One of the most baffling aspects of the current presidential campaign is why people with the most to lose from the Republican platform insist on supporting Mitt Romney. These people (and I can't single out the tea-partiers because it's more than just they) seem certain that the country needs to be left alone to work out its ills, that we need smaller government, less intervention, more state control. They're the people who rally against "Obamacare" and they're the very people who will find themselves unable to get health insurance when they need it. It makes no sense.
Or it didn't. Then I had a mini-epiphany. (I don't have full-fledged ones because they hurt my brain.) The connection has to be religious. Many on the right profess a Christian conservatism, coming down hard against a woman's right to choose, stem cell research, gay marriage, and other concepts that mainstream Americans mostly espouse when you ask them. These radical conservatives see in Romney a sympathetic partner. (The fact that he is not a member of any Christian sect is one more irony.) But here's the problem: his party's platform is not Christian, where good people look out for one another, help one another, are kind to one another. It is a platform more in keeping with Darwin than with Jesus. Romney (and more so, Ryan) subscribe to the law of the jungle, to the survival of the strong at the expense of the weak. "Pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" is all well and good as long as you own boots.
I don't think that any one president can ruin the country, but I do know that he can create issues that will outlast his presidency and do harm long after he has left the White House. But then, if so many Americans believe Romney is the way to go, then they believe that the law of the jungle supersedes everything else. And they're right—ask any 1%-er.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Sandy's Number
Hundreds of people lost their lives this past week in Hurricane Sandy, and many of those victims were warned in advance—far in advance—to evacuate. Community leaders and elected officials probably did all they could short of forcibly removing people form their homes, and no one did more for the general good than the meteorologists who, as much as seven days in advance, predicted an unprecedented storm path, and at least three days in advance warned of an event that would live on in the annals of U.S. disasters. The professional meteorologists—those behind the scenes at the Weather Channel and other providers—saved thousands of lives.
But if they didn't do enough, it's because we have become anesthetized to weather—we've been misled too often. For instance, a two-to four-inch snowfall is predicted and it becomes the lead story on the evening news. Once that happens, the stations try to outdo each other, promising to be on the air earlier and earlier the following morning so that we'll all be okay. You know what? We're going to be okay anyway, especially those of us with a push broom to sweep the snowfall off our driveways. I understand ratings and the need to sell advertising, but there's a fine line between fear-mongering and over-hyping, and I'm afraid many of Sandy's victims didn't see it, or forgot it was there.
Now we worry about naming storms winter (I never thought that made any sense), but why doesn't the National Weather Service number them in terms of severity, as they do with hurricanes and tornados after the fact. The NWS performs functions like these all the time—assigning CAPE readings to measure convection during thunderstorm season and crunching the numbers to indicate whether a snowstorm qualifies as a blizzard. Wouldn't it be easy to assign severity to all storms on the basis of precipitable water, highest expected wind speeds, temperature extremes, even fog or icing potential? A moderate rainstorm, maybe less than half an inch, with little wind and mild temperatures might earn a 2 or less; a heavier snowstorm with cold temperatures and strong winds, a 5 or 6; a storm like Sandy, a 10. These professional knew it was 10 last Friday—maybe being able to bandy about that number would make evacuation more palatable.
Local TV stations could choose to use the system or not, but we'd all know it was there, and the NOAA web site would lay it out by zones, i.e., a storm might be a 4 for Litchfield county but a 1 at the shore. And yes, people would complain about exaggerations still, but the numbers would be quantifiable and based on real observations, not the hysteria of some on-air personality trying to one-up his counterparts from across town.
I know there are those who will claim we have too many numbers already, and maybe we do. But if there's a chance that lives could be saved and maybe even property could be protected, wouldn't be okay to learn one more?
But if they didn't do enough, it's because we have become anesthetized to weather—we've been misled too often. For instance, a two-to four-inch snowfall is predicted and it becomes the lead story on the evening news. Once that happens, the stations try to outdo each other, promising to be on the air earlier and earlier the following morning so that we'll all be okay. You know what? We're going to be okay anyway, especially those of us with a push broom to sweep the snowfall off our driveways. I understand ratings and the need to sell advertising, but there's a fine line between fear-mongering and over-hyping, and I'm afraid many of Sandy's victims didn't see it, or forgot it was there.
Now we worry about naming storms winter (I never thought that made any sense), but why doesn't the National Weather Service number them in terms of severity, as they do with hurricanes and tornados after the fact. The NWS performs functions like these all the time—assigning CAPE readings to measure convection during thunderstorm season and crunching the numbers to indicate whether a snowstorm qualifies as a blizzard. Wouldn't it be easy to assign severity to all storms on the basis of precipitable water, highest expected wind speeds, temperature extremes, even fog or icing potential? A moderate rainstorm, maybe less than half an inch, with little wind and mild temperatures might earn a 2 or less; a heavier snowstorm with cold temperatures and strong winds, a 5 or 6; a storm like Sandy, a 10. These professional knew it was 10 last Friday—maybe being able to bandy about that number would make evacuation more palatable.
Local TV stations could choose to use the system or not, but we'd all know it was there, and the NOAA web site would lay it out by zones, i.e., a storm might be a 4 for Litchfield county but a 1 at the shore. And yes, people would complain about exaggerations still, but the numbers would be quantifiable and based on real observations, not the hysteria of some on-air personality trying to one-up his counterparts from across town.
I know there are those who will claim we have too many numbers already, and maybe we do. But if there's a chance that lives could be saved and maybe even property could be protected, wouldn't be okay to learn one more?
Saturday, September 15, 2012
At last, a nation of intellectuals
This morning's Hartford Courant used the word intellectual in a truly disturbing manner. Apparently the WWE (which I believe stands for Watching Women Exploited) has been scrubbing websites that continue to include the more raw and "dated" footage of women being abused FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. I guess that means that eventually this abuse FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES will have never happened. (I somehow think it was easier to erase memories when they didn't exist on video, but what the hell, it's only politics.)
But I object to the use of intellectual.
When I was a child in the 50's I watched professional wrestling. To me it was boxing with fun. I admit to becoming emotionally involved in the spectacle, and despite what people told me about its being fake, looking forward to revenge matches where the good guys would dispatch the bad guys by ramming their heads into the turnbuckle and throwing them out of the ring, only to have the bad guys rally their demonic forces and storm back to victory—the only method to insure my return to the screen the following Thursday night. It was violent and it was fun, but I never considered it intellectual. Now I know that intellectual property covers a wide spectrum of creative endeavors, and I know it's supposed to protect the creator. But if the WWE wants to sanitize its current business model (i.e., morph Ms. McMahon from a rapacious entrepreneur to a nice old lady), it's going to have to stop calling attention to itself by making farcical references to intellectual property. Seriously, we don't have to be intellectuals to know what those two words mean.
But I object to the use of intellectual.
When I was a child in the 50's I watched professional wrestling. To me it was boxing with fun. I admit to becoming emotionally involved in the spectacle, and despite what people told me about its being fake, looking forward to revenge matches where the good guys would dispatch the bad guys by ramming their heads into the turnbuckle and throwing them out of the ring, only to have the bad guys rally their demonic forces and storm back to victory—the only method to insure my return to the screen the following Thursday night. It was violent and it was fun, but I never considered it intellectual. Now I know that intellectual property covers a wide spectrum of creative endeavors, and I know it's supposed to protect the creator. But if the WWE wants to sanitize its current business model (i.e., morph Ms. McMahon from a rapacious entrepreneur to a nice old lady), it's going to have to stop calling attention to itself by making farcical references to intellectual property. Seriously, we don't have to be intellectuals to know what those two words mean.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Clinton after hours
Tonight Bill Clinton will speak at the DNC and I'll watch; in fact, I'm more likely to watch his speech than I am anyone else's including the President's. And I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way. There's something about an ex-Democratic President that inspires us, or maybe an ex-Southern Democratic President. Ah hell, I mean Carter and Clinton.
Now the same think tank that crowned Reagan king crowned Jimmy Carter a dunce some thirty years ago—it turns out to have been wrong on both counts. If you take Jimmy Carter's humanitarian achievements and match them up against the combined achievements of all 20th century Republican presidents, Carter wins. If you add Bill Clinton's work (some of it with George H.W. Bush—a notable exception) it's a landslide. Yet they both left office under a cloud—Carter's malaise and Clinton's incredible lack of judgment—but now they're revered.
It's because their politics, their philosophy is a bit romantic, one that speaks to an inherent belief in the basic goodness of man, the integrity of the individual, and the allegiance we owe—not necessarily to the country as an entity—but to the country as a disparate group of individuals. Maybe that attitude doesn't play well in the White House—maybe the majority of Americans don't want to hear about our duties to our fellow mortals especially in times of economic hardship, but that's just the time that we should.
The Republicans have portrayed social programs as a detriment to hard-working Americans, but if Clinton can show the voters that it isn't true, that tending to our fellow man outweighs the need for a bottom line, then this whole Republican schtick crumbles. And Clinton is the one to do it because he has walked the walk. And so to, on a less international stage, has Carter. Either one of them can appeal to the "better angels of our nature" and show us what we can be.
Now the same think tank that crowned Reagan king crowned Jimmy Carter a dunce some thirty years ago—it turns out to have been wrong on both counts. If you take Jimmy Carter's humanitarian achievements and match them up against the combined achievements of all 20th century Republican presidents, Carter wins. If you add Bill Clinton's work (some of it with George H.W. Bush—a notable exception) it's a landslide. Yet they both left office under a cloud—Carter's malaise and Clinton's incredible lack of judgment—but now they're revered.
It's because their politics, their philosophy is a bit romantic, one that speaks to an inherent belief in the basic goodness of man, the integrity of the individual, and the allegiance we owe—not necessarily to the country as an entity—but to the country as a disparate group of individuals. Maybe that attitude doesn't play well in the White House—maybe the majority of Americans don't want to hear about our duties to our fellow mortals especially in times of economic hardship, but that's just the time that we should.
The Republicans have portrayed social programs as a detriment to hard-working Americans, but if Clinton can show the voters that it isn't true, that tending to our fellow man outweighs the need for a bottom line, then this whole Republican schtick crumbles. And Clinton is the one to do it because he has walked the walk. And so to, on a less international stage, has Carter. Either one of them can appeal to the "better angels of our nature" and show us what we can be.
Monday, August 27, 2012
I hope the first tea party meant something
I'm old enough to remember when the protest movement wanted to stick it to "the man" because "the man" had everything and the rest of us didn't. The man ran the big companies, and promoted the wars, and kept people of color suppressed, and wouldn't let women advance, and fought to criminalize homosexuality, and, well they just wanted everything to go back to some imagined good old days that may have been old but weren't necessarily good. And youthful Americans who didn't want to respect this mythical man raised their voices in protest.
Now it's all changed. The Occupy movement has lost its vigor (unless they pull a surprise occupation in Tampa this week) and the only remaining protest group is the Tea Party, and they're protesting against what any right-thinking human being should be protesting for. They don't trust big government, so they've thrown their support behind big business. (If they thought big government was a problem wait until they see how the corporate philosophy in government.) They oppose health care even though they're the ones who need it, the ones who will continue to swell the coffers of the insurance companies who don't give a damn about their policy holders. They're convinced that government intrusion must be stopped, but then they're convinced that government intrusion like Medicare and Social Security must be saved. In short, they don't have a clue, but they're being led around by a Republican party that itself has sold out its principles for the opportunity to win an election. They divorce themselves from Todd Akin when, in fact, Akin should sue his party for nonsupport: they espouse the same principals he enunciated last week.
Protests are coming, though. They'll begin a year or two into the Romney presidency (and yes, I think he can win) and the right-wing loonies—and there won't be many left anyway—will once again retire to their fringes so that maybe the country can begin the recovery these well meaning but misinformed people have hindered.
Now it's all changed. The Occupy movement has lost its vigor (unless they pull a surprise occupation in Tampa this week) and the only remaining protest group is the Tea Party, and they're protesting against what any right-thinking human being should be protesting for. They don't trust big government, so they've thrown their support behind big business. (If they thought big government was a problem wait until they see how the corporate philosophy in government.) They oppose health care even though they're the ones who need it, the ones who will continue to swell the coffers of the insurance companies who don't give a damn about their policy holders. They're convinced that government intrusion must be stopped, but then they're convinced that government intrusion like Medicare and Social Security must be saved. In short, they don't have a clue, but they're being led around by a Republican party that itself has sold out its principles for the opportunity to win an election. They divorce themselves from Todd Akin when, in fact, Akin should sue his party for nonsupport: they espouse the same principals he enunciated last week.
Protests are coming, though. They'll begin a year or two into the Romney presidency (and yes, I think he can win) and the right-wing loonies—and there won't be many left anyway—will once again retire to their fringes so that maybe the country can begin the recovery these well meaning but misinformed people have hindered.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
A dot.com whose time has dot.come
I'm wondering if there's a website called Ihaterepublicans.com. There must be, and I'm going to check as soon as I stop feeling too lazy to check. Actually it's not republicans per se that I find so odious—I always considered them a bit stuffy and old-fashioned and clinging doggedly to outdated ideas in the hopes that the good old days would somehow return. Did they ever read The Great Gatsby? So it's not the traditional republicans: it's the Grover Norquist-Paul Ryan branch of the party that wants to bring everything to a full stop. What they don't understand is that the world will move forward even without them and spit in their faces as it goes by. This antediluvian attitude of theirs in so many areas appeals to the basest instincts of people, mainly fear: more taxes will kill us; gay marriage will end childbirth; illegal immigrants will usurp the American worker; climate change is a myth. The list is endless. But the Ihaterepublicans.com website could become a clearinghouse for these ideas, where people could read them and laugh at them and wait for all these right-wing bozos to eliminate themselves from significance. But we can't ignore them, any more than we can ignore a lunatic with a weapon. You can call him crazy, even prove him crazy, but the damage he does before he's disarmed can't be undone. And the way things are going, these lunatics are going to be heard from in all their troglodyte splendor unless those of us who haven't boarded the reverse time-machine begin to speak out as loudly and stridently as they do.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
The Gun Lobby—Let's Build One and Fill It
So a guy brings a gun to a movie theater and everyone freaks. I don't blame people for being on edge after the Aurora shootings, and I am baffled by his decision to bring this weapon to, of all movies, The Dark Knight Rises. Sung-Ho Hwang, the alleged guilty party, probably deserves a good talking to, and maybe some indication that he understands others' sensitivities (blaming the dangers of New Haven for his action was just dumb, as was his lack of cooperation), but I can't say he did anything worthy of this firestorm. Maybe we don't like the idea of the guy next to us in the theater—or behind us in line at Whole Foods—or waiting next to us at the stoplight packing a weapon, but it's the world we've allowed to develop. Allowed? No, encouraged. Not long ago, within the last two years, tea-partiers were encouraged to bring guns to anti-Obama rallies. These "attendees'" defense seems to be they weren't as dirty as the Occupy movement and they were nicer to the police...so they've got that going for them. But despite all the denials after the fact, they showed up with guns. I'm pretty sure not all those pictures were Photoshopped.
Angry weapaons-toting gun nuts waving assault rifles in the air scare me a lot more than a New Haven attorney with a licensed handgun in his shoulder holster. Did I say gun nuts—of course I meant aficionados of the 2nd amendment—I must have been abusing my 1st amendment rights again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)