As I have said before, as conservative Justices go, John G. Roberts is fairly good. He joined the liberals and kept the Individual Mandate as constitutionally legal.
Kennedy fell for a rather foolish argument, but Roberts came through with liberty and justice for all.
He followed the same reasoning I did - if the Government can tax you - and exempt people from a tax if they buy things, then it can fine you for failing to buy something. They are effectively the same thing, and the Supreme Court agrees.
What does this mean for the future of US healthcare?
Well, with enough Democrats in the Senate to block a House law, Obamacare will not change. While it is just barely within the range of possibility that Obama will not be re-elected, it is extremely unlikely that we will also lose so many Democrats in the Senate that we won't be able to block Health care revocation.
In addition, the court said that the Federal government's powers to limit Medicare spending is restricted - no threatening to take away the funding for certain things. But that was a relatively minor move.
More importantly, Medicare will likely have changes initiated by the GOP anyway. It is getting very costly and unsustainable. Someone's going to have to do something soon, and the GOP has refused to accept any Democrat led ideas for a long time.
If they can come up with something reasonable, it will pass.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Inaction Always Caused by the Weaker Party
The United States has a relatively simple political environment. It has only two strong parties, and they are in command. No other party can get anything through.
Our government was created with multiple checks and balances to stop stupid things from getting done. But sometimes this also stops smart things from getting done.
Every government in power tries to DO things. Yes, the GOP claimed it is for small government, but under every GOP president - including Reagan and both Bushes - it grew. The amount of money the spent went up, the number of laws that existed went up, in every way it happens.
The People in Power DO things.
The people out of power can't do things. If they could do something, then they would be in power. Instead, they do their best to limit and prevent things they disike from getting done. It isn't just for the American government, it works in any shared power relationship where one side has much more power than the other.
Things aren't getting done. That is beyond a doubt true. Which means the people without real power are being obstructionistic and stoping things from getting done.
So now the question is - who is in power: Democrats or Repbulicans.
If you think the Democrats are in power - then it is the Republicans fault nothing is getting done.
If you think the Republicans are in power, then it is the Democrats fault nothing is getting done.
Anyone that says "the democrats are refusing to cooperate with the Republicans" is in effect claiming that the Republicans are in control of this country. That they have the power and the Democrats are working behind the scenes to obstruct them.
The president is a Democrat. The Senate is majority Democrat. Yes, the GOP has a majority of the House, but that just makes them powerful enough to stop everything from getting done.
If one part has a huge amount of power i.e. control of all three of the following (control of the senate - which equals 60+ - and control of the House) then things get done fast.
If one party partial control of the senate and control of the house, then things get it's clear who is in control and who is being obstructionist (the minority party using filibustering). This is what happened during the first two years of Obama's presidency and the GOP was clearly and obviously obstructing government.
But if the House and Senate are split, then it gets a bit harder to tell who is being obstructionist. The Presidency has some additional power (as shown by Obama's orders about illegal immigration). But that could be countered by the claim that the Supreme Court is conservative biased. (Justice Scalia has revealed his deep and improper hatred for how the democrats do things - even while accepting the exact same things being done by GOP when they were in power.) While he isn't the only Judge, most of the judges currently in power were appointed by Republican presidencies.
Our government was created with multiple checks and balances to stop stupid things from getting done. But sometimes this also stops smart things from getting done.
Every government in power tries to DO things. Yes, the GOP claimed it is for small government, but under every GOP president - including Reagan and both Bushes - it grew. The amount of money the spent went up, the number of laws that existed went up, in every way it happens.
The People in Power DO things.
The people out of power can't do things. If they could do something, then they would be in power. Instead, they do their best to limit and prevent things they disike from getting done. It isn't just for the American government, it works in any shared power relationship where one side has much more power than the other.
Things aren't getting done. That is beyond a doubt true. Which means the people without real power are being obstructionistic and stoping things from getting done.
So now the question is - who is in power: Democrats or Repbulicans.
If you think the Democrats are in power - then it is the Republicans fault nothing is getting done.
If you think the Republicans are in power, then it is the Democrats fault nothing is getting done.
Anyone that says "the democrats are refusing to cooperate with the Republicans" is in effect claiming that the Republicans are in control of this country. That they have the power and the Democrats are working behind the scenes to obstruct them.
The president is a Democrat. The Senate is majority Democrat. Yes, the GOP has a majority of the House, but that just makes them powerful enough to stop everything from getting done.
If one part has a huge amount of power i.e. control of all three of the following (control of the senate - which equals 60+ - and control of the House) then things get done fast.
If one party partial control of the senate and control of the house, then things get it's clear who is in control and who is being obstructionist (the minority party using filibustering). This is what happened during the first two years of Obama's presidency and the GOP was clearly and obviously obstructing government.
But if the House and Senate are split, then it gets a bit harder to tell who is being obstructionist. The Presidency has some additional power (as shown by Obama's orders about illegal immigration). But that could be countered by the claim that the Supreme Court is conservative biased. (Justice Scalia has revealed his deep and improper hatred for how the democrats do things - even while accepting the exact same things being done by GOP when they were in power.) While he isn't the only Judge, most of the judges currently in power were appointed by Republican presidencies.
Monday, June 25, 2012
List of Terroirst acts in the US
Every once in a while, some ignorant fool who never bothered to Google anything claims only Muslims are terrorists. Then they remember one or two things before September 11 and then adds "in the past 15 years". Well, they are wrong.
Here is a list of all terrorist attacks on US soil (including aircraft going to or coming from the US). I exclude other countries because I don't want to debate who is or is not a terrorist - and in a country that has no Christians it is not relevant that no Christians were terrorists (just as a in Ireland, there are no Muslim terrorists, they are all good Catholics). The date goes back to 1975, as any further things get a bit grey on 'terrorist', again.
1975: Jan 24, NYC, Puerto Rican separatist terrorists - Christian
1988: Dec 21, Lockerbie airplane bound for NYC. Libya (Muslim) takes credit.
1993: Feb 26, NYC - first WTC bomb. Muslim
1995: April 19, Oklahoma City bombing, Christian
2001: Sept 11, NYC, Arlington, Shanksville, Muslim
2009: Dec 25, Detroit, underwear bomber, Muslim
2010: May 1, NYC, Time Square, Muslim
2010: May 10, Jacksonvile, Florida, Christians pipe bomb a Mosque
2010: Oct 29, two Yemen Planes to US, (Saudis discover and remove bomb before the planes lift off for the US), Muslim
2011: Jan 17, Spokane Washington, pip bomb along Martin Luther King Jr. March - unknown, most likely Christian
First of all, holy crap 2010 was a bad year!
But of the 10 terrorist acts between 1975 and 2011, only six are Muslims, three of the others are confirmed Christians, and one more is most likely Christian.
Part of the problem is definition. Some morons define terrorism as anytime a Muslim kills a non-muslim. If you do that, then yes, only Muslims are terrorists. Suddenly the Irish's IRA say "YAY - we can get out of jail, now, right?" That is why you have a bunch of fools claiming things like the Little Rock traitor was 'terrorism' or the Cole bombing was terrorism.
The CIA's definition of terrorism is simple:
1) Premeditated Violence (including the threat of violence)
2) for Political reasons
3) against Civilians
4) by sub-national groups
(Source)
The last one (sub national groups) was put in just so that the CIA's own actions don't qualify as terrorism. They wanted to be allowed to kill North Korean and Iranian Nuclear Scientists without worrying about going to jail or violating certain treaties the US has signed.
But we can accept their definition, it has certain things going for it.
First, if you attack a soldier, it is an Act of War, not an act of terrorism. It doesn't matter if it it is a hopeless attack, or even suicidal - like the kamikaze attacks Japan was famous for in World War II. Nor does it matter it if was an 'ambush'. Both of those activities are just as ethical and reasonable as any other military action.
Second, under these terms as per the CIA's own rulings that means the 2000 USS Cole attack - suicide torpedo boating of a US war ship - is not terrorism. Neither was the 2009 Attack on two US Soldiers outside a military recruitment center. Both were done against soldiers, not civilians. As such I did not include it on the list above.
Why is this so important? Because we want the bad guys to try and kill out soldiers, not to try and kill our children. If you have enough guts to attack us head on, as opposed to trying to kill old men, women and children, then we say "You are honorable enough to qualify as a soldier and we will treat you as a Prisoner of War."
Those are important things are they make a lot of sense to me. We treat soldiers better because they act better. Good people may, if the conditions warrant it, have to go to war, but they don't have to kill kids, old people, or pregnant women. Not ever.
Here is a list of all terrorist attacks on US soil (including aircraft going to or coming from the US). I exclude other countries because I don't want to debate who is or is not a terrorist - and in a country that has no Christians it is not relevant that no Christians were terrorists (just as a in Ireland, there are no Muslim terrorists, they are all good Catholics). The date goes back to 1975, as any further things get a bit grey on 'terrorist', again.
1975: Jan 24, NYC, Puerto Rican separatist terrorists - Christian
1988: Dec 21, Lockerbie airplane bound for NYC. Libya (Muslim) takes credit.
1993: Feb 26, NYC - first WTC bomb. Muslim
1995: April 19, Oklahoma City bombing, Christian
2001: Sept 11, NYC, Arlington, Shanksville, Muslim
2009: Dec 25, Detroit, underwear bomber, Muslim
2010: May 1, NYC, Time Square, Muslim
2010: May 10, Jacksonvile, Florida, Christians pipe bomb a Mosque
2010: Oct 29, two Yemen Planes to US, (Saudis discover and remove bomb before the planes lift off for the US), Muslim
2011: Jan 17, Spokane Washington, pip bomb along Martin Luther King Jr. March - unknown, most likely Christian
First of all, holy crap 2010 was a bad year!
But of the 10 terrorist acts between 1975 and 2011, only six are Muslims, three of the others are confirmed Christians, and one more is most likely Christian.
Part of the problem is definition. Some morons define terrorism as anytime a Muslim kills a non-muslim. If you do that, then yes, only Muslims are terrorists. Suddenly the Irish's IRA say "YAY - we can get out of jail, now, right?" That is why you have a bunch of fools claiming things like the Little Rock traitor was 'terrorism' or the Cole bombing was terrorism.
The CIA's definition of terrorism is simple:
1) Premeditated Violence (including the threat of violence)
2) for Political reasons
3) against Civilians
4) by sub-national groups
(Source)
The last one (sub national groups) was put in just so that the CIA's own actions don't qualify as terrorism. They wanted to be allowed to kill North Korean and Iranian Nuclear Scientists without worrying about going to jail or violating certain treaties the US has signed.
But we can accept their definition, it has certain things going for it.
First, if you attack a soldier, it is an Act of War, not an act of terrorism. It doesn't matter if it it is a hopeless attack, or even suicidal - like the kamikaze attacks Japan was famous for in World War II. Nor does it matter it if was an 'ambush'. Both of those activities are just as ethical and reasonable as any other military action.
Second, under these terms as per the CIA's own rulings that means the 2000 USS Cole attack - suicide torpedo boating of a US war ship - is not terrorism. Neither was the 2009 Attack on two US Soldiers outside a military recruitment center. Both were done against soldiers, not civilians. As such I did not include it on the list above.
Why is this so important? Because we want the bad guys to try and kill out soldiers, not to try and kill our children. If you have enough guts to attack us head on, as opposed to trying to kill old men, women and children, then we say "You are honorable enough to qualify as a soldier and we will treat you as a Prisoner of War."
Those are important things are they make a lot of sense to me. We treat soldiers better because they act better. Good people may, if the conditions warrant it, have to go to war, but they don't have to kill kids, old people, or pregnant women. Not ever.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Fix our schools
Things we KNOW are wrong with out schools, but we make no attempt to fix them.
- Summer break - originally done because teachers thought 'kids would have a psych break down if they worked too hard." Rich kids read over the summer, poor kids don't - as a result rich kids come back to school with better English skill's while poor kids come back with worse skills than when they left school in the spring.
- Bad parents (homeless, drug addicts, criminals, etc.)
- Focus on tests, as opposed to learning
- Focus on talent rather than work.
Fascism and the Right
During World War II there were four major competing political philosophies.
Germany and Italy called themselves Fascists. Russia called itself Communist. America called itself Democratic Capitalists. Japan called itself an Empire, but was clearly a Military dictatorship (the emperor was controlled by a military council and was practically a slave.)
The Fascists hated Communists. They rounded them up and sent them to concentration camps - it was just as bad as being a Jew. In fact, many of the Nazis were surprised that we did not join them and attack 'our mutual enemy', the communists. They were friendly with Japan's Military Dictatorship because they had certain idea's in common. The Communists and Democratic Capitalists disliked everyone else.
Now however, a bunch of far right nutcases who have been calling liberals communists and socialists don't like it when we call them Fascists back. So they try to re-write history and claim that Fascists were some how liberals.
They do this in large part by lying about the principals behind fascism and communism. They talk about the things they have in common, ignoring the many things that they had different. This is not that hard. It's kind of like saying that Lions and Toy Poodles are the same thing because they both have fur. Or claiming that the United States is no better than terrorists because we both kill for political reasons. This logic is incredibly stupid, because it at heart ignores both history, stated beliefs, and the clear differences between the groups. Terrorism is not defined by killing for politics, but by killing CIVILIANS for politics.
You need to go back and look at what the actual fascists said they were about and compare it with what the actual communists said they were about. You need to believe the people that claim to follow those philosophies, not people that hate them.
First and foremost, Fascism was based on superiority, where as Communism was based on equality. The communists thought everyone was the same, and should all get the same stuff. They ignored exceptional-ism, Fascism on the other hand was about arrogantly believing you were superior than others and should therefore control or eliminate them.
Yes, both economic systems claimed to be merit based, but so is capitalism. Communism embraced egalitarianism and hated private property. It embraced unions and strikes by the workers who had their labor stolen from them for no payment. The idea was that the meritorious people would do far more work than the meritorious people, but generously give them the same food and luxuries. Fascism however loved private property and thought that the meritorious people should be rewarded and the less meritorious should be treated like dogs or outright killed. It hated unions and strikes, as ways for the weak to control the meritorious.
Communists put people in work camps because they tried to get extra stuff for themselves for any reason (even if they had earned it) - or disagreed with communism. Fascist put people in work camps because they thought they were inferior - or disagreed with Fascism.
The basic philosophies of Fascism and Communism directly oppose each other. Communists believed we are all ants, while Fascism believed that they are gods and everyone ELSE is an ant. Those are very different beliefs.
Communism is nothing more than the unalloyed extreme misinterpretation of a key leftist democratic principle: "all men are created equal". Similarly, Fascism is nothing more than the unalloyed extreme misinterpretation of a key rightist capitalism principle: "The worthy should be rewarded".
Note, while the extreme misinterpretations were wrong, they are based on valid ideas. Both of these directly contradictory statements (If someone is worthy, then all can not be equal.) have value to them. They are true, even though they oppose each other.
-- Side bar --
How can two apparently contradictory statements be true? It has to do with understanding the real meaning behind them. All men are created equal does not mean that people are equal NOW (nor is it restricted just to men - women are equal to). It means that nothing that happens at or before birth - or is mostly determined by birth - makes a man less equal. The word 'created" is the key one. You can't be born superior because of race. Similarly, the 'worthy' should be rewarded refers to what they themselves DO, not what they were born as.
-- End Side bar --
But back to the main point. Fascism is very clearly not liberalism. It is in fact the exact opposite of what liberalism is. Liberalism is based on 'all men are created equal', although we don't go to the ridiculous extreme of communism. Similarly capitalism is based on the "worthy should be rewarded", although it doesn't go to the ridiculous extreme of fascism.
Why do far right zealots claim fascists are 'liberal'? Because they can't admit that conservatives might be wrong so anyone that is wrong must be liberal.
More importantly, HOW how do far right zealots claim it is? They look at the methods of Fascism instead of the principles behind it. They see that both Fascists and Communists act with disregard for the rights of individuals and think that 'dictatorship' or 'anti-freedom' is what makes them bad.
Now, being a dictator is evil. You can tell someone's a dictator when they refuse to compromise (or arrogantly claim that compromise is when their opponent does what they tell them to). But Fascism and Communism are more than simply dictatorial governments.
The methods are not what made Communism or Fascism wrong. If you used less evil methods, they would still be wrong. For example, pre-1970 America did not round up and kill black people, we just created a huge 'separate but equal' apartheid system, using democracy not dictatorship. The Jim Crow laws were still fascist even if they flourished under a democracy instead of a dictatorship.
What makes fascism wrong is not their methods, but their ideology. Because fascism is not about the methods, but about the ideology behind the method.
It was wrong in the 1940's Germany/Italy, it was wrong in the 1950's American deep south, it's wrong today.
But back to the original point. Fascism is based on inherent superiority.. Liberalism is based on no superiority. Anyone that is a liberal can not be a fascist and anyone that is a fascist can not be a liberal. They are directly opposing viewpoints.
How do you tell if someone of the left has become too communist? They don't want to reward anyone for being superior. How do you tell if someone on the right has become to fascist? They believe someone is inferior without proving that that specific person has done something that makes them inferior.
Key examples of Fascism in the far right today are the anti-gay political agenda and the anti-minor immigrant issue. In the first case, they think gays are inferior without any logical reason (religious beliefs can not count in a country with religious freedom). In the second, they are declaring the kids inferior, wrong, and attempting to punish and blame them for crimes their parents committed.
Germany and Italy called themselves Fascists. Russia called itself Communist. America called itself Democratic Capitalists. Japan called itself an Empire, but was clearly a Military dictatorship (the emperor was controlled by a military council and was practically a slave.)
The Fascists hated Communists. They rounded them up and sent them to concentration camps - it was just as bad as being a Jew. In fact, many of the Nazis were surprised that we did not join them and attack 'our mutual enemy', the communists. They were friendly with Japan's Military Dictatorship because they had certain idea's in common. The Communists and Democratic Capitalists disliked everyone else.
Now however, a bunch of far right nutcases who have been calling liberals communists and socialists don't like it when we call them Fascists back. So they try to re-write history and claim that Fascists were some how liberals.
They do this in large part by lying about the principals behind fascism and communism. They talk about the things they have in common, ignoring the many things that they had different. This is not that hard. It's kind of like saying that Lions and Toy Poodles are the same thing because they both have fur. Or claiming that the United States is no better than terrorists because we both kill for political reasons. This logic is incredibly stupid, because it at heart ignores both history, stated beliefs, and the clear differences between the groups. Terrorism is not defined by killing for politics, but by killing CIVILIANS for politics.
You need to go back and look at what the actual fascists said they were about and compare it with what the actual communists said they were about. You need to believe the people that claim to follow those philosophies, not people that hate them.
First and foremost, Fascism was based on superiority, where as Communism was based on equality. The communists thought everyone was the same, and should all get the same stuff. They ignored exceptional-ism, Fascism on the other hand was about arrogantly believing you were superior than others and should therefore control or eliminate them.
Yes, both economic systems claimed to be merit based, but so is capitalism. Communism embraced egalitarianism and hated private property. It embraced unions and strikes by the workers who had their labor stolen from them for no payment. The idea was that the meritorious people would do far more work than the meritorious people, but generously give them the same food and luxuries. Fascism however loved private property and thought that the meritorious people should be rewarded and the less meritorious should be treated like dogs or outright killed. It hated unions and strikes, as ways for the weak to control the meritorious.
Communists put people in work camps because they tried to get extra stuff for themselves for any reason (even if they had earned it) - or disagreed with communism. Fascist put people in work camps because they thought they were inferior - or disagreed with Fascism.
The basic philosophies of Fascism and Communism directly oppose each other. Communists believed we are all ants, while Fascism believed that they are gods and everyone ELSE is an ant. Those are very different beliefs.
Communism is nothing more than the unalloyed extreme misinterpretation of a key leftist democratic principle: "all men are created equal". Similarly, Fascism is nothing more than the unalloyed extreme misinterpretation of a key rightist capitalism principle: "The worthy should be rewarded".
Note, while the extreme misinterpretations were wrong, they are based on valid ideas. Both of these directly contradictory statements (If someone is worthy, then all can not be equal.) have value to them. They are true, even though they oppose each other.
-- Side bar --
How can two apparently contradictory statements be true? It has to do with understanding the real meaning behind them. All men are created equal does not mean that people are equal NOW (nor is it restricted just to men - women are equal to). It means that nothing that happens at or before birth - or is mostly determined by birth - makes a man less equal. The word 'created" is the key one. You can't be born superior because of race. Similarly, the 'worthy' should be rewarded refers to what they themselves DO, not what they were born as.
-- End Side bar --
But back to the main point. Fascism is very clearly not liberalism. It is in fact the exact opposite of what liberalism is. Liberalism is based on 'all men are created equal', although we don't go to the ridiculous extreme of communism. Similarly capitalism is based on the "worthy should be rewarded", although it doesn't go to the ridiculous extreme of fascism.
Why do far right zealots claim fascists are 'liberal'? Because they can't admit that conservatives might be wrong so anyone that is wrong must be liberal.
More importantly, HOW how do far right zealots claim it is? They look at the methods of Fascism instead of the principles behind it. They see that both Fascists and Communists act with disregard for the rights of individuals and think that 'dictatorship' or 'anti-freedom' is what makes them bad.
Now, being a dictator is evil. You can tell someone's a dictator when they refuse to compromise (or arrogantly claim that compromise is when their opponent does what they tell them to). But Fascism and Communism are more than simply dictatorial governments.
The methods are not what made Communism or Fascism wrong. If you used less evil methods, they would still be wrong. For example, pre-1970 America did not round up and kill black people, we just created a huge 'separate but equal' apartheid system, using democracy not dictatorship. The Jim Crow laws were still fascist even if they flourished under a democracy instead of a dictatorship.
What makes fascism wrong is not their methods, but their ideology. Because fascism is not about the methods, but about the ideology behind the method.
It was wrong in the 1940's Germany/Italy, it was wrong in the 1950's American deep south, it's wrong today.
But back to the original point. Fascism is based on inherent superiority.. Liberalism is based on no superiority. Anyone that is a liberal can not be a fascist and anyone that is a fascist can not be a liberal. They are directly opposing viewpoints.
How do you tell if someone of the left has become too communist? They don't want to reward anyone for being superior. How do you tell if someone on the right has become to fascist? They believe someone is inferior without proving that that specific person has done something that makes them inferior.
Key examples of Fascism in the far right today are the anti-gay political agenda and the anti-minor immigrant issue. In the first case, they think gays are inferior without any logical reason (religious beliefs can not count in a country with religious freedom). In the second, they are declaring the kids inferior, wrong, and attempting to punish and blame them for crimes their parents committed.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Obama's Immigration Policy
The GOP has been expanding the power of Congress for quite some time. Among other things, they expanded the power of the filibuster and used it relentlessly.
The president can't expand his power. He can't suddenly decide to do thins they couldn't otherwise get.
But he CAN do is decided not to his job. He does it all the time. They decide not to prosecute corporate crimes all the time. The president has the full power of Pardon, he can pardon anyone and everyone. Including illegal aliens. He has that legal authority.
The GOP is trying to claim it's his subordinates power, not his. They are wrong. It is his decision to make, no one else's.
Yes, usually he lets other, lower people make those decisions. But they get the power from HIM. He makes the decisions, he has the power, they have nothing in and of themselves. It's his right, not theirs.
George Bush had a basic rule of not enforcing the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court kept yelling at him for doing it, but so what? It was legal for him to do that, and it is legal for Obama to not enforce the immigration law against children.
More importantly, he didn't just do this. One of politic's favorite way to lie is to focus everything down to what their opponent did, ignoring everything else. Obama he tried to get Congress to act, they refused to act out of cowardice. Note it was cowardice, not politics. The Hispanic vote is key and they know it. It's why Romney - who said he disliked the President's order - refused to state he would reverse the order.
If a candidate for congress is so scared he won't admit to reversing an order he publicly said was bad, then that means one thing:
The order can't be illegal and the man that gave it had more courage.
If it was truly illegal or wrong, than Romney would have said he would reverse it. Obama acted with courage and decisiveness.
Leadership is not about following what everyone else is doing. It's not about making the easy decisions. It's about making the HARD decisions - decisions you know some people will hate. The GOP has huge issues with immigration. They hate it and wish everyone would stop trying to enter this country, PERIOD (legal or illegal).
Romney demonstrated no leadership. Obama demonstrated strong leadership. He took a stand on an issue that was controversial. That's the definition of leadership.
The president can't expand his power. He can't suddenly decide to do thins they couldn't otherwise get.
But he CAN do is decided not to his job. He does it all the time. They decide not to prosecute corporate crimes all the time. The president has the full power of Pardon, he can pardon anyone and everyone. Including illegal aliens. He has that legal authority.
The GOP is trying to claim it's his subordinates power, not his. They are wrong. It is his decision to make, no one else's.
Yes, usually he lets other, lower people make those decisions. But they get the power from HIM. He makes the decisions, he has the power, they have nothing in and of themselves. It's his right, not theirs.
George Bush had a basic rule of not enforcing the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court kept yelling at him for doing it, but so what? It was legal for him to do that, and it is legal for Obama to not enforce the immigration law against children.
More importantly, he didn't just do this. One of politic's favorite way to lie is to focus everything down to what their opponent did, ignoring everything else. Obama he tried to get Congress to act, they refused to act out of cowardice. Note it was cowardice, not politics. The Hispanic vote is key and they know it. It's why Romney - who said he disliked the President's order - refused to state he would reverse the order.
If a candidate for congress is so scared he won't admit to reversing an order he publicly said was bad, then that means one thing:
The order can't be illegal and the man that gave it had more courage.
If it was truly illegal or wrong, than Romney would have said he would reverse it. Obama acted with courage and decisiveness.
Leadership is not about following what everyone else is doing. It's not about making the easy decisions. It's about making the HARD decisions - decisions you know some people will hate. The GOP has huge issues with immigration. They hate it and wish everyone would stop trying to enter this country, PERIOD (legal or illegal).
Romney demonstrated no leadership. Obama demonstrated strong leadership. He took a stand on an issue that was controversial. That's the definition of leadership.
Friday, June 15, 2012
History of the GOP
Democrats love to talk about how the old GOP was better. More reasonable. The GOP likes to pretend that in the future we will look back at the current GOP and like them the way they think we like the 'old GOP'. They do this because they like to pretend that the Democrats are the problem, not the GOP. Not true.
Here is a short simplified history of the GOP vs Democrat Party.
In the 19th century, the Republican Party was the voice of reason, god, and justice. A hero named Abraham Lincoln rose up and took action. As a direct result of his actions slavery ended. Of course, it took a civil war between the North and the South to right this wrong. (No, vampires were not involved, despite the recent book/movie.)
The South resented this. Losing a war does that. Lincoln eventually was murdered by a southerner. But that did not assuage their resentment. It lived on - against the Republican Party that they blamed for the Civil War.
As such for more than a hundred years, the south HATED the Democrats - almost as badly as they hated their ex-slaves. White Republicans were rarer in the south than a four leaf clover.
During this time period, the Republican party was mostly northern conservatives and moderates. The Democrat party was a bunch of northern liberals plus all the white southerns. The black southerns were mostly disenfranchised.
A hundred years later, the civil rights movement rose up. A southern Democrat - Johnson, saw these disenfranchised voters and wanted their votes. This left the southern democrats in a quandy. You see, they were democrats because they blamed the GOP for the Civil War and freeing the slaves. They could not stay part of the Democrats now that it was filled with blacks. This is not to say that the old racists turned traitor and joined the GOP. Instead, their children did. The next generation grew up in a place where the Democrats were pushing civil rights, while the GOP was blocking them.
As such, both parties began to change. While the Democrats were recruiting all the newly enfranchised blacks, the GOP was convincing the white children of the south to become Republicans. The Democrats became a moderate/liberal party and the GOP became a conservative party. Until that time, the differences were very slight. Not so with their new members.
The black population came from a history of not voting and were attracted by a party that was already catering to their needs. The Democrats willingly embraced the new constituency whose goals were mostly aligned with the old guard. Some were conservative, some were liberal, so the Democrats maintained their wide spread of ideals. Oh, anti-racism and anti-poverty themes were strengthened, but as the newly enfranchised black population grew and matured, their interests moderated, rather than pushed the Democrats towards far left politics.
Not so in the GOP. Their new recruits came from highly political families and brought strong ideas. They had been raised on the the ideas of "state rights', as a counter to the growing national liberal trend (ignoring the fact that states have NO rights - it's people that get rights and states that abuse them.). More importantly, they did not come because they liked the everything about the Republicans - they came because they disliked the Democrats.
As they grew into power, they remade the GOP into their own image. It was the most conservative southerners that left the Democrats and joined the GOP. They transformed it from a moderate party into a more and more far right party.
During the same time period, the Democrats grew bigger. They were not losing their northern whites, they kept them. Their party was expanding and the old guard managed to create a "Big Tent" party that encompassed both the older views and the newer ones.
Those changes have continued. The Democrats continue to strive to keep both the conservative and liberal members in their party. The GOP on the other hand got on a road to zealotry and has never left (so to speak). Certain members started pushing libertarian ideas, that the majority of the old GOP hated. Ron Paul is the prime example of this.
Each year the GOP moves further and further to the radical right.
At heart, the Democrats have not changed. They kept their moderates. But the GOP has changed.
The Democrats will never like the current crop of 'new republicans'. They are nothing but a bunch of dangerous, radical extremists - more at home with the religious terrorists of the Middle East than social moderates of Europe.
Now for the pay off - this explains quite a bit about why we have such gridlock in Congress. The parties used to be much more similar to each other, willing to work together. But the GOP is no longer willing to discuss things. They are just like their Muslim enemies - so convinced they must be right that their enemies must be evil.
The Democrats on the other hand are far more like Europe. We disagree, we argue, but when push comes to shove, we recognize our opponents are not evil - just ignorant. Why? Because we, unlike the GOP, allow for differences of opinions. We area big tent, they have become a lunatic fringe that thinks the President of the United States is not born in the USA. If you don't insult those that believe that, then you cater to and support them - which is WORSE than believing it yourself. It demonstrates evil beyond belief.
Here is a short simplified history of the GOP vs Democrat Party.
In the 19th century, the Republican Party was the voice of reason, god, and justice. A hero named Abraham Lincoln rose up and took action. As a direct result of his actions slavery ended. Of course, it took a civil war between the North and the South to right this wrong. (No, vampires were not involved, despite the recent book/movie.)
The South resented this. Losing a war does that. Lincoln eventually was murdered by a southerner. But that did not assuage their resentment. It lived on - against the Republican Party that they blamed for the Civil War.
As such for more than a hundred years, the south HATED the Democrats - almost as badly as they hated their ex-slaves. White Republicans were rarer in the south than a four leaf clover.
During this time period, the Republican party was mostly northern conservatives and moderates. The Democrat party was a bunch of northern liberals plus all the white southerns. The black southerns were mostly disenfranchised.
A hundred years later, the civil rights movement rose up. A southern Democrat - Johnson, saw these disenfranchised voters and wanted their votes. This left the southern democrats in a quandy. You see, they were democrats because they blamed the GOP for the Civil War and freeing the slaves. They could not stay part of the Democrats now that it was filled with blacks. This is not to say that the old racists turned traitor and joined the GOP. Instead, their children did. The next generation grew up in a place where the Democrats were pushing civil rights, while the GOP was blocking them.
As such, both parties began to change. While the Democrats were recruiting all the newly enfranchised blacks, the GOP was convincing the white children of the south to become Republicans. The Democrats became a moderate/liberal party and the GOP became a conservative party. Until that time, the differences were very slight. Not so with their new members.
The black population came from a history of not voting and were attracted by a party that was already catering to their needs. The Democrats willingly embraced the new constituency whose goals were mostly aligned with the old guard. Some were conservative, some were liberal, so the Democrats maintained their wide spread of ideals. Oh, anti-racism and anti-poverty themes were strengthened, but as the newly enfranchised black population grew and matured, their interests moderated, rather than pushed the Democrats towards far left politics.
Not so in the GOP. Their new recruits came from highly political families and brought strong ideas. They had been raised on the the ideas of "state rights', as a counter to the growing national liberal trend (ignoring the fact that states have NO rights - it's people that get rights and states that abuse them.). More importantly, they did not come because they liked the everything about the Republicans - they came because they disliked the Democrats.
As they grew into power, they remade the GOP into their own image. It was the most conservative southerners that left the Democrats and joined the GOP. They transformed it from a moderate party into a more and more far right party.
During the same time period, the Democrats grew bigger. They were not losing their northern whites, they kept them. Their party was expanding and the old guard managed to create a "Big Tent" party that encompassed both the older views and the newer ones.
Those changes have continued. The Democrats continue to strive to keep both the conservative and liberal members in their party. The GOP on the other hand got on a road to zealotry and has never left (so to speak). Certain members started pushing libertarian ideas, that the majority of the old GOP hated. Ron Paul is the prime example of this.
Each year the GOP moves further and further to the radical right.
At heart, the Democrats have not changed. They kept their moderates. But the GOP has changed.
The Democrats will never like the current crop of 'new republicans'. They are nothing but a bunch of dangerous, radical extremists - more at home with the religious terrorists of the Middle East than social moderates of Europe.
Now for the pay off - this explains quite a bit about why we have such gridlock in Congress. The parties used to be much more similar to each other, willing to work together. But the GOP is no longer willing to discuss things. They are just like their Muslim enemies - so convinced they must be right that their enemies must be evil.
The Democrats on the other hand are far more like Europe. We disagree, we argue, but when push comes to shove, we recognize our opponents are not evil - just ignorant. Why? Because we, unlike the GOP, allow for differences of opinions. We area big tent, they have become a lunatic fringe that thinks the President of the United States is not born in the USA. If you don't insult those that believe that, then you cater to and support them - which is WORSE than believing it yourself. It demonstrates evil beyond belief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)