Thursday, February 26, 2009
Aarrrgh!
“Aarrrgh!” This is the sound that comes from a thoroughly disgusted person who has just witnessed something nauseous. It is the sound of someone who just got a big taste of something sour after having a scrumptious dessert. It is the sound made by an intelligent person who has just heard something idiotic passed off as logic.
Actually, “Gaahh!” was the sound made by one female television political pundit. Asked by the moderator immediately after Governor Jindal’s response to the president’s speech before the Congress, the female commentator was speechless, although such pundits rarely are found so. She struggled, she choked, but still she sat there in jaw-dropping amazement of the inanity of Jindal’s presentation.
A little later, her contribution was, “Gaahh!” Then she found words to express her utter consternation.
And so it was with many of us who sat through the drama of an eloquent speech full of challenging proposals to the nation’s ailments, and then had this rambling set of party talking points, inanities, and even outright lies.
What is this about a super-science gravitational floating train from Disneyland to Las Vegas? Limbaugh had been saying that, but that did not make it true. It should have been tax cuts, he says. Well, a large part of it was – to middle class working people, some 95% of citizens.
What about that Jindal’s conversation in the sheriff’s office, (Bush) bureaucrats, and boats during Katrina in New Orleans where he was not, but rather was known to be in Baton Rouge at the time. We don’t know what Louisiana swamp this guy came from, but he really made no sense.
Governor Bobby Jindal has been labeled as a young “rising star” in the Republican Party. He appeared anything but a star that night. If this governor, along with Sarah Palin, are the future leaders of the party, then it is doom and gloom ahead. Even his fellow republicans are now rejecting him, because he was such a dud.
Turning back to an earlier occurrence, after the speech in the House chamber this observer saw Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn shake President Obama’s hand and the two shared a momentary hug and a few words. This was a surprise. One wonders if the President had struck a responsive chord in the Senator. One wonders if by chance Senator Coburn offered to help the President with his health care proposals.
Would it not be a wonderful change, a fresh new breeze, if the conservative, constantly negative Coburn would find something to be positive about? Wouldn’t it be something if Senator Coburn were to be found not only supportive of something good for the country, but actually out there leading the way instead of blocking progress?
That is much too much to hope for, we suppose. It seemed to be a good sign. But it would be nice if the party of “NO!” would become positive, would actually participate, and even lead jointly some of our national recovery efforts.
Of course, some like Senator Shelby of Georgia would say, “When hell freezes over.” Last week Shelby was caught repeating the old lie that Obama was not eligible to be president since he was not born in America. They’re actually spreading that manure again. News media were helpful by showing again Obama’s birth certificate in Hawaii.
It is shameful for party leaders to keep repeating those old lies about Obama’s birth, his being a Muslim, and hanging out with terrorists. There are nuts all over America and Oklahoma who believe that trash peddled by their current unofficial leader Rush Limbaugh and his ilk at Fox News.
It is no wonder we have so many crazies out here in America, if that line of trash talk is all they ever hear. But still they are supposed to be intelligent, thinking, human beings. They are equally responsible for choosing to remain misinformed, just as the German people were to blame for the frenzy with which they took Goebbel’s propaganda to heart prior to World War II.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Actually, “Gaahh!” was the sound made by one female television political pundit. Asked by the moderator immediately after Governor Jindal’s response to the president’s speech before the Congress, the female commentator was speechless, although such pundits rarely are found so. She struggled, she choked, but still she sat there in jaw-dropping amazement of the inanity of Jindal’s presentation.
A little later, her contribution was, “Gaahh!” Then she found words to express her utter consternation.
And so it was with many of us who sat through the drama of an eloquent speech full of challenging proposals to the nation’s ailments, and then had this rambling set of party talking points, inanities, and even outright lies.
What is this about a super-science gravitational floating train from Disneyland to Las Vegas? Limbaugh had been saying that, but that did not make it true. It should have been tax cuts, he says. Well, a large part of it was – to middle class working people, some 95% of citizens.
What about that Jindal’s conversation in the sheriff’s office, (Bush) bureaucrats, and boats during Katrina in New Orleans where he was not, but rather was known to be in Baton Rouge at the time. We don’t know what Louisiana swamp this guy came from, but he really made no sense.
Governor Bobby Jindal has been labeled as a young “rising star” in the Republican Party. He appeared anything but a star that night. If this governor, along with Sarah Palin, are the future leaders of the party, then it is doom and gloom ahead. Even his fellow republicans are now rejecting him, because he was such a dud.
Turning back to an earlier occurrence, after the speech in the House chamber this observer saw Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn shake President Obama’s hand and the two shared a momentary hug and a few words. This was a surprise. One wonders if the President had struck a responsive chord in the Senator. One wonders if by chance Senator Coburn offered to help the President with his health care proposals.
Would it not be a wonderful change, a fresh new breeze, if the conservative, constantly negative Coburn would find something to be positive about? Wouldn’t it be something if Senator Coburn were to be found not only supportive of something good for the country, but actually out there leading the way instead of blocking progress?
That is much too much to hope for, we suppose. It seemed to be a good sign. But it would be nice if the party of “NO!” would become positive, would actually participate, and even lead jointly some of our national recovery efforts.
Of course, some like Senator Shelby of Georgia would say, “When hell freezes over.” Last week Shelby was caught repeating the old lie that Obama was not eligible to be president since he was not born in America. They’re actually spreading that manure again. News media were helpful by showing again Obama’s birth certificate in Hawaii.
It is shameful for party leaders to keep repeating those old lies about Obama’s birth, his being a Muslim, and hanging out with terrorists. There are nuts all over America and Oklahoma who believe that trash peddled by their current unofficial leader Rush Limbaugh and his ilk at Fox News.
It is no wonder we have so many crazies out here in America, if that line of trash talk is all they ever hear. But still they are supposed to be intelligent, thinking, human beings. They are equally responsible for choosing to remain misinformed, just as the German people were to blame for the frenzy with which they took Goebbel’s propaganda to heart prior to World War II.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Friday, February 20, 2009
NEVER A POPULIST?
Much of his life, the Militant Moderate has considered himself a populist. Maybe he never was. This situation is worth some further thought and analysis.
What is a populist? A populist is supposed to be somebody whose thoughts and ideas are aligned with the best interests of the common man. Normally his ideas are supposed to be representative of the common man. Historically -- a Populist was a member of a political party born from the agrarian interests of the common man, and who believed in the unlimited coinage of silver to loosen a tight economy.
But a populist could be just anyone who has the best interests of the common man at heart.
If this latter definition holds, then the Militant Moderate is indeed a populist. On the other hand, if the definition requires that one mirror the views of the local common man, then the Militant Moderate is found wanting.
“Cultural populism” is different from political populism. But “redneck populism” is a form of cultural populism which generalizes to the political realm as well. Much of the south, and Oklahoma included, is said to be dominated culturally and politically by that form of populism.
Oklahoma is predominantly a “redneck populist” state, i.e. most of our citizens have ideas, values, and philosophies related to that definition or general stereotype. They vote for candidates who profess those ideas. They elect legislators who introduce, and sometimes pass, bills framed in anti-intellectual darkness. Campus gun carry bills are examples.
Their representatives do not believe in science. They reject global warming, and espouse teaching creationism in schools. They are religiously repulsed by the notion of using abandoned embryos for scientific research beneficial to health and life. They reject government regulation of business, but accept government interference in private bedrooms. They want to put monuments with the ten commandments on court house lawns rather than churches.
Redneck populists reject intellectualism and demean the importance of education unless it helps them to get a better paying job, or brings another job to town. The ideas of Nobel prize winning economists are placed on a par with those of Joe the Plumber in solving recession’s hardships.
Patriots wave flags for war, and effete intellectuals and sissies are for peace.
There is a popular new line clothing featuring sleeveless shirts, worn by and bearing the name of Oklahoma’s Toby Keith. We speak the language, and listen to the often crude, shallow lyrics of his music. If such is a part of our populism, then this populist is out of the groove and has always been so.
Far from being an elitist, the Militant Moderate has indeed, always and forever, had the interests of the common man at heart. His political philosophy has always been built around intelligent pursuit of such values.
But he is late in realizing that the common man does not always follow his own best interests, probably because he does not even recognize them. There is not much that a political populist can do for the masses unless they become aware of their own best interests.
Thomas Jefferson thought universal education and the common schools would assure that voters were properly informed, seen as necessary in a democracy. He thought the schools would give the citizens the ability to discern the good and the bad in politics, and to choose that which was good for the common man. He assumed learning the tools translated to use.
Unfortunately the schools have not been able to perform that function. They have become an influence secondary to the swirling culture around them. They are disrespected. Socialization is more of a cultural phenomenon than an educational outcome.
Attitudinal and personality adjustments may be even more difficult. Last week in a doctor’s waiting room, Martha Stewart had Bill Clinton on TV as a guest. An elderly man entered, looked, and growled loudly, “What have they got HIM on there for?” It is hard to change such irascible people.
So, the Militant Moderate will continue, as always, to be a misfit in the cultural populism which is Oklahoma.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
What is a populist? A populist is supposed to be somebody whose thoughts and ideas are aligned with the best interests of the common man. Normally his ideas are supposed to be representative of the common man. Historically -- a Populist was a member of a political party born from the agrarian interests of the common man, and who believed in the unlimited coinage of silver to loosen a tight economy.
But a populist could be just anyone who has the best interests of the common man at heart.
If this latter definition holds, then the Militant Moderate is indeed a populist. On the other hand, if the definition requires that one mirror the views of the local common man, then the Militant Moderate is found wanting.
“Cultural populism” is different from political populism. But “redneck populism” is a form of cultural populism which generalizes to the political realm as well. Much of the south, and Oklahoma included, is said to be dominated culturally and politically by that form of populism.
Oklahoma is predominantly a “redneck populist” state, i.e. most of our citizens have ideas, values, and philosophies related to that definition or general stereotype. They vote for candidates who profess those ideas. They elect legislators who introduce, and sometimes pass, bills framed in anti-intellectual darkness. Campus gun carry bills are examples.
Their representatives do not believe in science. They reject global warming, and espouse teaching creationism in schools. They are religiously repulsed by the notion of using abandoned embryos for scientific research beneficial to health and life. They reject government regulation of business, but accept government interference in private bedrooms. They want to put monuments with the ten commandments on court house lawns rather than churches.
Redneck populists reject intellectualism and demean the importance of education unless it helps them to get a better paying job, or brings another job to town. The ideas of Nobel prize winning economists are placed on a par with those of Joe the Plumber in solving recession’s hardships.
Patriots wave flags for war, and effete intellectuals and sissies are for peace.
There is a popular new line clothing featuring sleeveless shirts, worn by and bearing the name of Oklahoma’s Toby Keith. We speak the language, and listen to the often crude, shallow lyrics of his music. If such is a part of our populism, then this populist is out of the groove and has always been so.
Far from being an elitist, the Militant Moderate has indeed, always and forever, had the interests of the common man at heart. His political philosophy has always been built around intelligent pursuit of such values.
But he is late in realizing that the common man does not always follow his own best interests, probably because he does not even recognize them. There is not much that a political populist can do for the masses unless they become aware of their own best interests.
Thomas Jefferson thought universal education and the common schools would assure that voters were properly informed, seen as necessary in a democracy. He thought the schools would give the citizens the ability to discern the good and the bad in politics, and to choose that which was good for the common man. He assumed learning the tools translated to use.
Unfortunately the schools have not been able to perform that function. They have become an influence secondary to the swirling culture around them. They are disrespected. Socialization is more of a cultural phenomenon than an educational outcome.
Attitudinal and personality adjustments may be even more difficult. Last week in a doctor’s waiting room, Martha Stewart had Bill Clinton on TV as a guest. An elderly man entered, looked, and growled loudly, “What have they got HIM on there for?” It is hard to change such irascible people.
So, the Militant Moderate will continue, as always, to be a misfit in the cultural populism which is Oklahoma.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Sunday, February 15, 2009
THE AUDACITY OF AUDACIOUSNESS
Barack Obama was swept into the presidency on the audacious platform of change, including change from the old partisanship of Washington and the gridlock in Congress in particular. Strangely enough, in this same election the republican candidate was nominated under a party banner which read “Country First,” interpreted to mean country over political party.
As much as we love his audacity and his optimism, most of us could have told Mr. Obama that his notion of bi-partisanship for the good of the country was idealistic and impractical. No matter how the republican banner read, we knew to expect partisanship from them down to the bitter end. Anything else would have indeed been surprising.
Most of us know that republicans put party over everything. Of course, they think republican, God, and country are all one triumvirate, something like the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Therefore, republicans do not recognize that there is any difference in the best interests of their party and the country – or God.
Nobody could fault Mr. Obama for not trying hard to involve republicans in early talks on the stimulus package to address an inherited, deepening crisis, giving them opportunity for input behind the scenes and making concessions to their views. Yet republicans twice voted unanimously against the package in the House, and only three brave members of their party crossed the line in the Senate.
The republican party practices fear and intimidation with their party members. They maintain a fearsome discipline of threats against any who would stray. Witness their threats against an old party stalwart, Senator Arlen Specter, and the moderate women senators from Maine. Rush Limbaugh has been spewing venom against party heretics, and is joined by Fox News and Murdock’s Wall Street rag as public enforcers of party discipline.
It did not take the party long to pull New Hampshire senator Judd Gregg back into line. It was terribly presumptive of him to think he could depart from the party line and support Obama administration’s agenda as a loyal cabinet member should expect to do. It was overly optimistic of Mr. Obama to think that a republican like Mr. Gregg could change his stripes so readily, or that his party would permit it.
The viciousness of the republican attacks on Obama and his initiatives to save the economy is startling to many observers and repugnant to most.
Economics Nobel laureate Paul Krugman writes:
“And the rhetorical response of conservatives to the stimulus plan – which will, it is worth bearing in mind, cost substantially less than either the Bush administration’s $2 trillion in tax cuts or the $1 trillion and counting being spent in Iraq – has bordered on the deranged.”
Krugman says that the republican party’s “commitment to deep voodoo,” enforced by threats against heretics, is as strong as ever. He wonders why republicans rally behind tax cuts as a remedy in view of the “abject failure of the Bush tax cuts.”
Krugman pronounces the stimulus plan as “helpful but inadequate,” thinking more spending and fewer tax cuts would be better. Most economists agree.
Oklahoma’s republican delegation fought tooth and toenail against the middle/lower class tax cut and spending bill that emerged. Now it appears that Oklahoma will receive $2.6 billion in stimulus funds. Let us now watch the republicans in the legislature go all out to try and seize control of those monies from our democratic governor.
Oklahoma is in a terrible fiscal mess due to republican tax cuts of recent years, with little cause attributable to national economic problems. But our republican legislature will gleefully seize upon any opportunity to spend the federal money, viciously opposed by their own party representatives, for favored projects that the state cannot otherwise afford because of their own tax cutting.
There is something about this kind of politics that smells.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
As much as we love his audacity and his optimism, most of us could have told Mr. Obama that his notion of bi-partisanship for the good of the country was idealistic and impractical. No matter how the republican banner read, we knew to expect partisanship from them down to the bitter end. Anything else would have indeed been surprising.
Most of us know that republicans put party over everything. Of course, they think republican, God, and country are all one triumvirate, something like the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Therefore, republicans do not recognize that there is any difference in the best interests of their party and the country – or God.
Nobody could fault Mr. Obama for not trying hard to involve republicans in early talks on the stimulus package to address an inherited, deepening crisis, giving them opportunity for input behind the scenes and making concessions to their views. Yet republicans twice voted unanimously against the package in the House, and only three brave members of their party crossed the line in the Senate.
The republican party practices fear and intimidation with their party members. They maintain a fearsome discipline of threats against any who would stray. Witness their threats against an old party stalwart, Senator Arlen Specter, and the moderate women senators from Maine. Rush Limbaugh has been spewing venom against party heretics, and is joined by Fox News and Murdock’s Wall Street rag as public enforcers of party discipline.
It did not take the party long to pull New Hampshire senator Judd Gregg back into line. It was terribly presumptive of him to think he could depart from the party line and support Obama administration’s agenda as a loyal cabinet member should expect to do. It was overly optimistic of Mr. Obama to think that a republican like Mr. Gregg could change his stripes so readily, or that his party would permit it.
The viciousness of the republican attacks on Obama and his initiatives to save the economy is startling to many observers and repugnant to most.
Economics Nobel laureate Paul Krugman writes:
“And the rhetorical response of conservatives to the stimulus plan – which will, it is worth bearing in mind, cost substantially less than either the Bush administration’s $2 trillion in tax cuts or the $1 trillion and counting being spent in Iraq – has bordered on the deranged.”
Krugman says that the republican party’s “commitment to deep voodoo,” enforced by threats against heretics, is as strong as ever. He wonders why republicans rally behind tax cuts as a remedy in view of the “abject failure of the Bush tax cuts.”
Krugman pronounces the stimulus plan as “helpful but inadequate,” thinking more spending and fewer tax cuts would be better. Most economists agree.
Oklahoma’s republican delegation fought tooth and toenail against the middle/lower class tax cut and spending bill that emerged. Now it appears that Oklahoma will receive $2.6 billion in stimulus funds. Let us now watch the republicans in the legislature go all out to try and seize control of those monies from our democratic governor.
Oklahoma is in a terrible fiscal mess due to republican tax cuts of recent years, with little cause attributable to national economic problems. But our republican legislature will gleefully seize upon any opportunity to spend the federal money, viciously opposed by their own party representatives, for favored projects that the state cannot otherwise afford because of their own tax cutting.
There is something about this kind of politics that smells.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Monday, February 09, 2009
THE UGLY DUCKLING
All of us surely recall the children’s story of the ugly duckling. The theme, of course, is that things that start out ugly may end up beautiful as they grow and mature. The ugly duckling turned out to be the beautiful swan over which everyone swooned.
This writer wonders if he were the only one ever to look at those pictures in the story book, pause, and think, “That long, crooked-necked bird is the ugly one. The duck looked pretty good. I don’t really agree with the premise of this story.”
As it has been said, “Don’t ever watch sausages or wieners being made or you will never eat one again.” This saying has been extended to laws made through the legislative process. It is an ugly, disturbing process.
For those of us who have indeed watched laws being made, from both near and afar, that knowledge of observation has sometimes led to less respect for “the law.” “The law” no longer has that sacrosanct aura to which it is accustomed from the less experienced or less knowledgeable. It is not handed down, but is man-made.
In the case of the stimulus package, and its arduous path through Congress, one wonders if it will turn out to be an ugly duckling or a swan. Will it be viewed as something pretty being spoiled? Will it be viewed as something less than pretty being turned into something beautiful? Will it be viewed as something ugly which is still ugly?
Both beauty and ugly are in the eye of the beholder, of course.
Staunch democrats may likely see it as a white swan becoming smudged. Republicans may see it as an ugly duck that is still an ugly duck. But from the view of most, if we believe the commentary which will come, it will be seen as a beautiful white and black speckled bird which resembles a swan.
Yes, everyone is likely to claim some kind of victory. Republicans take pride in blocking, slowing, or altering democrat initiatives, no matter what the urgency or need. Democrats take pride in accomplishing something good, if not perfect, in spite of republican opposition.
The heroes in this fierce struggle are the moderates, particularly those two republican women senators from Maine. When everything was stalemated those two women stepped forth to lead the senate toward a bill they could support, and thus pass in spite of their stubbornly obstinate colleagues.
No doubt this was difficult for Senators Collins and Snow, and for Senators Specter and Nelson. No doubt there will be reprisals against them from within their party. But they put country over party and got something done – something Senator McCain and his party slogan promised in the election but failed in their first test.
No one knows for sure this is the right package. No one knows if it will be enough to accomplish the objective of halting the downward spiral of our economy. But every rational person knows we need to do something other than cut taxes.
Let us hope that the compromise package successfully makes its way back through conference for final passage. Let us all hope that it helps our desperate situation.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
This writer wonders if he were the only one ever to look at those pictures in the story book, pause, and think, “That long, crooked-necked bird is the ugly one. The duck looked pretty good. I don’t really agree with the premise of this story.”
As it has been said, “Don’t ever watch sausages or wieners being made or you will never eat one again.” This saying has been extended to laws made through the legislative process. It is an ugly, disturbing process.
For those of us who have indeed watched laws being made, from both near and afar, that knowledge of observation has sometimes led to less respect for “the law.” “The law” no longer has that sacrosanct aura to which it is accustomed from the less experienced or less knowledgeable. It is not handed down, but is man-made.
In the case of the stimulus package, and its arduous path through Congress, one wonders if it will turn out to be an ugly duckling or a swan. Will it be viewed as something pretty being spoiled? Will it be viewed as something less than pretty being turned into something beautiful? Will it be viewed as something ugly which is still ugly?
Both beauty and ugly are in the eye of the beholder, of course.
Staunch democrats may likely see it as a white swan becoming smudged. Republicans may see it as an ugly duck that is still an ugly duck. But from the view of most, if we believe the commentary which will come, it will be seen as a beautiful white and black speckled bird which resembles a swan.
Yes, everyone is likely to claim some kind of victory. Republicans take pride in blocking, slowing, or altering democrat initiatives, no matter what the urgency or need. Democrats take pride in accomplishing something good, if not perfect, in spite of republican opposition.
The heroes in this fierce struggle are the moderates, particularly those two republican women senators from Maine. When everything was stalemated those two women stepped forth to lead the senate toward a bill they could support, and thus pass in spite of their stubbornly obstinate colleagues.
No doubt this was difficult for Senators Collins and Snow, and for Senators Specter and Nelson. No doubt there will be reprisals against them from within their party. But they put country over party and got something done – something Senator McCain and his party slogan promised in the election but failed in their first test.
No one knows for sure this is the right package. No one knows if it will be enough to accomplish the objective of halting the downward spiral of our economy. But every rational person knows we need to do something other than cut taxes.
Let us hope that the compromise package successfully makes its way back through conference for final passage. Let us all hope that it helps our desperate situation.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Thursday, February 05, 2009
The Economic Stimulus Package
The enrolled Senate version of the Economic Stimulus Plan is 731 pages long. This writer has seen it, but he has not read it. While the expression may be an oxymoron, it would be good to read an authenticated summary version of the details.
Mostly what the public sees and hears of the details comes from its critics. Yet reliable news sources, visual and paper, tell us that the plan is supported by nearly all economists of repute, including Nobel laureates. Of course, most critics are republicans who have become united to obstruct most initiatives of the new president regardless of the consequences.
As more information has come out regarding the economic stimulus package going through the House, it has become apparent that a portion of it has become ideological as well as economic in nature. That is, some portion of the expenditures proposed may relate to the political agenda or goals of the democrats. Not that these expenditures are not stimulating to the economy, but they give republicans an opening to criticize.
There is a big ideological difference over tax cuts. Republicans want nothing else but tax cuts for individuals and businesses. They want the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy preserved. Yet credible authorities, including Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, insist that tax cuts are the least effective method of pumping money into the economy. Nevertheless, tax cuts are a part of the republican ideology and politics.
This observer would reduce the amount of money in tax cuts to a bare minimum. These are known not to be as effective as other initiatives, and they really constitute giveaways just like the rebates. There are entirely too many costly tax breaks in our system now favoring business, and too few restraints against greed, exploitation, and international piracy.
Proposed tax credits and early write-offs and depreciation schedules for businesses should be carefully examined for signs of corporate welfare. Infra-structure improvements must be culled, and any plain pork projects should indeed be eliminated. Purely social welfare items probably don’t belong in this bill, unless their purpose is strictly stimulating and perhaps time-limited.
Cities and states should not have projects assumed by the federal taxpayers just because they are “shovel-ready.” This makes passing the burden too easy.
State and local governments participating in a federal dole should have “maintenance of effort” requirements, meaning they cannot reduce their own expenditures in similar projects. Federal taxpayers should not be “bailing out” local taxpayers who are not really trying. Frugal state and local governments will pass the burden to the feds at every opportunity, if so allowed, and let local taxpayers escape responsibility.
Some parts of the economic stimulus package do appear more directly useful and effective than others.
That which has to do with the electric grid, wind power, auto limitations, and “green” projects appears good. While incorporating some aspects of the “Pickens Plan,” more stress should be on projects of that nature. Few should argue over streamlining health records, preventive medicine, extension of unemployment insurance, keeping health insurance for those losing jobs, or for assisting common and higher education and student aid.
Perhaps appropriately, the economic stimulus plan fails to address directly the exporting of American jobs, and it does not impose tariffs to protect American labor from cheap foreign competition. As it is now practiced, trade is draining capital away from this nation at an alarming rate, and our job market is being reduced to servicing one another rather than producing tangible products.
We are seeing already threats being made by foreign interests if the stimulus plan’s “buy American” provision stays. But how foolish would it be for our taxpayers to burden themselves with a measure that does not restrict its stimulus to our own industries.
Of course, the trade deficit is a long-term problem rather than a short-term stimulus-type undertaking. But it is directly related to the nation’s present problems, and it must be considered in the solutions. Cheap labor abroad is lowering American wage standards.
Unless trade problems and job exportation are addressed, and unless we regulate our trade to include more “buy American” requirements and stimulate our own manufacturing sector, we are not likely to see again the kind of middle class prosperity that has been traditional in this country. Our power abroad will then follow the path of weakness at home.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Mostly what the public sees and hears of the details comes from its critics. Yet reliable news sources, visual and paper, tell us that the plan is supported by nearly all economists of repute, including Nobel laureates. Of course, most critics are republicans who have become united to obstruct most initiatives of the new president regardless of the consequences.
As more information has come out regarding the economic stimulus package going through the House, it has become apparent that a portion of it has become ideological as well as economic in nature. That is, some portion of the expenditures proposed may relate to the political agenda or goals of the democrats. Not that these expenditures are not stimulating to the economy, but they give republicans an opening to criticize.
There is a big ideological difference over tax cuts. Republicans want nothing else but tax cuts for individuals and businesses. They want the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy preserved. Yet credible authorities, including Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, insist that tax cuts are the least effective method of pumping money into the economy. Nevertheless, tax cuts are a part of the republican ideology and politics.
This observer would reduce the amount of money in tax cuts to a bare minimum. These are known not to be as effective as other initiatives, and they really constitute giveaways just like the rebates. There are entirely too many costly tax breaks in our system now favoring business, and too few restraints against greed, exploitation, and international piracy.
Proposed tax credits and early write-offs and depreciation schedules for businesses should be carefully examined for signs of corporate welfare. Infra-structure improvements must be culled, and any plain pork projects should indeed be eliminated. Purely social welfare items probably don’t belong in this bill, unless their purpose is strictly stimulating and perhaps time-limited.
Cities and states should not have projects assumed by the federal taxpayers just because they are “shovel-ready.” This makes passing the burden too easy.
State and local governments participating in a federal dole should have “maintenance of effort” requirements, meaning they cannot reduce their own expenditures in similar projects. Federal taxpayers should not be “bailing out” local taxpayers who are not really trying. Frugal state and local governments will pass the burden to the feds at every opportunity, if so allowed, and let local taxpayers escape responsibility.
Some parts of the economic stimulus package do appear more directly useful and effective than others.
That which has to do with the electric grid, wind power, auto limitations, and “green” projects appears good. While incorporating some aspects of the “Pickens Plan,” more stress should be on projects of that nature. Few should argue over streamlining health records, preventive medicine, extension of unemployment insurance, keeping health insurance for those losing jobs, or for assisting common and higher education and student aid.
Perhaps appropriately, the economic stimulus plan fails to address directly the exporting of American jobs, and it does not impose tariffs to protect American labor from cheap foreign competition. As it is now practiced, trade is draining capital away from this nation at an alarming rate, and our job market is being reduced to servicing one another rather than producing tangible products.
We are seeing already threats being made by foreign interests if the stimulus plan’s “buy American” provision stays. But how foolish would it be for our taxpayers to burden themselves with a measure that does not restrict its stimulus to our own industries.
Of course, the trade deficit is a long-term problem rather than a short-term stimulus-type undertaking. But it is directly related to the nation’s present problems, and it must be considered in the solutions. Cheap labor abroad is lowering American wage standards.
Unless trade problems and job exportation are addressed, and unless we regulate our trade to include more “buy American” requirements and stimulate our own manufacturing sector, we are not likely to see again the kind of middle class prosperity that has been traditional in this country. Our power abroad will then follow the path of weakness at home.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Sunday, February 01, 2009
LIMBAUGH, THE NEW REPUBLICAN LEADER
After considerable gnashing of teeth and threshing around since November, could it be that the republican party has found its new leader? No, we are not talking about the election of its first black RNC chairman, Michael Steele, we are talking about its real leader.
Michael Steele is a good-looking, charismatic, intelligent, historically moderate, journeyman republican who has normally not been very successful within his republican party primaries or in general elections. He was the lieutenant governor of Maryland as a part of a team featuring a popular governor. He has not usually done very well on his own, but all wish him well.
The finals of the RNC chairman race came down to three persons. One of these was a member of an all-white country club, and another was the distributor of a controversial CD parody called “Barack, the Magic Negro.” Thus Steele appropriately won that contest, and he became the sinecure of the party.
Rush Limbaugh has been calling for blocking of Obama’s efforts for change and for improvement of the economy. “I hope Obama fails,” Limbaugh is shown to be saying on clips. He called loudly on republicans to vote against the economic stimulus package.
Sure enough, the republican members of congress did as they were told, and 100% of them voted against the economic measure. They did so even after being courted by the new president for bi-partisanship and some compromises being made to suit them. Not one strayed.
What does Rush say about all this talk now of his calling the shots for the republicans? He says, “I have no official leadership position in the party,” and then he gestures toward Sarah Palin, suggesting that perhaps she is the party’s leader now. Ye Gads!
All of us see, hear, or read of Limbaugh in frequent quotations and video clips. Never a fan, the last time this writer heard much of his program was a dozen years ago when he was carrying on about Bill Clinton’s fathering a child with a black prostitute in Arkansas. Most of Limbaugh’s palaver seems to be similarly credible and detestable.
This observer finds it difficult to understand why people who seem intelligent otherwise actually listen seriously to Limbaugh’s lamentations. That he might now be regarded, even rumored, as the unofficial leader of the republican party is astounding. One would hope republicans would repudiate his grandiose notions, but that seems unlikely. Perhaps they are afraid of him.
The “red state mentality” is something different with which to deal, since it defies logic. Most of the remaining red states are now confined to the South, often considered to be an educationally and culturally backward part of the union, as well as behind in race relations. Being a native Oklahoman, this writer has often taken offense at some such suggestions, and has almost come to blows with critics on several occasions in his life.
But indeed the signs are there. It is true that Oklahomans are not quite as well educated in terms of percentage of college degrees, but much worse is the attitude of anti-intellectualism which seems to pervade the minds of so many. We do not value achievement in academics and the arts in education, as we do other accomplishments.
The best and the brightest of our leadership aspirants tend to be rejected at the polls, and too often it seems that voters elect screwballs and dimwits to represent us. It was not always so, but that has been the trend.
Oftentimes knowledge is not the equivalent of social and cultural wisdom. It may be possible to learn science without developing habits of scientific logic. Apparently one can learn without understanding. Logic and critical thinking skills may elude the influence of education.
Many of our people believe every sordid story that is passed around their network of communications. Just this week this writer encountered a person with a college degree who insists that Obama was born in Kenya, and that he is a good buddy of Ayers, the reformed Viet Nam era protestor – everything passed around on those dirty e-mails that have been repudiated. He is sure it is all true, and the facts do not matter. Since his children are home schooled, such attitudes are likely to be perpetuated.
One might suppose that if one listened to Rush Limbaugh and watched Fox News for his information, believing it all, it would be become much more difficult to discern the truth from fiction.
Learning the truth normally requires that one be open-minded. Psychology calls that maintaining an open perceptual system. Closing one’s perceptual system is usually considered defensiveness, i.e. one is afraid the truth will hurt one’s self perception or challenge one’s system of beliefs and values and thus upset the inner equilibrium.
Such theories offer little hope for rapid attitudinal change among our people.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Michael Steele is a good-looking, charismatic, intelligent, historically moderate, journeyman republican who has normally not been very successful within his republican party primaries or in general elections. He was the lieutenant governor of Maryland as a part of a team featuring a popular governor. He has not usually done very well on his own, but all wish him well.
The finals of the RNC chairman race came down to three persons. One of these was a member of an all-white country club, and another was the distributor of a controversial CD parody called “Barack, the Magic Negro.” Thus Steele appropriately won that contest, and he became the sinecure of the party.
Rush Limbaugh has been calling for blocking of Obama’s efforts for change and for improvement of the economy. “I hope Obama fails,” Limbaugh is shown to be saying on clips. He called loudly on republicans to vote against the economic stimulus package.
Sure enough, the republican members of congress did as they were told, and 100% of them voted against the economic measure. They did so even after being courted by the new president for bi-partisanship and some compromises being made to suit them. Not one strayed.
What does Rush say about all this talk now of his calling the shots for the republicans? He says, “I have no official leadership position in the party,” and then he gestures toward Sarah Palin, suggesting that perhaps she is the party’s leader now. Ye Gads!
All of us see, hear, or read of Limbaugh in frequent quotations and video clips. Never a fan, the last time this writer heard much of his program was a dozen years ago when he was carrying on about Bill Clinton’s fathering a child with a black prostitute in Arkansas. Most of Limbaugh’s palaver seems to be similarly credible and detestable.
This observer finds it difficult to understand why people who seem intelligent otherwise actually listen seriously to Limbaugh’s lamentations. That he might now be regarded, even rumored, as the unofficial leader of the republican party is astounding. One would hope republicans would repudiate his grandiose notions, but that seems unlikely. Perhaps they are afraid of him.
The “red state mentality” is something different with which to deal, since it defies logic. Most of the remaining red states are now confined to the South, often considered to be an educationally and culturally backward part of the union, as well as behind in race relations. Being a native Oklahoman, this writer has often taken offense at some such suggestions, and has almost come to blows with critics on several occasions in his life.
But indeed the signs are there. It is true that Oklahomans are not quite as well educated in terms of percentage of college degrees, but much worse is the attitude of anti-intellectualism which seems to pervade the minds of so many. We do not value achievement in academics and the arts in education, as we do other accomplishments.
The best and the brightest of our leadership aspirants tend to be rejected at the polls, and too often it seems that voters elect screwballs and dimwits to represent us. It was not always so, but that has been the trend.
Oftentimes knowledge is not the equivalent of social and cultural wisdom. It may be possible to learn science without developing habits of scientific logic. Apparently one can learn without understanding. Logic and critical thinking skills may elude the influence of education.
Many of our people believe every sordid story that is passed around their network of communications. Just this week this writer encountered a person with a college degree who insists that Obama was born in Kenya, and that he is a good buddy of Ayers, the reformed Viet Nam era protestor – everything passed around on those dirty e-mails that have been repudiated. He is sure it is all true, and the facts do not matter. Since his children are home schooled, such attitudes are likely to be perpetuated.
One might suppose that if one listened to Rush Limbaugh and watched Fox News for his information, believing it all, it would be become much more difficult to discern the truth from fiction.
Learning the truth normally requires that one be open-minded. Psychology calls that maintaining an open perceptual system. Closing one’s perceptual system is usually considered defensiveness, i.e. one is afraid the truth will hurt one’s self perception or challenge one’s system of beliefs and values and thus upset the inner equilibrium.
Such theories offer little hope for rapid attitudinal change among our people.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
