Last night, November 7, 2009, the US House of Representatives passed a Bill, HR 3962, that is a first step toward guaranteeing health care for all Americans. Shamefully, my Representative, Pete Sessions of Texas, along with all but one of his Republican colleagues, voted against the Bill. And immediately after the vote Sessions sent out an e-mail bragging about his vote and trying to scare people about the Bill that did pass. I've just sent the following reply:
-----------
I remain very disappointed in the position that you and your colleagues have taken with respect to Health Care Reform. I have read the Democratic Bill and I have tried to read the Republican proposal that you linked to in your note. I must tell you that understanding the Bill that passed the House is a breeze compared to trying to understand the Republican Alternative Bill.
It is my hope and request that when the Final Bill returns to the House for approval that you will find a way to act in good faith in favor of that Bill. That you will actually examine the benefits of Bill that passed the House and conclude that the benefits far outweigh any concerns that you may harbor. And that, most importantly, that you and your colleagues stop treating Heath Care Reform as if it is a football game where your side can only win by defeating the other side. This is too important for that and it is disappointing that you chosen to obstruct rather than to participate and negotiate.
We are fortunate that on November 7 the United States took a significant step toward becoming a 21st Century nation, rather than sliding into mediocrity. I hope that you will become a part of that movement toward a future that lets us remain proud to be Americans.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
Comments on Mark R. Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny, A Conservative Manifesto
Comments on Mark R. Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny, A Conservative Manifesto
A friend asked me to look at this book, published March 24, 2009, and comment on it. My comments follow.
Mark R. Levin is a “Conservative” radio talk show host in New York City. He could accurately be characterized as being at the extreme end of current (2009) American Conservatism.
Pages 2 and 3 he describes people wanting the pursuit of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, that people have God-given natural rights, . a social contract or civil society, who lives by a moral order and who is “restrained, ethical and honorable. He defines those people as Conservatives. And then, on page 3, says the Conservative “rejects the relativism that blurs the lines between good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust, and means and ends.”
On other words, there are no shades of gray, no other point of view, that my way is the only way. But then goes on to say that the individual has a duty to respect the unalienable rights of others.
Then as soon as page 4 he defines the Modern Liberal as someone who believes in the supremacy of the state and who rejects the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the order of civil society. This, of course, is absurd.
On that same page he decries a government where the few dictate to the many, and in the next sentence decries the rule of the mob.
According to Levin, the problem started with the New Deal, which “breached the Constitution”! Roosevelt effectively intimidated the Supreme Court. The New Deal prolonged the depression. World War II is what really ended the depression. The Democratic Party and the Federal Government are intertwined.
Levin makes the same mistake that Karl Marx made. He believes that people are not greedy and that everyone will freely and independently work cooperatively to the best of their ability and that will take care of the needs to the less fortunate and less able, and will somehow provide for a civil society that builds roads and achieves the common good. Ironic that this arch Conservative makes the same error as Karl Marx!
Chapter 2 is almost too absurd and self-contradictory to even comment on. It is too bad Levin is disdainful of academics and thinking people, because he could benefit from an awareness of Maslow’s hierarchy, He doesn’t understand that as America achieves a higher and higher standard of living, in all respects, for everyone, that we then go on to achieve even higher standards of living and quality of life. Like the ayatollahs in Iran and other primitive regimes, he is afraid of growth and evolution and condemns change as evil.
Not worth the time to more than skim the rest. His assertions are often incorrect, and almost always devoid of an ethical basis. He ignores the “social contract” that he acknowledges in the first chapter but clearly doesn’t understand. In the Manifesto that concludes the book, in fact, he advocates completely dismantling America’s social contract. Alas.
I wonder if Levin ever actually read Rousseau’s The Social Contract -- and thought about it. It is not necessary to agree with all of it, but it interesting to contemplate a real thoughtful, philosophical look at how people must interact in a modern society. It is online at http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm. A useful extract is at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Rousseau-soccon.html.
I recommend Rousseau, but I wouldn’t recommend Levin’s book to anyone.
A friend asked me to look at this book, published March 24, 2009, and comment on it. My comments follow.
Mark R. Levin is a “Conservative” radio talk show host in New York City. He could accurately be characterized as being at the extreme end of current (2009) American Conservatism.
Pages 2 and 3 he describes people wanting the pursuit of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, that people have God-given natural rights, . a social contract or civil society, who lives by a moral order and who is “restrained, ethical and honorable. He defines those people as Conservatives. And then, on page 3, says the Conservative “rejects the relativism that blurs the lines between good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust, and means and ends.”
On other words, there are no shades of gray, no other point of view, that my way is the only way. But then goes on to say that the individual has a duty to respect the unalienable rights of others.
Then as soon as page 4 he defines the Modern Liberal as someone who believes in the supremacy of the state and who rejects the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the order of civil society. This, of course, is absurd.
On that same page he decries a government where the few dictate to the many, and in the next sentence decries the rule of the mob.
According to Levin, the problem started with the New Deal, which “breached the Constitution”! Roosevelt effectively intimidated the Supreme Court. The New Deal prolonged the depression. World War II is what really ended the depression. The Democratic Party and the Federal Government are intertwined.
Levin makes the same mistake that Karl Marx made. He believes that people are not greedy and that everyone will freely and independently work cooperatively to the best of their ability and that will take care of the needs to the less fortunate and less able, and will somehow provide for a civil society that builds roads and achieves the common good. Ironic that this arch Conservative makes the same error as Karl Marx!
Chapter 2 is almost too absurd and self-contradictory to even comment on. It is too bad Levin is disdainful of academics and thinking people, because he could benefit from an awareness of Maslow’s hierarchy, He doesn’t understand that as America achieves a higher and higher standard of living, in all respects, for everyone, that we then go on to achieve even higher standards of living and quality of life. Like the ayatollahs in Iran and other primitive regimes, he is afraid of growth and evolution and condemns change as evil.
Not worth the time to more than skim the rest. His assertions are often incorrect, and almost always devoid of an ethical basis. He ignores the “social contract” that he acknowledges in the first chapter but clearly doesn’t understand. In the Manifesto that concludes the book, in fact, he advocates completely dismantling America’s social contract. Alas.
I wonder if Levin ever actually read Rousseau’s The Social Contract -- and thought about it. It is not necessary to agree with all of it, but it interesting to contemplate a real thoughtful, philosophical look at how people must interact in a modern society. It is online at http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm. A useful extract is at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Rousseau-soccon.html.
I recommend Rousseau, but I wouldn’t recommend Levin’s book to anyone.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Has part of the country gone nuts?
The President of the United States is giving a speech on Tuesday, September 8, to elementary and high school students across the country encouraging them to do well in school and to graduate. Right-wing broadcasters and extremists are objecting!!!! Are they nuts?
The White House has also provided schools with a list of possible, age appropriate, discussion topics for before and after the broadcast. Things like "what do you think the President should tell kids?" and "What did you think of the what the President said?" Here are links to the materials: http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/prek-6.pdf and http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/7-12.pdf
But the agitators and those that listen to them are so opposed to anything that a black President (or worse, a multiracial President) does, that they can't even agree that encouraging kids to stay in school is a good thing! One acquaintance told me that the administration is "arrogant and people don't like it." I'm surprised he didn't say the President is "uppity"!
Arrrggghhh!
The White House has also provided schools with a list of possible, age appropriate, discussion topics for before and after the broadcast. Things like "what do you think the President should tell kids?" and "What did you think of the what the President said?" Here are links to the materials: http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/prek-6.pdf and http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/7-12.pdf
But the agitators and those that listen to them are so opposed to anything that a black President (or worse, a multiracial President) does, that they can't even agree that encouraging kids to stay in school is a good thing! One acquaintance told me that the administration is "arrogant and people don't like it." I'm surprised he didn't say the President is "uppity"!
Arrrggghhh!
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Dispelling healthcare rumors
There is a lot of information, and even more misinformation, circulating about the proposed health care reforms. On July 28, 2009 AARP hosted an online town hall meeting to give people a chance to ask President Obama about many of their concerns and to help figure out what is true and what isn't. The town hall meeting focused on concerns of people 50 and over, but most of it applies to everyone - or members of our families.
The questions and answers from the town hall meeting may not change your conclusions, but at the least you'll be dealing with facts rather than rumors.
The entire 60 minute session can be viewed at http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/articles/townhall.html. If you'd rather read, a transcript is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-in-AARP-Tele-Town-Hall-on-Health-Care-Reform/
There is an interesting example of how a tentative provision related to living wills got distorted into a scary, but false, rumor about being forced to decide how you want to die. It is at about minute 42:30 of the video.
There is a discussion about who is forced to participate (no one) at minute 53:35.
The questions and answers from the town hall meeting may not change your conclusions, but at the least you'll be dealing with facts rather than rumors.
The entire 60 minute session can be viewed at http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/articles/townhall.html. If you'd rather read, a transcript is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-in-AARP-Tele-Town-Hall-on-Health-Care-Reform/
There is an interesting example of how a tentative provision related to living wills got distorted into a scary, but false, rumor about being forced to decide how you want to die. It is at about minute 42:30 of the video.
There is a discussion about who is forced to participate (no one) at minute 53:35.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)