the next minute he is repeating the ranting of the John Birch Society. When does this type of hypocrisy get called exactly what it is? George Bush continuously consulted God when making decisions about war, but as a Christian he never consulted Jesus.
Now you may say, "But Shawn, I am a Christian and I am not in charge of anything. How can I possibly hurt anyone?" Let's take a look at the scientific fact of global warming. Throughout the history of the world a raise in the level of carbon emissions creates global warming at the same rate. That is a fact. It is not wonder that the last 16 years have been the hottest on record, and 2010 was the hottest year on record. The only scientists unsure about global warming work for companies that pollute the environment. Only 38% of Americans believe in global warming and the vast majority of Americans that doubt global warming are also Christian. This is not a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. There is a direct correlation between Christianity and an attack on science, basically because the bible was written long before modern science. There are even Christians that believe that planet earth is 6,000 years old. Again, this is their privilege, but it is also insane and should be called as such.
As a result, Christians have placed men and women in office that have allowed America to be passed by Europe and Asia in environmental protection. Even China is doing much less to harm the environment than the United States. What Christians don't realize is that big business is using their religion to dupe them into doing the dirty work of big business. Is it any wonder why rich southern plantation owners were able to get the poor, stupid serfs to commit treason against their own country? And, is it any wonder why George Bush was able to morph Osama Bin Laden into Saddam Hussein? The only thing the two of them have in common is a belief in Islam. It is very easy to scare Christians, which is also hypocritical because they believe that they will go to a better place in the afterlife. If you are not afraid of death, but rather you embrace it, how can someone possibly frighten you?
The bottom line is that Christian leaders have all types of prophecies. Maybe the way to look like you are a prophet is to have a hand in causing the prediction. The next time someone detonates a nuclear weapon ask yourself what religion he or she subscribes to.
Thank you, Rocky. Hello knowledge seekers! (The kids won't get this reference.)
I would like to start out with a quick update on my life for my family and friends. I recently renamed my excrement, "Breitbart." I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to my shit. I have much more respect for what comes out of my ass than Andrew Breitbart. I don't mind Bill Maher having conservatives on his show because I think it makes the show more interesting. But, this slime ball should not be invited to any televised show other than his public execution. So to recap, the evolution chart looks like this....Andrew Breitbart, Dick Cheney, Wall Street Bankers, Oil Company execs, Dick Armey, then my crap. What do these things have in common.....All should be promptly flushed down the toilet and handled with care by a waste management professional.
If I sound a little harsh, I don't really care. I don't have a "god" to answer to. I answer only to myself and what I deem to be decent and good. People that believe in god or gods have to subscribe to a human translation of a higher power. Anyone that does things to appease a god obtained their methods by listening to man. To be fair, what I deem to be good comes from other men and women too. The difference is that the men and women I follow don't get me to follow by instilling fear in me. I follow them because of their actions and a desire to.
My manager Gary said that I am much more of a "Christian" than many of the people who attend church every Sunday. What he means is the way I treat others Monday through Saturday reflects the teachings of Jesus Christ. I certainly try to follow Jesus' teachings without believing that he was an immortal god. I don't follow them because I will go to "hell." I follow those teachings because they make sense. "Treat others as you want to be treated."
I am very critical of religious people, and I believe that it is necessary to be overly critical. Religious people purport to be better than non-religious people, which means that I can hold them to that higher standard. How many times do we hear the words, "Well, he attends church every week." The implication is that a person who attends church must be "good." It is amazing to me that the same people who seem to agree with Jesus Christ that the "poor will inherit the earth," and "turn the other cheek," and "those without sin, cast the first stone," are the same people that are overly Republican and conservative. Half of the people in this country who are white and Christian are also Republican. Only twenty percent of those people are Democratic. I can guarantee that the Republican ideologues certainly do not agree with "bleeding-heart liberals." They overwhelmingly support war against Islam, and under no circumstances do they want the government to provide for the welfare and well-being of the citizens. They don't want to help the poor; rather, they want the poor to "pull themselves up by their boot-straps." I don't remember that tag line in the New Testament.
I am always asked, "'Shawn, why attack people who believe in religion?' 'They aren't hurting anyone.'" Really, they aren't hurting anyone? What about when the President of the United States uses his religion to justify killing or displacing two million Iraqis? What about when people use their religion to justify murdering an abortion doctor? What about when Osama Bin Laden uses his religion to justify flying planes into the World Trade Center? I have always asserted that people who believe in religion are no better than people who do not. I think I am going to have to change that sentiment and say that people who believe in religion are much more dangerous than people who do not.
Outlawing gay marriage is a clear violation of the civil rights amendment. The Mormon Church spent eighty million dollars in California supporting Prop 8 which outlawed gay marriage. No document or organization in this country should be above the Constitution, but we make exceptions for religion all the time. We actually have cities in this country that refuse to prosecute Catholic priests who molest children. We have an organization called the Ku Klux Klan whose member majority is also Southern Baptist. The Ku Klux Klan has made it their mission to eradicate African Americans and Jews from the United States. This country fought a war in 1941 and watched our sons and daughters die and sacrifice to help stop Nazism. To watch Nazism exist in the United States of America cloaked by religion is so egregious and hypocritical that I cannot stomach it.
When did Jesus ask us to create an Aryan nation? When did Jesus ask us to turn our backs on the poor and disenfranchised? When did Jesus ask us to exploit immigrants for their labor and then demonize their contribution to our country? When did Jesus ask us to hate homosexuals? When did Jesus ask us to support tax cuts for the super-rich?
As an atheist I want to know, of all of the many teachings of Jesus Christ, which ones do Christians follow? I used to think Christians were just selective about the teachings they followed. As I grow older I now think that they simply don't follow any of the teachings of Jesus. Breaking a fucking cracker and drinking wine on Sunday should not be all one needs to do to call themselves a "Christian."
Do you think it is unfair that I point out that the KKK is full of "Christians?" I think that it is no more unfair than those that protest the building of a Mosque near Ground Zero. I would love to judge Christians by the twenty percent that are members of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party's ideals are much closer to what Jesus would want. The Republican Party's ideals are much closer to what white landowners would want. Republican ideals equal lower taxes, corporate control of government, and capitalism. I have no problem with Republican ideals but I do have a problem with the same idealists calling themselves Christian. Jesus Christ healed the sick. Republicans repeal health care. Jesus Christ said, "Turn the other cheek." Republicans buy a gun. Jesus Christ said, "Love thy Neighbor." Republicans show up at a Tea Party rally and scream racial slurs at African American Congressmen.
The left wing in this country is incensed that stupid right wingers think the President is a Muslim. I am incensed that stupid right wingers believe that Christianity is better than Islam. If the President was a Muslim instead of a Christian, I would still think that he is equally as crazy for subscribing to one or the other. Christians hear about Scientology and deem that it is insane. They are right, but they don't realize that believing that a virgin gave birth is equally as insane.
Subscribing to magic and wizardry and then putting down others belief in magic and wizardry is at the very least ironic. Glen Beck is running a Christian rally in the middle of Washington D.C. one minute, and the next minute he is repeating the ranting of the John Birch Society. When does this type of hypocrisy get called exactly what it is? George Bush continuously consulted God when making decisions about war, but as a Christian he never consulted Jesus.
Now you may say, "But Shawn, I am a Christian and I am not in charge of anything. How can I possibly hurt anyone?" Let's take a look at the scientific fact of global warming. Throughout the history of the world a raise in the level of carbon emissions creates global warming at the same rate. That is a fact. It is not wonder that the last 16 years have been the hottest on record, and 2010 was the hottest year on record. The only scientists unsure about global warming work for companies that pollute the environment. Only 38% of Americans believe in global warming and the vast majority of Americans that doubt global warming are also Christian. This is not a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. There is a direct correlation between Christianity and an attack on science, basically because the bible was written long before modern science. There are even Christians that believe that planet earth is 6,000 years old. Again, this is their privilege, but it is also insane and should be called as such.
As a result, Christians have placed men and women in office that have allowed America to be passed by Europe and Asia in environmental protection. Even China is doing much less to harm the environment than the United States. What Christians don't realize is that big business is using their religion to dupe them into doing the dirty work of big business. Is it any wonder why rich southern plantation owners were able to get the poor, stupid serfs to commit treason against their own country? And, is it any wonder why George Bush was able to morph Osama Bin Laden into Saddam Hussein? The only thing the two of them have in common is a belief in Islam. It is very easy to scare Christians, which is also hypocritical because they believe that they will go to a better place in the afterlife. If you are not afraid of death, but rather you embrace it, how can someone possibly frighten you?
The bottom line is that Christian leaders have all types of prophecies. Maybe the way to look like you are a prophet is to have a hand in causing the prediction. The next time someone detonates a nuclear weapon ask yourself what religion he or she subscribes to.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
President Johnson?
Periodically I am told by friends and family that I love to bitch about things, but I am not willing to run for political office in order to try to change things. This charge is true. First of all, if I join the bastards it makes it really difficult to exercise my right of criticizing them. For centuries national political figures have hired their biggest detractors to shut them up. Secondly, running for public office is not something that I am willing to put my family through.
While I probably won't run for political office, I have always wondered what I would run try to do if I actually won. Why go for small potatoes. As long as I am going to do it, I might as well be the next President of the United States. Here is a list of 25 things I would do everything in my power to accomplish.
1. I would immediately order every single American troop in the Middle East home by Christmas 2013. I would significantly reduce troop levels in Europe and Asia. The Johnson Doctrine would be a simple one line doctrine, "Leave other countries the fuck alone!"
2. I would eliminate the foreign tax credit for all businesses in the United States. If you want to create jobs overseas and not here, you pay twice. Don't like it? Sell your products elsewhere. Export products, not jobs.
3. I would immediately issue an executive order making it illegal to profit from an American's poor health.
4. I would issue another executive order making torture of any prisoner a federal crime.
5. I would hire a special prosecutor to investigate war crimes committed by the Bush Administration. I will also hire a partisan panel to investigate the failures of Hurricane Katrina, the Gulf Oil Spill, and the financial crisis. Bankers and oil execs will be going to prison.
6. I would create a website where any American can log on and see up to minute White House activity. Everything will be posted aside of state secrets and military strategy.
7. I would call on Congress to outlaw privately funded elections. Also, I will encourage Congress to eliminate the Electoral College and allow each American to rank their candidates. I will publically call out each member of Congress that does not support this resolution.
8. I would create additional taxes for logging companies that are ripping down national forests. I will create additional taxes for companies burning fossil fuels and polluting the environment. Then, I will create huge tax incentives for companies that move toward creating alternative fuels.
9. I would give a $15,000 tax credit to anyone who buys an electric car. Also, I will enforce that the tax credit is only for cars built in the United States by union labor.
10. I would eliminate the war on drugs and the war on poverty. I would legalize marijuana and use the tax revenue to help the homeless and mentally ill. Also, I would begin a nationwide rehabilitation program that helps serious drug users and alcoholics avoid prison. This won't be a stupid AA meeting either. This program will be conducted by medical professionals that aren't on the prescription drug payroll.
11. I would immediate pull funding for public projects for any state that allows privately funded prisons, police, and fire departments.
12. I would make college completely free for anyone who wants to become a doctor or a scientist. To raise money for this, I would extend Medicare benefits to every single American citizen. It will cut our health care expenses in half.
13. I would give a federal grant to each and every state that supports an assault weapon and hand gun ban. Hunting weapons will still be allowed.
14. I would simplify mortgages and loans. Adjustable rate mortgages will be illegal and the terms of a mortgage or loan will be five pages or less. Also, no bank will be allowed to charge more than 15% interest on a credit card.
15. I would reestablish the public works program. I will raise taxes on anyone making $2 Million or more annually by 5% and anyone making $1 - $2 Million by 3%. Half of the tax revenue will be used to pay down the federal debt the other half will be used to run the public works program. It would be my goal to completely revamp the country's infrastructure within 20 years.
16. I would cut the corporate tax rate for any business that hires American workers. A tax credit of 1% will be given for every 50 American workers hired. The tax cut will max out at 10%. For small businesses a tax credit of 1% will be given for every 10 American workers hired.
17. I would adopt Alan Grayson's tax policy and force the Pentagon to pay for war in their existing budget. I will use the savings to give everyone tax free income up to $35,000.
18. I would make a law that would only allow non-corporate news sources in the White House press corp.
19. I would make it a federal crime to hire undocumented workers. It will also be a federal crime to pay anyone below minimum wage. Also, I would allow any undocumented worker to apply for a Visa and their current status will not be taken into account. Once they obtain a Visa, they may begin the citizenship process. I know that this is unfair to those who did it the legal way, but we should have thought about that before we exploited these people for their labor.
20. Every single new road and roof in the United States will be required to be painted white. Scientific studies show that this simple procedure will curb climate change by 50%. It is time to do what is necessary to ensure our survival as a planet.
21. I would give incentives to states that legalize gay marriage.
22. I would eliminate investments in foreign car companies that cost the government $200,000 for every job created and I would reinvest in American car companies willing to use union labor here.
23. I would implement President Obama's plan to eliminate income tax for seniors making less than $50,000 annually.
24. I would reinstate tariffs on incoming goods and work with Canada and Mexico to make NAFTA friendlier to American workers. No more unfair trade.
25. I would break up the largest banks and enact monopoly laws against corporations that buy up their competitors. Having more than 50% of any market in one or two corporations should be illegal.
Would you vote for me?
While I probably won't run for political office, I have always wondered what I would run try to do if I actually won. Why go for small potatoes. As long as I am going to do it, I might as well be the next President of the United States. Here is a list of 25 things I would do everything in my power to accomplish.
1. I would immediately order every single American troop in the Middle East home by Christmas 2013. I would significantly reduce troop levels in Europe and Asia. The Johnson Doctrine would be a simple one line doctrine, "Leave other countries the fuck alone!"
2. I would eliminate the foreign tax credit for all businesses in the United States. If you want to create jobs overseas and not here, you pay twice. Don't like it? Sell your products elsewhere. Export products, not jobs.
3. I would immediately issue an executive order making it illegal to profit from an American's poor health.
4. I would issue another executive order making torture of any prisoner a federal crime.
5. I would hire a special prosecutor to investigate war crimes committed by the Bush Administration. I will also hire a partisan panel to investigate the failures of Hurricane Katrina, the Gulf Oil Spill, and the financial crisis. Bankers and oil execs will be going to prison.
6. I would create a website where any American can log on and see up to minute White House activity. Everything will be posted aside of state secrets and military strategy.
7. I would call on Congress to outlaw privately funded elections. Also, I will encourage Congress to eliminate the Electoral College and allow each American to rank their candidates. I will publically call out each member of Congress that does not support this resolution.
8. I would create additional taxes for logging companies that are ripping down national forests. I will create additional taxes for companies burning fossil fuels and polluting the environment. Then, I will create huge tax incentives for companies that move toward creating alternative fuels.
9. I would give a $15,000 tax credit to anyone who buys an electric car. Also, I will enforce that the tax credit is only for cars built in the United States by union labor.
10. I would eliminate the war on drugs and the war on poverty. I would legalize marijuana and use the tax revenue to help the homeless and mentally ill. Also, I would begin a nationwide rehabilitation program that helps serious drug users and alcoholics avoid prison. This won't be a stupid AA meeting either. This program will be conducted by medical professionals that aren't on the prescription drug payroll.
11. I would immediate pull funding for public projects for any state that allows privately funded prisons, police, and fire departments.
12. I would make college completely free for anyone who wants to become a doctor or a scientist. To raise money for this, I would extend Medicare benefits to every single American citizen. It will cut our health care expenses in half.
13. I would give a federal grant to each and every state that supports an assault weapon and hand gun ban. Hunting weapons will still be allowed.
14. I would simplify mortgages and loans. Adjustable rate mortgages will be illegal and the terms of a mortgage or loan will be five pages or less. Also, no bank will be allowed to charge more than 15% interest on a credit card.
15. I would reestablish the public works program. I will raise taxes on anyone making $2 Million or more annually by 5% and anyone making $1 - $2 Million by 3%. Half of the tax revenue will be used to pay down the federal debt the other half will be used to run the public works program. It would be my goal to completely revamp the country's infrastructure within 20 years.
16. I would cut the corporate tax rate for any business that hires American workers. A tax credit of 1% will be given for every 50 American workers hired. The tax cut will max out at 10%. For small businesses a tax credit of 1% will be given for every 10 American workers hired.
17. I would adopt Alan Grayson's tax policy and force the Pentagon to pay for war in their existing budget. I will use the savings to give everyone tax free income up to $35,000.
18. I would make a law that would only allow non-corporate news sources in the White House press corp.
19. I would make it a federal crime to hire undocumented workers. It will also be a federal crime to pay anyone below minimum wage. Also, I would allow any undocumented worker to apply for a Visa and their current status will not be taken into account. Once they obtain a Visa, they may begin the citizenship process. I know that this is unfair to those who did it the legal way, but we should have thought about that before we exploited these people for their labor.
20. Every single new road and roof in the United States will be required to be painted white. Scientific studies show that this simple procedure will curb climate change by 50%. It is time to do what is necessary to ensure our survival as a planet.
21. I would give incentives to states that legalize gay marriage.
22. I would eliminate investments in foreign car companies that cost the government $200,000 for every job created and I would reinvest in American car companies willing to use union labor here.
23. I would implement President Obama's plan to eliminate income tax for seniors making less than $50,000 annually.
24. I would reinstate tariffs on incoming goods and work with Canada and Mexico to make NAFTA friendlier to American workers. No more unfair trade.
25. I would break up the largest banks and enact monopoly laws against corporations that buy up their competitors. Having more than 50% of any market in one or two corporations should be illegal.
Would you vote for me?
Monday, February 7, 2011
Capitalism vs Socialism.....Not Really
Two assertions by the wing-nuts in this country are completely off base. First, the assertion that they are pure capitalists fighting the evils of socialism is completely preposterous. Second, and equally as ridiculous, is the assertion that liberals are pure socialists. I will grant you the fact that there are differences in opinion of what we should be capitalist and socialist about, but the right wing is very "black and white" about the issue.
The primary reason they are so "black and white" about capitalism and socialism is because they want to ratchet up fear. They are essentially equating liberals with the USSR, a claim that bears absolutely no weight. Take the Tea Party for instance. The Tea Party seems to favor an absence of government in people's personal and professional lives. They believe that it is government's responsibility to allow the "free market" to work itself out. Never mind the fact that real citizens are deeply hurt when government stops doing its socialist job to regulate commerce.
The Tea Party is all for capitalism right? Well, not so fast. The Tea Party believes that the government should do more about the alleged porous borders, do more to punish criminals (i.e. minorities), and fully fund the United States Military. They also believe the government should run schools, the fire department, police station, National Guard, etc.
Don't look now, but the Tea Party favors socialism. They also favor capitalism. So the farthest right mainstream political party in the United States believes in socialism. Liberals believe that a small business owner should be allowed to sell his product and work hard to make as much money as he can. So liberals believe in free market capitalism.
The point I am making is that the issue with bipartisan rhetoric isn't that it is mean-spirited. The problem with bipartisan rhetoric is that it is inaccurate. It is purposefully inaccurate to create an enemy. America has a problem thinking outside the box. Take a look at American movies and television. Good and bad are clearly defined, and Americans like to look at history the same way. This "black and white" thinking distorts history and it is dangerous.
Let me ask, "Is Thomas Jefferson good or bad?" If you read a high school text book and take it at its word, you will decide that Thomas Jefferson is good. But, this thinking is a fallacy because he is not 100% good or bad. Certain things that Thomas Jefferson stood for we can all agree are good, but other things he stood for we can all agree are clearly bad. Thomas Jefferson was pro-slavery. He owned them and raped them. He was also instrumental in creating the Bill of Rights, and he was one of our finest Presidents.
However, because the right wing must unequivocally support the founding fathers they refuse to give an accurate portrayal of history. A couple of weeks ago, Michelle Bachmann actually said that the founding fathers "worked tirelessly to end slavery." This simply is not true, but since the founders are "good" they cannot do anything "bad." This thinking is dangerous because those who don't know history and those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
The largest socialist movement in this country led to 50 years of prosperity, but included in that socialist movement was also a capitalist movement. Unbridled capitalism and unbridled socialism cripple economies and governments around the world, but a free market capitalist system with enough socialism to make it fair leads to prosperity. The United States became great because of a mix of the two systems which was the correct course of action. It is why liberals never want to give up their right to own land, and why conservatives want to keep their food free of lead.
The Republican response to the State of the Union address blasted Democrats for thinking that government can do great things, and then promptly said that government has a responsibility to "help those who can't help themselves." Don't look now, but the Republicans look an awful lot like the Chinese Red Army. The President of the United States is correct. Republicans and Democrats can come together on most things and unify the country. Republicans refuse to for political reasons, and when Obama does things that they like (like cutting $250 Billion from the deficit) they oppose the idea because Obama thought of it first. Democrats really played ball with the Bush Administration in the name of getting things done. Republicans have tried to block almost everything the Obama Administration has put forth just because they can.
I wish Americans would realize that they are being duped by a party that cares very little about this country. Obama could turn the Republicans completely liberal by tomorrow. The only thing he would have to do is come out for everything they claim to stand for.
The primary reason they are so "black and white" about capitalism and socialism is because they want to ratchet up fear. They are essentially equating liberals with the USSR, a claim that bears absolutely no weight. Take the Tea Party for instance. The Tea Party seems to favor an absence of government in people's personal and professional lives. They believe that it is government's responsibility to allow the "free market" to work itself out. Never mind the fact that real citizens are deeply hurt when government stops doing its socialist job to regulate commerce.
The Tea Party is all for capitalism right? Well, not so fast. The Tea Party believes that the government should do more about the alleged porous borders, do more to punish criminals (i.e. minorities), and fully fund the United States Military. They also believe the government should run schools, the fire department, police station, National Guard, etc.
Don't look now, but the Tea Party favors socialism. They also favor capitalism. So the farthest right mainstream political party in the United States believes in socialism. Liberals believe that a small business owner should be allowed to sell his product and work hard to make as much money as he can. So liberals believe in free market capitalism.
The point I am making is that the issue with bipartisan rhetoric isn't that it is mean-spirited. The problem with bipartisan rhetoric is that it is inaccurate. It is purposefully inaccurate to create an enemy. America has a problem thinking outside the box. Take a look at American movies and television. Good and bad are clearly defined, and Americans like to look at history the same way. This "black and white" thinking distorts history and it is dangerous.
Let me ask, "Is Thomas Jefferson good or bad?" If you read a high school text book and take it at its word, you will decide that Thomas Jefferson is good. But, this thinking is a fallacy because he is not 100% good or bad. Certain things that Thomas Jefferson stood for we can all agree are good, but other things he stood for we can all agree are clearly bad. Thomas Jefferson was pro-slavery. He owned them and raped them. He was also instrumental in creating the Bill of Rights, and he was one of our finest Presidents.
However, because the right wing must unequivocally support the founding fathers they refuse to give an accurate portrayal of history. A couple of weeks ago, Michelle Bachmann actually said that the founding fathers "worked tirelessly to end slavery." This simply is not true, but since the founders are "good" they cannot do anything "bad." This thinking is dangerous because those who don't know history and those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
The largest socialist movement in this country led to 50 years of prosperity, but included in that socialist movement was also a capitalist movement. Unbridled capitalism and unbridled socialism cripple economies and governments around the world, but a free market capitalist system with enough socialism to make it fair leads to prosperity. The United States became great because of a mix of the two systems which was the correct course of action. It is why liberals never want to give up their right to own land, and why conservatives want to keep their food free of lead.
The Republican response to the State of the Union address blasted Democrats for thinking that government can do great things, and then promptly said that government has a responsibility to "help those who can't help themselves." Don't look now, but the Republicans look an awful lot like the Chinese Red Army. The President of the United States is correct. Republicans and Democrats can come together on most things and unify the country. Republicans refuse to for political reasons, and when Obama does things that they like (like cutting $250 Billion from the deficit) they oppose the idea because Obama thought of it first. Democrats really played ball with the Bush Administration in the name of getting things done. Republicans have tried to block almost everything the Obama Administration has put forth just because they can.
I wish Americans would realize that they are being duped by a party that cares very little about this country. Obama could turn the Republicans completely liberal by tomorrow. The only thing he would have to do is come out for everything they claim to stand for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)