Political Cartoon is by Jeff Stahler in The Columbus Dispatch.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Has Liberalism "Jumped The Shark" ?
The 1950's was a low point for liberalism in the United States. Due to organizations like the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities and the John Birch Society, and individuals like Joseph McCarthy and Roy Cohn, liberals were driven underground or out of the country. Being a liberal meant losing the right to work or even being imprisoned. By the end of the 50's, Liberalism was nearly dead in America.
But in the mid-sixties, it experienced a re-birth. It began at the University of California at Berkley, when Mario Savio (pictured above) and his cohorts started what they called the "Free Speech Movement". It was originally intended just to give students at that university the right speak freely about their political views. It accomplished that, but became much more, as it spread across the country -- first in the colleges and then in society at large.
Fueled by the "baby boomers" born right after World War II, this new liberalism was different than pre-war liberalism. It was no longer socialist-based, although it pushed many of the same causes like economic justice and civil rights, but was a more general freedom-based movement.
It preached equality and the right of the individual to believe what they wanted and to act like they wanted and live like they wanted, as long as they didn't step on the rights of others to do the same.
No longer was the individual expected to be an automaton -- a replica of their parents who said and did what they were told. The individual had rights which must be respected by authority and the highest value was freedom. Frankly, it was exciting to be a part of this movement in the sixties and seventies.
But some time in the 80's and 90's, liberalism began to go "off the track". I don't quite know how it happened, but "free speech" gave way to "political correctness". While mouthing a belief in free speech, many liberals will be quick to condemn and sometimes even try to outlaw certain forms of speech. They seem to have forgotten that when you outlaw offensive speech, you have outlawed freedom (and the very thing that gave birth to modern liberalism).
Just as bad is the "Nanny State". Just like the right-wing would like to force their religion on all Americans "for their own good", many liberals would like to pass "Nanny State" laws for the good of all Americans. They want to force Americans to stop smoking with exorbitant tobacco taxes, or tell them where they can and can't smoke. They want to pass laws punishing Americans for drinking sodas high in sugar. They want to pass laws to outlaw certain cooking oils in resturants. They would like to force all Americans to recycle their trash.
Maybe all these things are good and would probably improve a person's life and maybe even prolong it, but I have to wonder what ever happened to freedom -- the idea that an American has the right to make his/her own choices? In a truly free country, doesn't a citizen have the right to make a poor choice?
These days, those of us on the left understand that the right-wing can result in tyranny, but many seem to have forgotton that just like you can have a right-wing tyranny, you can also have a left-wing tyranny. And it's my opinion that both are equally bad.
If you believe something is good and citizens should do it to make their life better or longer or healthier, then by all means do what you can to educate people about it. But when you pass a law forcing that behavior, you have gone too far.
In a free country, each citizen has the right to make their own choices, even if those in power believe those choices to be bad ones. Liberalism used to mean freedom, but for many these days it means something else. That's why I no longer call myself a liberal. I am a leftist, a radical, a socialist or a progressive, but I believe liberalism has strayed from its meaning and prefer not to be labeled as such.
That's what I think. What do you think -- especially those of you on the left? Am I wrong? Should government have the right to force people into making better decisions?
Credit Cards - Making Loan Sharks Look Good
It looks like Congress is going to pass a bill that is going to change some of the laws regarding credit card companies and what they can do. A bill is badly needed, because right now the companies can pretty much do whatever they want.
Unfortunately, it looks like only minor changes will be made by the bill. A few things will be accomplished, such as:
* Giving card holders a grace period before a payment is considered late. A payment won't be marked as late (triggering fees and penalties) unless it is at least 30 days past the due date.
* Scrapping universal default. This was what allowed all credit card companies to raise your rates because you made a late payment to only one of them.
* Credit card companies will have to give you 45 days notice of a rate increase, and let you pay off items already purchased at the lower rate.
* If your rate is raised as a penalty for missing a payment, that penalty period would be capped at six months. If you were on time with payments during that six months, the rate would go back down to the pre-penalty rate.
* People under 21 will have to show proof of income or have a co-signer. The account would be capped at $500 and could not be raised without approval of the co-signer.
* If you pay more than the minimum payment, the payment overage must be applied to the part of the account being charged the highest interest rate.
These changes are needed, and I certainly don't mean to imply they're not. But the Congress has elected to ignore the biggest change that is needed -- to rein in the exorbitant and usurious interest rates being charged on some accounts.
There was a time in this country when it was both unethical and illegal to charge an interest rate of more than 20%. It was referred to as "loan sharking" and was considered to be criminal behavior. But the credit card companies make the old-fashioned loan sharks look good by comparison. Some of them are charging rates up to as much as 41%, and they're doing it legally.
Credit card companies are the new legal loan sharks.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Notre Dame Protests Are A Fraud
Notre Dame University has invited President Obama to speak at its commencement this year, and is giving him an honorary degree. Since the invitation was made public, it has created a furor among some students, alumni and church officials. Yesterday, 19 protesters were arrested while demonstrating against Obama's appearance. Those arrested were not students, and were arrested for trespassing on the Notre Dame campus.
There have also been Catholic church officials who are complaining about the Obama invitation, and several alumni who say they are going to withhold donations to the university because Obama was invited. These people all say they are opposed to the invitation and honorary degree because Obama stands in opposition to official stances of the Catholic Church (like abortion and stem cell research).
These stands taken by the anti-invitation crowd are not just disingenuous -- they are an outright fraud. None of these folks complained when George W. Bush was invited to speak, even though he is a death-penalty supporter. They didn't seem to mind the fact that Bush allowed over 150 executions while governor of Texas, while the official stance of the Catholic Church is against the death penalty.
There have also been many others invited to speak who hold views contrary to official Catholic Church positions, and no one seemed to mind those invitations. Here is a list of some of them compiled by the Rude Pundit:
In 1980, the commencement speaker was Carter administration Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti, a supporter of abortion rights.
In 1987, an honorary degrees were given to the pro-choice Coretta Scott King, Alan Simpson, and Rosalyn Carter.
In 1991, an honorary degree was given to Jane Pauley, a pro-choice supporter.
In 1992, protesters lined up as pro-choice Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was given the university's Laetare Medal, "the oldest and most prestigious honor awarded an American Catholic," according to the Washington Post. President George H.W. Bush, giving the commencement keynote, went out of his way to praise Moynihan.
In 1993, an honorary degree was given to pro-choice judge Alan C. Page.
In 2000, the commencement speaker was then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who supports all kinds of family planning programs, including those where abortion is allowed.
If the problem is Obama's disagreement with official church stances, then these same protesters should have protested the appearance of George Bush and these other people. But they didn't. That tells us that something else is really at play here.
The truth is that those protesting are Republican Catholics and they are still smarting from their loss in the last election. They couldn't win at the ballot box, so now they're acting like three year-olds that dropped their ice cream cone in the sand box. They need to grow up.
Ohio City Officials Go Too Far
Sometimes city officials go too far by substituting their own private views for local regulations or law. That seems to be the case in Reading, Ohio (a suburb of Cincinnati).
It seems that restaurant owner Kenny Tessel was using a mannequin to promote his eatery -- KT's Barbeque. He placed a female mannequin (pictured above) outside his place dressed in short shorts and a bikini top. He says his business has improved 40% since the skimpily-clad mannequin has been in place.
But it looks like the mannequin offended some of the city fathers. Tessel was called before the Zoning Commission to determine whether he could continue using the mannequin. The commission decided Tessel could keep the mannequin only if he dressed it in a more modest way.
This is just wrong. Tessel said he was going to appeal the verdict, and I believe he should. What law has he violated? None. What community standards has he violated? Again none.
Isn't this a fairly common way of dressing for young women during the summer -- in Ohio and across the United States? And these young women are neither ticketed or arrested, because it is not against the law to dress that way. Also, if this is a fairly common way of dressing and is not illegal, then it is also not a violation of community standards.
If Tessel had put the mannequin outside unclothed or posed it in an obscene way I could understand the commissions' action, but he didn't. So what is the justification for the Zoning Commission's silly ruling? Quite simply, the only thing the restauratuer violated was the commissioners' own sense of prudery.
The city officials are there to uphold the city's laws and ordinances -- not to force their own prudishness on honest citizens. Their decision should be reversed.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Congratulations PTS !!!
Jobsanger sends his warmest congratulations to all the bloggers at Panhandle Truth Squad. That's because this week they are celebrating their fifth blogiversary. That's right. They have been spreading the progressive point of view (and being a huge thorn in the side of Republicans) for a full five years now -- and they've been doing it from one of the reddest areas of Texas. That makes them one of the oldest progressive political blogs in Texas.
If you live here in the Panhandle (or really, anywhere in Texas) and you've never read Panhandle Truth Squad's very funny and right-0n-target progressive political posts, I have to ask -- Were you dropped on your head as a small child? Get over there now and see what you've been missing!
The posters at PTS are a varied group, who each bring their own unique touch to the blog (and they're all nice people). They are:
If you're in the Amarillo area, come and help them celebrate tonight at 7:00pm. For the details, e-mail panhandletruthsquad@yahoo.com. Once again, congratulations guys! We here at jobsanger have nothing but respect and affection for all of you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)