Professor Cynthia Tucker and Marjorie
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Friday, February 17, 2012
Springsteen Discusses the Angry Patriotism at the Heart of 'Wrecking Ball'
From The Guardian
Bruce Springsteen: 'What was done to my country was un-American'. The Boss explains why there is a critical, questioning and angry patriotism at the heart of his new album Wrecking Ball.
At a Paris press conference on Thursday night, Bruce Springsteen was asked whether he was advocating an armed uprising in America. He laughed at the idea, but that the question was even posed at all gives you some idea of the fury of his new album Wrecking Ball.
Indeed, it is as angry a cry from the belly of a wounded America as has been heard since the dustbowl and Woody Guthrie, a thundering blow of New Jersey pig iron down on the heads of Wall Street and all who have sold his country down the swanny. Springsteen has gone to the great American canon for ammunition, borrowing from folk, civil war anthems, Irish rebel songs and gospel. The result is a howl of pain and disbelief as visceral as anything he has ever produced, that segues into a search for redemption: "Hold tight to your anger/ And don't fall to your fears … Bring on your wrecking ball."
"I have spent my life judging the distance between American reality and the American dream," Springsteen told the conference, where the album was aired for the first time. It was written, he claimed, not just out of fury but out of patriotism, a patriotism traduced.
"What was done to our country was wrong and unpatriotic and un-American and nobody has been held to account," he later told the Guardian. "There is a real patriotism underneath the best of my music but it is a critical, questioning and often angry patriotism."
The tone is set from the start with the big, bombastic We Take Care of Our Own – a Born in the USA for our times – where the most sacred shibboleth of Ordinary Joe America is sung with mocking irony through clenched teeth by a heart that still wants it to be true. "From the shotgun shack to the Superdome/ There ain't no help, the cavalry stayed home." It is a typical Springsteen appeal to a common decency beyond the civil war he sees sapping America.
Like Born in the USA, which got pressed into service as the anthem of the first Gulf war, he's aware it has the potential to be hijacked by the angry right. But Springsteen says that to anyone who cares to listen to the lyrics, the message is clear.
"A big promise has been broken. You can't have a United States if you are telling some folks that they can't get on the train. There is a cracking point where a society collapses. You can't have a civilisation where something is factionalised like this."
Springsteen plunges into darker, richer musical landscapes in a sequence of breath-taking protest songs – Easy Money, Shackled and Drawn, Jack of All Trades, the scarily bellicose Death to My Hometown and This Depression with Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine – before the album turns on Wrecking Ball in search of some spiritual path out of the mess the US is in.
But it is also an ode to hard work, to the dignity it brings, and the blue-collar values he claims made America:
"Freedom son's a dirty shirt
The sun on my face and my shovel in the dirt
A shovel in the dirt keeps the devil gone
I woke up this morning shackled and drawn"
Asked where the fury of this lyric had come from, he talks movingly of his father who had been "emasculated by losing his job" in the 70s and never recovered from the damage to his pride. "Unemployment is a really devastating thing. I know the damage it does to families. Growing up in that house there were things you couldn't say. It was a minefield. My mother was the breadwinner. She was steadfast and relentless and I took that from her.
"Pessimism and optimism are slammed up against each other in my records, the tension between them is where it's all at, it's what lights the fire."
Hope is there. But it is a tempered hope. Land of Hope and Dreams is a plea for America's newest immigrants, those risking their lives to ride the trains up from central America. "This train … carries saints and sinners … losers and winners … whores and gamblers … Dreams will not be thwarted … Faith will be rewarded."
Springsteen, 62, says he is not afraid of how the album will be received in election-year America: "The temper has changed. And people on the streets did it. Occupy Wall Street changed the national conversation – the Tea Party had set it for a while. The first three years of Obama were under them.
"Previous to Occupy Wall Street, there was no push back at all saying this was outrageous – a basic theft that struck at the heart of what America was about, a complete disregard for the American sense of history and community … In Easy Money the guy is going out to kill and rob, just like the robbery spree that has occurred at the top of the pyramid – he's imitating the guys on Wall Street. An enormous fault line cracked the American system right open whose repercussion we are only starting to be feel.
"Nobody had talked about income inequality in America for decades – apart from John Edwards – but no one was listening. But now you have Newt Gingrich talking about 'vulture capitalism' – Newt Gingrich! – that would not have happened without Occupy Wall Street."
Having previously backed Obama, Springsteen says he would prefer to stay on the sidelines this time. "I don't write for one side of the street … But the Bush years were so horrific you could not just sit around. It was such a blatant disaster. I campaigned for Kerry and Obama, and I am glad I did. But normally I would prefer to stay on the sidelines. The artist is supposed to be the canary in the cage."
Obama hasn't done bad, Springsteen says. "He kept General Motors alive, he got through healthcare – though not the public system I would have wanted – he killed Osama Bin Laden, and he brought sanity to the top level of government. But big business still has too much say in government and there has not been as many middle- or working-class voices in the administration as I expected. I thought Guantanamo would have been closed but now, but he got us out of Iraq and I guess we will soon be out of Afghanistan."
The album is the last on which Clarence Clemons, the legendary saxophonist from the E Street Band, played on before he died last year. "When the sax comes up on Land of Hope and Dreams," Springsteen says, "it's a lovely moment for me."
• Wrecking Ball is released on 5 March via Columbia.
Bruce Springsteen: 'What was done to my country was un-American'. The Boss explains why there is a critical, questioning and angry patriotism at the heart of his new album Wrecking Ball.
• Wrecking Ball is released on 5 March via Columbia.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Santorum's Nightmare Vision for America
I thought this was a very good look at Rick Santorum's vision for America. Be afraid.
By Lawrence Davidson via Alternet
Santorum's vision for America would combine a moralistic theocracy with free-market capitalism and perpetual war.
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum is a Republican presidential candidate who is fast coming to the fore. He won the Republican caucuses in Iowa (albeit by only 34 votes) in early January and in February won contests in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota. So, as the question goes, who is this guy? Santorum is a self-styled “true conservative,” right-wing, Christian fundamentalist of Catholic background. In 2005,Time Magazine called him “one of America’s 25 most influential evangelicals.” That is still certainly true today. Santorum believes that religious values (at least his religious values) should play a large role in shaping government policies. For those not sure what this means, Santorum has a list of examples:
1. Santorum wants “a blanket ban on abortions.” The fact that the U.S. had this very same prohibition up until 1973, and the result was black-market abortions that killed not only fetuses by also lots of pregnant women, seems to have escaped the former senator’s attention.
2. Santorum wants a ban on gay marriages. He would likely bring back antiquated anti-sodomy laws as well. “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have a right to bigamy, you have a right to polygamy, you have a right to incest, you have a right to adultery. You have a right to anything.” When Santorum gets on the subject of homosexuality, one can’t help noting a tinge of hysteria, along with a generous helping of illogic and exaggeration. Santorum would probably try to ban other related activities, such as the use of contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. He certainly wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood. What this adds up to is that when Santorum says religious values should play a greater role in government policy, he means that there should be lots of laws regulating your personal life, particularly your sex life. This is pretty typical of religious fundamentalists, particularly American Christian ones. They just can’t leave other people’s bedrooms alone.
The Economist
On the economic side of the ledger, Rick Santorum takes a slash-and-burn approach.
1. There should be a $5 trillion cut in the federal budget (but defense spending would be held at present levels). In order to realize this, Santorum would do away with, greatly reduce or freeze the Environmental Protection Agency, healthcare reform and Medicaid, subsidies for housing, food stamps, job training, energy and education. He would “reform” Medicare and Social Security in draconian fashion and pass a balanced budget amendment. One might agree that the present U.S. federal deficit verges on the insane and still find Santorum’s cure equally crazy. For instance, just about holding exempt defense and “security” spending — when combined they make up 20 percent of the budget and are notorious for waste, redundancy and corruption — makes no sense.
2. According to Santorum, there should be an elimination of financial and other regulatory laws. This is true insanity. Regulation is the only thing that makes capitalism an enduring system. Eliminate it and you have financial crashes, dangerous sweatshop working conditions, falling wages and benefits, runaway corruption and theft and, ultimately, depression. That Santorum cannot understand this suggests that he has substituted a discredited free-market ideology for history.
3. Santorum says that as a nation Americans should “live within our means” and if we do so “future generations will have a brighter future unburdened by oppressive debt and high taxation.” These are fine slogans, but in practice they probably spell eventual revolution in the streets. If you reduce the debt by slashing expenditures Santorum-style while refusing to increase taxes, you will eliminate almost all of society’s safety nets. That means increasing poverty and all its attendant miseries. You will also make infrastructure maintenance much more difficult. Someone should tell Mr. Santorum that the U.S. population is not over-taxed. Out of 62 industrialized countries, the U.S. ranks 28th in terms of its income tax rates. It is, of course, possible to over-tax a people to ruination. It is also possible to under-tax a people to ruination – to tax so low that you can’t assist the less fortunate or fix the pot holes and keep the bridges from collapsing. If Santorum was to get his way the nation would not have his predicted “brighter future.” More likely it would be a future of more poor and more pot holes. That might well lead to disillusionment with the capitalist system among both the lower- and middle-classes. (Personally, I have no objection to such growing disillusionment. I would, however, like to minimize the suffering and violence that surely goes along with it.)
Foreign Policy
When it comes to foreign policy, Santorum is a warmonger plain and simple.
1. As to Iran, Santorum would “work with Israel to determine the proper military response needed” to put a end to that country’s nuclear weapons program. It seems not to matter to the former senator that every U.S. intelligence agency that has ever investigated this issue has determined that there is no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
2. As to Syria, Santorum would go after the strongman (Bashar al-Assad) “covertly or otherwise.” Does that mean that Santorum act-alikes at the helm of other nations could use the same logic to go after a U.S. president?
3. As to Iraq, Santorum would “continue to stabilize Iraq” presumably by re-invading the country. This belies the fact that it was the American policy of draconian sanctions and ultimate invasion that destabilized Iraq in the first place.
4. As to Afghanistan, Santorum would set no time lines or limit resources “in the war effort.” Yet, if al-Qaeda is as weakened as Washington claims, there seems to be little point in more war. If a stable and competent Taliban government reappears in Afghanistan, it is unlikely to invite future attacks by providing a haven for terrorist organizations. On the other hand, this on-going war is almost certainly providing a breeding ground for more terrorists.
5. As to Islam, Santorum believes it is a religion that is “stuck in the seventh century.” With rare exception, such as Saudi Wahhabism, this is untrue. Actually, it is Rick Santorum who is stuck in the past. It is he who, like some political ecclesiastic, wants to regulate everyone else’s lives. If Mr. Santorum simply changed hats – from Christian to Islamic – he could be a Saudi cleric. Compared to people like him, most Muslims are much more tolerant and contemporary.
6. As to Israel, Santorum takes an uncritically approving position on the Zionist state. This makes sense when you realize that Israel is essentially a religious state – a nation on the brink of becoming a theocracy, which is where Santorum presumably would like to steer the United States.
Rick Santorum is a religious ideologue. He wants to turn the U.S. into a “faith-based” Christian country through the imposition of those “family values” he personally has decided are God-given. He believes that America’s Founding Fathers would agree because they were, supposedly, men of faith just like him.
Quoting the Declaration of Independence to prove this point, Santorum reminds us that it says that people “are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” From this he concludes that rights come from God and not from government. Government’s role is simply to implement and protect those divine rights. The truth is that the man who penned the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, was nothing like Rick Santorum. He wasn’t even a Christian. He was a Deist. Jefferson’s phrasing was meant to impress a wider world in an age when religion was interpreted in a more literal fashion than it is in today’s United States. Jefferson certainly did not mean for Americans to take the notion of God-given inalienable rights literally. After all, he was a slave-holder.
The number of Americans who respond positively to Rick Santorum’s message is probably in the range of 20 percent. In terms of the Republican Party, they probably represent about one-third of the membership. Being ideologically driven, these people are motivated to vote. And, that is significant in a nation where voting turnout is traditionally low.
So, Rick Santorum is certainly representative of a politically active part of the U.S. population – a dangerous, intolerant, noisy, in-your-face part. If we let him and his followers get their way, the result will be ever greater divisiveness and decline at home, and war abroad. That is a choice for the rest of us.
By Lawrence Davidson via Alternet
Santorum's vision for America would combine a moralistic theocracy with free-market capitalism and perpetual war.
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum is a Republican presidential candidate who is fast coming to the fore. He won the Republican caucuses in Iowa (albeit by only 34 votes) in early January and in February won contests in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota. So, as the question goes, who is this guy? Santorum is a self-styled “true conservative,” right-wing, Christian fundamentalist of Catholic background. In 2005,Time Magazine called him “one of America’s 25 most influential evangelicals.” That is still certainly true today. Santorum believes that religious values (at least his religious values) should play a large role in shaping government policies. For those not sure what this means, Santorum has a list of examples:
1. Santorum wants “a blanket ban on abortions.” The fact that the U.S. had this very same prohibition up until 1973, and the result was black-market abortions that killed not only fetuses by also lots of pregnant women, seems to have escaped the former senator’s attention.
2. Santorum wants a ban on gay marriages. He would likely bring back antiquated anti-sodomy laws as well. “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have a right to bigamy, you have a right to polygamy, you have a right to incest, you have a right to adultery. You have a right to anything.” When Santorum gets on the subject of homosexuality, one can’t help noting a tinge of hysteria, along with a generous helping of illogic and exaggeration. Santorum would probably try to ban other related activities, such as the use of contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. He certainly wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood. What this adds up to is that when Santorum says religious values should play a greater role in government policy, he means that there should be lots of laws regulating your personal life, particularly your sex life. This is pretty typical of religious fundamentalists, particularly American Christian ones. They just can’t leave other people’s bedrooms alone.
The Economist
On the economic side of the ledger, Rick Santorum takes a slash-and-burn approach.
1. There should be a $5 trillion cut in the federal budget (but defense spending would be held at present levels). In order to realize this, Santorum would do away with, greatly reduce or freeze the Environmental Protection Agency, healthcare reform and Medicaid, subsidies for housing, food stamps, job training, energy and education. He would “reform” Medicare and Social Security in draconian fashion and pass a balanced budget amendment. One might agree that the present U.S. federal deficit verges on the insane and still find Santorum’s cure equally crazy. For instance, just about holding exempt defense and “security” spending — when combined they make up 20 percent of the budget and are notorious for waste, redundancy and corruption — makes no sense.
2. According to Santorum, there should be an elimination of financial and other regulatory laws. This is true insanity. Regulation is the only thing that makes capitalism an enduring system. Eliminate it and you have financial crashes, dangerous sweatshop working conditions, falling wages and benefits, runaway corruption and theft and, ultimately, depression. That Santorum cannot understand this suggests that he has substituted a discredited free-market ideology for history.
3. Santorum says that as a nation Americans should “live within our means” and if we do so “future generations will have a brighter future unburdened by oppressive debt and high taxation.” These are fine slogans, but in practice they probably spell eventual revolution in the streets. If you reduce the debt by slashing expenditures Santorum-style while refusing to increase taxes, you will eliminate almost all of society’s safety nets. That means increasing poverty and all its attendant miseries. You will also make infrastructure maintenance much more difficult. Someone should tell Mr. Santorum that the U.S. population is not over-taxed. Out of 62 industrialized countries, the U.S. ranks 28th in terms of its income tax rates. It is, of course, possible to over-tax a people to ruination. It is also possible to under-tax a people to ruination – to tax so low that you can’t assist the less fortunate or fix the pot holes and keep the bridges from collapsing. If Santorum was to get his way the nation would not have his predicted “brighter future.” More likely it would be a future of more poor and more pot holes. That might well lead to disillusionment with the capitalist system among both the lower- and middle-classes. (Personally, I have no objection to such growing disillusionment. I would, however, like to minimize the suffering and violence that surely goes along with it.)
Foreign Policy
When it comes to foreign policy, Santorum is a warmonger plain and simple.
1. As to Iran, Santorum would “work with Israel to determine the proper military response needed” to put a end to that country’s nuclear weapons program. It seems not to matter to the former senator that every U.S. intelligence agency that has ever investigated this issue has determined that there is no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
2. As to Syria, Santorum would go after the strongman (Bashar al-Assad) “covertly or otherwise.” Does that mean that Santorum act-alikes at the helm of other nations could use the same logic to go after a U.S. president?
3. As to Iraq, Santorum would “continue to stabilize Iraq” presumably by re-invading the country. This belies the fact that it was the American policy of draconian sanctions and ultimate invasion that destabilized Iraq in the first place.
4. As to Afghanistan, Santorum would set no time lines or limit resources “in the war effort.” Yet, if al-Qaeda is as weakened as Washington claims, there seems to be little point in more war. If a stable and competent Taliban government reappears in Afghanistan, it is unlikely to invite future attacks by providing a haven for terrorist organizations. On the other hand, this on-going war is almost certainly providing a breeding ground for more terrorists.
5. As to Islam, Santorum believes it is a religion that is “stuck in the seventh century.” With rare exception, such as Saudi Wahhabism, this is untrue. Actually, it is Rick Santorum who is stuck in the past. It is he who, like some political ecclesiastic, wants to regulate everyone else’s lives. If Mr. Santorum simply changed hats – from Christian to Islamic – he could be a Saudi cleric. Compared to people like him, most Muslims are much more tolerant and contemporary.
6. As to Israel, Santorum takes an uncritically approving position on the Zionist state. This makes sense when you realize that Israel is essentially a religious state – a nation on the brink of becoming a theocracy, which is where Santorum presumably would like to steer the United States.
Rick Santorum is a religious ideologue. He wants to turn the U.S. into a “faith-based” Christian country through the imposition of those “family values” he personally has decided are God-given. He believes that America’s Founding Fathers would agree because they were, supposedly, men of faith just like him.
Quoting the Declaration of Independence to prove this point, Santorum reminds us that it says that people “are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” From this he concludes that rights come from God and not from government. Government’s role is simply to implement and protect those divine rights. The truth is that the man who penned the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, was nothing like Rick Santorum. He wasn’t even a Christian. He was a Deist. Jefferson’s phrasing was meant to impress a wider world in an age when religion was interpreted in a more literal fashion than it is in today’s United States. Jefferson certainly did not mean for Americans to take the notion of God-given inalienable rights literally. After all, he was a slave-holder.
The number of Americans who respond positively to Rick Santorum’s message is probably in the range of 20 percent. In terms of the Republican Party, they probably represent about one-third of the membership. Being ideologically driven, these people are motivated to vote. And, that is significant in a nation where voting turnout is traditionally low.
So, Rick Santorum is certainly representative of a politically active part of the U.S. population – a dangerous, intolerant, noisy, in-your-face part. If we let him and his followers get their way, the result will be ever greater divisiveness and decline at home, and war abroad. That is a choice for the rest of us.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Boehner Reads Polls, Caves on Payroll Tax Break Extension
Faced with criticism from across the political spectrum and abandoned by Senate allies, House Republicans bowed to political reality Thursday and agreed to a two-month extension of a payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans. After promising to hold their breath, hoping to die and sticking a needle in their eye until they got further cuts to programs benefitting those in need, their bluff was called.
The tax break is backed by President Barack Obama, and was initially brought up as part of his job stimulation program. The break involves keeping payroll taxes down by 4.2 percent until February, continuing extended unemployment benefits and maintaining the present Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors. A similar deal was rejected by the Republican-dominated House of Representatives on Tuesday after being approved by the Senate. This time House Republicans supported the bill since their political suicide was pointed out to them by their wingnut collegues in the Senate. When Mitch McConnell becomes a voice of reason, you know you've really lost control of the conversation.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Why Do Republicans Hate Americans?
On the very day President Obama met with leaders of the business world to figure out how to put Americans back to work and all agreed that infrastructure is the key to our economic revival, exactly the key to Obama’s job plan, last night, the jobs bill was defeated because of yet another Republican filibuster. Every single Republican voted no. The 50 page report submitted to the president by this jobs council said there’s no market for anything they’re selling so they’d like to modernize our tunnels, railways, ports, dams, schools, airports, electric grids, water and waste water systems, and expanding our broadband networks.
The filibuster came as no surprise, that’s been the standard practice for the Republicans since this man was sworn in, but what I find upsetting is two Democrats joining them, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jon Tester of Montana. From what I’ve read, Harry Reid had to do some serious arm twisting to get Claire McCaskill and Jim Webb to vote yes. What has happened to the Democratic Party? This was the party of the people. And while they’re not as egregiously obvious that they’re in the back pockets of the rich and the powerful, it’s clear that some of them are. As Bill Maher said on Rachel Maddow’s show last night, (not this clip) there are probably 40 good Democrats, but 13 who can’t be trusted to act as Democrats.
If the thousands of Americans protesting the corporate greed from coast-to-coast aren’t making a difference, I’m not sure anything can. I have to say, my stress level and depression are increasing as time moves on. I still have very high hopes for Occupy Wall Street and Occupy wherever, but I’m saddened that there are some Democrats who are more interested in their own jobs than 24 million unemployed Americans. All the 99% want is fairness. Basic fairness has been missing from our system for 30 years. This movement has more in common with the original Boston Tea Party than the racists with tri-cornered hats, carrying guns, screaming about the Muslim Marxist, Nazi from Kenya.
John Stanton of Roll Call discusses the vote with Rachel Maddow.
The filibuster came as no surprise, that’s been the standard practice for the Republicans since this man was sworn in, but what I find upsetting is two Democrats joining them, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jon Tester of Montana. From what I’ve read, Harry Reid had to do some serious arm twisting to get Claire McCaskill and Jim Webb to vote yes. What has happened to the Democratic Party? This was the party of the people. And while they’re not as egregiously obvious that they’re in the back pockets of the rich and the powerful, it’s clear that some of them are. As Bill Maher said on Rachel Maddow’s show last night, (not this clip) there are probably 40 good Democrats, but 13 who can’t be trusted to act as Democrats.
If the thousands of Americans protesting the corporate greed from coast-to-coast aren’t making a difference, I’m not sure anything can. I have to say, my stress level and depression are increasing as time moves on. I still have very high hopes for Occupy Wall Street and Occupy wherever, but I’m saddened that there are some Democrats who are more interested in their own jobs than 24 million unemployed Americans. All the 99% want is fairness. Basic fairness has been missing from our system for 30 years. This movement has more in common with the original Boston Tea Party than the racists with tri-cornered hats, carrying guns, screaming about the Muslim Marxist, Nazi from Kenya.
John Stanton of Roll Call discusses the vote with Rachel Maddow.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
*Rachel made the correction after the break to Stanton’s report where he misnamed Webb as a no vote instead of Tester.Saturday, October 1, 2011
You Can't Bring Them Back
What I’m about to write has been in my brain for many years. Frankly, my family has supplied enough drama to write a book; but this one, this one has never left me. Ten days ago, after Troy Davis was executed even though there was ample evidence suggesting he was not the man who killed police officer Mark MacPhail, my brain went back to 1975 after a pro-death penalty friend texted, “what if it was a member of your family that was killed” and I retorted that “it has been a member of my family.” I haven’t been able to shake it. I want to write a short story of an incident in my youth so people understand that this stuff happens in so many families. You can’t ever think, “no, not me, not us, it’s the others.” An eye-for-an-eye can never undo the damage.
In August of 1975, not too long after my 13th birthday, we got word that my aunt Vicki was dead. I believe she was 42 at the time. My uncle Sonny who was an alcoholic had thrown her down some stairs in a drunken fit. I now know he had always been physically abusive towards her and everyone looked the other way. Yet he had always been so nice to me. As a kid, I was a big baseball fan and loved the Red Sox. He gave me my first baseball glove. It was used and worn, but man I loved that thing. Carl Yastrzemski was my favorite player and he gave me this awesome picture of Yaz in his batting stance. Then after he went to a Sox game, came back with a glossy team photo of the Red Sox for me. He even gave me my first driving lesson on a tractor. He was my favorite uncle. I was totally unaware of the darkness.
Unlike most of my aunts, my aunt Vicki always said girls can do anything boys can do and I should do what makes me happy. She knew I wasn’t a girly girl from the start and she was totally cool with that, and never tried to encourage me to be someone I wasn’t. In fact, she encouraged my passions. I liked sports, I played with trucks and while I loved teddy bears, I hated dolls. And I liked to write. She used to read my lame little Red Sox game caps, she was the only one. Even my parents couldn’t be bothered. My funniest memory was her tying my socks together when I was little and me crying because I was not smart enough to just take them off!
I vaguely remember parts of a day so many, many years ago, so long before that dark August day. My aunt Vicki had showed up in her Ford Falcon at our house because Uncle Sonny had beaten her up again. I remember the black eye. I remember her crying and holding herself up against our refrigerator before I was scooted away. Next thing I knew, she was gone. My father didn’t want to let her stay, didn’t want to get involved. My mother has always been subservient of his demands, even though I know now that she regrets not taking a stand, it’s too late. Just so you know, my father has never been physically abusive, but emotionally, well that’s another story. The thing that changed for my mother was that as I hit my teens, I fought back to his sexist, subservient tone and while it didn’t really help me as I was who I was, I think it helped her. Yet, to this day, she somehow remembers the days of her youth when women stood with their men no matter what as a positive. But, I digress…
I’m not sure how often I saw Aunt Vicki after that incident as I’m sure she didn’t feel welcome or supported. As an adult, I can only wonder how my parents support might have helped her. I also wonder, with her encouragement if I would’ve pursued my dreams of journalism, as she was the only one who believed in me and encouraged me to swim upstream when needed. I wanted to be a writer, a sports writer at the time. Who knows, with encouragement, maybe I’d be Jackie McMullen today. My parents didn’t believe in college. I went back to school when I was in my 30’s, but by then felt journalism had passed me by so I jumped on the computer technology train where I serve today.
So here I am many years later putting pieces of my life together and thinking about the “Butterfly Effect.” My Uncle Sonny did not deserve the death penalty. He was ill. There were at least two sides to him as I’ve stated. He wasn't always an abusive drunk. Back then, especially in a small farming community, getting help was still a sign of weakness. That said, he killed my aunt. He was only sentenced to seven years, served six and was let out on good behavior. His pattern repeated. But since I don’t have all the details, I won’t bother with speculation. However, I can say first hand that anyone who wants to cut spending for addiction is foolish.
I guess in the end, capital punishment is playing God. I personally would not be comfortable sending someone to death. Yet, I can also understand certain cases, like the Petit case in Connecticut where the perpetrators couldn’t possibly be more evil, and if the state executes them, no one will care. This is such a complex issue, but it’s becoming more and more clear that innocents are being executed with shoddy evidence or in Troy Davis’ case, no evidence; we must decide what kind of society we want to be. No matter what they’ve said publicly, officer MacPhail’s family will now be living with, “what if he wasn’t the one.” This stuff stays with you forever, it will never make more sense tomorrow than it did yesterday. Meanwhile, you’ve taken another life. Will you feel better about your loss? I doubt it.
In August of 1975, not too long after my 13th birthday, we got word that my aunt Vicki was dead. I believe she was 42 at the time. My uncle Sonny who was an alcoholic had thrown her down some stairs in a drunken fit. I now know he had always been physically abusive towards her and everyone looked the other way. Yet he had always been so nice to me. As a kid, I was a big baseball fan and loved the Red Sox. He gave me my first baseball glove. It was used and worn, but man I loved that thing. Carl Yastrzemski was my favorite player and he gave me this awesome picture of Yaz in his batting stance. Then after he went to a Sox game, came back with a glossy team photo of the Red Sox for me. He even gave me my first driving lesson on a tractor. He was my favorite uncle. I was totally unaware of the darkness.
Unlike most of my aunts, my aunt Vicki always said girls can do anything boys can do and I should do what makes me happy. She knew I wasn’t a girly girl from the start and she was totally cool with that, and never tried to encourage me to be someone I wasn’t. In fact, she encouraged my passions. I liked sports, I played with trucks and while I loved teddy bears, I hated dolls. And I liked to write. She used to read my lame little Red Sox game caps, she was the only one. Even my parents couldn’t be bothered. My funniest memory was her tying my socks together when I was little and me crying because I was not smart enough to just take them off!
I vaguely remember parts of a day so many, many years ago, so long before that dark August day. My aunt Vicki had showed up in her Ford Falcon at our house because Uncle Sonny had beaten her up again. I remember the black eye. I remember her crying and holding herself up against our refrigerator before I was scooted away. Next thing I knew, she was gone. My father didn’t want to let her stay, didn’t want to get involved. My mother has always been subservient of his demands, even though I know now that she regrets not taking a stand, it’s too late. Just so you know, my father has never been physically abusive, but emotionally, well that’s another story. The thing that changed for my mother was that as I hit my teens, I fought back to his sexist, subservient tone and while it didn’t really help me as I was who I was, I think it helped her. Yet, to this day, she somehow remembers the days of her youth when women stood with their men no matter what as a positive. But, I digress…
I’m not sure how often I saw Aunt Vicki after that incident as I’m sure she didn’t feel welcome or supported. As an adult, I can only wonder how my parents support might have helped her. I also wonder, with her encouragement if I would’ve pursued my dreams of journalism, as she was the only one who believed in me and encouraged me to swim upstream when needed. I wanted to be a writer, a sports writer at the time. Who knows, with encouragement, maybe I’d be Jackie McMullen today. My parents didn’t believe in college. I went back to school when I was in my 30’s, but by then felt journalism had passed me by so I jumped on the computer technology train where I serve today.
So here I am many years later putting pieces of my life together and thinking about the “Butterfly Effect.” My Uncle Sonny did not deserve the death penalty. He was ill. There were at least two sides to him as I’ve stated. He wasn't always an abusive drunk. Back then, especially in a small farming community, getting help was still a sign of weakness. That said, he killed my aunt. He was only sentenced to seven years, served six and was let out on good behavior. His pattern repeated. But since I don’t have all the details, I won’t bother with speculation. However, I can say first hand that anyone who wants to cut spending for addiction is foolish.
I guess in the end, capital punishment is playing God. I personally would not be comfortable sending someone to death. Yet, I can also understand certain cases, like the Petit case in Connecticut where the perpetrators couldn’t possibly be more evil, and if the state executes them, no one will care. This is such a complex issue, but it’s becoming more and more clear that innocents are being executed with shoddy evidence or in Troy Davis’ case, no evidence; we must decide what kind of society we want to be. No matter what they’ve said publicly, officer MacPhail’s family will now be living with, “what if he wasn’t the one.” This stuff stays with you forever, it will never make more sense tomorrow than it did yesterday. Meanwhile, you’ve taken another life. Will you feel better about your loss? I doubt it.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Who writes this stuff, indeed!
As usual, my writing fell off throughout summer so hopefully with the change in season comes a rebirth of writing out my thoughts. Today a friend and co-worker brought in a column from the local paper that was written by a Northampton, MA M.D., a right winger. She was incensed at the contemptuous tone and narcissim he displayed. First of all, I want to share the link so you can read what this fella had to say: Jay Fleitman: Who writes this stuff? While I share Sandra's passion, I thought, "what the heck, this deserves a response." I think it's important to disclose I've never responded to a newspaper column before, but living in the Pioneer Valley in western Massachusetts, I haven't had much cause for rebuttal. Below, is what I will be submitting to the Daily Hampshire Gazette this evening.
I always find it entertaining when a so-called “conservative” such as Jay Fleitman accuses the left of the very things the right has been up to for years. He writes an entire article without any facts to back up his statements. Let’s look at his “points” one at a time.
1) I’m going to start with his “left wing think tanks” comment. While I know the right wing loves to point at George Soros, he is not organizing retreats like the ones the multi-billionaire Koch Brothers are. Every few months, the Koch’s arrange a little getaway where Republican governors convene to discuss how to crush the working class and further enrich the affluent. Do you think all the anti-union, anti-woman, anti-voting rights policies flooding out of the far right are coincidence? Really, do you? Never mind Rove’s groups, the Chamber of Commerce and any other easily searchable extremely organized "right wing think tank." Try the Google if you doubt this.
2) Then he denies the Tea Party and Republicans want to protect the rich and uses the U.S. corporate tax rates as an example of how tough it is for companies operating within our borders. What difference does it make what the tax rates are when the corporate loopholes in the tax codes allow companies like BOA and GE to pay no taxes at all? Meanwhile the current crop of GOP politicians are on record saying “entitlements” must be cut while Bush’s tax cuts that mainly benefit the top 2% must be sustained. Let me add that, using the word “entitlements” as a dirty word is a word play by the right to make it sound like these are freebies going out to the undeserving. All of us have paid into them our entire working lives so yes, we are entitled to them. Privatizing Social Security, turning Medicare into a voucher program and cutting funding to Medicaid does indeed end these programs, it does not “reform” them, another word play. Kind of like “job creators” has now replaced “the wealthy” in right wing lingo.
3) Much of our ills are Bush’s fault, at least those that aren’t Reagan’s. Reagan’s slashing of taxes in the 80’s coupled with massive deregulation was the beginning of the end of a balanced society where everyone could live the American Dream. His policies began the wealth disparity that we suffer from today. Not since the 20’s have we had such a wealth disparity, which led to the Great Depression. Check your local library where you’ll find some fascinating history books. Those who don’t learn by history are doomed to repeat it. GWB inherited a budget surplus that would have allowed us to be debt free in approximately 10 years, but instead decided a budget surplus meant we were paying too much in taxes, so in June of 2001, he signed his first tax cut. Then September 11 happened. Instead of rescinding the already signed tax cut, he started not one, but two wars, one which was started on the idiotic premise of non-existent WMD— “a web of misinformation designed to distract the minds of America with implausible silliness.” Then in 2003 at a time of war, signed another tax cut! Never in our history have we been at war and authorized tax cuts, it has been quite the opposite actually, including Republican presidents. Now the debt and deficit has exploded, but instead of undoing as much of Bush’s policies as possible, the right runs around screaming the sky is falling and tries convincing Americans through their corporate mouthpiece Fox News, that it’s their unemployed neighbors fault.
As far as Obama, I’m a supporter, but not a cheerleader. His reach across the aisle philosophy is a failure. It made sense early on, but after a few months, it should’ve been evident their game plan was to follow Rush Limbaugh’s playbook. How he ever thought reasoning with people who publicly declared their number one goal was to make him a one term president is beyond me. (By the way, those are Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s words, not mine.) And anyone who watched unemployment benefits held hostage last winter in exchange for an extension of the Bush era tax cuts, or the debt ceiling debacle a couple months ago, with the Republicans demanding cut after cut without any revenue or the very fact that they ran on jobs and have not produced one single bill to address that dire need in this country, knows which party supports which group of constituents. (By the way, I am fine with all Bush era tax cuts going away if that’s what it takes to grow our economy.)
4) The size of the financial stimulus has been a matter of debate since its inception, not since last week. However, since Fox News doesn’t report anything factual, perhaps the writer was unaware of the fact that many economists questioned the size of the stimulus from the very start, as well as the wisdom of making 40% of it…tax cuts! Maybe the stimulus failed to keep unemployment under 8% (which was Paulson’s prediction, not Obama’s by the way), but it softened what would have undoubtly been a bigger blow to a sluggish economy. Ask people holding the three million jobs it saved if it was worth it.
5) Nobody thinks the Republican candidates are “political dwarfs”; however several of them are insane. Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, for example believe in Christian Dominionism, which is frightening in a country which was founded by people fleeing another country who was mandating a state run religion. Gingrich and Santorum? Ok I’ll give it up and call them political dwarfs. Romney and Huntsman are legitimate contenders being overshadowed by the lunatic fringe. They could win a general, but will not get the nomination because the tea party wants state run religion, they do not believe in science and applaud austerity.
6) And to say there is no racism in the tea party would be comical if you didn’t so hardily believe it. Which isn’t to say that every tea partier is a racist. Sorry none of us are saying that, no matter how badly you and right wing talking heads want to believe it. I’m glad your experiences have been positive, but again, use Google, or Bing if you prefer, if you don’t believe racism does exist within the group, and no, they are NOT liberal plants to make the tp’ers look bad, so don’t even use that tired argument. You’re living in a progressive state, where even though we may have disagreements, people are generally respectful of others. Not every part of the country behaves as such.
What your writing displayed was “intellectual and political bankruptcy” by also asserting that this movement was “spontaneously” started by a bunch of concerned Americans. To actually believe that and peddle it as truth is laughable. Who’s paying for the fancy tour buses with the $13K wraps? Who’s reserving the fancy hotels? Finally, the petty little liberal/progressive swipe doesn’t hold any water either. Conservatives have tried to redefine what a liberal/progressive is by calling us every negative incantation that Fox viewers can easily remember. Trust me; it IS cool to be a liberal. Read JFK’s eloquent quote and tell me what he got wrong. “Yes indeed the right needs some new material.”
I always find it entertaining when a so-called “conservative” such as Jay Fleitman accuses the left of the very things the right has been up to for years. He writes an entire article without any facts to back up his statements. Let’s look at his “points” one at a time.
1) I’m going to start with his “left wing think tanks” comment. While I know the right wing loves to point at George Soros, he is not organizing retreats like the ones the multi-billionaire Koch Brothers are. Every few months, the Koch’s arrange a little getaway where Republican governors convene to discuss how to crush the working class and further enrich the affluent. Do you think all the anti-union, anti-woman, anti-voting rights policies flooding out of the far right are coincidence? Really, do you? Never mind Rove’s groups, the Chamber of Commerce and any other easily searchable extremely organized "right wing think tank." Try the Google if you doubt this.
2) Then he denies the Tea Party and Republicans want to protect the rich and uses the U.S. corporate tax rates as an example of how tough it is for companies operating within our borders. What difference does it make what the tax rates are when the corporate loopholes in the tax codes allow companies like BOA and GE to pay no taxes at all? Meanwhile the current crop of GOP politicians are on record saying “entitlements” must be cut while Bush’s tax cuts that mainly benefit the top 2% must be sustained. Let me add that, using the word “entitlements” as a dirty word is a word play by the right to make it sound like these are freebies going out to the undeserving. All of us have paid into them our entire working lives so yes, we are entitled to them. Privatizing Social Security, turning Medicare into a voucher program and cutting funding to Medicaid does indeed end these programs, it does not “reform” them, another word play. Kind of like “job creators” has now replaced “the wealthy” in right wing lingo.
3) Much of our ills are Bush’s fault, at least those that aren’t Reagan’s. Reagan’s slashing of taxes in the 80’s coupled with massive deregulation was the beginning of the end of a balanced society where everyone could live the American Dream. His policies began the wealth disparity that we suffer from today. Not since the 20’s have we had such a wealth disparity, which led to the Great Depression. Check your local library where you’ll find some fascinating history books. Those who don’t learn by history are doomed to repeat it. GWB inherited a budget surplus that would have allowed us to be debt free in approximately 10 years, but instead decided a budget surplus meant we were paying too much in taxes, so in June of 2001, he signed his first tax cut. Then September 11 happened. Instead of rescinding the already signed tax cut, he started not one, but two wars, one which was started on the idiotic premise of non-existent WMD— “a web of misinformation designed to distract the minds of America with implausible silliness.” Then in 2003 at a time of war, signed another tax cut! Never in our history have we been at war and authorized tax cuts, it has been quite the opposite actually, including Republican presidents. Now the debt and deficit has exploded, but instead of undoing as much of Bush’s policies as possible, the right runs around screaming the sky is falling and tries convincing Americans through their corporate mouthpiece Fox News, that it’s their unemployed neighbors fault.
As far as Obama, I’m a supporter, but not a cheerleader. His reach across the aisle philosophy is a failure. It made sense early on, but after a few months, it should’ve been evident their game plan was to follow Rush Limbaugh’s playbook. How he ever thought reasoning with people who publicly declared their number one goal was to make him a one term president is beyond me. (By the way, those are Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s words, not mine.) And anyone who watched unemployment benefits held hostage last winter in exchange for an extension of the Bush era tax cuts, or the debt ceiling debacle a couple months ago, with the Republicans demanding cut after cut without any revenue or the very fact that they ran on jobs and have not produced one single bill to address that dire need in this country, knows which party supports which group of constituents. (By the way, I am fine with all Bush era tax cuts going away if that’s what it takes to grow our economy.)
4) The size of the financial stimulus has been a matter of debate since its inception, not since last week. However, since Fox News doesn’t report anything factual, perhaps the writer was unaware of the fact that many economists questioned the size of the stimulus from the very start, as well as the wisdom of making 40% of it…tax cuts! Maybe the stimulus failed to keep unemployment under 8% (which was Paulson’s prediction, not Obama’s by the way), but it softened what would have undoubtly been a bigger blow to a sluggish economy. Ask people holding the three million jobs it saved if it was worth it.
5) Nobody thinks the Republican candidates are “political dwarfs”; however several of them are insane. Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, for example believe in Christian Dominionism, which is frightening in a country which was founded by people fleeing another country who was mandating a state run religion. Gingrich and Santorum? Ok I’ll give it up and call them political dwarfs. Romney and Huntsman are legitimate contenders being overshadowed by the lunatic fringe. They could win a general, but will not get the nomination because the tea party wants state run religion, they do not believe in science and applaud austerity.
6) And to say there is no racism in the tea party would be comical if you didn’t so hardily believe it. Which isn’t to say that every tea partier is a racist. Sorry none of us are saying that, no matter how badly you and right wing talking heads want to believe it. I’m glad your experiences have been positive, but again, use Google, or Bing if you prefer, if you don’t believe racism does exist within the group, and no, they are NOT liberal plants to make the tp’ers look bad, so don’t even use that tired argument. You’re living in a progressive state, where even though we may have disagreements, people are generally respectful of others. Not every part of the country behaves as such.
What your writing displayed was “intellectual and political bankruptcy” by also asserting that this movement was “spontaneously” started by a bunch of concerned Americans. To actually believe that and peddle it as truth is laughable. Who’s paying for the fancy tour buses with the $13K wraps? Who’s reserving the fancy hotels? Finally, the petty little liberal/progressive swipe doesn’t hold any water either. Conservatives have tried to redefine what a liberal/progressive is by calling us every negative incantation that Fox viewers can easily remember. Trust me; it IS cool to be a liberal. Read JFK’s eloquent quote and tell me what he got wrong. “Yes indeed the right needs some new material.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
