//Politics

This “Liberal Experiment” Sounds Like a Real Blast

by adam | June, 2009

I recently got an email from my mom, who has been under assault by some conservative friends who are deeply worried about the downfall of the empire. These emails have grown more common of late, and in her latest missive, she asked for my two cents on the recent news from The Drudge Report that President Obama has enlisted ABC news to help him with a massive PR rollout of his health care plan on the evening of June 24th. Her conservative friends warn that this is evidence that “The Liberal Experiment” is upon us. I think that makes them sound petty and bitter. Her email (re-printed with permission), and my three cents follow:

Adam,

Hi.  Any comments on this?  My conservative friends are “terrified that the liberal experiment has begun.”  Hmm.

Hope your day is going well!

Mom,

1) Obviously the president has no obligation to present the opposing view to his plan and cannot be faulted for successfully convincing ABC to cover the issue thoroughly.

2) Since Ronald Reagan abolished the fairness doctrine in 1987, no broadcast entity is required to present equal time to opposing opinions. Is this a good example of journalistic integrity? I’d say no, but it is certainly ABC’s prerogative to cover the issue however they please. If the RNC has a problem with it, the proper recourse is the one they appear to have chosen, which is to take it up with ABC.

3) None of the above can be interpreted as anything other than a very media savvy president doing whatever he can to get the message out on a very important issue. I’m not even sure what “The Liberal Experiment” is, but maybe the folks worried about it could find some more constructive ways to lend their voice to our national troubles.

The “Socialism” argument was bunk, and so is this.

[ Topic Media, Politics, Politics, Etc., Ridiculosity | Comments Off ]

How about about a history lesson?

by toby | November, 2008

I’m not going to tell people that their vote on Prop 8 was wrong or right. I’m just going to point out a couple of parallels in history that today are universally understood to be very dark times for civil rights in the US, but at the time were seen as justified just as Prop 8 may seem to some people now.  

My hope is that people will look beyond their personal agendas, justified as they may seem, and see the bigger picture. 

First up, denying marriage for one segment of the population:

In 1913, 30 states enforced laws banning marriage between whites and non-whites. In 1924, Virginia joined them when its legislature made marriage between white persons and non-white persons a felony. These laws remained in effect until 1967, when the US Supreme Court found them to be contrary to the guarantees of the US Constitution. 

In 2007, 26 states had constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, 18 of them prohibited the legal recognition of ANY same-sex union, and 19 more had legislation narrowly defining marriage to exclude same-sex partners. On Nov. 4th 2008, California, Florida, and Arizona joined the list, bring the total to 48. 

Further back in history, another uncanny parallel:

Prior to 1835, the Supreme Court of North Carolina upheld the constitutional right of free men of color to vote; in response, the people voted in an amendment to the North Carolina Constitution removing this right by a majority of 55%. 

On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California overturned an unconstitutional ban of same-sex marriage; in response, the people voted in an amendment to the California Constitution removing this right by a majority vote of 52%. 

It took until 1870 (a generation later) for government endorsed discrimination to be overturned by the 15th amendment, and another century before equal rights for all were guaranteed by law. Those ideals are once again under attack, the Constitution that once protected all Californians from discrimination and granted all people the same rights has been rewritten to single out one group of people for discrimination. 

In both historical instances mentioned above, the justifications seemed reasonable to the majority at the time but are now universally seen as wrong.  

Will America find a way to embrace equality once and for all, or must we leave it to future generations to prove us wrong once again? Will our children look at what this generation of voters has done in the name of tradition and hang their heads in shame? 

Regardless of your religious beliefs or your personal feelings about your fellow Americans, equality is equality, is equality. Protect equal rights under the law in ALL THINGS for ALL PEOPLE. 

You can help make a difference, do a little research and make your own choices:

Lambda Legal Defense Fund: http://www.lambdalegal.org/

Equality California: http://www.eqca.org/

Human Rights Campaign:  http://www.hrc.org/

[ Topic Diversity, Politics, Politics, Etc., Religion, Society | Comments Off ]

Government Fights Back!

by adam | April, 2008

When I sat down to begin writing my first post on government this week, “Your Elected Officials”, my plan was for it to be the first of several forthcoming articles about government. As it happened, my first working title for the article was actually “Why Government Still Matters”, but when I came to the end, I realized that I wasn’t yet ready to make that point. I believe government can matter. I believe it can accomplish astounding things, in addition to its basic role as a ward against the anarchic alternatives. But I also believe that government is flawed at its most basic level, in large part because it was crafted, and is conducted by, flawed people.  This was the point I ended up choosing to make on Monday which, it turns out, apparently rankled members of my local Atwater Village Neighborhood Council.

I didn’t set out to pick a fight with MY local elected officials. In fact, I’m sure we have much more in common than we have at odds. Heck, given that it has been a year or so since last I attended a meeting, I’m perfectly happy to hear that things on the council have changed dramatically. Also, since the comments on my first article make it clear that they took my observations a bit personally, I should clarify that it was not my intention to impugn the characters or professions of any individual council-members (though I stand by my “dirty cop” irony). Quite simply, I meant only to measure the council by the efficacy of the body of government as a whole. And by that measure, this is a council that doesn’t have a stellar track record. In the end, however, the conclusions that I drew at the meeting I attended are certainly not unique to Atwater village, and I’m sure the current council is well acquainted with the substance of my criticisms. This, I suspect, is exactly what made them choose to get involved in the first place.

With that said, the point I had hoped to make when I began thinking about the role of government in my own life, is that at its core, Democracy has somehow been able to find a common language to express many of the core values and principles of the wildly divergent opinions and beliefs in this country. That is an accomplishment possible only because we have devised a pretty elegant system of government which systemically requires dialogue and compromise.

Given the above, local government makes for a rather interesting prism through which to analyze the failings of this great system. Even at the best of times, when the great political minds bring their attention to bear on a problem, government seems to react slowly, and frequently, their “solutions” fail to fully satisfy anyone completely. At the worst of times, differing opinions and agendas can reduce the proceedings to a complete and total impasse.

So with reference to the Atwater Village Neighborhood Council, it sounds like matters have improved, and for that, I couldn’t be more thrilled. Moreover, since two council members have taken the time to respond to my article, I’ll do my part and take them up on their invitation to attend a meeting.

Now if you’ll excuse me, my popcorn is getting cold and I need to go watch The Shield.

[ Topic Politics, Politics, Etc. | 1 Comment ]

Barack

by cari | March, 2008

Understand that I loved Bill Clinton. He had a lot of serious flaws, though I could give two shits about his sex life, but he was extremely intelligent and had a solid grasp of domestic and foreign policies and issues, unlike the fucking pig-headed imbecile in office now.
Hillary has become embittered by the decades-long attacks by the conservatives . It has made her too defensive and reactive, with an “Us or Them” mentality. I’m really sick to death of Us or Them. It’s a false dichotomy and it is hurting our country. What we need is rational, intelligent discourse and a pooling of ideas and opinions. We do not need shouting matches or pissing contests.

That’s why I really love Barack. I know he was attacked for saying he would be willing to meet with anti-American heads of state. You know, this whole Cold War mentality of building impenetrable political fortresses doesn’t apply anymore. The world doesn’t operate like that and the Silent Treatment doesn’t work. Look at Cuba. How long has the embargo been in effect? Have the people revolted and overthrown Castro? NO. Snubbing our enemies is ineffective and childish, it undermines our interests. We, as a country, need to learn how to disagree like adults. We need to remember how to reason and persuade, not convolute or coerce.

Right now, we’re like a socially awkward misanthrope who tries to make people like him at gunpoint. We are unable to support our irrational, poorly considered decisions with coherent arguments so we make a lot of noise to cloud the issues and attack people’s characters or histories instead of their policies or ideas.

Granted, we all need shortcuts, code words and summaries or we wouldn’t be able to get through our days, but we cannot live by shortcuts alone. We have to remember that beneath the sound bytes and slick designs and synopses is the real, complex, meaty and difficult world. There are complicated and messy issues at hand. We need to let go of political absolutes and polarities. Nothing is entirely good or bad. We are not fighting EVIL. We have to acknowledge that sometimes opposing things can be equally true and yet we have to try to make informed decisions anyway.

We need to be rational and to listen. Empathy is a powerful tool, it means you understand another’s perspective enough to effectively negotiate and accurately convey your own needs and desires. Barack has been criticized for his inexperience, has been accused of making pretty but hollow speeches. I believe he can thoughtfully and intelligently effect real change. Not by himself, but by beginning the process and the dialogue.

I’d love to see this country shake off its apathy and complacency, to change the status quo, the ingrained ruts in which we go around and around, and to help mitigate the income disparities (and lack of necessities like health care) that are dividing our country far worse than race. Worrying about policies or ideologies is a middle-class luxury, just like philosophy and political science. We can’t move forward until we figure out how to better care for the citizens of this country.

Lastly, I was just so impressed with how he responded to the Jeremiah Wright controversy. At long last, someone in politics is talking about what has historically been swept under the rug. At long last someone refuses to talk down to us, but rather, expects us all to rise to the occasion.

[ Topic Politics | Comments Off ]

Endorsement Time

by adam | January, 2008

Because we know you’ve been waiting…we know you’ve been dying to know, it’s time we announced the official painkiller.org presidential endorsement: That’s right, throw your hands in the air and wave them vigorously as if you pretty much don’t care and join us in helping to elect Barack Obama to the presidency.

Certainly anyone who reads our site with any regularity has probably figured out that we have a sickening liberal agenda here. But even still, what we probably don’t spend enough time repeating is just how generally disappointing we find the democratic party as a whole. The central failing of the democratic party is that, time and time again, they have proven themselves loathe to take firm positions on almost any issue, opting rather to define themselves by what they don’t stand for, ie. what the Republicans do stand for. It doesn’t take a logician to understand that a contrarian stance is not an actual political position, so no one should be surprised that Democrats have a wishy-washy reputation. Their platform is a shambles. It doesn’t move, it doesn’t inspire, it doesn’t capture the hearts and minds of a cynical and apathetic nation.

Barack Obama has an astoundingly fresh perspective. He seems to be genuinely moved by his point of view, and he has no qualms in conveying those views with the utmost clarity. He’s also not saddled by the baby-boomer hippy guilt that seems to drive so many of our modern democratic leaders. That guilt that made John Kerry introduce himself in 2004 with “I’m John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty!” It’s the guilt that made all of Hillary Clinton’s tough talk about Iraq even four years ago seem like she was already hedging to beat a superior Republican candidate. It’s tough talk jock talk from the mouths of intellectuals and it doesn’t ring true.

So it’s time to gear up. It’s time to engage. Start reading. Start listening to the candidates. Use the cerebrum a little bit. If nothing else, even if none of the candidates are quite your cup of tea, you have to admit that it would be pretty amazing to see a truly engaged electorate this year. That would make Democracy a little prettier if only for a day. And if you take our advice, imagine one more thing: Imagine how our Democracy will look to angry young Muslim men throughout the Middle East if they wake up one morning to see the face of Barack Hussein Obama as he is sworn into the highest office on the planet.

[ Topic Politics | Comments Off ]