I could detect not even a snicker--no animosity, no mockery, no outward signs of disrespect--on the part of either the host or the guest. If either of them harbored a negative opinion about the Tea Partiers, they didn't let on. Congratulations to Terri Gross for her professionalism and objectivity. It's programs like Fresh Air that keep conservatives like me tuned in to public radio.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
A Breath of Fresh Air
Listened to today's Fresh Air with Terri Gross broadcast ("Inside the Tea Party's Rising Influence"), an interview with Robert Draper, who's a contributor to the New York Times Magazine and who is currently working on a book about the House of Representatives. I braced myself for a repeat of the negativity and vitriol but heard none. It was a remarkably civil, informative, interesting, and insightful discussion. Here's what I wrote in the comments:
Just Words
Interesting collection of statements made by some key Democrats in the immediate aftermath of the debt ceiling debate (retrieved these off National Review Online):
Sen. Bernie Sanders (D., Vermont) takes to the Senate floor to declare the debt deal “immoral, grotesque, unfair.”Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D., Missouri) calls the debt deal “a Satan sandwich, there’s no question about it.”Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D., Illinois) calls tea partiers “arsonists” and denounces their “slash and burn lunacy.”
Vice President Biden (D., Vice President of the United States) says tea-party Republicans acted “like terrorists” during the debt-limit negotiations.
Rep. Mike Doyle (D. Pennsylvania) complains that Republicans “have no compunction about blowing up the economy to get what they want.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. California) warns that Republicans “want to destroy your rights” and “undermine government."
Sen. Harry Reid (D. Nevada) laments, “[It’s] hard for me to understand why [Republicans are] so fixated on destroying our government, our economy.”President Obama (D., President of the United States) links GOPers to hostage takers: “I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed.”
I think it's appropriate at this juncture to remind ourselves of the words Barack Obama spoke at the Tuscon Memorial service not so very long ago (January 12, 2011). I've excerpted portions of his speech, highlighting some of his finer statements in red (sort of like the red-letter edition of the New Testament?):
It's important to keep context in mind, i.e., that the man accused in the Tuscon shooting, Jared Loughner, was supposedly incited by the "violent" rhetoric of (wait for it) right-wing Republicans in general and Sarah Palin in particular. For at least a week, if not more, this was the narrative on every mainstream news outlet. It was a completely fabricated narrative, but even after it was proven to be untrue (if anything, Loughner fits more neatly into the left-wing mold), the underlying message remains. And who would argue with the importance of civility? I think we all agreed then, and in theory still agree. Until the next disagreement. Then, it's business as usual, especially where it actually can be found, at least as much if not more (e.g. see comments above) among Democrats as it is among Republicans.
But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -– at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -– it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds . . .But what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other. That we cannot do . . .
As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let’s use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together . . . If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate -- as it should -- let’s make sure it’s worthy of those we have lost. Let’s make sure it’s not on the usual plane of politics and point-scoring and pettiness that drifts away in the next news cycle.
The loss of these wonderful people should make every one of us strive to be better. .. And if … their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy -- it did not -- but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud.
We should be civil because we want to live up to the example of public servants like John Roll and Gabby Giffords, who knew first and foremost that we are all Americans, and that we can question each other’s ideas without questioning each other’s love of country and that our task, working together, is to constantly widen the circle of our concern so that we bequeath the American Dream to future generations.
They believed . . . and I believe that we can be better . . . and I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.
Mr. President, you said, "I believe we can be better." Beautiful words. But apparently, predictably, not surprisingly, that's all they are to you. Just words.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Matt Damon, Please Stick to Acting
Let it be known that I adore Jason Bourne. I've watched the Bourne Trilogy so many times I have portions of each film memorized. Jason Bourne could run for president and I would probably vote for him, even if he was a Democrat.
Matt Damon, who plays Jason Bourne, is a fine actor. I liked him in Good Will Hunting. I liked him in Saving Private Ryan. I liked him in Invictus. He was OK in True Grit. He was very good in Hereafter. He was good in The Adjustment Bureau. He was funny in Ocean's Eleven. And so on. He's obviously a tremendous actor.
But someone should tell Matt Damon to keep his mouth shut when reporters stick a microphone in his face and ask him to weigh in on whatever current event is currently eventing. It was embarrassing listening to him, for instance, weigh in on the debt ceiling debate. Besides the fact that he seemed to be merely parroting his favorite left-leaning politician's talking points, he comes across as ignorant, arrogant, and uninformed. There's a verse in the Proverbs that says something like "even the foolish seem wise when they keep their mouths shut." OK, so I paraphrased, but I know it's there. I'll look it up later.
According to Matt Damon, the tea partiers are "intransigent." I looked it up. "Intransigent" means "characterized by refusal to compromise or to abandon an extreme position or attitude." The tea partiers are intransigent? What about the Democrats in the Senate who told John Boehner that the bill they just voted on in the House was "dead on arrival"? Were they not being intransigent? What about Nancy Pelosi, who strong-armed all the members of her own party to vote against Boehner's bill? Not a single House Democrat voted for that bill. Is this behavior not intransigence, Matt Damon?
Perhaps the tea partiers are not as much intransigent as they are principled. They were elected by their constituents because spending had gotten out of control. The 2010 mid-term election was a complete repudiation of the Democratic-led Congress and the Obama administration. Would Matt Damon have the tea partiers abandon their principles and capitulate to the Democrats' insistence on unrestricted spending?
"The GOP doesn't want to raise taxes," says Matt Damon. "The GOP wants smaller government." Yeah, but Matt, this is not the whole story. My understanding is that the tax rates are actually plenty high (the wealthy pay about 35% or 38% in federal income tax alone, and about 50% of the population pays no income tax at all). If you were paying attention at all, you'd learn that what the GOP wants is to revise the tax code, lower the overall tax rate, eliminate loopholes, and, yes, reduce spending. I heard one congressman say what's needed is not more taxes but more taxpayers. Does Matt Damon really think the United States could pay off its debt, and continue to take care of domestic and foreign needs, simply by raising taxes on 1% of Americans? The logic is just not there. The message of the tea party movement is to reduce spending, fix the tax code, and live within our means. That's not intransigence. If anything, Barack Obama was the intransigent one. He wanted carte blanche to raise the debt ceiling and continue to spend, spend, spend. The tea party locked arms and said, "Whoa, Nellie." Good for them, I say. Hooray for the little guy.
There was an interesting op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times the other day, written by Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch of Reason Magazine, about the influence of the tea party on this whole debate. Here's an excerpt:
The mid-term election changed all that, along with the election of Scott Brown to the Senate after Ted Kennedy died. Democrats lost their majority in the House, and within a year, everyone--including Barack Obama--was talking not about spending but about reducing the deficit. It's like they "got religion." As Gillespie and Welch write in their article, "The political winds seem to be blowing away from dominant political tribes and toward individuals who are fed up with bipartisan logjams that produce asinine policies."
This was a victory for the little guy. If Matt Damon would shut up long enough to think about it, he might find himself even siding with the Tea Party.
"Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent" (Proverbs 17:28).
Matt Damon on debt limit: 'I'm so disgusted,' 'it's criminal' the wealthy are not paying more from Nicholas Ballasy on Vimeo.
Matt Damon, who plays Jason Bourne, is a fine actor. I liked him in Good Will Hunting. I liked him in Saving Private Ryan. I liked him in Invictus. He was OK in True Grit. He was very good in Hereafter. He was good in The Adjustment Bureau. He was funny in Ocean's Eleven. And so on. He's obviously a tremendous actor.
But someone should tell Matt Damon to keep his mouth shut when reporters stick a microphone in his face and ask him to weigh in on whatever current event is currently eventing. It was embarrassing listening to him, for instance, weigh in on the debt ceiling debate. Besides the fact that he seemed to be merely parroting his favorite left-leaning politician's talking points, he comes across as ignorant, arrogant, and uninformed. There's a verse in the Proverbs that says something like "even the foolish seem wise when they keep their mouths shut." OK, so I paraphrased, but I know it's there. I'll look it up later.
According to Matt Damon, the tea partiers are "intransigent." I looked it up. "Intransigent" means "characterized by refusal to compromise or to abandon an extreme position or attitude." The tea partiers are intransigent? What about the Democrats in the Senate who told John Boehner that the bill they just voted on in the House was "dead on arrival"? Were they not being intransigent? What about Nancy Pelosi, who strong-armed all the members of her own party to vote against Boehner's bill? Not a single House Democrat voted for that bill. Is this behavior not intransigence, Matt Damon?
Perhaps the tea partiers are not as much intransigent as they are principled. They were elected by their constituents because spending had gotten out of control. The 2010 mid-term election was a complete repudiation of the Democratic-led Congress and the Obama administration. Would Matt Damon have the tea partiers abandon their principles and capitulate to the Democrats' insistence on unrestricted spending?
"The GOP doesn't want to raise taxes," says Matt Damon. "The GOP wants smaller government." Yeah, but Matt, this is not the whole story. My understanding is that the tax rates are actually plenty high (the wealthy pay about 35% or 38% in federal income tax alone, and about 50% of the population pays no income tax at all). If you were paying attention at all, you'd learn that what the GOP wants is to revise the tax code, lower the overall tax rate, eliminate loopholes, and, yes, reduce spending. I heard one congressman say what's needed is not more taxes but more taxpayers. Does Matt Damon really think the United States could pay off its debt, and continue to take care of domestic and foreign needs, simply by raising taxes on 1% of Americans? The logic is just not there. The message of the tea party movement is to reduce spending, fix the tax code, and live within our means. That's not intransigence. If anything, Barack Obama was the intransigent one. He wanted carte blanche to raise the debt ceiling and continue to spend, spend, spend. The tea party locked arms and said, "Whoa, Nellie." Good for them, I say. Hooray for the little guy.
There was an interesting op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times the other day, written by Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch of Reason Magazine, about the influence of the tea party on this whole debate. Here's an excerpt:
Forget President Barack Obama, House Speaker John A. Boehner and the less-interesting-than-their-name-suggests "Gang of Six." When the history of the Great Debt Ceiling Debate of 2011 gets written, the main character will not be a Beltway negotiator, or even a politician.
The only reason Washington is even talking about proposals to slow the growth of government spending, instead of robotically jacking up the nation's credit line for the 11th time in 10 years, is that a large, decentralized group of citizen activists has spent the last few years loudly telling politicians from both parties one consistent message: Restrain your own power or face our wrath. Whether you conceive of the "tea party" as a heroic tamer of bipartisan big government or a diabolical hydra threatening America's very future, its success in precipitating a national debate over fiscal policy should give hope -- and a tactical blueprint -- to anyone who feels marginalized. (Independents' Power Keeps Growing, June 9, 2011).The past few weeks has been fascinating "political theater," as some have called it, but I think there's so much more to this whole debate. To accuse the Tea Party of being "terrorists," to accuse them of "holding America hostage," to accuse them of hoping to drive America "off a cliff," is to miss the bigger picture. What they really did was change the subject. This is no small feat. During the first two years of the Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress the subject has been about spending. It was like they went insane with power, and they madly crammed all their ideals into bills they could actually pass with apparently no concern about how these projects would be paid for.
The mid-term election changed all that, along with the election of Scott Brown to the Senate after Ted Kennedy died. Democrats lost their majority in the House, and within a year, everyone--including Barack Obama--was talking not about spending but about reducing the deficit. It's like they "got religion." As Gillespie and Welch write in their article, "The political winds seem to be blowing away from dominant political tribes and toward individuals who are fed up with bipartisan logjams that produce asinine policies."
This was a victory for the little guy. If Matt Damon would shut up long enough to think about it, he might find himself even siding with the Tea Party.
"Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent" (Proverbs 17:28).
Matt Damon on debt limit: 'I'm so disgusted,' 'it's criminal' the wealthy are not paying more from Nicholas Ballasy on Vimeo.
Dennis Prager is not a Wimp
I was making scrambled eggs this morning and listening to Prager. I'm a new fan. I like listening to him work things out on his radio show. He doesn't come across as someone who knows it all, though he does have strong views, obviously. But he's polite about it. He's among the more reasonable voices on the right. He listens as much as he speaks.
But this morning he did something that won me over completely. If I had been a peripheral admirer of him before, today I was lassoed in for good.
He had been discussing the debt-ceiling bill which had apparently just passed the Senate (having already passed in the House yesterday). He was mostly venting about the rhetoric coming from the Democrats, calling Republicans "terrorists" and "arsonists," among other things, and rightly repudiating the hypocrisy of these politicians who had condemned violent rhetoric allegedly emanating from Republican territory only months ago in the aftermath of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords' shooting (which rhetoric, of course, had virtually nothing to do with her shooting, but that's another story).
Partway through his monologue he said he just learned that President Obama was about to make a speech to the nation about the debt ceiling vote. Should he interrupt his program so his listeners could hear the speech? "The president is now speaking," he told us, "but what does it matter? The president is always speaking and when has it mattered?"
He didn't interrupt his program.
Dennis Prager. My hero.
Prager Gladiator from Brian Godawa on Vimeo.
But this morning he did something that won me over completely. If I had been a peripheral admirer of him before, today I was lassoed in for good.
He had been discussing the debt-ceiling bill which had apparently just passed the Senate (having already passed in the House yesterday). He was mostly venting about the rhetoric coming from the Democrats, calling Republicans "terrorists" and "arsonists," among other things, and rightly repudiating the hypocrisy of these politicians who had condemned violent rhetoric allegedly emanating from Republican territory only months ago in the aftermath of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords' shooting (which rhetoric, of course, had virtually nothing to do with her shooting, but that's another story).
Partway through his monologue he said he just learned that President Obama was about to make a speech to the nation about the debt ceiling vote. Should he interrupt his program so his listeners could hear the speech? "The president is now speaking," he told us, "but what does it matter? The president is always speaking and when has it mattered?"
He didn't interrupt his program.
Dennis Prager. My hero.
Prager Gladiator from Brian Godawa on Vimeo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)