D Tree's Blog
About the Author
Thoughts of the day on News and Current Events
The Senate made me proud when they overcame a GOP filibuster threat and voted to open debate on The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
This is an important step toward the final part of our Health Reform initiative. Once the Senate ends debate, their bill will be voted on by a simple majority. In the final step, the House bill and the Senate bill will be combined and the President will sign it into law.
Over these last few months, we have been blessed to witness the workings of our government in the way our Founders envisioned. We have heard debate from all sectors, including those opposed to this reform.
We have incorporated as many of these viewpoints as we possible can, through our open and vigorous democratic process. From town halls to the steps of the Capitol, we have studied this reform from every conceivable angle.
This reform will cut the deficit, cover the uninsured, and bring down costs for small businesses. And that's just the start, because once we have a healthy population we will start to see savings in other areas as well.
Its times like this that I admire the principles of our Founders so much more. They constructed a system of Checks and Balances, that at times seems inconvenient, but are wholly necessary in the end.
That is one reason I never could understand the Right's aversion to government and belief that it only hurts the individual and society. That belief could not be further from what our Founders believed. They designed our system with those concerns in mind, because they were escaping previous systems in which the King or the Church had too much power.
Today I am proud to see a functional government once again. Democracy can be messy, but its a beautiful mess - and while it may be imperfect, it still works to produce the best result for the times.
Bless the Founders and bless those representatives who work in government because of civic virtue - From here on out, let's try to put our differences aside as Democrats and stand together in our support, so they can pass Health Reform before the end of the year.
This is an important step toward the final part of our Health Reform initiative. Once the Senate ends debate, their bill will be voted on by a simple majority. In the final step, the House bill and the Senate bill will be combined and the President will sign it into law.
Over these last few months, we have been blessed to witness the workings of our government in the way our Founders envisioned. We have heard debate from all sectors, including those opposed to this reform.
We have incorporated as many of these viewpoints as we possible can, through our open and vigorous democratic process. From town halls to the steps of the Capitol, we have studied this reform from every conceivable angle.
This reform will cut the deficit, cover the uninsured, and bring down costs for small businesses. And that's just the start, because once we have a healthy population we will start to see savings in other areas as well.
Its times like this that I admire the principles of our Founders so much more. They constructed a system of Checks and Balances, that at times seems inconvenient, but are wholly necessary in the end.
That is one reason I never could understand the Right's aversion to government and belief that it only hurts the individual and society. That belief could not be further from what our Founders believed. They designed our system with those concerns in mind, because they were escaping previous systems in which the King or the Church had too much power.
Today I am proud to see a functional government once again. Democracy can be messy, but its a beautiful mess - and while it may be imperfect, it still works to produce the best result for the times.
Bless the Founders and bless those representatives who work in government because of civic virtue - From here on out, let's try to put our differences aside as Democrats and stand together in our support, so they can pass Health Reform before the end of the year.
In an interesting story on CNN the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sent a letter to the Senate insisting they include the harsh language of the abortion-banning Stupak Amendment in the health care bill.
And while the news media seems to focus on the Stupak Amendment (even though Federal Funds already are banned from being used in elective abortion, and even though the RNC and other Right Wing organizations like Focus on Family provide abortion coverage to THEIR members), they are not reporting on what the rest of the letter says:
Clearly, the right has no unified set of ideals. I think this letter, while scary in its assumption that a Church can dictate the Law, also shows how split the Right is when it comes to morality.
What do you think? Will other media outlets pick up on the fact the Catholic Church insists on coverage for illegal immigrants? Will the Right embrace this letter, or reject it? I think I know what Joe Wilson would do ;-)
Thanks for listening and thanks for all that you do, fellow Democrats!
Best,
D. Tree
And while the news media seems to focus on the Stupak Amendment (even though Federal Funds already are banned from being used in elective abortion, and even though the RNC and other Right Wing organizations like Focus on Family provide abortion coverage to THEIR members), they are not reporting on what the rest of the letter says:
We support the inclusion of all immigrants, regardless of status, in the insurance exchange. The Senate legislation forbids undocumented immigrants from purchasing health-care coverage in the exchange. Undocumented immigrants should not be barred from purchasing a health insurance plan with their own money.So while on the surface, this letter seems to push the interests of the GOP, we see clearly there is still much fragmentation on the Right.
Clearly, the right has no unified set of ideals. I think this letter, while scary in its assumption that a Church can dictate the Law, also shows how split the Right is when it comes to morality.
What do you think? Will other media outlets pick up on the fact the Catholic Church insists on coverage for illegal immigrants? Will the Right embrace this letter, or reject it? I think I know what Joe Wilson would do ;-)
Thanks for listening and thanks for all that you do, fellow Democrats!
Best,
D. Tree
Clearly there are some posters on this blog in need of information (that is, information provided from sources other than Glenn Beck).
So, perhaps we should start posting little facts to keep the more combative members of this site informed. That way we can help them to either make better arguments, or perhaps we'll even persuade them to our side. Think its impossible? Well, one must remember even the most belligerent trolls come here for a reason: they must be confused or insecure about their own beliefs and they must be curious about ours.
So let this be the first installment of a series of posts sharing information that will hopefully educate us all.
Claim: most of the Founding Fathers were "Deists."
Fact: True
Question: but what exactly is Deism anyway?
People who don't really understand what Deism is like to use it as a way to claim the Founders saw America as a decidedly Christian nation, and that there should be no separation between church and state.
The fact is quite the opposite.
The Founders, inspired by the Philosophes of the Enlightement, believed that religion and laws should absolutely be separate. They also believed religion was a bad influence on societies and was the cause for much war and suffering. They believed in the power of rational thought, laws, and government, to improve the quality of life through scientific progress, rational behavior, and improved social structures (a.k.a. what conservatives lamely call "entitlement programs").
So I hope that clears it up for anyone who is curious or confused about the Founders intentions, and about what Deism means.
Before I go, I'll leave you all with one more definition of Deism
Best,
D. Tree
So, perhaps we should start posting little facts to keep the more combative members of this site informed. That way we can help them to either make better arguments, or perhaps we'll even persuade them to our side. Think its impossible? Well, one must remember even the most belligerent trolls come here for a reason: they must be confused or insecure about their own beliefs and they must be curious about ours.
So let this be the first installment of a series of posts sharing information that will hopefully educate us all.
Claim: most of the Founding Fathers were "Deists."
Fact: True
Question: but what exactly is Deism anyway?
The implications of Isaac Newton's physical theories of mechanics, which treated the universe as if it were a machine (hence the term "mechanics") built by a creating god yet running on its own principles independent of the interference of the creating god (though Newton never denied that God couldn't interefere, just that he didn't), encompassed much more than physical change and movement. Soon other areas of experience came to be regarded as mechanistic and independent of divine interference: social structures, economics, politics, and so forth. Each of these areas could be understood and manipulated solely through rational methods, since they operated through consistent and orderly laws and principlesLINK
The philosophes of mid-eighteenth century France developed this mechanistic view of the universe into a radically revised version of Christianity they called deism. Drawing on Newton's description of the universe as a great clock built by the Creator and then set in motion, the deists among the philosophes argued that everything—physical motion, human physiology, politics, society, economics—had its own set of rational principles established by God which could be understood by human beings solely by means of their reason. This meant that the workings of the human and physical worlds could be understood without having to bring religion, mysticism, or divinity into the explanation. The Deists were not atheists; they simply asserted that everything that concerned the physical and human universes could be comprehended independently of religious concerns or explanations.
People who don't really understand what Deism is like to use it as a way to claim the Founders saw America as a decidedly Christian nation, and that there should be no separation between church and state.
The fact is quite the opposite.
The Founders, inspired by the Philosophes of the Enlightement, believed that religion and laws should absolutely be separate. They also believed religion was a bad influence on societies and was the cause for much war and suffering. They believed in the power of rational thought, laws, and government, to improve the quality of life through scientific progress, rational behavior, and improved social structures (a.k.a. what conservatives lamely call "entitlement programs").
So I hope that clears it up for anyone who is curious or confused about the Founders intentions, and about what Deism means.
Before I go, I'll leave you all with one more definition of Deism
Deism: Deism is a term coined in the philosophe movement and applies to two related ideas: a) religion should be reasonable and should result in the highest moral behavior of its adherents; b) the knowledge of the natural world and the human world has nothing to do whatsoever with religion and should be approached completely free from religious ideas or convictions.Best wishes to my fellow patriotic Democrats, and thanks for all that you do to make the world a better place.
Best,
D. Tree
CNN reported today, "CBO finds Dem bill with public option reduces deficit,"
Just more evidence confirming what we already know: offering a public option to small businesses and the uninsured saves the most money.
The argument for reforming health insurance with a public option is that its better for the pocketbook. This is not about ideology, its about saving the most money and reducing the deficit. Anyone who cars about fiscal responsibility should be 100% on board with this reform.
Spread the word high and low!
And in case you are worried, don't be. We ARE going to pass health care reform. And then we will pass every other piece of overdue legislation one by one.
The Republican Party is done. Things will never return to the way they were. By the time we are done with our work, we will be firmly in the 21st Century - with our eyes on the future, not the past.
A preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office projects that the House Democrats' health care plan that includes a public option would cost $871 billion over 10 years, according to two Democratic sources.
CBO also found that the Democrats' bill reduces the deficit in the first 10 years.
Just more evidence confirming what we already know: offering a public option to small businesses and the uninsured saves the most money.
The argument for reforming health insurance with a public option is that its better for the pocketbook. This is not about ideology, its about saving the most money and reducing the deficit. Anyone who cars about fiscal responsibility should be 100% on board with this reform.
Spread the word high and low!
And in case you are worried, don't be. We ARE going to pass health care reform. And then we will pass every other piece of overdue legislation one by one.
The Republican Party is done. Things will never return to the way they were. By the time we are done with our work, we will be firmly in the 21st Century - with our eyes on the future, not the past.
Right now my primary concern as a Dem is keeping our party together amidst so many different factions.
Our ability to stay together as a party will determine whether or not we accomplish the goals laid out the Democratic Party Platform last year: Health Reform, Energy Reform, Equal Rights, Environmental Reform etc....
To that end, what I'd really like to see is some discussion of "Defining Our Coalition."
The Conservative movement grew and thrived by building what they called a "Triumvirate" composed of 3 major groups within their party: Fiscal Conservatives, Social Conservatives, and Neo Conservatives.
Binding these 3 groups together was an unspoken principle: I will trade my cause with your for the moment, if you will support mine then next time it comes down the road.
Dems have always floundered when we gain power, primarily because we have no discipline between our various groups. To make things even more complicated, we have an even bigger tent than before, with moderate conservatives coming to the Democratic Party in order to support Obama (and perhaps because they didn't want McCain/Palin).
How will we define our new coalition? How we answer this question will be critical to how we do in the mid-term and next Presidential elections.
NEW GROUP: if you are interested in this idea, and if you would like to contribute to the discussion please JOIN the new group Building the Progressive Coalition.
Thanks for everything that you do,
D. Tree
Our ability to stay together as a party will determine whether or not we accomplish the goals laid out the Democratic Party Platform last year: Health Reform, Energy Reform, Equal Rights, Environmental Reform etc....
To that end, what I'd really like to see is some discussion of "Defining Our Coalition."
The Conservative movement grew and thrived by building what they called a "Triumvirate" composed of 3 major groups within their party: Fiscal Conservatives, Social Conservatives, and Neo Conservatives.
Binding these 3 groups together was an unspoken principle: I will trade my cause with your for the moment, if you will support mine then next time it comes down the road.
Dems have always floundered when we gain power, primarily because we have no discipline between our various groups. To make things even more complicated, we have an even bigger tent than before, with moderate conservatives coming to the Democratic Party in order to support Obama (and perhaps because they didn't want McCain/Palin).
How will we define our new coalition? How we answer this question will be critical to how we do in the mid-term and next Presidential elections.
NEW GROUP: if you are interested in this idea, and if you would like to contribute to the discussion please JOIN the new group Building the Progressive Coalition.
Thanks for everything that you do,
D. Tree
You know how the Republicans are always talking about "Death Panels" and such?
And they also talk about how no one is denied care in America "Just go to the Emergency Room," they say.
(p.s. don't worry about being bankrupted, or worse - making the taxpayers pickup your bill).
Well, remember that video that make news last year of a woman dying on the waiting room floor and no one even noticed?
Take a look at that and you will see the kind of health care Republicans are promoting. The are promoting Death Rooms.
That's the kind of care they want for America. They don't think we deserve any better than that. They call that "the best in the world."
Republicans actions reveal their own weaknesses: why haven't they come up with a plan of their own? Because the Status Quo *is* their plan. The like Death Room Health Care just fine.
That's just one reason we need a public option. So people don't have to go to the emergency room in the first place.
A public option will save us so much money.
People argue it will hurt the insurance industry too much - but how else do you propose to cut costs?
The Public Option is the best way to save money, and that's the point isn't it? I could care less about insurance execs losing their multi-million dollar bonuses!
And as for those Republicans who prefer Death Rooms and bankruptcy, they are just useless. And passage of a strong health care reform bill will insure their sound DEFEAT in the next elections.
And they also talk about how no one is denied care in America "Just go to the Emergency Room," they say.
(p.s. don't worry about being bankrupted, or worse - making the taxpayers pickup your bill).
Well, remember that video that make news last year of a woman dying on the waiting room floor and no one even noticed?
Take a look at that and you will see the kind of health care Republicans are promoting. The are promoting Death Rooms.
That's the kind of care they want for America. They don't think we deserve any better than that. They call that "the best in the world."
Republicans actions reveal their own weaknesses: why haven't they come up with a plan of their own? Because the Status Quo *is* their plan. The like Death Room Health Care just fine.
That's just one reason we need a public option. So people don't have to go to the emergency room in the first place.
A public option will save us so much money.
People argue it will hurt the insurance industry too much - but how else do you propose to cut costs?
The Public Option is the best way to save money, and that's the point isn't it? I could care less about insurance execs losing their multi-million dollar bonuses!
And as for those Republicans who prefer Death Rooms and bankruptcy, they are just useless. And passage of a strong health care reform bill will insure their sound DEFEAT in the next elections.
So let me get this straight:
The Economy Magically tanked into the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Of course it had nothing to do with the Republican redistribution of trillions of dollars in surplus to the rich elite, and a trillion dollar war we didn't need to wage.
For 8 years, the GOP told us "be patient, the wealth will Magically trickle down to the rest of you." Of course, for those of us alive during the Reagan years, we already knew "Voodoo Economics" failed before and would fail again.
For 15 years, the GOP claimed the "Free Market" would magically reform Health Insurance on its own. Never mind that 15 years later, Health Care costs us 15% of our GDP and will take up more than 1/3 of our total GDP within 10 Years, making it impossible to fix the deficit unless we change.
Now that we see signs of Economic recovery, the GOP claims it was all going to Magically get better on its own. Of course it has nothing to do with the fact that Progressive economic policies have been proven to work, while Conservative economic policies have been proven to fail.
We've seen this all before. In 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected president - and the economy ruined from the previous 12 years of Republican rule - the GOP critics made the same accusations: "You'll never be able to fix the deficit. You'll only make things worse," they said. 8 years later, a lot of Republicans had egg on their face as our Economy thrived.
Of course, to a Republican all this is because of Magic. Apparently just like they think Climate Change can't be caused by humans, so Conservatives also believe human actions don't cause Economic Change.
For all the "Realism" Republicans like to boast about, they sure do believe in a lot of Magic. Do they also believe in the Tooth Fairy?
Fine. In the meantime, let the rest of us - people who believe in taking the necessary steps to fix our Economy - take care of making all that "Magic" happen. As usual, the Adults have to clean up the mess irresponsible Republican children left behind.
A Majority of Americans voted for our Democratic Platform and our promise to reform Health Insurance, Energy, and more. This is the Will of We The People. Stand Proud to fight this fight - those who stand in the way will regret it in 2010 when they are voted out of office!
Best,
D. Tree
The Economy Magically tanked into the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Of course it had nothing to do with the Republican redistribution of trillions of dollars in surplus to the rich elite, and a trillion dollar war we didn't need to wage.
For 8 years, the GOP told us "be patient, the wealth will Magically trickle down to the rest of you." Of course, for those of us alive during the Reagan years, we already knew "Voodoo Economics" failed before and would fail again.
For 15 years, the GOP claimed the "Free Market" would magically reform Health Insurance on its own. Never mind that 15 years later, Health Care costs us 15% of our GDP and will take up more than 1/3 of our total GDP within 10 Years, making it impossible to fix the deficit unless we change.
Now that we see signs of Economic recovery, the GOP claims it was all going to Magically get better on its own. Of course it has nothing to do with the fact that Progressive economic policies have been proven to work, while Conservative economic policies have been proven to fail.
We've seen this all before. In 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected president - and the economy ruined from the previous 12 years of Republican rule - the GOP critics made the same accusations: "You'll never be able to fix the deficit. You'll only make things worse," they said. 8 years later, a lot of Republicans had egg on their face as our Economy thrived.
Of course, to a Republican all this is because of Magic. Apparently just like they think Climate Change can't be caused by humans, so Conservatives also believe human actions don't cause Economic Change.
For all the "Realism" Republicans like to boast about, they sure do believe in a lot of Magic. Do they also believe in the Tooth Fairy?
Fine. In the meantime, let the rest of us - people who believe in taking the necessary steps to fix our Economy - take care of making all that "Magic" happen. As usual, the Adults have to clean up the mess irresponsible Republican children left behind.
A Majority of Americans voted for our Democratic Platform and our promise to reform Health Insurance, Energy, and more. This is the Will of We The People. Stand Proud to fight this fight - those who stand in the way will regret it in 2010 when they are voted out of office!
Best,
D. Tree
Neo-Cons like Dick Cheney, Michael Hayden and Newt Gingrich are up in arms about the release of legal opinions justifying torture during the Bush administration.
Why are they so enraged? They can't be really that mad about "secrets" when the memos simply detail what reporters have already written countless stories on. There is no national security jeopardy in that.
No, they are worried about something else: Being held accountable for creating those opinions, and being written down in history as the authors. Simply put, they are scared for their own backsides!
President Obama's decision in releasing the memos was as much about protecting and restoring patriotic values to our government as it was about protecting the very CIA officers ordered to carry out torture.
I applaud the President's decision to stand strong for our values, while at the same time granting amnesty to the CIA employees who followed Dick Cheney and his Torture Cabal's heinous orders.
By releasing the memos, and at the same time protecting the CIA officers ordered to carry them out, President Obama is doing something no one in the Bush Administration ever did: he is bringing the focus on those who issued the orders.
Its time to bring accountability back to our government and this is a great step. Its time to hold people like Dick Cheney responsible for the programs he initiated. And this is only the beginning.
Neo-Cons famously like to send subordinates out to do the dirty work. They send troops to die while sitting comfortably in their royal living rooms. They draft opinions on torture thinking they can sacrifice their employees, and avoid responsibility for themselves.
So keep this in mind when you watch how fuming mad Cheney gets from all of this. Remember, for the first time in a decade he may well be worried about being found responsible in all of this.
Put simply, he's worried about protecting his own backside when he thought employees at the CIA would take the fall for him. Not this time, Dick.
Thanks for your time,
D. Tree
CNN reported today on the growing threat of right-wing extremism and neo-Nazism on the rise in America as a result of the election of our first African American president.
Of course anyone paying attention has seen the signs since Obama was nominated, with the FBI reporting a sharp increase in the number of assassination threats from day one of his candidacy.
But some on the far-right either want to sweep this news under the rug, or they are in denial about some of the less savory elements of our society.
conservative radio talk show host Roger Hedgecock was not persuaded. "If the Bush administration had done this to left-wing extremists, it would be all over the press as an obvious trampling of the First Amendment rights of folks and dissent," he told CNN.
Unfortunately, as is often the case, CNN did not do their full research when printing this story, because Bush DID name left-wing groups as a domestic terrorist threat when he was president!
The extreme right-wing likes to think they are perfect citizens, somehow singled out and always the victims, but its a fake victim mentality. Perhaps they are too self-absorbed in their own angst to recognize and understand what is happening around them. The ironic thing for people like Mr. Hedgecock who either ignore the facts or deny them, Bush conveniently left out right-wing extremists on his domestic terror threat report because they have ties to the Republican Party,
The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not include extreme right-wing groups, some of which have ties to the Republican Party, on its list of potential terrorist threats, according to a report last month by the Congressional Quarterly, a publication with high-level sources in Congress and the federal government.Is it all starting to make sense now? The article continues,
"It is remarkable that there is no mention of the anti-abortion, militia, racist and homophobic groups that do not “publicly ... promote nonviolence,” but rather openly advocate the killing of blacks, gays, abortion providers and government workers. Moreover, these groups have acted on their words. Fascist, racist and anti-abortion groups are responsible for nearly all the terrorist attacks in the United States—with the exception of September 11, 2001—over the past two decades. These include the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, which killed 168 people, as well as bombings of abortion clinics and assassination of abortion providers, and multiple cases of individual rampages, like that of Benjamin Smith, who went on a killing spree directed at blacks, Jews and immigrants in 1999."
We must acknowledge that we have elements in our society that are broken and have been for a long time. I accept that believing in free speech means hateful people like this can say whatever they want short of inciting violence. But when they make threats on the President, or on any American citizens or places, they should be taken as seriously as any other terrorist group.
Thanks for your time,
D. Tree 
CNN's Republican strategist Alex Castellanos published a commentary this week in which he claimed the President is not living up to his promise of Change, and - in a remarkably childish "I'm rubber you're glue" moment - went so far as to boast that the 2012 GOP message will be "Change."
Funny, Mr. Castellanos, it appears that the GOP has been obstructing every major effort for Change since Obama was elected. How convenient for you, then, to claim he isn't bringing "Change" about!
That kind of reminds me of a kid stealing a baseball and then claiming he should be captain of the team because no one can hit a home run! Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, eh Mr. Castellanos?
But of course Castellanos is intelligent enough to realize this. Castellanos ("Father of the Modern Attack Ad") is only doing what he does best: making disingenuous arguments.
Let's take a look at some of the other boilerplate arguments Castellanos and other Republicans have been using:
Obama is "Increasing the size of the US Government" - I wonder if Castellanos realizes it was a Republican president who oversaw the last big increase. Take a look at this Wikipedia page on the Federal Budget and you will notice that George Bush oversaw a 38.7 precent (1.2 Trillion Dollars!) increase in spending during his two terms. And most of this tax money spent on an unnecessary war.
Now think about this: While increasing the budget, George Bush redistributed wealth to the richest - the same Wall Street Execs and Bankers we now see getting outrageous bonuses. If these guys are getting all the tax breaks, then who is paying for all the war? The rest of us.
Obama is increasing George Bush's budget by 13.8 percent. This increased spending is due largely to the huge rescue packages for those same bankers and insurance companies who benefited so much for George Bush. You can't blame Obama for getting stuck with George Bush's tab!
Besides deflecting blame from themselves, what republicans are really mad about is not the size of the budget, but what we will be spending it on: Education, Energy Reform, Healthcare Reform, and Jobs. This is the Change the American People demanded in the last election.
Republicans want to use government as a police force and friend of the rich. Dems believe in the government intended by our founders: to maintain a healthy and productive Country. Our founders had no problem with the government they created, why do Republicans seem to hate it so much?
We should expect more of these rubber-stamp Republicans employing the same tactic as Alex Castellanos: stand in the way of Change, then point the finger at President Obama for not living up to his election promises. Simultaneously, they offer no no new ideas, instead preferring to recycle the same ones that got us into this mess.
It appears that the GOP has fallen back on their old ways: when you don't have anything new to offer, repeat the same lies about the opposition until people start to believe it... and that doesn't bode well for the GOP in 2012, because people have become wise to their ways and the electorate is much smarter now than they were in 2000 and 2004.
Good luck MR Castellanos, your party is going to need it!
Funny, Mr. Castellanos, it appears that the GOP has been obstructing every major effort for Change since Obama was elected. How convenient for you, then, to claim he isn't bringing "Change" about!
That kind of reminds me of a kid stealing a baseball and then claiming he should be captain of the team because no one can hit a home run! Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, eh Mr. Castellanos?
But of course Castellanos is intelligent enough to realize this. Castellanos ("Father of the Modern Attack Ad") is only doing what he does best: making disingenuous arguments.
Let's take a look at some of the other boilerplate arguments Castellanos and other Republicans have been using:
Obama is "Increasing the size of the US Government" - I wonder if Castellanos realizes it was a Republican president who oversaw the last big increase. Take a look at this Wikipedia page on the Federal Budget and you will notice that George Bush oversaw a 38.7 precent (1.2 Trillion Dollars!) increase in spending during his two terms. And most of this tax money spent on an unnecessary war.
Now think about this: While increasing the budget, George Bush redistributed wealth to the richest - the same Wall Street Execs and Bankers we now see getting outrageous bonuses. If these guys are getting all the tax breaks, then who is paying for all the war? The rest of us.
Obama is increasing George Bush's budget by 13.8 percent. This increased spending is due largely to the huge rescue packages for those same bankers and insurance companies who benefited so much for George Bush. You can't blame Obama for getting stuck with George Bush's tab!
Besides deflecting blame from themselves, what republicans are really mad about is not the size of the budget, but what we will be spending it on: Education, Energy Reform, Healthcare Reform, and Jobs. This is the Change the American People demanded in the last election.
Republicans want to use government as a police force and friend of the rich. Dems believe in the government intended by our founders: to maintain a healthy and productive Country. Our founders had no problem with the government they created, why do Republicans seem to hate it so much?
We should expect more of these rubber-stamp Republicans employing the same tactic as Alex Castellanos: stand in the way of Change, then point the finger at President Obama for not living up to his election promises. Simultaneously, they offer no no new ideas, instead preferring to recycle the same ones that got us into this mess.
It appears that the GOP has fallen back on their old ways: when you don't have anything new to offer, repeat the same lies about the opposition until people start to believe it... and that doesn't bode well for the GOP in 2012, because people have become wise to their ways and the electorate is much smarter now than they were in 2000 and 2004.
Good luck MR Castellanos, your party is going to need it!
CNN contributor Ruben Navarette posted a wide-ranging piece in which he claimed president Obama is "Flunking" economics.
But to many of the rest of us, it's clear that President Obama is flunking economics. He is trying to do too much at once, and so he is not doing any of it well.
He also claims that anyone who criticizes Obama is simply attacked, a clever rhetorical ploy to avoid criticism to himself.
They won't tolerate any criticism of the president or his administration, finding it easier to simply attack critics. And whatever goes wrong that they can't defend or deflect, they just blame on George W. Bush.
Y'know, there is a point to everything you are saying Mr. Navarrette - but I wonder whether some of the criticism has less to do with the President's economic credentials than with the other many ways in which you disapprove of his performance. The article is less about the ways you would improve Obama's economic proposals and more about the way you apparently dislike him.
Its also strange to hear this claim about defenders of the President in such a negative light. Most people I've heard defending Obama's agenda are pretty smart, and make intelligent arguments.
Is this piece really about Economics? Or is this about something else? Perhaps Navarrette simply does not want to go down the road a large majority of Americans chose when they elected President Obama. To them Obama is neither moving too fast, nor is he trying to do too much! He's doing what he was elected to do.
A large majority still support the wide-ranging economic and political Change the President is trying to bring about. Of course its expensive, and of course its big. We are trying to pull out of one of the worst economic catastrophes in history!
What I don't understand is the growing plethora of people publicly casting doubt, when we are only 2.5 months into the presidency. Bringing Change with a big "C" to Washington is going to be difficult as it is without so many naysayers so early in the process. It's going to take time.
Do we face risks? Yes, but the rewards are high. And frankly we have tried the way of the GOP and it has failed. They are offering the same recycled dishwater plans of tax cuts for the rich but health and education cuts for the poor, and no regulation of Wall Street. The same bad ideas that led us to where we are now.
No we need to do more, and most of the country seems to agree. We need more than the same recycled ideas, we need BIG changes to healthcare, taxes, wall street, and war.
It is time to put progressive ideas to the test.
Thanks for reading,
D. Tree
What remains of the Republican Party has been doing a lot of posing before the camera lately. Merely 2 months into our new president's term and this band of so-called patriots are doing everything they can to prevent our country from recovering from one of the worst disasters of a presidency we've ever seen. Several of these self-serving servants of the rich have even publicly hoped for the president to fail in leading our country out of this financial crisis.
Clearly, these Republicans are still working for the very same special interests that got us into this mess. All that tough talk from the GOP about AIG? Well, how do you think AIG got us into this mess in the first place? Through the actions of these same self-righteous republican stooges of the rich who are now complaining loudly about spending and "responsibility."
Well, let me tell you something about responsibility Mr. Boehner, Ms. Bachmann, Mr. Jindal, and Mr. Cantor: take it for your own actions over the last few years. Your cheerleading of Bush and Cheney for trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in the Iraq war; your irresponsible "look the other way" republican philosophy that allowed Wall St. to destroy our economy so you could pad your pockets with Lobbyist money!
I've been away from blogging since the election, and this is my first post since. Let this serve as an introduction for a new series of posts entitled "Help our Country Move Forward or Get Out of the Way." Over the next few weeks, when I have time to post I'll be using the opportunity to call out these obstructive and negative republicans who are holding back progress and who are standing in the way of fixing our broken economy.
Thanks for your time,
D. Tree
Clearly, these Republicans are still working for the very same special interests that got us into this mess. All that tough talk from the GOP about AIG? Well, how do you think AIG got us into this mess in the first place? Through the actions of these same self-righteous republican stooges of the rich who are now complaining loudly about spending and "responsibility."
Well, let me tell you something about responsibility Mr. Boehner, Ms. Bachmann, Mr. Jindal, and Mr. Cantor: take it for your own actions over the last few years. Your cheerleading of Bush and Cheney for trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in the Iraq war; your irresponsible "look the other way" republican philosophy that allowed Wall St. to destroy our economy so you could pad your pockets with Lobbyist money!
I've been away from blogging since the election, and this is my first post since. Let this serve as an introduction for a new series of posts entitled "Help our Country Move Forward or Get Out of the Way." Over the next few weeks, when I have time to post I'll be using the opportunity to call out these obstructive and negative republicans who are holding back progress and who are standing in the way of fixing our broken economy.
Thanks for your time,
D. Tree
Mike Huckabee's former campaign chairman Ed Rollins published this piece giving advice to John McCain on CNN today (Commentary: Time for John McCain to turn up the heat).
Even though I am a liberal I have respect for Rollins. He is very smart and clear-headed (too bad for McCain he didn't hire Rollins as his Campaign Manager!).
Though I'm not complaining... ;-)
BUT, i do have 3 points to debate Rollins on.
#1, the 90's argument:
#2, the "Change is only a brand" argument:
Furthermore, citing the Gallup Poll above, voters indeed have a good idea what Change means: in this case the definition is a negative one, "Change" means essentially "whatever the Republicans ARE NOT."
#3, the "We don't know him" argument:
After thousands of speeches and 2 personal books how can we NOT know who Barack Obama is? He's been out there showing us who he is for over a year straight now. If we don't know him by now we haven't been listening....
.... and that leads to the major problem John McCain and the GOP have this year: a large portion of public has decided they *do* know who Barack Obama is, and that he is everything he says he is.
And that, "my friends," is the real reason John McCain is losing this election. The voters have decided they *do* know who these two candidates are. One represents the successful fiscal and foreign policies reminiscent of the flourishing 1990's, and the other represents the failed values and policies of the last 8. Is it any wonder that John McCain is behind? And as his campaign turns desperately to distractions and personal Swift-boat-style attacks, voters will only be reminded more of the negative politics of George Bush & Dick Cheney.
If there is anything I agree with Rollins on, it is this:
D. Tree
Even though I am a liberal I have respect for Rollins. He is very smart and clear-headed (too bad for McCain he didn't hire Rollins as his Campaign Manager!).
Though I'm not complaining... ;-)
BUT, i do have 3 points to debate Rollins on.
#1, the 90's argument:
Electing President Obama would eliminate important checks and balances on liberal Democratic power in Washington and that could be a disaster. It was a disaster when Bush and the Republicans controlled it all. It was a disaster when Clinton and the Democrats controlled it all.Claiming the Democratic Congress & President in the 90's was a disaster needs backing up: most people remember the '90s as a period of American success! Also, remember, Republicans took over Congress in the mid-'90's,
#2, the "Change is only a brand" argument:
According to the latest Gallup polling, 87 percent of the country thinks the economic picture is getting worse -- another record. The Republican brand is as damaged as at any time since the Watergate scandal 35 years ago. The country is facing the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression nearly eight decades ago.Rollins continues to argue,
What [Obama's] campaign has done is create a "brand" that represents change. But voters don't know what that means.Rollins criticizes the Change theme of the Democrats as merely a "brand," but at the same time laments the GOP's damaged "brand." The two arguments cancel each other out.
Furthermore, citing the Gallup Poll above, voters indeed have a good idea what Change means: in this case the definition is a negative one, "Change" means essentially "whatever the Republicans ARE NOT."
#3, the "We don't know him" argument:
...we have seen thousands of pictures and heard hundreds of speeches and watched in amazement as his team has put together a brilliant campaign that beat back the Democratic establishment candidate Hillary Clinton. But we still don't know him.Really? Isn't it a bit late to make that argument?
After thousands of speeches and 2 personal books how can we NOT know who Barack Obama is? He's been out there showing us who he is for over a year straight now. If we don't know him by now we haven't been listening....
.... and that leads to the major problem John McCain and the GOP have this year: a large portion of public has decided they *do* know who Barack Obama is, and that he is everything he says he is.
And that, "my friends," is the real reason John McCain is losing this election. The voters have decided they *do* know who these two candidates are. One represents the successful fiscal and foreign policies reminiscent of the flourishing 1990's, and the other represents the failed values and policies of the last 8. Is it any wonder that John McCain is behind? And as his campaign turns desperately to distractions and personal Swift-boat-style attacks, voters will only be reminded more of the negative politics of George Bush & Dick Cheney.
If there is anything I agree with Rollins on, it is this:
From what I hear, the campaign's plans are to put John McCain back in the seat of his A-4 Skyhawk bomber and drop bomb after bomb on Obama to try to convince voters he is unfit to lead.Best,
I think that formula will lead to failure, just as Hillary Clinton's strategy failed.
Personal attacks won't work this late in the campaign and may backfire on McCain
D. Tree
My dear fellow Dems (and Obama strategists if you are listening).
I believe the constant talk of Palin's lack of government experience is a Trojan Horse for us.
A friendly suggestion: let's drop the talk about her experience now!
Why? Well, for some Dems who were along for the Clinton/Obama primary fight, this might seem like a natural line of attack; However - and I'm only speaking for myself - "experience" has never a deciding factor in my decision.
Even though I vowed to support the nominee, no matter who it was, Obama's relatively little Washington experience was actually a plus in my book.
I have never based my presidential decision on the person's resume: I have (as I believe most voters do) based my decisions on the kind of leader and person the candidate is.
In fact, the more experience they have, the more likely I would be to look for someone else to support: voters want to see fresh and new faces. The more we hammer away at her lack of experience, the more we emphasize her "outsider" status... this only works in her favor!
The presidency is not based on a person's resume (even though you can legitimately say "it should be.") No, the person who wins the presidency is the candidate who connects with the voters and inspires them.
So, turn this around and look at it from the Republican perspective: Palin's lack of a Washington resume is as appealing to them as Obama's relative freshness is to many of us.
Are you following me so far?
Furthermore, when we hammer the notion of "experience" being the reason voters should not support Palin, the more we undermine our own candidate, who also does not have many years of Washington experience.
It is working against us, and distracting everyone else from more beneficial lines of advance.
On the experience issue, I think the best thing we can do is let the Republicans fight amongst themselves about Palin's level of experience. This issue is more relevant to their *internal* party politics, than it is to us. They will fight about this issue amongst themselves without our help.
In the meantime, here's what I think we SHOULD focus on: Sarah Palin is *just-like-George-Bush*.
- She is the governor of an oil rich state, just like Bush was Governor of Texas; therefore she will approach Energy policy from the perspective of the Oil and Gas industry.
- She is hardcore evangelical Christian who believes the government should align with her own personal values, rather than reflecting the diverse values of our nation.
- She governs not with nuance, but with brash and bold pronouncements. She will be just like Bush in her foreign policy: all stick and no carrot.
...and finally, the biggest whopper of all:
- Palin believes she is above the law: if she is willing to ignore subpoenas for something as trivial as "Troopergate," how do you think she will deal with much more serious matters?
Governor Palin has only been on the ticket for a few weeks, and already she's abusing he power and refusing to work with her other legitimately-elected counterparts in State government.
This shows us how she will deal with Congress, and the other branches or our federal government. This also shows us how protective she is when it comes to matters of personal job performance and judgment.
We can see from this example, she is the opposite of the REFORM and TRANSPARENCY she claims herself to be.
Just like Bush in 2000 said: I am a "compassionate conservative," will not engage in "nation building," believe in a "humble foreign policy," and will "limit greehouse gases" (yes he said all those things), so to with Governor Palin. She says she will be a reformer, but her actions show her to be more of the same.
The problem with Palin, therefore, is not that she is inexperienced: its that she is just like George Bush.
So rather than focusing on the "experience" issue, I suggest you spread the word that we focus on this instead:
We cannot afford another George Bush in the Whitehouse, and that is exactly what Sarah Palin is.
What's the difference between Sarah Palin and George Bush? LIPSTICK.
Best,
D. Tree
I believe the constant talk of Palin's lack of government experience is a Trojan Horse for us.
A friendly suggestion: let's drop the talk about her experience now!
Why? Well, for some Dems who were along for the Clinton/Obama primary fight, this might seem like a natural line of attack; However - and I'm only speaking for myself - "experience" has never a deciding factor in my decision.
Even though I vowed to support the nominee, no matter who it was, Obama's relatively little Washington experience was actually a plus in my book.
I have never based my presidential decision on the person's resume: I have (as I believe most voters do) based my decisions on the kind of leader and person the candidate is.
In fact, the more experience they have, the more likely I would be to look for someone else to support: voters want to see fresh and new faces. The more we hammer away at her lack of experience, the more we emphasize her "outsider" status... this only works in her favor!
The presidency is not based on a person's resume (even though you can legitimately say "it should be.") No, the person who wins the presidency is the candidate who connects with the voters and inspires them.
So, turn this around and look at it from the Republican perspective: Palin's lack of a Washington resume is as appealing to them as Obama's relative freshness is to many of us.
Are you following me so far?
Furthermore, when we hammer the notion of "experience" being the reason voters should not support Palin, the more we undermine our own candidate, who also does not have many years of Washington experience.
It is working against us, and distracting everyone else from more beneficial lines of advance.
On the experience issue, I think the best thing we can do is let the Republicans fight amongst themselves about Palin's level of experience. This issue is more relevant to their *internal* party politics, than it is to us. They will fight about this issue amongst themselves without our help.
In the meantime, here's what I think we SHOULD focus on: Sarah Palin is *just-like-George-Bush*.
- She is the governor of an oil rich state, just like Bush was Governor of Texas; therefore she will approach Energy policy from the perspective of the Oil and Gas industry.
- She is hardcore evangelical Christian who believes the government should align with her own personal values, rather than reflecting the diverse values of our nation.
- She governs not with nuance, but with brash and bold pronouncements. She will be just like Bush in her foreign policy: all stick and no carrot.
...and finally, the biggest whopper of all:
- Palin believes she is above the law: if she is willing to ignore subpoenas for something as trivial as "Troopergate," how do you think she will deal with much more serious matters?
Governor Palin has only been on the ticket for a few weeks, and already she's abusing he power and refusing to work with her other legitimately-elected counterparts in State government.
This shows us how she will deal with Congress, and the other branches or our federal government. This also shows us how protective she is when it comes to matters of personal job performance and judgment.
We can see from this example, she is the opposite of the REFORM and TRANSPARENCY she claims herself to be.
Just like Bush in 2000 said: I am a "compassionate conservative," will not engage in "nation building," believe in a "humble foreign policy," and will "limit greehouse gases" (yes he said all those things), so to with Governor Palin. She says she will be a reformer, but her actions show her to be more of the same.
The problem with Palin, therefore, is not that she is inexperienced: its that she is just like George Bush.
So rather than focusing on the "experience" issue, I suggest you spread the word that we focus on this instead:
We cannot afford another George Bush in the Whitehouse, and that is exactly what Sarah Palin is.
What's the difference between Sarah Palin and George Bush? LIPSTICK.
Best,
D. Tree
The time is now: as Wall Street implodes, thanks in part to the deregulation and lack of oversight of our Republican administration, John McCain is desperately moving to the left in an effort to show he can handle our volatile economy.
Now all of a sudden, John McCain is worried about average Americans affected by this lack of oversight and deregulation.
Yes, it boggles the mind. He was never worried about it before he had an election to lose! And as he tried to tack to the right during the Republican primaries, he often boasted about how against regulation he is.
Well, not John McCain is singing a different tune and its our opportunity to press the advantage: I'm calling on the Obama team (if you are out there and listening), to immediately question John McCain's commitment to protecting social security.
The GOP has been trying to privatize Social Security for years, despite widespread opposition. Will John McCain join the rest of the American people opposed to gambling our future on Wall Street?
We see what is happening now on Wall Street. The American people need to know this is a preview of what could happen with Social Security: one misstep, and millions of Americans will lose their retirement savings.
Social Security was set up as a trust fund. It is not supposed to be touched. It is not supposed to be gambled, and we are experiencing the reason for that right now: Wall Street is collapsing, and we cannot afford to risk retirement savings by throwing them into the very same volatile environment.
John McCain is caught between a rock and a hard place. Will he continue to deliver his prepared talking points? Will he continue to tell the American people all we need to do is continue the Bush/Cheney tax cuts to stimulate the economy?
There is only one way to find out, and that is to press the advantage and force him into making statements on Social Security. Let him tell us where he stands now, as the financial markets crumble - and then let's call him out on it when he is forced to share the liberal position of "hands off social security."
Best,
D. Tree
Now all of a sudden, John McCain favors regulation. (Much - I'm sure - to the chagrin of free-market fundamentalists in the Republican party).
McCain said in an interview that he didn't want the government to bail
out AIG. "But there are literally millions of people whose retirement,
whose investment, whose insurance were at risk here," he said in an
interview with "Good Morning America" on ABC. "They were going to have their lives destroyed because of the greed and excess and corruption."
Now all of a sudden, John McCain is worried about average Americans affected by this lack of oversight and deregulation.
Yes, it boggles the mind. He was never worried about it before he had an election to lose! And as he tried to tack to the right during the Republican primaries, he often boasted about how against regulation he is.
Well, not John McCain is singing a different tune and its our opportunity to press the advantage: I'm calling on the Obama team (if you are out there and listening), to immediately question John McCain's commitment to protecting social security.
The GOP has been trying to privatize Social Security for years, despite widespread opposition. Will John McCain join the rest of the American people opposed to gambling our future on Wall Street?
We see what is happening now on Wall Street. The American people need to know this is a preview of what could happen with Social Security: one misstep, and millions of Americans will lose their retirement savings.
Social Security was set up as a trust fund. It is not supposed to be touched. It is not supposed to be gambled, and we are experiencing the reason for that right now: Wall Street is collapsing, and we cannot afford to risk retirement savings by throwing them into the very same volatile environment.
John McCain is caught between a rock and a hard place. Will he continue to deliver his prepared talking points? Will he continue to tell the American people all we need to do is continue the Bush/Cheney tax cuts to stimulate the economy?
There is only one way to find out, and that is to press the advantage and force him into making statements on Social Security. Let him tell us where he stands now, as the financial markets crumble - and then let's call him out on it when he is forced to share the liberal position of "hands off social security."
Best,
D. Tree
This is great.
This morning on The View, host Barbara Walters grilled John "the Same" McCain about his claim to reform Washington, and his choice of far-right Sarah "Loony Tunes" Palin as VP.
She also pressed him about his increasingly negative campaign ads.
After a predictably jokey reply (McCain's normal way of getting out of trouble, BTW), Walters wouldn't take his joke as an answer:
And that line about Dems being in control of Congress for the last 2 years is total bull. We need to do away with that tripe: Republicans have controlled Congress for 10 of the last 12 years. Dems don't even control congress, since we only have a majority of 1 and that person is Joe Lieberman (a Democrat in Name Only)
This appearance on The View was a preview of the debates to come. The GOP is oh-so-good at distracting and dividing America, but when it comes to policy guess what? That's right, they are just MORE OF THE SAME.
Best,
D. Tree
This morning on The View, host Barbara Walters grilled John "the Same" McCain about his claim to reform Washington, and his choice of far-right Sarah "Loony Tunes" Palin as VP.
She also pressed him about his increasingly negative campaign ads.
After a predictably jokey reply (McCain's normal way of getting out of trouble, BTW), Walters wouldn't take his joke as an answer:
Walters went on to press Palin's reformist credentials, noting McCain has served in Washington for more than two decades and asking repeatedly, "who's she going to reform, you?"Indeed, Senator McCain who is Palin going to reform? You are talking about the Republican Party, right? That's the only thing I see that urgently needs to be reformed!
McCain began to answer by saying Democrats have held control of Congress for two years, before Walters quickly interrupted: “But tell me who she is going to reform -- we aren't talking about the economy, we're not talking about housing, she was chosen to reform, who is she going to reform?"
"The Democrat Party, the Republican Party, even an independent," McCain said, appearing somewhat frustrated, "She'll reform all of Washington."
"How? What will she do," Walters appearing somewhat exasperated said. "What is she going to reform specifically, senator?"
And that line about Dems being in control of Congress for the last 2 years is total bull. We need to do away with that tripe: Republicans have controlled Congress for 10 of the last 12 years. Dems don't even control congress, since we only have a majority of 1 and that person is Joe Lieberman (a Democrat in Name Only)
This appearance on The View was a preview of the debates to come. The GOP is oh-so-good at distracting and dividing America, but when it comes to policy guess what? That's right, they are just MORE OF THE SAME.
Best,
D. Tree
Ever wonder why John "The Same" McCain, Sarah "Loony Tunes" Palin, and the rest of the far-right politicos on their team keep talking so tough about Russia?
For me, there are two rather simple answers. Why haven't we seen anyone talking about this?
#1. Iraq is old news, the GOP knows that over 70% of America wants out. Therefore they cannot use the fear of Iraq to win this election, so they need a new bogeyman and Russia's problems with Georgia present the perfect opportunity!
Once again, the GOP is playing politics with world events in the hope of scaring people into voting for them.
#2. A conflict with Russia would not only distract us from Iraq, it would also serve the purpose of making use forget about it. Make no mistake, John McCain and George Bush want a PERMANENT OCCUPATION OF IRAQ. That talk about 50 years? John McCain means it! So let's not allow the media to buy into this farce that he will change course in Iraq. John McCain will continue the Bush policy in Iraq, because he wants us to STAY PERMANENTLY.
This is the message we need to repeat: We need to focus on John McCain, not so much on the mass distraction of Sarah Palin - she is only on the ticket in an attempt to divide our country and to buy John McCain time.
John McCain knows he can't win on the issues, so his Rovian campaign managers want to distract you and divide you until election day. We cannot allow this to happen!
Its time to focus on the issues, because if we do the Republican Party is doomed: the American People know very well that the GOP has failed to secure our country both militarily and economically. We just need to remind them about it every chance we get.
And we also need to call John McCain out on this Iraq policy: HOW is it different from president Bush? John McCain wants us to stay in Iraq permanently. He wants to stoke fears about Russia so we will forget about Iraq!
Best,
D. Tree
For me, there are two rather simple answers. Why haven't we seen anyone talking about this?
#1. Iraq is old news, the GOP knows that over 70% of America wants out. Therefore they cannot use the fear of Iraq to win this election, so they need a new bogeyman and Russia's problems with Georgia present the perfect opportunity!
Once again, the GOP is playing politics with world events in the hope of scaring people into voting for them.
#2. A conflict with Russia would not only distract us from Iraq, it would also serve the purpose of making use forget about it. Make no mistake, John McCain and George Bush want a PERMANENT OCCUPATION OF IRAQ. That talk about 50 years? John McCain means it! So let's not allow the media to buy into this farce that he will change course in Iraq. John McCain will continue the Bush policy in Iraq, because he wants us to STAY PERMANENTLY.
This is the message we need to repeat: We need to focus on John McCain, not so much on the mass distraction of Sarah Palin - she is only on the ticket in an attempt to divide our country and to buy John McCain time.
John McCain knows he can't win on the issues, so his Rovian campaign managers want to distract you and divide you until election day. We cannot allow this to happen!
Its time to focus on the issues, because if we do the Republican Party is doomed: the American People know very well that the GOP has failed to secure our country both militarily and economically. We just need to remind them about it every chance we get.
And we also need to call John McCain out on this Iraq policy: HOW is it different from president Bush? John McCain wants us to stay in Iraq permanently. He wants to stoke fears about Russia so we will forget about Iraq!
Best,
D. Tree
As I walk through the streets of New york today, an air of melancholy hangs overhead like gray clouds, diminishing the sunlight and dimming one's vision.
Here, at the epicenter of the attacks the mood is somber. Faces are drawn. No one is smiling.
No doubt, people are in mourning - not just in New York - but throughout the country; for - as George Lakoff so eloquently put it in his groundbreaking work Don't Think of An Elephant
- when those planes hit the Towers, it was experienced collectively as a bullet going through our heads.
We are in mourning. But politics still permeate this day.
Hand written signs at my local bagel shop proclaim the now common adage: "We will never forget."
I wonder at this phrase sometimes: we will never forget what? Those who were killed? Or those who committed this crime?
7 years later, it seems painfully clear someone in our government has forgotten both. Read More »
Here, at the epicenter of the attacks the mood is somber. Faces are drawn. No one is smiling.
No doubt, people are in mourning - not just in New York - but throughout the country; for - as George Lakoff so eloquently put it in his groundbreaking work Don't Think of An Elephant
- when those planes hit the Towers, it was experienced collectively as a bullet going through our heads.We are in mourning. But politics still permeate this day.
Hand written signs at my local bagel shop proclaim the now common adage: "We will never forget."
I wonder at this phrase sometimes: we will never forget what? Those who were killed? Or those who committed this crime?
7 years later, it seems painfully clear someone in our government has forgotten both. Read More »
Posts By Month
Posts
