Dr. Juan Cole says ...

8 Words of Wisdom for Week Ending 4/17/2009 #8

As usual, the left-wing blogosphere is a breath of fresh air. I've read at least a dozen brilliant accounts of the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips from Somali pirates, each that ties the actions took place as compared to the comments that were spewed forth from the right wing. As you read through the excerpts of Dr. Cole's post below, and hopefully through the entire post at the link, you should understand this: Republicans cannot handle a crisis. They overreact. They start wars against countries that never attacked us. They torture. They suspend Habeas Corpus. Rather than enforce the rile of law, they look for ways to get around it. When an American is held hostage, they would blow the bad guys away immediately, even if it meant the death of the hostage.

Make no mistake: Barack Obama is not the hero of this rescue. Not even close. The Navy SEALS who took out the pirates with remarkable shots on the high seas are heroes. Captain Phillips bravery and unselfishness will be talked about for generations. No, Obama did what a President is supposed to do. He got good advice. He gave the orders. He and his administration didn't leak to the press. Best of all, the hostage is safe, and it is the right-wing that once again has egg all over their faces.

The crisis began early in the morning of April 8, when Somali pirates boarded the Maersk Alabama. The crew captured one pirate, and three others took Captain Phillips hostage. He talked them, along with one other, into getting into the lifeboat and keeping him as the hostage, as a way of saving his crew.

The US Navy, aware of the danger to Phillips's life if it took precipitate action, brought in experienced FBI hostage negotiators.

This attempt to end the crisis through hostage negotiation was made fun of by the American right wing ...

(Glenn) Beck actually made fun of the US Navy, implying that it was dawdling about instead of going in with guns blazing. What kind of person makes fun of the professionals of the US Navy and the FBI while they are trying to do their jobs in saving a true American hero? ...

Meanwhile, even Rush Limbaugh's supporters were embarrassed by his inability to stop bashing the president long enough to celebrate the escape of the crew. Ann Althouse lamented of Limbaugh, "He'd slotted the story into his Obama-doesn't-know-what-to-do template and was riffing away about Obama's indecision and what he must be fretting about and how he'd probably want to apologize to the pirates and so forth."

(Kenneth T.) Walsh (of Newsweek) explains of Friday, April 10: "In Obama's first national security test, he secretly gave the Pentagon the go-ahead at 8 p.m. Friday to use force if Phillips's life was in imminent danger." So, Rush, I guess Obama wasn't in a mood to apologize after all. Unless in Limbaugh Limbo, making preparations to whack someone is seen as a mea culpa.

What of Obama's silence, which allowed the blowhards to bloviate? Walsh adds, "Throughout the crisis, Obama avoided saber rattling in public. His aides said that would have made negotiations for Phillips's release more difficult." In other words, Obama avoided posturing and talking like a cowboy about the pirates in order to avoid complicating a hostage crisis and endangering the life of the hostage ...

Now it is Saturday, April 11. Walsh explains, "In a follow-up order at 9:20 Saturday morning, he gave more specific authorization that included allowing a Navy commander to order snipers to take out the pirates if the situation became dire, U.S. officials said."

On Sunday, the US snipers were sent into action when it appeared that the pirates were menacing Captain Phillips with their weapons. They killed three and freed Phillips, capturing the fourth.

While the whiny Right was ridiculing the president as a do-nothing, or calling for blowing the lifeboat out of the water, or calumniating Obama with charges that he was "apologetic" to the hostage-takers and even "bringing them hot chocolate," the president was quietly, competently, taking stock of the situation and putting in place the policies and personnel that would lead to a successful resolution and the freeing of a hero.

The link is a must read. When someone gets under Dr. Cole's skin, he gets super extra snarky. He has great examples of the right wing stupidity that was spewed during the crisis and his take downs of Limbuagh and company is definitive. Great, great stuff.

Source - Informed Comment

Digby says ...

8 Words of Wisdom for Week Ending 4/17/2009 #7

There was a time when the Republican congress, in the majority and in minority, was calling for independent counsels every five minutes for such threats to the nation as firing an white house employee and personal real estate dealings that took place years before the president was elected. (not to mention personal indiscretions.) The right wing noise machine would go crazy and the opposition leaders in congress would raise holy hell until the president had no choice but to ask the Attorney General to name an independent counsel just to shut everyone up for a while.

(The Independent counsel statute was created so the executive branch wouldn't have to investigate itself, the very definition of conflict of interest. After three presidencies, the statute was allowed to die --- mostly because the Republicans proved that they would use it as a retributional nuclear political weapon if they had the chance.)

In the last administration, there was enough of an outcry over the leak of a CIA operative that even the Bush administration had to have his AG appoint a special prosecutor. They appointed a non-partisan professional who managed to keep the investigation and trial buttoned up, thus showing that the right special prosecutor could run a political case without joining the partisan mudfight. Although the usual legal wingnuts tried to persuade people that the Fitzgerald investigation was a Ken Starr Chamber, everyone knew it wasn't, and it proved that it could be done if the prosecutor wasn't an ideologue and a tool.

All of these cases were brought about by public and political pressure. It occurs to me that this is the only way it can happen in our broken political system --- that a president never willingly investigates itself, of course, but also never wants to investigate its predecessor either (the Democrats usually for fear of starting an endless vendetta, the Republicans usually for fear of setting a precedent.) They must be made to do it.

There's a lot of vitriol coming from the left right now and much of it is directed at the Obama administration for not opening up investigations into the Bush administration and the use of torture. I don't think this is fair. Yes, I find torture abhorrent and would love to see Bush administration figures prosecuted. Yes, I recognize that a majority of Americans do not approve of torture. Not the point.

Presidential administrations are, for better or for worse, as much political enterprises as they are policy centers. These types of investigations and prosecutions are divisive by nature, and tend to stir up shit-storms in the press. If they were begun without popular support, it could undermine the entire Obama agenda, prolong the economic downturn and put the Republicans back in power. The country can't afford that.

What we see now is the Obama administration releasing the torture memos which should give us the ammunition we need. It is our job as the citizenry to demand action. It is our job to build popular support for investigations into the actions of the Bush administration. It is our job to make our elected officials do what we want them to do. If no investigations take place, we shouldn't blame the Obama administration, we should blame ourselves.

Source - Hullabaloo

Adult Obesity

8 World Health Care Rankings #4

8 Conservative Glossary Items (Recap)

Here they are ... terms that conservatives love to throw around ... yet ... they have no idea what they actually mean. Here's a little ammunition you can use to go after them.

1. Communism
2. Bolsheviks
3. Maoism
4. Marxism
5. Socialism
6. Fascism
7. Morality
8. Marriage

Even in Wisconsin

8 Times Hank Aaron Faced Racism #2

If it was strange for those White Folks in Eau Claire to be around black people, it was just as strange for me to be around them.

After signing the Hammer, the Braves assigned him to their class D team in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Aaron was playing in Chicago with the Clowns, and he put his new cardboard suitcase, a gift from Clowns owner Syd Pollock, on the train for Milwaukee and climbed aboard a plane for the trip to Eau Claire.

I was a nervous wreck, bouncing around the sky over a part of the country I'd hardly ever heard about, much less been to, headed to a white town to play ball with white boys.

Wisconsin was nothing like the south. For one thing, there wasn't open hostility and hatred towards African-Americans. Additionally, since several other African-Americans had played for the team over the past two seasons, the town was prepared for Aaron's arrival which would help control the culture shock. He also had two African-American teammates, Julie Bowers and Wes Covington, which would help ease his transition to integrated baseball. Still, Wisconsin was a strange place for Aaron and a difficult adjustment.

Whenever Aaron would go out in the town, people would stare at him. He remembers a little girl at a restaurant where he was having breakfast who couldn't take her eyes off of him and a man who just "gawked" as Aaron walked through a parking lot outside the stadium. Aaron was never the most gregarious of men, but after arriving in Wisconsin he was so out of sorts that he would barely utter a word.

It made you feel like you should start tap dancing or something.

Other times, he would face the type of racism of which he was already familiar. Aaron and the other African-American players were taken in by a white family in town who were very progressive and big supporters of the team. Hank and the daughter took a liking to one another and would sit on the back porch holding hands. Still, they knew not to be seen together in town. Once, Aaron, Bowers and Covington went to a hangout in the countryside with the daughter and several other girls. Some of the local men found out and took off looking for them. Fortunately, they weren't found because the girls hid them in the bushes.

Aaron began to long for home and was seriously considering quitting. He called home and his brother reminded him of the opportunity that has been given to him and Aaron decided to carry on. Despite some initial doubts about his ability to perform against white players, he would become one of the stars of the league. His ability to hit the ball remained unquestioned and he would rip the opposing team's pitchers to shreds. Aaron would go on to win the Rookie of the Year award for the league. He was the third player from the Eau Claire team to capture the award in as many seasons. Of course, the paper reported it as Aaron being the third of "his race" to win the award. 

Still, Eau Claire was a veritable paradise compared to Aaron's time in Jacksonville.

My primary source for the information in this series is Hank Aaron's 1991 autobiography, I Had a Hammer: The Hank Aaron Story, co-written with Lonnie Wheeler.

Previous entries in this series: Introduction, The Negro Leagues

President Obama says ...

8 Words of Wisdom for Week Ending 4/17/2009 #6

We'll let his words stand on their own.

Infant Mortality Rate

8 World Health Care Rankings #3

Marriage

8 Conservative Glossary Items #8

I like the definition of marriage used at Wikipedia.

Marriage is a social, spiritual, and/or legal union of individuals ... Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state, by religious authority, or by both.

I will not deny that traditionally marriage has been between man and a women. Tradition for tradition's sake doesn't matter to me.

I will not deny that the government has no right tell a religion what marriages it has to recognize. Government has no more place in religion than religion does in government. For the record, churches have been marrying gay couples for years and years and years. Also, for the record, no one has proposed a plan that would force churches to marry anyone.

In our world, many benefits have been bestowed to married couples. These benefits relate to taxation, health care, inheritances, etc. Can anyone give me one rational reason why, in a free society, we don't bestow these same benefits on same-sex couples?

Religious bigotry is not a rational reason.

Previous Entries in this Series (An Introduction, Communism, Bolsheviks, Maoism, Marxism, Socialism, Fascism, Morality)

Matt Yglesias says ...

8 Words of Wisdom for Week Ending 4/17/2009 #5

... whatever one thought should be done with large financial institutions as a policy matter, surely we could agree that the executives at these institutions are primarily bad people.

It turns out we couldn’t agree on that. But my argument is pretty simple. These are people primarily motivated in life by greed. Not just by a desire to make some scratch, mind you. These aren’t immigrants who walked through the desert from Mexico in order to earn more money by washing dishes in a San Diego hotel. They’re not 24 year-olds looking for a hefty salary in order to pay off student loans. They’re multi-millionaires who want to earn millions more. It’s possible, of course, that Vikram Pandit really does find being a bank executive to be intrinsically interesting. But a good person, who’s primary passion was the life of a bank executive, would be donating the bulk of his massive compensation package to charity. But that’s not what Pandit’s doing. Rather he, like virtually all executives at major firms, is living a life that’s primarily oriented around an ethic of greed.

Once again we get a look at one of the core values of the conservative movement ... GREED. They say greed is good. They say greed is right. Truth be told, even in this awful economic climate, the greedy haven't been hurt nearly as bad as the rest of us. Greed is only good for the greedy.

Greed interferes with any attempt to act in a manner that benefits the many as opposed to the few. Greed corrupts government. Greed leads to the lowering of the inheritance tax. It leads to cutting taxes on the highest income brackets. It leads to deregulation allowing industries to take more risks and make more money. Greed leads to corporations skirting the law to increase profits. Greed leads to politicians seeing businesses and lobbyists as their constituency.

Ultimately, we are a country who gets to decide what we value. We do that we when go the polls. In November of last year, we went to the polls and we rejected the politicians whose policies of greed sunk this nation into an awful financial crisis. We should take every opportunity to remind our elected officials of that fact. By combating greed, the government can restore economic prosperity for most Americans.

Source - Think Progress

Healthy Life Expectancy

8 World Health Care Rankings #2

The Negro Leagues

8 Times Hank Aaron Faced Racism #1

With African-American ballplayers excluded from Major League Baseball, a series of Negro Leagues were formed so that African-American baseball players were able to play the game they loved professionally. Starting in 1920, there were seven different Negro Major Leagues that would operate, but the two most successful were the second Negro National League (1933 - 1948) and the Negro American League (1937 - 1958). Some of the Negro League teams were among the most successful African-American owned businesses in the country (such as the Homestead Grays, Kansas City Monarchs and the Indianapolis Clowns). 

The downfall for the Negro Leagues began when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier for the National League in 1947 with the Brooklyn Dodgers. Many of the minor leagues outside of the south would integrate and eventually, the major league teams would sign a number of African-American players to their minor league teams. Additionally, the best players, and the biggest draws in the Negro Leagues, would begin to populate the major league teams. With the best players now in the majors, many African-American baseball fans would turn their attention to the major leagues at the expense of the Negro Leagues. By 1960, all that would remain of the Negro Leagues would be the Indianapolis Clowns who would become a comedy barnstorming team in the mold of the Harlem Globetrotters. 

Hank Aaron would begin playing semi-professional baseball for the Mobile Black Bears in 1951. From day one, Hank could hit a baseball as good as anyone. His coach worked as a scout for the Clowns in the Negro American League and would sign Aaron to a contract. When Aaron boarded a train for the Clowns 1952 Spring training camp in North Carolina, it would be the first time he left the "black" world of Mobile, Alabama. He would learn a lot about his country.

As a ballplayer, Aaron would get a chance to prove himself right away thanks to an injury to one of the team's infielders. He would quickly establish himself as one of the top hitters in the Negro Leagues. One of the primary sources of income for Negro League teams (and ironically, one that would only hasten their demise) was by selling the contracts for their top talent to the major leagues. The Clowns had drummed up interest in Aaron from both the Boston Braves and the New York Giants, and the summer after Aaron joined the Clowns, his contract was sold to the Braves. During his off-season from the Braves, he would rejoin the Clowns and lead them to a championship in the 1952 Negro World Series.

Prior to singing with the Braves, Aaron would tour America with the Clowns and would experience first-hand that effects of Jim Crow and racism. The team would almost never eat at a restaurant because it was difficult to find one that would serve them. Instead, they would buy groceries when they had the chance and eat on the bus. Needless to say, they would often have to sleep on the bus as there weren't many hotels that would allow them to stay. They would go weeks unable to do their laundry. It was an experience that wasn't unlike that of any other group of African-Americans in the age of Jim Crow.

The most moving story concerned a rare experience of the team getting to eat at a restaurant. In Aaron's words ...

The day after Baltimore, we were rained out of a big Sunday doubleheader at Griffith Stadium in Washington. We had breakfast while we were waiting for the rain to stop, and I can still envision sitting with the Clowns in a restaurant behind Griffith Stadium and hearing them break all the plates in the kitchen after we were finished eating. What a horrible sound. Even as a kid, the irony of it hit me: Here we were in the capital in the land of freedom and equality, and they had to destroy the plates that had touched the forks that had been in the mouths of black men. If dogs had eaten off those plates, they'd have washed them.

My primary source for the information in this series is Hank Aaron's 1991 autobiography, I Had a Hammer: The Hank Aaron Story, co-written with Lonnie Wheeler.

Previous entries in this series: Introduction

Paul Krugman says ...

8 Words of Wisdom for Week Ending 4/17/2009 #4

Thirty-plus years ago, when I was a graduate student in economics, only the least ambitious of my classmates sought careers in the financial world. Even then, investment banks paid more than teaching or public service — but not that much more, and anyway, everyone knew that banking was, well, boring.

In the years that followed, of course, banking became anything but boring. Wheeling and dealing flourished, and pay scales in finance shot up, drawing in many of the nation’s best and brightest young people (O.K., I’m not so sure about the “best” part). And we were assured that our supersized financial sector was the key to prosperity.

Instead, however, finance turned into the monster that ate the world economy ...

Before 1930, banking was an exciting industry featuring a number of larger-than-life figures, who built giant financial empires (some of which later turned out to have been based on fraud). This highflying finance sector presided over a rapid increase in debt: Household debt as a percentage of G.D.P. almost doubled between World War I and 1929.

During this first era of high finance, bankers were, on average, paid much more than their counterparts in other industries. But finance lost its glamour when the banking system collapsed during the Great Depression.

The banking industry that emerged from that collapse was tightly regulated, far less colorful than it had been before the Depression, and far less lucrative for those who ran it. Banking became boring, partly because bankers were so conservative about lending: Household debt, which had fallen sharply as a percentage of G.D.P. during the Depression and World War II, stayed far below pre-1930s levels.

Strange to say, this era of boring banking was also an era of spectacular economic progress for most Americans.

Wait, unrestrained capitalism doesn't always work? I'm not exactly shocked here. Here's the first indication that an industry should be heavily regulated: its collapse can bring down the entire economy. Seems almost like a no-brainer for me.

Can banking be made boring again? Well, the bankers themselves will fight it tooth and nail. As Krugman points out, "boring banking would mean poorer bankers". Speaking as an American who is not a banker, so? Boring is good. Boring is solid. Boring is better for everybody.

We need a Glass-Steagall Act for the 21st century. It is time to usher in a new era for banking that backs a new period of economic progress. The conservative practice of little to no regulation has been exposed. The time has come to scrap it.

Source - The New York Times

Morality

8 Conservative Glossary Items #7

Morality has the most simple definition possible. Morality is knowing the difference between right and wrong. Morality is often derived from an individuals religious beliefs, but that doesn't have to be the case. So who determines what is right and what is wrong? That's a tough one. I would argue that a standard morality has developed over time for many different religious, social and cultural reasons. (Murder is wrong for instance.) Still, much of morality is subjective.

Despite the subjectivity inherent in the very concept of morality, that hasn't stopped the right wing from using the accusation of immorality against liberals and progressives for generations. Far too often, the traditional media goes along with the right wing description of morality. People who vote for "morals" are right wing? No. We all vote for our morals. We are all "morals" voters.

More importantly, to someone else, we are all immoral voters. How do I mean you ask? Here's how:

• I find racism immoral. I'm sure that we all have prejudices, but if we choose to react to those prejudices with actions that hold people down for no other reason that the color of their skin, then our actions are immoral.
• I find homophobia immoral. The idea that someone should be ostracized, let alone be denied the most basic of civil rights, because they were born with a different sexual identity than the rest of us is appalling to me. Homosexuals do not harm anyone with their behavior, so how can it be classified as immoral?
• I find political oppression to be immoral. Questioning the patriotism of someone simply because they disagree with you seems wrong.
• I find it immoral to support economic policies that benefit the few at the expense of the many.

I'm fairly secure in my sense of morality and I think the best way to beat back right-wing charges of immorality is by calling them out for what we perceive is their immorality. To cede the "moral" ground to the Republicans is unacceptable.

Previous Entries in this Series (An Introduction, Communism, Bolsheviks, Maoism, Marxism, Socialism, Fascism)

8 Universal Health Care System FAQs (Recap)

We presented a group of eight short FAQs about Universal Health Care throughout the world. Check them out. Please. I'm begging you.

1. Canada
2. France
3. Germany
4. England
5. Elsewhere in Europe
6. China
7. Israel
8. Other Questions

Adult Mortality Rate

8 World Health Care Rankings #1

An Introduction

8 Times Hank Aaron Faced Racism

From April 8, 1974 until August 7, 2007, Henry Aaron was baseball's reigning home run king. In sports, it is the most hallowed of records, and the record itself has cast a long shadow over Aaron's life and career. As a player, he was one of the most well rounded superstars in the history of the game, and easily one of the ten best hitters. He was a crusader for civil rights and has worked doggedly to increase the role that minorities play behind the scenes in baseball. The home run record was a remarkable accomplishment, but it barely touches all that which comprises the Hank Aaron story.

This isn't the story of just any baseball player, this is the story of a black baseball player. In the world of 2009, it might not seem that the distinction has much meaning, but in the world of Hank Aaron it means everything. Every accomplishment, every record, every moment of his career must be viewed through his experience as a black man. He was the best of the generation of players that followed Jackie Robinson into the big leagues. While Jackie Robinson may have broken baseball's color barrier, the work of equality was just beginning. Baseball reflected Jim Crow, and this was the world into which Hank Aaron stepped at the dawn of his career.

It would be easy to dismiss Hank Aaron's story as just a sports story, or as nonsense about baseball, but that would be a travesty. There is much to learn from the story of "Hammerin' Hank". It is, after all, a story of strength in the face of adversity. It is a story of perseverance against a tidal wave of hatred. It is a story of triumph against the most impossible of odds. It is a story of race and the divisions that threatened to rip our country apart. The story of Hank Aaron is important because it is the American story. It is our history.

My primary source for the information in this series is Hank Aaron's 1991 autobiography, I Had a Hammer: The Hank Aaron Story, co-written with Lonnie Wheeler.

Ed Kilgore says ...

8 Words of Wisdom for Week Ending 4/17/2009 #3

It's no secret that arguments for economic inequality depend on two different kinds of rationales. One is simply that of efficiency: permitting a significant amount of wealth accumulation provides capital for investment and growth, while also creating incentives for hard work and innovation. But the other, which is powerful in our essentially moralistic land, is moral: those who create wealth and improve economic productivity deserve, via their hard work, talent, and willingness to bear risks, deserve a higher standard of living than their sluggish, mediocre, and risk-averse fellow-citizens.

A variation on this moral theme is that a nation where your standard of living (not to mention those of your children) is largely determined by the rewards and punishments of rigorous competition is a stronger and more virtuous country--indeed, an exceptional country that has earned certain hegemonic privileges by its virtue and prosperity.

But in determining national economic policies, the "earned privilege" rationale for inequality begins to break down when inherited privilege comes into play. And that's why it's more than passing strange that the estate tax--or as Republicans like to call it, the "death tax"--has such weak support in Washington even among politicians who profess no particular objection to progressive income taxes ...

I have been continuously surprised at the opposition to the Inheritance Tax among so many Americans. Obviously, a lot of that is based on the misinformation put out by conservatives and their "useful idiots" in the Republican Party. (No one can find a single instance of a family farm being lost as a result of the inheritance tax.)

The answer to why conservatives support the inheritance tax seems rather simple to me: they are hypocrites. The notion that they support rewarding risk is just bunk. They reward the accumulation of wealth ... and that is all. They seek to make it easier to keep wealth, and have no interest in helping others join the ranks of the wealthy. At no point are modern conservatives about anything else.

Source - The Democratic Strategist

Fascism

8 Conservative Glossary Items #6

In a fascist state, a single dictator controls all. Opposition is suppressed. Criticism is forbidden. Fascist movements tend to rise up after a group of people feel they have been humiliated or victimized. Fascist states have tended to be violent, gaining popular support through a form of aggressive nationalism. Fascists love to defend the status quo and are especially protective of established business interests.

The Nazis were fascist. Mussolini was a fascist. We fought World War II to destroy these anti-democratic, fascist powers.

What is the most popular slander that the right wing is now hurling Obama's way? Well, they claim he's a fascist. This accusation often comes from the same people who have previously labeled him a communist. These accusations are, the put it lightly, incompatible. (Among the first people rounded up and eliminated by the Third Reich were socialists.) Still, they continue. Yes, the right wing is accusing our President of being even further to the right than they are. (In fairness, they claim fascism is a left wing movement, which is laughable.)

In truth, it is the conservative movement within our country that has far more in common with the fascists. It is not the liberals who attempt to subvert criticism. It is not the progressives who claim that those who disagree with them are insufficiently patriotic. It is not the liberals who criticize their opponents with vague threats of violence. It is not the Democratic party who has expressed the view that the executive branch of our government has unitary power. Accusations of fascism hurled at President Obama have no basis in reality.

Will this stop the right wing from propagating the slander? Of course not. It's a strategy doomed for failure though. The American people aren't as stupid as the conservatives think.

I had to rewrite this post after reading this excellent piece by David Neiwart. I can't wait to read and post about his most recent book.

Previous Entries in this Series (An Introduction, Communism, Bolsheviks, Maoism, Marxism, Socialism)

An Introduction

8 World Health Care Rankings

The World Health Organization has a fantastic database online where you can check the core health statistics for dozens of countries throughout the world. I decided to create a set of graphs showing eight of these statistics for some of the major industrialized nations. We'll see how the United States stacks up against the rest of the world.

James Vega says ...

8 Words of Wisdom for Week Ending 4/17/2009 #2

So, let’s add it all up.

• Over 60% of the American people currently approve of Obama – 10% more than approved of either Bush I or Bush II at this point.

• Republican Party identification has shrunk substantially and the Party’s remaining supporters have become more intensely partisan. Nonetheless, even so, over one-quarter – 27% of these hard-core Republicans still approve of Obama.

• And 57-60% - a solid, commanding majority -- of independents approve of him.

So, Let’s all send Gerson a message: “Hey, Mike, cut out the histrionics. Blow your nose, put away the silly polka-dot hanky and stop the sanctimonious blubbering about Obama causing partisan division. The Oscars are over.

America isn’t divided – it’s solidly behind Obama.

It’s not his fault some people just can’t handle the truth.

Here's how the Republicans have chosen to battle President Obama's proven popularity, by pretending statistics don't exist. To function as a conservative in 2009 requires that you live in a world of denial. Reality would simply be impossible to confront.

I wonder sometimes if this is how conservatives felt in the aftermath of the New Deal and World War II when liberalism defeated fascism, saved capitalism, and raised the standard of living of more Americans than at any period in our history. You know, when the entire country rejected their false ideology that plunged the country into the Great Depression. I'm not convinced that the President has set us on a course of action that will, in any way, compare favorably to the New Deal, but he isn't going to support the same tired, rejected conservative ideals that were soundly rejected at the polls in November, in both the Presidential and Congressional elections.

That is progress and that is why the President has retained his popularity. The more the conservative commentators try to pretend this isn't the case, the more they damage their own credibility, which should be fairly close to rock bottom already.

Source - The Democratic Strategist

Other Questions

8 Universal Health Care System FAQs #8

Of the wealthy, industrialized countries, which provide universal health care and which do not?
Every major, wealthy, industrialized nation provides universal health care for their populace. Oops, I forgot the one and only exception, the United States of America. (Source)

Isn't universal health care more expensive that the current system in the US?
It is not. In fact, the United States spends 40% more per-capita than any of the other major industrialized nations with universal health care. Studies have shown that is we were to move to a single-payer system that we would realize savings of anywhere from 100 to 200 billion dollars a year. (Source)

Aren't all universal health care systems socialist?
No. Some are (such as the UK and Sweden), some aren't (such as France and Germany). It is hard to imagine a system put into use in the US that wouldn't keep doctors and hospitals as private entities. (See previous entries.)

Do the American people really want universal health care?
Not only do they want it, they are willing to have their taxes raised to pay for it. A recent poll by CBS news showed that 57% of Americans want health care for all Americans and are willing to pay more taxes to make it happen. (Source)

Previous Entries in This Series (Canada, France, Germany, England, Elsewhere in Europe, China, Israel)

Paul Krugman says ...

8 Words of Wisdom for Week Ending 4/17/2009 #1

Ten years ago the cover of Time magazine featured Robert Rubin, then Treasury secretary, Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Lawrence Summers, then deputy Treasury secretary. Time dubbed the three “the committee to save the world,” crediting them with leading the global financial system through a crisis that seemed terrifying at the time, although it was a small blip compared with what we’re going through now.

All the men on that cover were Americans, but nobody considered that odd. After all, in 1999 the United States was the unquestioned leader of the global crisis response. That leadership role was only partly based on American wealth; it also, to an important degree, reflected America’s stature as a role model. The United States, everyone thought, was the country that knew how to do finance right.

How times have changed ...

Indeed, these days America is looking like the Bernie Madoff of economies: for many years it was held in respect, even awe, but it turns out to have been a fraud all along.

It’s painful now to read a lecture that Mr. Summers gave in early 2000, as the economic crisis of the 1990s was winding down. Discussing the causes of that crisis, Mr. Summers pointed to things that the crisis countries lacked — and that, by implication, the United States had. These things included “well-capitalized and supervised banks” and reliable, transparent corporate accounting. Oh well.

The whole column should be read of course, but Krugman makes a wonderful point about our reputation ... our credibility. It's a given that most Americans recognize our loss of standing on the world stage on matters of foreign policy. George Bush and the war in Iraq robbed our nation of that. We lost the moral high ground through our use of torture. Still, we were the richest country in the world. We encouraged all the world to follow our economic lead. Now we find ourselves in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and we no longer have our credibility on financial matters.

Perhaps it's good that we now have a President who is so thoroughly charismatic. If we can't get the entire world to take this crisis seriously, we will never solve the problem. It's an uphill battle for President Obama and just another example of the ultimate legacy of George W. Bush ... the fall of America as the world's moral and economic leader.

Source - The New York Times

Socialism

8 Conservative Glossary Items #5

According to dictionary.com, this is the definition of socialism:

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

If you want to consider socialism to be the ideology at the opposite end of the political thought spectrum from conservatism, then I think you have a point. As liberals and progressives, it is our job to be pragmatic and do what is best for the most people. This means we can't rely on an ideology that requires our worship as many socialists and conservatives do. No, we have to look at both options and keep what works, and throw out the rest. 

From conservatism, we take the economic theory of capitalism which offers people the most freedom to control their own economic destiny. From socialism, we take the idea that government has to play an active role in society, lest the "haves" run over the "have nots". We could argue that these limits on capitalism are moral, and they are. More than that though, they are practical. These limits will prevent social unrest that could lead to violence and eventually, perhaps, a system even worse. In effect, the limits we choose to place on capitalism saves it not only from itself, but saves it from socialism. 

Previous Entries in this Series (An Introduction, Communism, Bolsheviks, Maoism, Marxism)