So...when Romney Adviser Tara Wall was asked about criticisms of his lack of a detailed Afghanistan policy she noted:
"Unfortunately it’s disappointing that the attacks, these recent attacks on all these issues outside of what the issues are relative to Mitt Romney are diverting away from what real Americans want to talk about. And real Americans want to talk about getting back to work."
Hmmm...perhaps that is what the selfish Americans to whom Romney is trying to appeal want to talk about - what's in it for me - but I do not think that makes them real. It kind of makes them surreal. Caricatures maybe. Evil doppelgangers. Zombie Americans. Bizarro Americans wearing American flag lapel pins.
Does she mean that the millions who have been or will be directly or indirectly impacted by our foray into Afghanistan, and those of us who do care about them and want to hear what this candidate's plans are for them, are not real Americans? Does she think that wars and tax cuts did not contribute to today's' problems? So, when times are hard, real Americans cut their military loose, just give lip-service to the idea of "heroes" but only care about themselves? Not the real Americans I know. I do not think you know what a real American is...you are living in some weird alternate America.
Hello, Mitt. I served my country in the military for 10 years - not in France on a religious mission. I care about what is happening to my active duty brothers and sisters and want to know what your plans will be for them. That's as real as it gets.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
"You didn't build that..."
Did Mitt Romney, Jack Gilchrist and other business owners build the roads and bridges their products or personnel move on. Did they pay for the education and training of their workers? What the inspectors who ensure that the foods they eat meet some minimum standard? How about the police and fire services that keep them safe, not to mention the military? How about the subsidies for the fuels they use and crops they consume? I am sure they would say, yes, they paid for this in the taxes they pay, but then I helped pay for them, too. Such is the commitment all Americans have made to support the growth, wealth and security of our nation and the free enterprise system.
We all love the idea that we are self-made and self-sufficient, that we need no one and no one helped us, that our success is solely the work of our own hands or those of our ancestors. We romanticize the "Rugged Individualist". But in truth this has always been in the context of "One Nation...indivisible" and "Out of many, one".
Yes, Mr. Gilchrist, his son and father have worked hard to be where they are, the initiative, the ingenuity. Acknowledging that this might not have been possible all on your own, in a country that did not provide a context that promotes and supports such effort, is not to denigrate such accomplishment. It is to suggest that each of us owes at least some debt to the country that supports our efforts. America, as a nation, has worked alongside you, worked hard and sacrificed, contributed to provide the opportunity, the infrastructure needed, to help hard workers like you and many others succeed. It is no denigration of your efforts to suggest that they have been joined by your fellow Americans, by government funded by all of our citizens that arises from the shared will of the people to provide for such opportunity.
That I drive to work on roads that were built by and are owned by all of us, not by a corporation that can say "This is mine" and set an arbitrary toll that I must pay to survive may seem a small thing. That my customers can do the same may seem trivial and easily taken for granted - in a land that has become more and more "All about me". But your employees also enjoy this, as do your products. Yes, I succeed by my own efforts - no one earned my degree for me or the position I hold, but the military benefits I earned and the student loans I used made it possible - and I know that all contribute in support of those. No, they could not succeed for me, but I also know that it would have likely been impossible without them. I did not earn it without help.
Neither did you build it on your own. This selfish, self-centered, "I did this with no help from anyone else" attitude is simply not based on the real world.
We all love the idea that we are self-made and self-sufficient, that we need no one and no one helped us, that our success is solely the work of our own hands or those of our ancestors. We romanticize the "Rugged Individualist". But in truth this has always been in the context of "One Nation...indivisible" and "Out of many, one".
Yes, Mr. Gilchrist, his son and father have worked hard to be where they are, the initiative, the ingenuity. Acknowledging that this might not have been possible all on your own, in a country that did not provide a context that promotes and supports such effort, is not to denigrate such accomplishment. It is to suggest that each of us owes at least some debt to the country that supports our efforts. America, as a nation, has worked alongside you, worked hard and sacrificed, contributed to provide the opportunity, the infrastructure needed, to help hard workers like you and many others succeed. It is no denigration of your efforts to suggest that they have been joined by your fellow Americans, by government funded by all of our citizens that arises from the shared will of the people to provide for such opportunity.
That I drive to work on roads that were built by and are owned by all of us, not by a corporation that can say "This is mine" and set an arbitrary toll that I must pay to survive may seem a small thing. That my customers can do the same may seem trivial and easily taken for granted - in a land that has become more and more "All about me". But your employees also enjoy this, as do your products. Yes, I succeed by my own efforts - no one earned my degree for me or the position I hold, but the military benefits I earned and the student loans I used made it possible - and I know that all contribute in support of those. No, they could not succeed for me, but I also know that it would have likely been impossible without them. I did not earn it without help.
Neither did you build it on your own. This selfish, self-centered, "I did this with no help from anyone else" attitude is simply not based on the real world.
Confirms what I have always thought of her...
Having watched S.E. Cupp on "Real Time" a few times and noticed the typical approach; that is, talk loud, say little, talk constantly and over anyone else who wants to speak, I could not help but think that her only real asset to the media must be the fact that she looks like a slightly under-done Sarah Palin clone. You know, all "mavericky" and stuff...
Alas, the evidence became more clear as S.E. Cupp flexes her idiot for all to see...
This has simply become standard practice...no facts, no data, no thought, no lointendedbuzzwords inteneded to conjure images and emotions (esocialistectivist, cosialist, foreign, unAmerican, etc). No, conservatives are not the only ones to do this, but they are certainly the masters of it and havon itrtainly relied onit for the longest - and it is about time they were outed. I guess the younger ones lack the skill necessary to pull it off.
Alas, the evidence became more clear as S.E. Cupp flexes her idiot for all to see...
This has simply become standard practice...no facts, no data, no thought, no lointendedbuzzwords inteneded to conjure images and emotions (esocialistectivist, cosialist, foreign, unAmerican, etc). No, conservatives are not the only ones to do this, but they are certainly the masters of it and havon itrtainly relied onit for the longest - and it is about time they were outed. I guess the younger ones lack the skill necessary to pull it off.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Health Care Hoopla - The Personal Responsibility Mandate
Most of the time I have discussions with conservatives they are all about personal responsibility. In fact, in Massachusetts, the individual mandate was the "personal responsibility mandate". We know that people who are uninsured get less preventive care, wait longer to seek care when they need it, and often end up in emergency departments being cared for once a problem becomes incapacitating or life-threatening. The seeming role of the mandate is to ensure that those who can afford insurance but do not get it take some responsibility for their health care as opposed to leaving it to the rest of us to foot the bill in either higher taxes or higher health care costs to cover their unfunded care.
If not via the "personal responsibility" mandate, then what is the mechanism? On one hand, conservatives want to enforce individual responsibility - all about rugged individualism - but on the other assert that the government telling you that you must be responsible is "taking away your freedom" - freedom as in "...right to screw up (or screw others)" I suppose. It seems either we require all to pay for care (or pay a penalty that can help support their care) or we enforce responsibility by allowing those who do not buy coverage to die. Obviously, during Republican primary debates earlier this year, the idea of allowing those who are uninsured or cannot afford care to die was a popular notion. We ll know that is not going to happen and I have yet to meet a conservative who thinks it is a good idea when it comes to them or their loved ones; when their mothers and fathers are cared for on Medicare. They hate the "Nanny state" when it takes care of others, but love it when it supports them. I suppose it is an issue of deciding "Who are the freeloaders?" Can't be us!
It would really make a difference in how this process is viewed if people could hold consistent positions. When it becomes clear that they change their positions for purely political purposes, it makes them look foolish and frivolous; Mitt Romney, passed and praised such legislation before he was against it. For most of us it is hard to overlook the lack of integrity; sadly for otehrs it is just a matter of telling them what they want to hear.
If not via the "personal responsibility" mandate, then what is the mechanism? On one hand, conservatives want to enforce individual responsibility - all about rugged individualism - but on the other assert that the government telling you that you must be responsible is "taking away your freedom" - freedom as in "...right to screw up (or screw others)" I suppose. It seems either we require all to pay for care (or pay a penalty that can help support their care) or we enforce responsibility by allowing those who do not buy coverage to die. Obviously, during Republican primary debates earlier this year, the idea of allowing those who are uninsured or cannot afford care to die was a popular notion. We ll know that is not going to happen and I have yet to meet a conservative who thinks it is a good idea when it comes to them or their loved ones; when their mothers and fathers are cared for on Medicare. They hate the "Nanny state" when it takes care of others, but love it when it supports them. I suppose it is an issue of deciding "Who are the freeloaders?" Can't be us!
It would really make a difference in how this process is viewed if people could hold consistent positions. When it becomes clear that they change their positions for purely political purposes, it makes them look foolish and frivolous; Mitt Romney, passed and praised such legislation before he was against it. For most of us it is hard to overlook the lack of integrity; sadly for otehrs it is just a matter of telling them what they want to hear.
Opps, there goes another one!
I guess this is why groups like the Texas Republicans don't want adolescents to think on their own. Great that he has not fallen into the trap of having to adopt a label and be one or the other! I am sure he is next up for the "Roberts treatment". Damn that free thought! It will be fun to see how, when he gave his speech, he was a prodigy, but now, a few years later, he is just a dumb teenager who doesn;lt know anything.
A great example of what Piaget observed - yes, I know there are problems with his theory - as we mature our ability to go beyond simple dichotomies to consider complexities increases.
CPAC's boy wonder swings left
A great example of what Piaget observed - yes, I know there are problems with his theory - as we mature our ability to go beyond simple dichotomies to consider complexities increases.
CPAC's boy wonder swings left
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)