Overall, it's been a pretty good week. First, we have great weather for mid-November! And, it's Thanksgiving--my favorite holiday for several reasons. Finally, my stock at work seems to have risen--long story, but I got a little recognition for a couple things, and that was much appreciated. In short, I'm feelin' a bit happier than normal and kinda successful, too.
Then the mail arrived yesterday. It included a brochure from my undergraduate alma mater titled, "Macalester Tomorrow: Making a Difference One Student at a Time." I thought that sounded appealing, so I turned inside to read, "You can help students forever with an endowed scholarship." (Well, there's an appeal to immortality if I've ever read one--helping students FOREVER!) And so it turns out that the college is asking if I'd like to help fund an endowed scholarship. How can I support such scholarships at Macalester? "With a gift of $100,000 or more, you can establish a new endowed scholarship fund."
Whoa. Time out. Stop the presses. With a gift of $100,000 or MORE? How about $75 or LESS? Who in the bleep has this type of money to donate? Where have I gone wrong? In general, we seem to be doing OK, financially. For most of the year, there's been a little bulge in the checking account of a couple grand--we haven't had that month-to-month, paycheck-to-paycheck panic that used to characterize our finances when there were two additional mouths to feed. But the idea that we would have $100K--$100K--to give is so far out of my latitude of acceptance (social judgment theory/Sherif) that it's all at once amusing, insulting, and depressing.
There's been a lot of talk in the last year about the "1 percent." I have to admit that I am envious of those people. I consider it a big expenditure (as it was this week) to spend $344 to fix one of our vehicles. But for some people, $344 truly is chump change. The CEO at my workplace has a base salary of about $250,000--that's over $20,000 every month. Yikes--what would I do with that kind of coin? I think I'd figure out a way to spend it. But I'm still not sure I would have enough to fund one of those endowed scholarships!
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Monday, November 19, 2012
Advice for the GOP
Well, fortunately, my fears that Mr. Romney would be elected were unfounded! That's one big "whew"! Despite all the problems we face, I believe that we are better off staying the course with a more enlightened Chief Executive.
I say "enlightened" because one thing became painfully clear during election 2012: a fair number of Republicans are just plain ignorant, narrow-minded, and dogmatic. In so many ways, the Republicans have been behind the times. An essay in the current Newsweek by David Frum, former speechwriter for Bush the Elder, makes the point with laser precision. Frum concludes his piece by writing,
"On the Republican side, the road to renewal begins with this formula: 21st century conservatism must become economically inclusive, environmentally responsible, culturally modern, and intellectually credible." Very well said!
The reality is that 21st century conservatism embraces beliefs that simply don't square with modern sensibilities. You can't pray away the gay. You can't keep disputing that there is climate change. You can't keep protecting the rich from paying their fair share of taxes. You can't keep ignoring that the gap between the poor and the rich is widening. You can't possibly believe that we should go back to criminalizing abortion. You can't contend that it's God's will if a woman gets pregnant after being raped. You can't keep yelling "Socialist" every time someone wants the government to have a role in things. You can't seriously suggest that evolution is "just a theory." And you can't let people carry around AK-47s because some guys 200 years ago wanted everyone to be able to carry a musket.
I do think there is such a thing, potentially, as "intelligent conservatism." But I haven't seen very much of it of late--and as along as Republicans stick to their nonsensical propositions about the world, they help their opposition. Which is just fine with me. But really, GOP: do you want to make it quite that easy for those liberals to win? That's my idea of "unintelligent design."
I say "enlightened" because one thing became painfully clear during election 2012: a fair number of Republicans are just plain ignorant, narrow-minded, and dogmatic. In so many ways, the Republicans have been behind the times. An essay in the current Newsweek by David Frum, former speechwriter for Bush the Elder, makes the point with laser precision. Frum concludes his piece by writing,
"On the Republican side, the road to renewal begins with this formula: 21st century conservatism must become economically inclusive, environmentally responsible, culturally modern, and intellectually credible." Very well said!
The reality is that 21st century conservatism embraces beliefs that simply don't square with modern sensibilities. You can't pray away the gay. You can't keep disputing that there is climate change. You can't keep protecting the rich from paying their fair share of taxes. You can't keep ignoring that the gap between the poor and the rich is widening. You can't possibly believe that we should go back to criminalizing abortion. You can't contend that it's God's will if a woman gets pregnant after being raped. You can't keep yelling "Socialist" every time someone wants the government to have a role in things. You can't seriously suggest that evolution is "just a theory." And you can't let people carry around AK-47s because some guys 200 years ago wanted everyone to be able to carry a musket.
I do think there is such a thing, potentially, as "intelligent conservatism." But I haven't seen very much of it of late--and as along as Republicans stick to their nonsensical propositions about the world, they help their opposition. Which is just fine with me. But really, GOP: do you want to make it quite that easy for those liberals to win? That's my idea of "unintelligent design."
Friday, November 9, 2012
More fun and aggravation with "Kyle"
From previous posts, my thousands of daily readers from Boston to Bangkok may remember my friend "Kyle" (not his real name--gotta protect both him and me, for different reasons). Kyle and I knew each other in high school and we were both on the debate team, but from there our lives went in very different directions. Over the years, Kyle's political views have evolved into something that might even make Rush Limbaugh wince occasionally; he's about as far to the right as anyone I can imagine.
So, it should come as no surprise that Kyle is a little peeved about this week's election results. And I can't blame him--from his perspective, it had to be a very deflating experience. Therefore, to "make nice" just a bit, I wrote to him and complimented both Romney and Obama for running reasonably civil campaigns. And I forwarded to him a Star Tribune commentary that made the same point--taking each of them to task at times, but also saying that it was anything but a gutter campaign for the two standard-bearers.
But--surprise, surprise--Kyle would have none of that:
"Of course you want to claim Obama was 'within bounds' with his campaign. However, most observers agree that Obama started early trashing Romney personally and professionally, while the same cannot be said of Romney. Sorry, I do not agree that Obama is basically a decent guy. He is a product of the Chicago hood mentality of politics and it shows in his campaign and his campaign staff. It also shows in his administration.
"As for the next 4 years, I see
Obama doing all the socialist things he has done in his first 4 years,
only more so. I see folks like myself, entrepreneurs, investors, and
business folks hunkering down to survive the onslaught of big
government. We are already seeing it in the first 3 days after the
election, with massive numbers of layoff announcements, hour
reductions, and companies going out of business. I don't think Obama
will do anything about the deficit or debt, and unemployment will get
worse rather than better. Regulations will continue to skyrocket,
welfare and food stamps, and other such programs will continue to
increase, family net worth will continue to drop, and the workforce
will continue to shrink. Taxing the 'rich' will not come close to
fixing the deficit, nor will slashing the military. Medicare will
continue to go bankrupt, and social security will continue toward
bankruptcy. Obamacare will dramatically increase in cost over the
original estimates, and much of the private healthcare industry will
begin to fade away. Obama will propose another stimulus so he can pay
off his cronies again, and it will fail like the last one. He will also
attack our 2nd amendment rights, and continue to favor our enemies over
our allies on the world stage. He will do nothing about Iran and their
nuclear development. He will continue to appease the Islamic world
while they laugh at him, and he will set the stage for terror attacks
abroad and at home. He will continue to push abortion rights and
mandates on the church and others opposed to abortions, and will
continue to undermine traditional marriage. He will push the global
warming hoax as a route to government revenues, and further restrict
the development of fossil fuels in the USA, leaving it to the private
sector to actually develop private resources. Lastly, he will continue
to hide his birth certificate, his school records, his passport
records, his Selective Service records, and all the other records he
has kept from public scrutiny.
"So you have
your prediction, and I have mine. Check with me in 4 years. As for me,
I will be protecting my family and my livelihood. I will do as little
as possible to feed the federal government/liberal establishment beast,
and will not tolerate nor do business with those who are undermining
this country."
Whoa. What to say? I didn't want to spend an hour grappling with this hostility, but I did send Kyle this response:
One
of these days, maybe, I'll figure out how someone who is so warm,
gracious, and friendly in person turns into such an ogre when it comes
to politics! And maybe I will also figure out how someone can have
such a black-and-white, heaven-and-hell view of the world, neatly
divided into friends and enemies, good buys and bad. And finally,
maybe I'll figure out how basically every sentence in what you wrote
includes some over-the-top, hyperbolic, and melodramatic language
("skyrocketing" regulations, "slashing" the military, Medicare going
"bankrupt," paying off his "cronies," "favor our enemies," global
warming "hoax," etc.). And when you suggest that Obama is out to
"undermine traditional marriage," you say something that is patently
incorrect and quite out of touch. In fact, I really do not know a
single political figure in the U.S.--not a single one, Democrat or
Republican--who is trying to "undermine traditional marriage."
As
for the campaign itself, your charges are broad and unsubstantiated.
The debates, for example, were certainly spirited, but both Romney and
Obama stayed out of the gutter. And your comments about Obama seem to
ignore what he said in the debates about these issues.
You're
right, of course, that taxing the rich will not come close to fixing
the deficit; it's merely part of an overall program. But it can make a
difference. And there is evidence to suggest that tax rates are not
closely aligned with the overall health of the economy; the idea that a
slight increase (from historic lows) in tax rates for the wealthy would
wreck the economy is not borne out by any economic analysis that I've
seen.
Take a cleansing breath. And have a little faith in America.
A little voice in me says that when it comes to Kyle, we're not done with this. But as my friends have counseled--and I have taken it to heart from time to time--this may be such a losing battle that it's not a battle worth waging.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Romney: the least worst Republican
Don't tell my liberal friends, but Mitt Romney is probably the one Republican I could vote for this year. In his heart, I think he's really pretty much a moderate and a pragmatist. If he could accomplish things as Governor of Massachusetts, dealing with a Democratic legislature, maybe he could help undo the gridlock in the nation's capital. Having said that, I don't think, as the election finally nears, that he deserves our vote. And there are several key reasons:
1. We just can't reward such incredible flip-flopping. Yes, all politicians talk out of both sides of their mouth to some extent, but Romney has brought this talent to new heights.
2. Women's issues. The idea that abortion could be criminalized ought to make us all shudder. I don't think we want to go back there.
3. Gay issues. Gosh--we've made a lot of progress on this front in the last few years. I'd hate to see it come to a halt. As it is, same-sex marriage is facing huge obstacles which can only become greater if Romney is elected.
4. The Supreme Court. Do we really want Mitt nominating people for what is arguably the most powerful office in the land?
5. Foreign policy. Hasn't America's international image taken a huge step forward in the last four years? Obama has a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of these things.
6. Taxes. Tax rates for the super-wealthy are at historic lows. Do we really want to once again hear the Republican mantra that the wealthy should somehow be immune from paying their fair share, all in the name of "creating jobs"?
7. The auto industry. Does anyone doubt that Obama helped save it? Would letting them go bankrupt have been in the best interests of our nation?
I predict that this is going to be a very close election. Obama could actually lose. But I think we are all better off if Barack has another four years to finish the job. The reality is that the economy is going to get better in the next few years no matter what, because, frankly, Presidents don't control the economy and we're due for a continuing upward trend. And as long as we can get the economy back on track, the other issues favor the President.
But, there's been so much toxic crap out there on the airwaves that it's anybody's guess what will stick. As in 2008, this election is a test of people's basic awareness and intelligence--and there's no reason to assume that people will pass the test.
1. We just can't reward such incredible flip-flopping. Yes, all politicians talk out of both sides of their mouth to some extent, but Romney has brought this talent to new heights.
2. Women's issues. The idea that abortion could be criminalized ought to make us all shudder. I don't think we want to go back there.
3. Gay issues. Gosh--we've made a lot of progress on this front in the last few years. I'd hate to see it come to a halt. As it is, same-sex marriage is facing huge obstacles which can only become greater if Romney is elected.
4. The Supreme Court. Do we really want Mitt nominating people for what is arguably the most powerful office in the land?
5. Foreign policy. Hasn't America's international image taken a huge step forward in the last four years? Obama has a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of these things.
6. Taxes. Tax rates for the super-wealthy are at historic lows. Do we really want to once again hear the Republican mantra that the wealthy should somehow be immune from paying their fair share, all in the name of "creating jobs"?
7. The auto industry. Does anyone doubt that Obama helped save it? Would letting them go bankrupt have been in the best interests of our nation?
I predict that this is going to be a very close election. Obama could actually lose. But I think we are all better off if Barack has another four years to finish the job. The reality is that the economy is going to get better in the next few years no matter what, because, frankly, Presidents don't control the economy and we're due for a continuing upward trend. And as long as we can get the economy back on track, the other issues favor the President.
But, there's been so much toxic crap out there on the airwaves that it's anybody's guess what will stick. As in 2008, this election is a test of people's basic awareness and intelligence--and there's no reason to assume that people will pass the test.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)