A couple of quick notes.
1. Be sure to visit Michael's latest post in which he points to a new article which illustrates the failure of the Iraq Invasion to decrease terrorism.
According to the Mother Jones article, fatal terrorist attacks committed by jiadists has increased sevenfold since the Iraq Invasion.
This is not news to most of us, who recognized (and loudly pointed out) BEFORE the invasion even began that such an effort could not be part of the "war on terrorism" because Iraq had nothing significant to do with terrorism in the first place and because an unprovoked attack against a sovereign nation to try to kill terrorists could only make things worse.
Congratulations to Team Bush for being determined to show We, the People (remember the unprecedented millions worldwide who rallied before the war to stop it?) to be sadly correct. Sometimes, the majority is right and the People ought to be heeded.
2. Speaking of the People, Barack Obama and George W Bush are both coming to Louisville to speak to Us. Obama's visit is a fundraiser for his campaign and Bush's is a fundraiser for Sen. Mitch McConnell's doomed campaign.
With Bush's tickets costing $2000 and Obama's costing $25, we can see pretty well which People each camp respectively represents.
24 comments:
With Bush's tickets costing $2000 and Obama's costing $25, we can see pretty well which People each camp respectively represents.
It's disingenuous barbs like this that only serve to increase animosity between partisan camps, but perhaps that's what you're going for?
Why do I say disingenuous? Obama clearly has no problem attending fund-raising events that cater only to the wealthy, a la the Geffen event, just the same as any other politician who could get away with charging thousands per plate. This is well known yet your post tries to intimate that Bush is the only one doing so and for nefarious reasons.
An entirely legitimate flag to raise there, Eben. Thanks. But allow me to elaborate why I think my statement is deserved:
The only times that Bush has been in my town has been to attend functions for the wealthy. It seems to be a an ongoing theme for him.
I am not wealth-bashing, but I do want to set my camp with the down and out and any politician (or group of policymakers) who seem to cater to one segment of predominantly wealthy and powerful (oil interests, energy interests, military complex, etc) will raise my suspicions everytime.
As I think ought to for everyone.
If Obama were to begin to make a habit of it, I'd be more suspicious of him, as well. I've not heard it to be a problem for Obama, but have witnessed it first hand being a problem for the current administration.
[Allow me to re-elaborate: I should have said - "The majority of times that Bush has been in my town..." as I don't know if he's attended fundraisers catering to the wealthy every single time.]
Obama will be in Austin, Texas tomorrow. My daughter and I are going to see him. Cost: Free.
The Mother Jones article isn't news to the troops who have been sent over there time and time again either. Dissatisfaction among the ranks is growing rapidly. Unfortunately many, like my son, refuse to talk about it. When they leave the military and are free to talk, they just want to forget about it and go on with their lives.
How cool, Marty. He'll be here this Sunday, so I guess he's going from your house to mine.
So when you say making a habit of it, you mean that there's a certain level of catering to the rich that you're comfortable with in candidates that you support. It's a matter of degree for you.
That view is typical of partisans on either side. They will excuse behavior from politicians on their side that they'll criticize the opponents for all day long claiming their opponent is doing it to a greater degree
I'm saying I don't have a problem with wealth people and if candidates want to talk to them as part of the constituency and even raise money from them, I'm okay with that. I don't want to disenfranchise the wealthy.
But, when one seems to get their input on energy, infrastructure, economic and foreign policies exclusively from the wealthy and those who stand to profit from those policies, then I think we all should have a problem with it.
I haven't seen Obama do that. I have seen Bush do it.
Are you supportive of folk from the coal industry writing environmental policy in KY? I'm opposed to it.
Are you supportive of petrol-industry folk writing our national energy policy? I'm opposed to it.
Are you supportive of all folk being equal, but rich folk being more equal than others? I'm opposed to it.
Instead of just criticizing, Eben, tell me where you stand on these issues. I'd assume you're a decent fella and would stand with me on them. Will you?
The Dems let trial lawyers write their tort legislation.
They let Labor Unions write their labor laws.
They let wealthy 'not-in-my-backyard' enviro's write their environment laws.
They let big business write their immigration laws.
I'm supportive of less government. These politicos in D.C., of either party, are supportive of only one thing: that which garners them more power and keeps them in charge of it.
Thanks for the shout-out, Dan.
Since it has already been slammed on my blog as a "left wing study," I should point out that Mother Jones, a political magazine which IS left of the U.S. center (named after a radical Labor leader whose motto was "pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living!", is only REPORTING this study. The study was carried out by New York University and the Rand Corporation, the latter being well-known for undertaking much research for the military. So, the study is hardly "left wing." It is what it is.
So, if preemptive wars (the Bush Doctrine) are counterproductive in resisting terrorism (a real problem needing real solutions), then we need to look at what DOES work. I link to several studies on that in the post on my blog.
Both Eben and Dan raise legit points about politicians and fundraising. If we had publicly financed campaigns with free air time, we could eliminate the need for any catering to the rich. Under our current system, all politicians will need to seek some deep pockets. Much as I admire Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) refusal to take corporate money, for instance, it is hampering his campaign. So, yes, Obama (and the other progressives Edwards and Richardson) will attend wealthy fundraisers. They'll have to if they want to compete.
But candidates who want to be connected to grassroots America will also try to have MORE events that are open to all--and will in many and various ways show their solidarity with the poor, working, and middle classes.
George W. Bush rejected this from before he became Texas gov. In the 2000 campaign he opened remarks to a wealthy crowd in New York by saying, "This is quite a crowd: the Haves and the Have Mores. Some call you an elite. I call you my base." That was meant to be humorous, but his policies since being Supreme Court Selected for the White House have shown that he wasn't kidding.
Eben said:
"The Dems let trial lawyers write their tort legislation."
Probably a bad idea if it happens (I'm not sure how much it has happened and I haven't heard about Obama doing it), tort legislation should probably be written with input from all "sides."
"They let Labor Unions write their labor laws."
Well, that would make more sense than having someone who is ANTI-union writing the laws as Bush has had. But again, probably should be written with input from all sides. To the degree that Dems participate in such one-sidedness, I'd be opposed to it.
They let wealthy 'not-in-my-backyard' enviro's write their environment laws.
Same deal. I don't know that this is true at all, but it would make more sense to have environmentalists writing environmental laws than it would be to have anti-environmentalists and anti-science types writing them. Input from all sides would be practical, being especially wary of those whose livelihoods are dependent upon you creating policy to suit them.
You get the idea. I support input from many different legitimate sources (I don't want EVERYONE included for the sake of "balance," though. I don't want the nuts from the Westboro church offering input about laws regarding homosexuals, for instance or flat-earthers writing our science policies - all in an effort to be inclusive).
But we should always be cautious about placing too much trust in those with money to be made in charge of policies overseeing there activity. We don't want to place foxes in charge of the chicken coop in other words.
Too often, that has been the case with Bush.
Finally, Eben said:
"I'm supportive of less government"
Me, I'm supportive of SMART gov't. I'm not in favor of "throwing money" at problems, but neither am I in favor of total laissez faire when a Hands Off policy results in costing us more or in unsustainable practices.
I'm not much in favor of publicly financed campaigns, but I am all for transparency in who funds what campaign.
The class issue doesn't bother me as much, as their can be greed on both sides. Personally, I don't think wanting to be taxed 35% instead of 38% constitutes greed, but some people differ. Why is a rich person greedy for wanting lower taxes, yet a poor person is not greedy for wanting more of other people's money? I understand the poor have basic needs, but at what point is enough enough when it comes to taxes?
At what point is enough enough when it comes to taxes? When everyone has meaningful work at wages/salary that will support a family, everyone has guaranteed healthcare, retirement, clean air, water, good schools--a decent society. If that means fewer billionaires, so be it. No one is entitled to be rich. Everyone is entitled to have enough for life with purpose.
I plan to blog in the near future on growing up class conscious and why we are already in a class war (declared by the rich) that I fully intend to win.
Everyone is entitled to have enough for life with purpose.
Be interested to hear where you believe this entitlement comes from.
I guess another thing is the term "People", and the way it is used it indicates different groups of "People" with respect to the different classes. Maybe it was just the idealistic way in which I was raised, but I never believed I was destined to be part of either(any) group. I always believed that if I wanted to be rich, I could be, that I wasn't confined to be in the station I was born in. I am not saying I want to be rich, or that is my goal, but I believe if it was I could easily attain it. I think too many people look at the other group as some class that they can never attain. The rich is not some "other" to me, if I got in the right line of work and invested wisely, I could be there. I could be really aggressive about becoming rich, but I'm only going to take the path God has given me, and if riches follow, then great, and I pray that I'll spend the money wisely and help other people out. But the rich is far from some distant other. And I think some would agree. The gap between rich and poor is said to be increasing, but many studies show that the poor of yesterday are doing much better today, and some of the rich of yesterday are doing worse today.
People get that "entitlement" because they are made in God's image and therefore deserve human dignity.
Wealth is evil.
It's interesting that you corrolate wealth with dignity and that it has something to do with God and entitlements. If I remember my Bible correctly, we're not entitled to much of anything except maybe death and condemnation unless we turn to Christ for salvation. And even then we're only entitled to a relationship with Christ and a trip to heaven.
It's also interesting that you believe an inanimate object, wealth, can be evil. Especially in light of the many scriptures where God says he wishes to bless us to abundance. Do you believe Solomon or Job were evil?
I think it would also be hard to argue that the those largely classified as poor in this nation live undignified lives. They live a more dignified life than the majority of the people on this planet.
Been busy. A quick comment on Michael's last note:
Overconsumption has evil results. "Wealth" is a broad term that I'm not sure I would classify as evil.
We've been given God's riches in Christ. We've a wealth of friendships and community. These are a good sort of wealth.
I like Ched Myers' comments in Sabbath Economics, where he says something to the effect that God is a God of plenty. God is a God of Abundance. God's creation is a creation of abundance.
Wealth becomes a problem when we move from the economy of Enough to an economy of overconsumption.
Or something like that...
I was, of course, engaging in outrageous hyperbole in saying "wealth is evil." I was being deliberately provocative rather than defining terms, being careful with language, etc. While admitting that here, I think I'll let others continue to interact with the original statement, "wealth is evil," before nuancing any.
(Sigh!)
Daddio is no doubt sighing because I deleted two of his posts where he was only name-calling ("elitist!") and not really adding anything to the conversation. I don't know that I've ever deleted anyone else, but I reckon he caught me on a day where I wasn't willing to suffer pointless and childish name-calling.
He's welcome to contribute something on the topic of the post.
I have now posted my "Growing Up Class Conscious" rant on my site, Levellers. http://anabaptist418.blogspot.com/ I will, in the future, blog more reasoned arguments about wealth, poverty, and economic justice. This is personal narrative and a "rant" at things long building up--not much nuance.
doo doo head, poopy face, stinkbreath, nerd
just doing my part to contribute.
Thank you kindly, Mr. Chance. I shall ponder your pearls of wisdom in my heart and see what gems of grace they produce in my life.
Post a Comment