Home » Politics (Page 5)
Category Archives: Politics
The photo shows John “Rick” Santorum smiling, but the man has a tendency to get into a rage. Recently he said that the famous speech given by John F. Kennedy on the separation of church and state made him “want to throw up.” Santorum later said he wished he “had that particular line back.” He spoke that particular line to George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” in February of 2012. The reason the subject came up was because Santorum was asked about having said something like that back in October. Back then Rick said he “almost threw up” after reading the speech.
What made Rick Santorum want to throw up or almost throw up was that – according to Santorum – Kennedy was saying that “people of faith have no role in the public square.” Of course, neither Kennedy nor anyone else has said that. Everyone knows that Kennedy made that speech in 1960 to set at rest the anxieties felt by certain voters about Kennedy’s Catholicism. The only other Catholic of a major party to campaign for the presidency was Al Smith in 1928, and he was defeated in part by the fearful bigotry of certain Lutherans and Southern Baptists who believed that if Smith were elected he’d be taking orders from the Pope. Now that Catholics can participate in politics at the highest level, Rick Santorum, a Catholic, almost vomits when he reads that speech about the separation of church and state.
Until Rick Santorum got so angry he nearly vomited, even Republican voters believed that ” separation of church and state” meant that the institution of state is separate from the institution of any church. Or, as that iconic Republican Ronald Regan said in 1984, “Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief.”
But Rick Santorum gets into a rage about a lot of things. President Obama, in his speech to Congress in 2009, asked “every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma.”
And Santorum flew into a rage. “What a snob!” he cried. Why is it snobbery to ask your fellow Americans to commit themselves to a year of higher education or vocational training or an apprenticeship? Rick Santorum, has an undergraduate degree from Pennsylvania State University, an M.B.A. from the University of Pittsburgh, and a law degree from the Dickinson School of Law. That’s about as much higher education as you can get!
Sometimes it seem that Santorum distorts the words and policies of his political opponents simply in order to get into a rage about them. Or maybe it’s the other way around: he distorts and misquotes his opponents in order to justify his habitual rage.
Rick Santorum is a man of faith, despite — as he would say — despite having gone to college. Because, according to him, “62 percent of kids who enter college with some sort of faith commitment leave without it,” Wow! That’s terrible! And hard to believe. He made those observations to George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.” He said he got that figure from a study that may be out of date and, he added, “I suspect it may even be worse.” That might explain his sizzling anger about asking people to get at least one year of training in anything from a college to a trade school. According to Santorum, those educational institutions are places where liberals indoctrinate students. Golly.
A lot of studies have been made about the effect of educational level on religious beliefs and, by and large, they don’t support Santorum’s views. Quite the contrary, the study that Santorum was referring to points out that “76 percent of those who never enrolled in college report a decline in religious service attendance.” Apparently, not going to college damages faith more than going to college.
Purposely distorting another person’s words is called bearing false witness. And making assertions that you know are not true is called lying. Rick Santorum’s behavior gives faith a bad name. Or maybe he’s just looking for ways to justify his inner rage.
You’ve probably heard of debtors’ prison, a prison where people who hadn’t paid their debts could be kept under lock and key until they paid their debt or got somebody else to pay for them. It was a dreadful system. Charles Dickens, whose father was housed in a debtors’ prison for a while, wrote eloquently about it.
We had similar prisons in this country until around 1831 when the United States government abolished imprisonment for debts owed to the federal government, and most states soon dropped the practice too. To imprison somebody for failing to pay a debt is fundamentally crazy – OK, let’s say it’s just fundamentally counterproductive – because it deprives the debtor of the ability to earn the money to pay off his or her debts.
What brings debtors’ prisons to mind in these paragraphs is the way debtor nations are treated these days. It’s called austerity. It’s equally counterproductive – or, in a simpler word, crazy.
A good example of the craziness is what’s happening to Greece. Greece has got some big, bad debts and hasn’t got the money to pay them. Now the grand institutions that can loan Greece money aren’t throwing the nation into debtor’s prison. But they are demanding ball-and-chain austerity. They won’t loan Greece anymore money unless that nation continues to fire thousands of state workers, cut the wages of thousands and thousands of others, drastically reduce workers’ benefits and slash their pensions. Of course, when you do that to a nation, the entire economy declines, more and more people loose their jobs or have to take dramatic pay cuts. That’s what’s happening in Greece today.
As every taxpayer knows, the way a nation gets money to pay its debts is by taxing its citizens, the ones who are actually making money. But when the economy sinks and people earn much less or nothing at all, the tax revenue plunges. In other words, as the institutions that loan money to Greece insist on these austerity programs, the Greeks are less and less able to pay off their debts.
Republicans, who haven’t shown a deep grasp of economics over the past 100 years, are eager to have the United States immediately “put its fiscal house in order” and “cut the deficit.” This means slashing government payrolls and cutting or eliminating government programs – except those for sacred national defense, of course. But because we have a Democrat in the White House and because Democrats control Senate, Republican suitors haven’t been able to completely have their way with the economy.
Interestingly, the conservatives did win big in England and they immediately imposed an austerity budget on their fellow subjects. They believe it’s imperative that England immediately “put its fiscal house in order” and “cut the deficit.” As a result, the country has slid down and backward economically. But England, despite its grim stagnation, isn’t in the desperate situation that Greece is in. Greece is in the new version of debtors’ prison.
You’re probably aware that as you drive through the city certain cameras, often mounted overhead at cross streets, record your car’s plate number and, in many instances, they record your face as well. And as you or park in a parking garage or enter a shop, security cameras continue to photograph you. And maybe you’re aware that if you walk with your cell phone on, your location is being pinpointed to within fifteen feet.
Maybe, like most people, you do feel a little uncomfortable about being kept under watch, but you shrug it off because you’re just one individual in a city of thousands or millions and they can’t keep track of every single one of us all the time. I mean, sure, they have the technology to listen to our phone conversations and the technology to photograph us as we move around, but how can they store that ocean of information? Besides, the cost of storing so much data would break the bank.
And you’re right. At least for three more years. But you do remember George Orwell’s 1984 and Big Brother. Back in 1984, it cost about $85,000 to store a gigabyte of data. Today it costs about five cents. That means it costs about 17 cents to store all the phone calls made by an individual over the course of a year. But the cost of storage is falling and by 2015 it will cost under 2 cents.
Cameras produce photos and photos have lots of pixels and that means a security camera generates a mountain of data. On the other hand, your phone, GPS and Wi-Fi connection give away your location but that information requires comparatively few ones and zeros. The data identifying the location of each of a million people every five minutes, 24 hours a day for a year, can be stored in 1,000 gigabytes. That would cost around $50 today.
It costs more to store all those pixels from all those cameras, but governments can afford it. In China, a government “safety” project will use around 500,000 video cameras to keep watch in the city of Chongqing which has a population of 12 million — that’s one video camera for every 24 people. Right now, it’s expensive to store that much high-quality video and they’ll have to use lower quality images. But in a few years, say by 2020, they’ll be able to store a year’s worth of high-quality video movies of every one of those 12 million people for about 25 cents per person.
These numbers come from a very interesting report produced by John Villasenor, a nonresident senior fellow in Governance Studies and in the Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings. He is also professor of electrical engineering at the University of California, Los Angeles. You may want to read the full report ; you’ll find it well documented. Professor Villasenor’s report is phrased in terms of how much it would cost a repressive regime, such as that in Iran, to keep a close watch on each of its citizens. Fortunately, we live in an open society where such issues as government surveillance and individual privacy are vigorously debated. Or, maybe we should say, ought to be vigorously debated.
If you like to keep score, the weekend of January 21 and 22 was exciting. The New England Patriots defeated the Baltimore Ravens 23 to 20, the New York Giants defeated the San Francisco 49ers, 20 to 17, and Newt Gingrich defeated Mitt Romey, 40.4 to 27.8.
The big difference between those hard-fought football games and our crappy political primary contests is that in a football game you’re not allowed to bamboozle and lie your way to victory or use wild money from in-your-pocket millionaire contributors to ambush your opponents. On the football field, when you’re seen breaking the rules, you’re penalized by referees who are as objective as God permits humans to be. In politics, anything less than a felony
is considered OK, so long as it hauls in voters.
One of the nice things about football is that the actual running, blocking, grunting players are the winners and losers, depending on how well they do on the field. The spectators — that’s most of us — are on the sidelines, cheering. We get to go home in good health when it’s over. In politics, the politicians play the game but we’re the ones who get banged up, mangled, disabled and sometimes ruined by what they do.
We’ve damn well exhausted this sports/politics metaphor. We apologize and will leave it alone now.
Mitt Romney has complained, rightly, about being quoted out of context, of having what he said twisted around so it comes out wholly different from what his words actually meant. Romney has forgotten that just a few weeks ago he quite carefully took Obama’s words out of context and twisted them around in order to misquote the President.
In this most recent incident, Romney’s Republican opponents jumped on him for having said, “I like being able to fire people.” What he said was in answer to a question on health care, and he replied that he liked the option of choosing among competing health insurance companies. “I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means that if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them,” Romney said. “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.
Of course, when Romeny distorted Obama’s words it was for the high-minded purpose of making a political point — at least that was the excuse offered by his campaign office. Romney’s ad uses an audio of Obama campaigning in New Hampshire in 2008, Obama’s voice saying, “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” In actual fact, in that 2008 speech it’s clear that Obama is quoting an aide to his opponent, Senator McCain. But in the 2011 ad, Romney makes the listener believe that it’s Obama who doesn’t want to discuss the economy. [Critical Pages has a post on that event.]
In a curiously base and twisted way, Romney struck back at his Republican opponents’ out-of-context attack by blaming President Obama. Complaining to reporters that his words had been taken out of context, Romney said, “Things can always be taken out of context, and I understand that’s what the Obama people will do.”
On December 15, 2011, the United States formally ended military operations in Iraq. After almost nine years this nation was able to extricate itself from a war in which over 1.5 million American served, 30,000 were wounded, and 4,500 died. Of the Iraqi population, military and civilian, it’s estimated that over 100,000 died, and no one knows how many hundreds of thousands were wounded. As for the ultimate financial cost to the US, it’s been commonly estimated as around $1 trillion, and that’s the figure used by the New York Times. Others believe that it’s complete cost is actually around $3 trillion. (Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, has calculated the cost — check it out, if you wish.)
The fantasy of a quick and easy war was confected by President George W. Bush and his Vice President Richard Cheney along with a group of civilian neo-conservatives who had never experienced combat, but who wanted to throw their ideological weight around. Inebriated by this country’s overwhelming military power, they had dreams of establishing a “beacon of freedom” which would magically lead other Middle Eastern countries to democracy and a commitment to free market economics.
The Iraqi military machine had been reduced to near impotence by our previous invasion and was no threat to us. Indeed, we controlled Iraq’s air space, flew missions over Iraq daily and destroyed any anti-aircraft facility that touched our aircraft with targeting radar. This was not a justifiable pre-emptive war — that’s when you strike before an immediately threatening enemy can strike at you. No, this was an optional war, a phrase as horrible as it is bizarre.
Despite what our vice president told us, there was no dancing in Iraq’s streets when we overthrew that nation’s despotic regime, and Iraqis didn’t greet us as liberators. Nor did Iraq’s oil revenue pay for our war, as the vice president had promised. On the contrary, we kept on paying and paying and paying to rebuild the Iraq we had destroyed. Very soon we were regarded as occupiers. When we handed their country back to them on December 15 they didn’t say thank you. That was the same December 15 when we learned from our census bureau that half the people in the United States now live in poverty or are barely getting by on earnings that are classified as “low income.” All that blood and all that treasure — No, it wasn’t worth it.
Jack Slack (Disclosure: that’s his name, not a pseudonym) is a writer living in Florida. When he’s not diving for sunken treasure or fashioning gold jewelry he gives some thought to politics. Right now he’s mighty annoyed at liberal Democrats and other left voices criticizing President Obama. As Jack says it…
I refuse to jump on the progressive bandwagon bashing Obama because he didn’t deliver 100% of his campaign promises.
As far as I’m concerned, he carried out some of the big promises of his campaign such as getting us out of Iraq, providing health care reform, and promoting alternative energy programs. In fact, he exceeded his promise to leave only 50,000 troops in Iraq; currently we have only 12,000 troops in there. On top of that, he banned permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.
Today, most Americans probably want us out of Afghanistan too, but Obama’s campaign promise was to send more troops to the conflict in Afghanistan, which he and the rest of us, at that time, thought was our only legitimate war. We may no longer like the escalation in Afghanistan, but he did what he said he would do; furthermore, he provided the US an exit strategy, one that is still on schedule.
What really infuriated me were the progressives who bashed his health care reform. This was the only president in modern history to get such a bill passed. True, it didn’t have the public option most of us wanted because he didn’t want to endanger the entire bill for it. Of course, it’s not universal health care either, but Obama never promised it would be; he said he supported universal health care, but didn’t think he could get it past Congress at this time.
What we did get was a vast and incredible improvement in US health care. For the first time in our history, insurance companies have to insure you even if you have a pre-existing condition, and they can’t charge you a higher premium because of that condition. Millions of American women who are survivors of breast cancer are beneficiaries of this. (Disclosure: my wife is one) People who had a dermatologist remove minor sun skin-damage, such as basal cell carcinomas, can now be insured with the rest of Americans against the deadly melanoma skin cancer. (Disclosure: my ex-wife is a melanoma survivor) (more…)
Romney has already launched his first television ad against the President and — good grief! As has been pointed out by Democrats and Independents and anyone who cares, the ad distorts what Obama actually said. What’s even more astonishing, Romney’s Republican confederates agree it’s a lie. They say they want it that way.
The ad uses an audio of Obama campaigning in New Hampshire in 2008, his voice saying, “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” In actual fact, in that 2008 speech it’s clear that Obama is quoting an aide to his opponent, Senator McCain. But in the 2011 ad, Romney makes the listener believe that it’s Obama who doesn’t want to discuss the economy.
Romney’s people distributed a press release admitting that the words are not Obama’s and Romney himself, in Des Moines, proudly told reporters, “There was no hidden effort on the part of our campaign. It was instead to point out that what’s sauce for the goose is now sauce for the gander,” By no hidden effort Romney apparently means that since his press release admits the distortion, there’s no hidden effort to deceive.
Having attempted to fool the public once, with the deceptive ad, his campaign now tries to fool the public a second time by saying they’re not trying to deceive.
“It was instead to point out that what’s sauce for the goose is now sauce for the gander.” That old expression is another way of saying that what’s fair for one person is fair for the other. How in the world does that apply here? Obama wasn’t putting words into McCain’s mouth. Romney is. His run for the presidency should be quite a spectacle
Ever hear of STOPA or PROTECTIP? Here’s what the initials in those strange acronyms stand for: STOPA is the U. S. House of Representatives Stop Online Piracy Act, and PROTECTIP is the U. S. Senate’s Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act. (With elephantine cleverness, the acronym says Protect IP, meaning Protect Intellectual Property. )
Both blunderbluss bills aim to protect intellectual property — copyrights and the like — and both are directed against what the sponsors call “rogue” websites and “foreign pirates” who use the web to steal US intellectual property. That certainly a fine goal and supporters say the bills are necessary pieces of legislation, and actually, in the words of one legislator, “patriotic.”
At Critical Pages we’re strongly for protection of intellectual property rights. But we’re against these badly written pieces of misguided legislation. The Motion Picture Association of America is for the bills, as is the Chamber of Commerce. On the other side, eBay and Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Twitter, Yahoo, and Zynga are against it. Such bills would make business, domestic as well as foreign, virtually impossible for sites that depend on user-generated material, sites such as YouTube or Tumblr. The Electric Frontier Foundation, an old and distinguished private watchdog group, is also against the bills.
As for you, while you’re surfing the web, it would put you in the position of a typical Internet user in China or Iran. Certain sites would be blocked because the government determined that they’re “rogue” sites belonging to “foreign pirates.” (more…)