Middle Ground

POSTED BY JHW22

Studies have shown that Dems/Libs have pretty much been even on their views for the last decades -- in some cases even moving more conservative. Based on policies, votes, etc, we really haven't moved further left or gone extreme.

On the other hand, the GOP/Cons have gone drastically farther right in that time frame.

So, when Dems are consistently representing their views, we appear as extreme as the right just because the debate itself has become so divided. So, when we say that it's hard to find middle ground, or that both parties yadda yadda, it's not always true. In most cases, the left is stating what they've always stated. The right has moved so far away that they changed where the middle is. In some ways it's created a framing problem that implies the left hasn't been cooperative, either.

But we have been and going anymore toward the middle would be us going off the consistent path we've been on.

I will always admit there are times when Dems (whom I know personally and whom I see on the teevee) do or say things that make me cringe and think tit-for-tat or hypocrisy is as unbecoming of us as it is of the right. I refuse to pretend we never do stupid shit that blows our credibility. To ignore when we do stupid shit makes us lose even more credibility.

But overall, the level of extreme stupidity and hypocrisy and dangerous rhetoric and stunting of progress falls wholly on the right.

So my frustration always rests on the passive or the folks who just don't like all the conflict. They pretend it's as much the left's fault as it is the right's. And it's not about sharing blame or properly placing blame or running to mommy and saying, "but they did it, too". What it's about is acceptance of reality. We can't get anywhere if even the sideliners don't accept that the left isn't being extreme. We are being consistent. The left isn't being difficult. We are being fair. The left isn't being combative. We are defending what we have always defended. The right has changed the rules even on those within their own party. The right has forged a new path that changes where the middle is. Just because Dems aren't moving to the new middle does NOT mean we're extreme. We're right where we've been for a long time. People need to stop pretending we are playing a role in divisiveness simply so they can play a responsible role in society.

Welfare Drug Queens?

POSTED BY JHW22

I am just shocked when I hear, read, speak to people I consider compassionate liberals who support drug-testing for welfare recipients. Shocked. To me, it spits in the face of what we stand for as liberals. And worse, it means liberals have fallen for the Conservative trap of believing in a false frame. Suckers. Damn it.

For those of you who agree with the welfare recipient drug testing, my beefs are that the premise is based on a lot of false assumptions: falsehood that there is an overwhelming number of people on drugs getting welfare, cost-saving fallacies, and a misunderstanding of how much money these people actually get each month.

So far, in Florida, the testing is a waste of time, money and energy all at the expense of some people's dignity. It's hard enough to need welfare assistance. It's another thing to have a big chunk of your fellow Americans believe the lie that you're some druggie taking advantage of the system. Anyone who supports the drug testing, has believed one part of the big lie meant to convince you this is a good idea. And it just simply isn't. It's all a political agenda to make you focus on the people who have less of an effect on our economic woes than the people who actually DO affect our financial health in this country. As we humiliate drug-free welfare recipients, we allow multimillionaires to pay a lower tax rate than their cleaning ladies. And yet people like ME are accused of declaring a class warfare.

Seriously, think about who has the greatest effect on our country's fiscal health. It's NOT the 2% of drug-using welfare recipients.

Liberals vs. Christianity

POSTED BY DESERT CRONE

I am taking a long and winding road in this post because I think it is important to understand my spiritual journey and beliefs to understand the message in this piece. Little did I know that this post would have its roots in something my Twitter friend @JKelton1 tweeted the other night. Basically, she said that if she made the same derogatory statements about Muslims that many liberals make about Christians she would be called out as a bigot. Yet many liberals think those same kind of statements about Christians are acceptable. What an amazing observation. My wheels started turning, and so many thoughts and ideas sprung from her statement. The criticism of Christians comes from liberal Christians, atheists, and followers of other faiths. I frequently see on my tweeter timeline other liberals questioning the intelligence of those of us who believe in God. I see Christians calling out other Christians for their hypocrisy. I think if many of us were honest our faith or lack of faith has taken a long arduous path through uncertainty, questioning, guilt, and enlightenment. The truth is that Christians are different in their own beliefs, in their definition of God, and even how they view the Bible. Yes, there are many liberals who practice the Christian faith, and we need to rejoice in the fact that in our political party we have people who actually walk the walk of Christ instead of talking.

As for myself, my faith is personal. I rarely debate anyone about faith or lack of faith. I am making a rare exception in writing this post. One reason I refuse to debate is because usually civil discourse disappears 5 minutes into the discussion. Faith or lack of faith is a very intimate decision often times based on emotion, although I’m sure there are many exceptions. If someone asked me if I were a Christian, I could not answer yes or no, but that is the kind of answer many people expect. To some the Bible is the literal Word of God, and we all worship the same God. They believe that folks are saved by God’s Grace and by accepting Christ as Lord and Master. So if that is the standard for Christianity, then I would say no, I’m not a Christian. However, I believe the Bible is the most beautifully written book in literature—and believe me, since I have both a BA and MA in English, I have read some magnificent literature. I do not take the Bible literally, but I follow the teachings of Christ. Well, at least I try to follow them. The Bible is filled with contradictions and possibly propaganda, but this is my opinion about which I could be wrong. For example, one reason I believe this is that the same creation myth appeared long before the story of Adam and Eve as well as the virgin birth in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Yet, I do look to the Bible for guidance. After the loss of my wonderful father and the onset of one health problem after another, I read the story of Job. Job is about faith, not patience, and my faith was taking a beating, not because I blamed God but because I couldn’t feel God’s presence. I also don’t believe in magic, and of course, the Bible is filled with what I call magic. However, many of my friends do believe in miracles, and I totally respect that. I do not listen to them with skepticism. Faith is faith, period. You can’t argue someone out of faith with logic or reason or facts. If you do, then what they had was not faith.

I grew up in a small Southern Baptist Church in the Bible Belt of southeastern New Mexico. My dad taught Sunday school, and we religiously attended church. My mother, not my dad, was the biblical scholar in the family, and every Saturday night she taught my dad the lesson he was going to teach Sunday morning. As long as I can remember, my mother was a self-proclaimed agnostic and possibly an atheist by the time she died. One Sunday after church when I was in high school, my dad, sister, and I walked out of church never to return again. My dad said, “I’m tired of walking out of church feeling worse than when I went into church.” Although I was baptized in that church, I vowed I would never set foot in that Baptist church or any other Baptist church again. I went off to college and drank myself right into alcoholism.

I’m not recounting my story other to say I got drunk, acted like an ass, felt like crap, and then started the process over again. Eventually, my husband, daughter, and I moved to a northern New Mexico town where they attended a small liberal church. They were always trying to get me to go to church with them, and I eventually acquiesced. We struck a deal that when I went to church, my husband would take us out for Sunday dinner. I attended church with them as I continued my downward spiral into both alcohol and drug addiction. Spidery veins covered my face and my stomach was distended. I looked 50 although I was only 38 years old.

One Sunday I, who had denounced God or declared Him dead, prayed for help with my drinking. No, I didn’t want to quit because I was not an alcoholic. I just wanted to drink without getting drunk and feeling like crap the next day. Why I thought of prayer as an answer I do not know. Well, one week later I was in a rehab center in Oklahoma City and on my way to 25 years of sobriety thus far. In my journey through the 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous, reading what we call the Big Book, and attending meetings, I began an amazing spiritual quest. That quest was only intensified when I helped other drunks find their way to AA. About now, you may wonder what this has to do with my topic—well, a lot actually.

A young man named Steve whom I taught in both junior high and high school got clean and sober not too much longer after I did. I adored that child. He helped me facilitate the recovery group for students. In that group we shared our strengths, hopes, fears, and experiences. Needless to say, I heard stuff that would make most people’s hair curl. One snowy day a friend called me with the tragic news that Steve had died in a car crash on a slick Colorado pass. He was clean and sober. His death was so devastating to me that I cannot write about it now without tears running down my face. His funeral was to be held at the First Baptist Church in this northern NM town—not my church, but a Baptist church, nonetheless. Of course, I attended with hundreds of others from the recovery community. I learned in AA that if I heard only one good thing in a meeting, then it was a good meeting. I just instinctively listened and heard one of the most beautiful sermons I have ever heard in my life. It was a good meeting.

My epiphany that day was that if I open my heart and mind to any spiritual message, I will hear what I need to hear. And so now I come full circle. Do I believe in Jesus Christ? Yes. Do I believe that He is the Son of God? I just don’t know because that is part of my continuing journey. Do I believe in Heaven? Again, I don’t know, but I believe in Heaven on earth. When I do something good for the underprivileged, when I bring someone into AA, when I look at my husband, my children and grandchildren, I experience Heaven. My Higher Power is not a cruel, angry, vindictive God so I don’t believe in Hell. He didn’t take Steve from me or his loved ones because He wanted him in Heaven. Steve died because the driver took an icy curve much too fast. I don’t believe my Higher Power works that way.

I cannot think of a faith in the traditional sense of the word that doesn’t practice love and compassion, and yet, throughout history, those religions have been held captive by extremists at some point. Followers have also committed countless acts of unimaginable cruelty. Sometimes we liberals who are so quick to point out the failings in Christians overlook those same failings in people who practice other religions. And yes today, as in other religious faiths, we have extremists who have captured the Christian faith.

It’s not my place to question anyone’s faith or lack of faith because you can see I’m a pretty unconventional Christian. I have believed what Christ admonished us to do in Matthew 6:5-6 long before Rev. Al read the passage on MSNBC in context to the Rick Perry revival meeting. I believe my relationship with my God is personal and private, and I will not denigrate that relationship by proselytizing to all around me. I won’t refer to the Rick Perrys of the world as hypocrites since I am a practicing hypocrite. I don’t want to be nor try to be, but I’m a human with all the accompanying weakness and character flaws.

So I tell my story about my spiritual journey to demonstrate that we are influenced by our experiences and individuality. Also, to illustrate that Christian thought is probably as varied as Christians themselves. It is a mistake to condemn Christianity and its believers for the unconscionable way some who profess Christian faith behave. Instead, judge them by their actions and words. If you do that, you will see neighbors, friends, and family who help others on a daily basis without the need for praise or recognition.

This Is Perfect

Booman (Via Cesca): "Yesterday was probably the most embarrassing day yet for the progressive blogosphere during the short reign of the Obama administration. So, now is probably a good time to just let loose and register my disgust with the movement I've been a part of for the last five years.

If you supported Obama during the primaries, you know who you are and this does not necessarily apply to you. For the rest of you, you spent the primaries either shilling for Clinton and telling us our guy was all talk and no show, or you spent them bitching that David Plouffe wouldn't respond to and obey your emailed wisdom. As soon as he won the presidency, you started bitching about his appointments. As soon as he became president, you started bitching about his messaging, his framing, his agenda, and his lack of deference to your opinion. I want to know where the point was in this process when Obama was supposed to conclude that you were his allies and that you were responsible for his victory. When was he supposed to conclude that he owed you something, or that you had any respect for him, or that you credited his good intentions, or that you understood the myriad responsibilities of the job might mean that your pet issues might have to wait six months, a year, or two years to get to the top of his agenda.

You call him a warmonger, but he gets the Nobel Peace Prize. He ends torture and allows his Attorney General to investigate it, and you call him a torturer. He tries to enact health care reform with a robust public option and you accuse him of seeking every opportunity to sell-out to the insurance industry. He bails out the cratering financial services industry and prevents a second Great Depression, and you accuse him of selling his soul to corporate CEO's. I'm not saying that all of these criticisms lack validity. I'm not saying that people shouldn't advocate for the things they care about passionately. I just want to know where you get the fucking idea that an anonymous White House staffer who gets asked about all this criticism would feel obligated to show you deference and respect."

I've increasingly felt this way for the last few months now, very early on with DADT and DOMA, and now with the health care reform debate. It seems to me that everyone has their billy clubs out ready to pounce on any perceived slight by the White House, whether on the right (which is expected) or the left (which is surprising and depressing).

We're 9½ months into a new administration that started in the deepest of ditches on January 20th. Think about it: you really couldn't get handed something much worse. And despite some of the accomplishments that President Obama and his administration have succeeded on in just 9 months, there's been nothing but the feeling of "it's not good enough, or fast enough" when it comes to a specific issue that any one person can have.

Even now I look into health care debates online where some of the Progressive commenters who support single payer say, "Obama is worse than Bush." Really? Did you just say that George W. Bush could do a better job than President Obama when it comes to health care reform? The guy that cut S-CHIP? That George Bush? The guy who signed Medicare Part D into law without the means to pay for it? Is that the Bush you're talking about? And that's just on the health care front.

All the talk lately was about how Obama had too many balls in the air all at once, but if one of those balls wasn't Medicare for All or repealing DADT immediately, it wasn't good enough.

So yes, I am in agreement with Booman and Bob Cesca. You have every right to voice your opinion and feel passionate about the issues that mean something to you. But if it isn't 100% to your liking or it isn't fast enough for you, just take a deep breath and think about what the alternative might have been.

Meet the new boss, DEFINITELY not the same as the old boss.

On Glenn Greenwald's Post of 11/23

On his Salon blog today, Greenwald wrote about the disappointment progressives are feeling with the Obama appointments so far. Give it a looksee.

For the most part, I agree with Greenwald. Obama never presented himself as a Progressive, and according to Greenwald, although Markos Moulitsas suggested that "progressives refrain from endorsing or supporting any of the Democratic candidates unless they work for that support, make promises and concessions important to the progressive agenda," progressives ignored that advice and just assumed that Obama was on our side because he is the antithesis of the Bush Administration.

But here's the thing. If you wanted a true progressive candidate, Dennis Kucinich was your man. Am I wrong on this? But Kucinich couldn't raise two nickels to rub together. I am on the Kuchinich list and he had a fundraising plan. To raise $50 million, he sent out a campaign message asking one million people to donate $50. I thought this was a great plan. Surely, there are many more than a million progressives in the country - $50 million should be easy. I sent him $50.00... and then never heard a word about it. There was no fundraising thermostat, no talk about it during his few appearances with the mainstream media. Nothing. Kucinich never got the support of the progressives, at least not monetarily.

So the liberals and progressives who thought that in Barack Obama they were going to get a popular Dennis Kucinich, they were just fooling themselves. Not to say that Obama doesn't have any liberal tendencies. And this is where I disagree with Glenn.

"...Barack Obama is a centrist, establishment politician. That is what he has been since he's been in the Senate, and more importantly, it's what he made clear -- both explicitly and through his actions -- that he intended to be as President."

While it may be true that Obama didn't let the "left" dictate his moves as McCain let the religious conservative wing call all the shots (as qualified by his decision making processes), I don't believe that Obama is a centrist. He may lean towards the center, but I truly believe it's from the left side. And I completely disagree with David Sirota's following statement:

"...we live in a culture that now organizes around celebrity - and Obama knew it, and knew that lots of left organizations aren't really ideological - they are, if anything, organized around the Democratic Party and Bush hatred. So he basically figured out that if he could become a celebrity - and a Democratic Bush-hating one - he could swallow up a huge part of the 'progressive infrastructure' and organize it around him..."

To come to the conclusion that Obama's campaign strategy was to be the celebrity candidate and dismiss basically every speech he gave, every policy plan he articulated, is so cynical that it's too much for me to accept. Is Sirota saying that McCain's "celebrity" ads were more grounded in truth than previously thought? I find that ridiculous.

There will always be someone who is disappointed in decisions that the future administration will make, but when has any administration ever been able to please everyone? And you'd think after reading the blogs these past three weeks since the election and listening to the pundits, that it's all over for Obama even before he takes office.

Now maybe I'm being naive, and Greenwald and Sirota are far more intelligent than I'll ever be, but as I was saying to a friend of mine during one of our many glass half full/half empty debates, it's going to take a long time to reverse the destruction left in the wake of Hurricane W. And for the pendulum to swing back to the left, it's going to have to travel through the center. Once the moderates see that leaning to the left may actually work, they may be more inclined in that direction as well. It's the boiling frog theory. If we slowly move back to the left with a ride through the center along the way, a lot more may be accomplished. But if we try an Evel Knievel rocket launch toward the left, we might just fall into Snake River Canyon.