love vs hate, hope vs fear--which choice is ALWAYS better

I have been a harsh critic of Democrats in recent years, too--but overall I feel they do a better job.

The sharp divide between "us" and "them" is not a good thing, but both sides (and really, in this case, the Right, which has Fox and a great propaganda machine--and don't forget "you are either with us or against us," which became their credo) has pushed their followers further to the edges--and used the power of fear and hate to rally them--no good comes from that.

It's also meant the Left also has to move further to the edges to counter--it's a no-win game and the derisiveness it's created is toxic.

Yes, "wealthy" is a relative term, and especially in expensive places to live, like SoCal or the Bay Area (or NYC), the median income needs to be higher just to stay the same.

You talk about two parties agreeing to what's fair--and therein lies the problem today--given the sharper divisions created in the past 10 years by what was an openly Fascist regime (though they wouldn't call themselves that--their actions were clear). Yes, this country had been moving that direction for years-money=power--that's not new, but it was taken to new levels.

You and I aren't "normal" cases in terms of business. We can be individually creative--we're more like craftsman of ideas and things--some of them real, some of them digital.

And no, I don't think you're greedy. I think you would like a country with less interference from the government--in all forms. As I've said, true libertarianism makes sense--if it's consistent. But for too long we've had too much government control on individuals and not enough on corporations (whose sole goal is to make money--no matter the human cost).

No--I don't want small businesses to suffer--they are the most creative group of people. But there always have and always will be unfair, greedy employers who require rules and regulations to help keep them in check. This is also why there are labor unions--so much under attack. Yes, they, too, go too far and can undermine the very foundation that their members need.

But it all comes down to moderation--TRYING to get people to agree, being reasonable, trying for a win-win situation.

And you can't have that when one side's only goal is to eliminate the other side. It's long been a problem of religious battles all over the world (and still is in many places).

And, unfortunately, this religious fervor has been intentionally injected into the political party system, because "us vs. them" is a powerful motivator.

When one side's battle cry is, not only "we're right and you're wrong," but "we're real Americans and you're all perverts, and [inert bigoted name calling here] then there's no possibility for a discourse, no win-win.

So--no matter what party you're in, you need to be open to listening to the thoughts and fears of people who disagree. Which is what you and I have been doing in an intelligent way.

But do you think the much-publicized "tea baggers" (who are ignorant to so much, including the alternate meaning of this term!) are open to discussion?

No, for them it's religious fervor "us vs. them." For us the case is already closed--they're right, everyone else is wrong.

I can only hope that each new generation will be a little smarter, or more open, or more accepting, than the previous one, and overall I think that's true.

But, to quote Rogers and Hammerstein's angry anti-bigotry song written in the 40's right after WWII, "You've got to be carefully taught,"

You've got to be taught

To hate and fear,

You've got to be taught

From year to year,

It's got to be drummed

In your dear little ear

You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught to be afraid

Of people whose eyes are oddly made,

And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,

You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,

Before you are six or seven or eight,

To hate all the people your relatives hate,

You've got to be carefully taught!

===

Today, unfortunately, that bad teaching extends to anyone who believes anything different from you do--be it religion. politics, or even simply who they love.

So I say--join with groups that are accepting and open minded. Those with positive goals. Avoid those who have their minds firmly shut and use hate and fear to control.

And everyone has a choice--they can choose love or hate, hope or fear.

Which of those choices tends to lead to new invention, progress, and a better world?

Just say YES! Fear vs. Hope. Progress vs. Stagnation.

Op-Ed Columnist - Fear Strikes Out - NYTimes.com

www.nytimes.com

In the debate leading up to the victory for health care reform, President Obama urged lawmakers to do what is right, while opponents relied on fear and cynicism.

Yesterday at 3:42pm · Comment · · Share

Sandi Tinker, Sam Kuo and Brooke Cook like this.

Maria Russo

Or the party of "just say it often enough, and people will believe it"

Yesterday at 4:11pm ·

S Forest King

And the Democrats are the party of... Democracy? Ooops... guess not.

Yesterday at 4:46pm ·

Daniel Will-Harris

Democrats are the party of "of the people, by the people, for the people," as opposed to "of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations." The public demanded health care reform by a overwhelming margin (before negative propaganda designed solely to scare people worked). We NEEDED health care reform in this country, and, quiteamazingly, we got it.

It may not be perfect, but it's a start--and certainly better than the Republican plan of "do nothing, except maybe give more tax breaks to insurance and pharma companies."

Yesterday at 5:42pm ·

S Forest King

Daniel, if they were of the people as they are supposed to be, they would not have shoved this monster down everyone's throat without reading it themselves. Well over half the population in every poll I saw stated they didn't want the bill. In the case of Democrats who are supposed to be in support of "Democracy" it doesn't matter whether the fear was rational or not... the majority didn't want it. Remember how loudly the left wailed about democracy when they discovered the electoral college? And to further state they are not in bed with the pharma/insurance/unions which are also made up of organized groups of people... most of which are also corporations is utterly foolish.

Yesterday at 6:01pm ·

Daniel Senie

For the consideration of S Forest King: The USA PATRIOT act was not read by the members of either party. That shouldn't have been passed either. Are you sure all the reps and senators read the tax bills Bush pushed that borrowed money from the next generation to give to the rich?

The United States is not a democracy, we are a Republic. Recite your Pledge of Allegiance, and you will find that to be the case. Legislation is not enacted by popular vote. If you think it should be, examine why California is ungovernable.

Yesterday at 8:37pm ·

Sandi Tinker

I'm with the Daniels.

Yesterday at 8:58pm ·

S Forest King

I agree, the Patriot Act should not have been passed. Nor should Bush's Prescription Drug bill had seen the light of day as it was similarly rife with corruption, almost as bad as this Obamacare is.

Perhaps you should read my statement again, I never said the US was a Democracy, I stated that's the philosophy the Democratic party is supposed to adhere to. Just as the Republican party is supposed to be "representative". But now we see it's only when convenient and they are no better than their opponents. Neither party represents the people anymore, and until a critical mass of the people become aware of this, we will soon find ourselves in far worse trouble than we do now.

Yesterday at 9:25pm ·

Sandi Tinker

Without Part D, I would be dead.

Yesterday at 10:36pm ·

Daniel Will-Harris

The recent supreme court ruling doesn't help with "democracy" since now corporations have openly unlimited power to buy politicians. Then again, the Supreme Court stopped protecting and defending the constitution in the 2000 election when they votes to NOT count the votes--a supremely unconstitutional action we will be paying for for years.

14 hours ago ·

Maria Russo

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/a/m/americandad/

11 hours ago ·

S Forest King

Daniel, they have been buying politicians all our lives, all the way through McCain/Feingold too. The only thing the Supreme Court decision did, was put it back out in the open. Wouldn't you rather see the money trail as opposed to it's being covert? Seriously, why do you think there are over 16,000 pages (more depending on who you ask) making up the tax code? There is so much graft going on, it would boggle the mind.

Also, corporations, like all businesses are just groups of people with a common goal, the legal status of the group has nothing to do with it's integrity. There are good groups and bad groups, but pointing your finger at the people who buy the politicians is like blaming drug dealers for the drug epidemic. If there were no buyers, there would be no need to worry about who is supplying them. We are not supposed to have control over the groups of people, we are supposed to have control over the politicians.

10 hours ago ·

Daniel Will-Harris

I agree the tax system is a horrible mess.I'd like to see a flat tax. But it's too simple, not enough loopholes for wealthy people and corporations to wriggle through.

(a side note about "wealthy." I think it's great when people can make money and be rich. I have had years when I made a lot of money--and I GLADLY paid a lot of tax. I did it, because I said, "If I ever make a lot of money I won't complain about paying my share," and I did what I said. So--I CAN now complain about those who make a lot of money and whine about having to pay taxes. Amazingly, people are wealthy all over the world, even in countries with much higher taxes than in the USA. So taxes don't stop wealth.

And the whole "redistribution of wealth" thing--Bush and Cheney did more to redistribute it from the lower and middle class to the upper class than any other administration in history. That was the true redistribution of wealth, and we see how badly that's working for the overall economy. Yet then their supporters turn around and claim the Democrats are doing it--that's absurd, ridiculous and precisely the kind of misdirection propaganda the Republicans are so expert at.

Back to a flat tax--there were fake flat tax proposals like those from billionaire Steve Forbes. His version didn't tax income from investments, so it was like a half-flat tax--the half of the people who actually paid were those who actually have salaries, while the wealth could get away paying almost nothing. That was a bad joke.

And--corporations are owned by stockholders--and if they want to band together for political purposes--that's fine. They should vote on it within the corporate stockholders groups. If, however, the CEO or Board want something for political purposes, no, that's not the same as the individuals asking for it. And no, it doesn't mean that all the stockholders agree. So no, corporations are not individuals and should not be treated as such.

As for their contributions being transparent--yes, of course they should be, no matter what other restrictions apply. Your contributions are public record, so are mine--of course ADM, Exxon, and every other corporations contributions should be public.

Finally--I'm all for libertarianism--when it's consistent. But that's not what the Republicans or "neo-cons" are. In fact, they have done more to undermine the constitution than any outside force in history! They cry that Obama is a communist, when they really had a one-party system, they didn't allow Democrats to read bills before votes, and they just pushed through everything, from phony wars to tax cuts on the wealthy. So when they cry about Democrats being mean now it's' absurd--they may have learned from tricks from the right (at long last--that's the only way they got the health care bill through--giving Republicans a taste of their own medicine!), but they are at least working in the public good!

And--today's Republicans are not conservative by any measure. Just saying "no" doesn't make you consecrative, it makes you blind to the possibilities.

I'm not saying Democrats are saints or even always right, but I am saying that what they create is more in favor of citizens than what Republicans do--which is so clearly, TRANSPARENTLY aimed at the wealth of corporations and a small group of individuals. Those who don't get that are support them are simply voting against their own interests, and as I've said before, there is no other living being on the planet that works against it's own interests--which makes Republicans uniquely unsuited to sustaining life on this planet!